by Terry 95 Replies latest jw friends
Hooberus, you are sort of our local archetype for the Witnesses who lurk here. In that sense, I think you serve a very useful purpose. The Witnesses reading your posts will be grudgingly forced to identify with you, and hopefully come face to face with their own refusal to be honest.
When will the hooberi out there break down and get honest?
SNG
hooberus, you're digging yourself in deeper with each post.
:: hooberus, much devotion to YEC-ism seems to have made you into either someone without apparent intellectual processing ability, or without intellectual honesty.
: more personal insults/assusations.
Not at all. Just simple observations of your behavior and the reasons behind it.
Not sure I understand that word "assusations" though.
:: Twice now I've answered your question in a simple manner, and twice now you've ignored the points. So let's try number three, eh?
: I believe that I have dealt with some of your points in a manner that would be invoked by evolutionists should you proposed falsification scenarios come to pass.
You might believe that, but that belief is a product of your intellectual dishonesty.
Once again, the point is not what various humans might do to defend a theory, but whether that theory is, in principle and by its very nature, incapable of being falsified.
And once again, I've shown that there are possible observations and experimental results that in principle could falsify evolution.
: You originally asked:
:::: What experiment or observation would falsify evolution?
: Yes this is what I originally asked and this is the subject that I would like to discuss (ie: the falsifiability of evolution).
There's no more to be said. I've demonstrated that there are experiments and observations that could falsify evolution.
: When I said "what experiment or observation would falsify evolution" I was not asking if it is possible to conceive of certain obssrvations which could potentially falsify certain current sub-hypothesis within evolution, but the overall theory concept.
I understand that perfectly well. And I've demonstrated that there are indeed certain observations that could potentially falsify the overall theory concept.
The fact that you ignore my demonstration doesn't negate that demonstration. It does demonstrate what I said -- you're either hopelessly stupid or hopelessly dishonest. Since it's becoming rather clear that you're not stupid, the appropriate conclusion is clear.
: For example evolutionists once believe that ramapthicus was transitional, between extinct apes and modern man. However, with newer data evolutionists have generally abandoned this hypothesis. However they still hold to the concept that humans are the product of descent from animals ulitimately from pond scum.
This is a fine example of a ridiculous argument. In a large paradigm such as evolution, modern physics or modern geology, the falsification of one small idea doesn't necessarily falsify the entire paradigm. The fact that physicist Neil Bohr once subscribed to the "plum pudding" model of atomic structure doesn't falsify all of modern physics. The fact that Adam Sedgewick, around 1830, repudiated his earlier teaching that so-called "drift deposits" in England were remnants of Noah's Flood did not falsify all of the notions of geology. And the fact that Ramapithecus is no longer viewed by paleontologists as transitional does not falsify all of evolution. Your conclusion that a change in viewpoint about Ramapithecus ought to cause biologists to abandon the concept of evolution en masse, therefore, is just plain stupid.
:: Among other things I answered:
:: :: Finding human and dinosaur skeletons mixed in the same fossil bed.
:: Now that's a perfectly good and true answer, because if such skeletons truly were mixed together, then the geological time scale would be demonstrated to be wrong, and in fact, evolution would be proved not to have happened.
: Evolutionists could potentially keep the currently accepted geological timescale generally intact by claiming that the certain dinosaurs found with the human fossils lived into relatively recent times (similar to the situation with the coelacanth).
Your intellectual dishonesty is absolutely astounding, hooberus. I've covered this point three times already. You're wrong. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge, by your comments, that we're talking about principle, not practice, proves your gross dishonesty.
Get this through your friggin head:
THE FALSIFIABILITY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER SCIENTISTS ARE WILLING TO FALSIFY IT OR NOT. IT DEPENDS ON THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. EVOLUTION COULD IN PRINCIPLE BE FALSIFIED BY CERTAIN INDISPUTABLE DISCOVERIES. I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF SUCH INDISPUTABLE DISCOVERIES.
: Even if such as situation did demonstrate that the currently accepted geological time scale to be wrong, "evolution" not be "proved not to have happened," only certain current sub-concepts with evolution would be potentially falsified should this situation occurr.
Really. What sub-concepts? And why wouldn't the demolition of those sub-concepts falsify the entire theory?
: Evolutionists would quickly propose new geologic timesacles moving mammal evolution further in to the past.
Nonsense. The geological timescale has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with radiometric dating.
You're fishing, hooberus.
: For example I believe that evolutionists one believed that the earliest fish did not evolve until the devonian, however now that fish have been found in the early cambrian,
References, please.
: evolutionists have simply moved the date of their evolution back.
References, please.
I suspect that your only references will prove to be speculations by your moronic YEC mentors.
: "Evolution" was not "proved to have not happened" only the current sub-hypothesis.
Until you provide your references, I can't comment further.
::: Moving the subject to creation does not prove that evolution is a falsifiable theory.
:: Duh. You're right, it doesn't.
:So since we agree on this then lets stick to the subject here.
Ok, genius, I've posted a thread titled "For Hooberus -- Falsifiability of Creation?" here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/76720/1.ashx . I look forward to pointing out your failure to post anything to it.
:: But I can still ask any questions I want. And the fact that you consistently refuse to answer hard questions proves that you know that YEC-ism is unfalsifiable and unsupportable except by blind belief. Your response here is a thoroughly dishonest tactic.
: Of course you can ask any questions that you want, however, I will be sticking to the subject of the falsifiablity of evolution. Your attempting to move the subject to creation
I certainly did not. I introduced an additional and very pertinent, parallel question. That's part and parcel of DB discussions.
: as well as engaging in personal accusations does not help your case.
You can gripe about "personal accusations" all you want. The fact that in your posting history you've demonstrated a gross lack of intellectual honesty proves that my claims about you are not mere accusations, but objectively verifiable facts.
: I do not consider the fact of sticking to a specific subject (ie: the falsifiablity of evolution) to be an exapme of a "thoroughly dishonest tactic."
I didn't say it was. I said that the fact that your overall posting performance sucks proves your dishonesty.
:: Do I have to start a brand new thread dedicated to you before you'll answer my question? Or will you continue to ignore it?
: UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Obviously I had to start a new thread. No one will hold their breath waiting for you to answer.
AlanF
I do wish that you would have waited for my previous post to be completed. However since you haven't I will leave it and move on.
hooberus, you're digging yourself in deeper with each post. :: hooberus, much devotion to YEC-ism seems to have made you into either someone without apparent intellectual processing ability, or without intellectual honesty. : more personal insults/assusations. Not at all. Just simple observations of your behavior and the reasons behind it.I disagree with your observations. I believe that I have attempted to deal with many of your points as related to the subject of the falsifiability of evolution. Therefore I do not beleive that your personal insults/ accusations are valid. Not sure I understand that word "assusations" though.If you would have waited until I finished I would have probably corrected any spelling errors. :: Twice now I've answered your question in a simple manner, and twice now you've ignored the points. So let's try number three, eh? : I believe that I have dealt with some of your points in a manner that would be invoked by evolutionists should you proposed falsification scenarios come to pass. You might believe that, but that belief is a product of your intellectual dishonesty.The two points that I gave that could be used to save evolution even if scientists found absolutely solid proof that humans and dinosaur skeletons were mixed in the same fossil bed are similar to arguments that have already been used by evolutionists, so they are hardly a product of my "intellectual dishonesty" Once again, the point is not what various humans might do to defend a theory, but whether that theory is, in principle and by its very nature, incapable of being falsified. And once again, I've shown that there are possible observations and experimental results that in principle could falsify evolution.Your claimed falsification scenarios that I have responded to such as "Like finding human and dinosaur skeletons mixed in the same fossil bed. Like finding the fossils of any modern creatures in extremely old sedimentary rock." would not falsify evolution. : You originally asked: I don't believe that you have. The scenarios would cause the theory to possibly be modified but not falsified. : When I said "what experiment or observation would falsify evolution" I was not asking if it is possible to conceive of certain obssrvations which could potentially falsify certain current sub-hypothesis within evolution, but the overall theory concept. The overall theory concept would survive the scenarios. The fact that you ignore my demonstration doesn't negate that demonstration. It does demonstrate what I said -- you're either hopelessly stupid or hopelessly dishonest. Since it's becoming rather clear that you're not stupid, the appropriate conclusion is clear. I have responded to your demonstrations such as "Like finding human and dinosaur skeletons mixed in the same fossil bed. Like finding the fossils of any modern creatures in extremely old sedimentary rock." So how can you say that I have ignored them? Also you continue to engage in personal insults/attacks.: For example evolutionists once believe that ramapthicus was transitional, between extinct apes and modern man. However, with newer data evolutionists have generally abandoned this hypothesis. However they still hold to the concept that humans are the product of descent from animals ulitimately from pond scum.That was exactly my point Alan. The fact that physicist Neil Bohr once subscribed to the "plum pudding" model of atomic structure doesn't falsify all of modern physics. The fact that Adam Sedgewick, around 1830, repudiated his earlier teaching that so-called "drift deposits" in England were remnants of Noah's Flood did not falsify all of the notions of geology. And the fact that Ramapithecus is no longer viewed by paleontologists as transitional does not falsify all of evolution.That was my point when I said: "When I said "what experiment or observation would falsify evolution" I was not asking if it is possible to conceive of certain obssrvations which could potentially falsify certain current sub-hypothesis within evolution, but the overall theory concept. For example evolutionists once believe that ramapthicus was transitional, between extinct apes and modern man. However, with newer data evolutionists have generally abandoned this hypothesis. However they still hold to the concept that humans are the product of descent from animals ulitimately from pond scum." Your conclusion that a change in viewpoint about Ramapithecus ought to cause biologists to abandon the concept of evolution en masse, therefore, is just plain stupid. I was not using the ramaphiticus example to argue that evolutionists should abandon the concept of evolution, but instead to show that the concept will survive the falsification of a sub-hypothesis.
Alan despite your continued personal insults/accusations, I have been attempting to respond to your claimed falsification scenarios.
Alan I have been discussing some of your falsification scenarios in a calm and reasonable manner, by attempting to deal with your specific points. I would like to deal more with these scenarios, and avoid side issues and personal accusations.
The sub concepts (such as no humans living during the time of the dinosaurs) that would be potentially falsified if your "human / dinosaur bone" scenario would come to pass would not falsify the overall theory. Evolutionists would simply move mammal/human evolution back in time. | |
AF are your serious?
How in heck does finding humanoid fossils with dinosaurs falsify evolution ever hear of monsterism or punctuated equilibrium? To be so high and mighty and a man of science you often refuse the obvious. You can't as of now falsify evolution. We don't have the technology yet and we don?t know enough. Also identifying species by the shapes of fossils in the ground alone is a fallacy but in many cases it is the best we can do.
You seem not to want to grasp the true nature of currently unfalsifiable theories. I mean imagine if you discovered a species that could alter the alleles it passes on to the next generation depending on its perceived future needs (this is a great evolutionary advantage). Then Lamarckian evolution would be true too. You really think to far inside the box.
Lets look at the points discussed again (hopefully without trying to move the subject or engaging in personal insults/accusations):
Proposed falsification scenarios:
Scenario #1
*Like finding human and dinosaur skeletons mixed in the same fossil bed.
Evolution could survive this by claiming that the specific dinosaurs found with humans lived into more recent times that previously believed (this requires no change in the current dates of mammal evolution, nor of reptile evolution, only that some dinosaurs lived into recent times with out leaving much of a fossil record for the intermediate time.)
Evolution could also survive this by claiming that mammal evolution occurred earlier than previously believed (similar to the fish situation below- note underlined comment):
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/1999110401
Two new fossils unearthed in South China have been identified as the earliest known fossil fish. The discoveries, by two separate teams of Chinese palaeontologists, have prompted scientists to reconsider the rates of evolution in the oceans during the Cambrian age, between 500 and 540 million years ago. Professor Simon Conway Morris, of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, and Professor Degan Shu, of Northwest University, in Xi'an, China, have been analysing the fossils, along with eight other scientists from China. In a paper due to be published this week in Nature, the team explain that the discoveries date from the Lower Cambrian Age - about 530 million years ago - and they show that fish evolved up to 50 million years earlier than had previously been thought. The fossils come from an extraordinary palaeontological discovery known as the Chengjiang fauna - a series of sites near Kunming, in Yunnan Province, in China, where thousands of exquisitely preserved soft-bodied fossils have already been found. Professor Conway Morris said: "These two specimens are of the greatest scientific importance. Humans are vertebrates - as are rabbits, eagles and frogs - and as such we all evolved from the fish. Until now, the early history of the fish has been extremely sporadic and sometimes difficult to interpret. This discovery shows that fish evolved much earlier than was thought. It indicates also that the rates of evolution in the oceans during the Cambrian period must have been exceptionally fast. Not only do we see the appearance of the fish, but also a whole range of different animal types." Professor Conway Morris explained that a rapidly changing ecology was probably responsible for the rate of evolution. "Animals were moving faster and hunting more effectively, and correspondingly other animals were busy developing protective skeletons. At the same time, there were probably significant changes in gene architecture," he said. The two newly discovered fossils belong to two new and quite separate species and are similar to primitive types of fish which do not have jaws. They are identifiable because of their gills and a zigzag arrangement of muscles called myotomes, which are only found in fish. The first, called Haikouichthys, has gills which are supported by gill bars and the second, called Myllokunmingia, has a more primitive arrangement of gills, but with a series of identifiable pouch-like structures. | |
funkyderek,
:: No I wouldn't, any more than I would say that modern elephants should be bigger or smaller than elephants 4000 years ago.
Language on that time scale is shaped far more by cultural evolution than biological.
::You really seem to have a problem with the timescales involved. We're not talking about something that happened in the last 10,000 years. If you think we are, then you're in the wrong argument.
For now I guess you are right to a certain extent when saying I may have confused the debates, but I'm not sure when exactly you think "cultural evolution" began. I assumed that ultimately cultural evolution is restricted by biological evolution. Thus both kinds of evolution must have run in parralel. Admittedly, for the last 2000-3000 thousands years cultural evolution has progressed exponentially and with an easly noticeable speed, but originally it still must have depended on what you've called the "brain growing beyond a certain point".
Let me illustrate this point with an example:
Let's imagine you can travel in time 5000 years back and somehow bring a human child of some relatively intelligent parents "back to the future".
If you brought this child up in our culture, the child would have no problems with functioning in society, receiving education, and possibly becoming a rocket scientist. No culture shock here, right?
However if you took a humanoid child born say 2,000,000 years ago, the child could have problems with adapting because of the biological limitations of the its brain.
I guess there's little we disagree about so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now what timescales do I have in mind when I say that we could find out something about the evolution of human language by taking into consideration cultural evolution? I would say: let's agree about a conventional point in time when - as we might possibly assume - humanoids started spreading around the place where they originated from.
If you think there was no single central geographic location from which humanoids originated, then it's going to make my argument easier.
However I am assuming you think that all contemporary humans have common ancestors who could be traced back to a certain area of our planet and a certain point in time when they started to differ considerably from other apes.
Ok, so what? The next thing we have to agree about is that at some point different groups of humans/humanoids started separating. How long a distance do wee need to expect independant language development to take place? With no means of transport other than their feet (be it even 4 feet), let's say it could have been 100 kilometers. That's more than necessary - one can find dozens of examples of great linguistic variabilty in today's Africa with the distance being under 30 kilometers form one village to another.
To sum it up: When could humanoids have started forming their first separate proto-cultures? What is the earliest possible "date" that can be reasonably suggested?
That's another one of my Socratic questions, but it will let me know if I'm "in the wrong argument" indeed.
---------
Just to give you an idea of the kind of linguistic arguments I want to make which I think cannot be well explained by evolutionary processes (they correspond to the first 2 questions I asked in my previous post):
1) Ever since we can know directly and indirectly, all known languages have been generally becoming simpler in terms of morphology, syntax and to some extent phonology.
2) The relative complexity of languages which have been developing for
________(please specify my timescale here according to the guidelines provided above)_____
of years independently of one another cannot be explained in terms of cultural development. In other words there are no primitive languages. Rather, what is genuinely surprising is that some of the most primitive cultures have languages extremely complex grammars, and vice versa.
3)
I also think, there's one thing about language that is well explained by the evolution of the human brain. It has to do with the fact that the very nature of human language suggests that historically all abstract concepts were derived from literal ones.
I won't elaborate on these points until you tell me what my timescales are and whethere they make my points relevant to the discussion on certain aspecs of evolution.
----------
By the way: In your little theory:
Language is not really my area but whatever. How about this: the ancestors of humans had the same ability to communicate as modern apes. As their brains grew beyond a certain point, so their ability to consider and communicate complex ideas also increased. This conferred such a survival advantage that it led to a sort of runaway evolution, with brain size and complexity of language increasing in parallel. That's just off the top of my head, but I don't see anything implausible. If you want to argue details, then go ahead.
I can't really see any details we could argue. Well, at least not if you disregard what language is and what the nature of liguistic change and variability is as we know it nowadays. I can only see two other methods of theorizing on your timescales, both of which are indirect and both of them require an awful amount of wishful thinking:
a) computational simulations of brain evolution (the only ones that I am remotely familar with are connectivist models)
b) research in animal communication (this is a syncronic approach and not a diachronic one - so it's not directly verifiable)
Is there anything else we can seriously discuss? I mean I consider this:
:: This conferred such a survival advantage that it led to a sort of runaway evolution, with brain size and complexity of language increasing in parallel.
a rather metaphysical statement. There are some obvious logical premises for saying this sort of thing, but I can't see how this statement can be verified.
-----------
::Heh. I don't believe that for a second. But never mind. The Socratic Method is a perfectly valid tool of debate. Using it pre-emptively is a little strange though. Still, maybe this is the only subject you know anything about.
Maybe it is "the only subject I know anything about", maybe it isn't even that - I don't think you can know it. I started with the sarcasm though - and it was your turn now, so no comments here.
However if you took a humanoid child born say 2,000,000 years ago, the child could have problems with adapting because of the biological limitations of the its brain.
Um I think you are wrong. Most humans are not that intelegent. Only about 2% of humans i believe are in the rocket scientist catagory. Infact reading/writing is a new evolutionary tool. Look at dyslexia a brain disorder that does not impair your life until you try to pick up a book. Infact look at humans with disabilities period. Many severly disabled people could not out bench mark a 2 million year old humanoid. Infact some great apes alive today can physically and mentally exceed some severely crippled humans.
We also have no idea if the brain of Homo erectus (I assume this is who you are talking about) is for example better ate math than humans. We know they were probally as strong or stonger than humans, not as inovative (or maybe not as lucky), and their brain is about the same size. For example some birds with their small brains are better at matching mosiac like patterns than humans. The reason is from the sky this helps them identify food and land marks. They have built in what takes pilots months to develop. Considering humans have not adapted to modern life evolutionarily yet we have no real advantage since we poped up on the radar as modern humans. Homo erectus was extinct by the time we got here. So we really cant compare too much. Outside of saying we may be smarter on average. But smarter may not always equall better adapted.
In the most of the world it is capitalist model that is promoted. So you when you say adapt you mean go to school (I assume free) become a highly skilled laborer they can be and then make as much money as they can as a responsible citizen. How ever globally the child may be living in a shanty town around a central american mega city robbing tourist, or may work in a bothel in SE asia, or work in some conflict dimond mine in africa. On the up side they may be intelegent enought to learn a sport, and become a pro athelete raking in millions. In terms of evolution survival and having sex is winning. All this 2 million year old child has to do is learn how to live. Because I doubt they could breed with todays humans they would loose even if they became a rocket scientist. But in a fluke maybe they could breed a fertile hybrid dogs and wolves do it.
And I thought I was wordy!! Ha ha ha.
Wow!
Difficult to slog through all this and not get a crick in my eyeballs.
The theory of Evolution has layers to it; each built on the surface of others. All the layers of the onion ARE the onion. We seem to be toying with the idea of the slippery slope. To wit: how many layers can you peel from an onion and it not be an onion anymore?
Look at present day man. Is he an onion? Evolution says: "Yes". Man is layers and layers of what came before. The layers changed at certain points and the new layers were different.
Creation say: "NO", man is what he always was only worse. Man started out PERFECT and has deteriorated. Man lived a 1000 years originally and now barely makes it to 100.
Surely these two scenarios are enough to determine something obvious!
Terry
XQsThaiPoes,
How shall I put it? If I were to use FunkyDerek's phrase I'd say you are "quite simply, absolutely, totally and completely, laughably" irrelevant to the rather clear intended meaning of my post.
Not only that, but you also seem to be basically manipulative about my post.
I really don't feel like showing you where exactly - I think you'll know if you read my post again, but I'll do it for you.
First I wrote:
:: Let's imagine you can travel in time 5000 years back and somehow bring a human child of some relatively intelligent parents "back to the future".
:: If you brought this child up in our culture, the child would have no problems with functioning in society, receiving education, and possibly becoming a rocket scientist.
I'm not sure where I said "if you took a mentally impaired child". I'm not sure where I said "it could be any child", with any social background. I'm not sure where I said "the child would certainly become a rocket scientist".
Then I said:
:: However if you took a humanoid child born say 2,000,000 years ago, the child could have problems with adapting because of the biological limitations of the its brain.
To which you replied:
We also have no idea if the brain of Homo erectus (I assume this is who you are talking about) is for example better ate math than humans. We know they were probally as strong or stonger than humans, not as inovative (or maybe not as lucky), and their brain is about the same size. For example some birds with their small brains are better at matching mosiac like patterns than humans. The reason is from the sky this helps them identify food and land marks. They have built in what takes pilots months to develop. Considering humans have not adapted to modern life evolutionarily yet we have no real advantage since we poped up on the radar as modern humans. Homo erectus was extinct by the time we got here. So we really cant compare too much. Outside of saying we may be smarter on average. But smarter may not always equall better adapted.
No I didn't mean Homo Erectus. If it makes you more happy, I'll rephrase it slightly:
However if you took a humanoid child born say 10,000,000 years ago, the child could have problems with adapting because of the biological limitations of the its brain.
I hope it does it for you. Of course you can continue to claim that tallented amoebas could easily adapt in our society or that robins could win the Battle of England had they been given a chance, but I think oyu should get my point so far.
Then you start dreaming your sweet dreams:
::In the most of the world it is capitalist model that is promoted. So you when you say adapt you mean go to school (I assume free) become a highly skilled laborer they can be and then make as much money as they can as a responsible citizen. How ever globally the child may be living in a shanty town around a central american mega city robbing tourist, or may work in a bothel in SE asia, or work in some conflict dimond mine in africa. On the up side they may be intelegent enought to learn a sport, and become a pro athelete raking in millions. In terms of evolution survival and having sex is winning. All this 2 million year old child has to do is learn how to live. Because I doubt they could breed with todays humans they would loose even if they became a rocket scientist. But in a fluke maybe they could breed a fertile hybrid dogs and wolves do it.
In this part of your post you got a lot of things mixed up altogether. I don't think funkyderek would send his little humanoid to work in a South African diamond mine or a Thai brothel. I also don't think the child would do better in the socialist Havana than in the capitalist Europe. Neither do I think that many people would be interested in watching a humanoid runner win the Athens Olympics.
If I were to follow your resoning, I'd have to say that dogs are the best achievement of evolution. They're lazy asses, most of them do absolutely nothing and they get food and sex for free - and all that because as you'd put it they've adapted perfectly in human society. What a life!
Now I don't want to comment on this part of your post:
Most humans are not that intelegent. Only about 2% of humans i believe are in the rocket scientist catagory. Infact reading/writing is a new evolutionary tool. Look at dyslexia a brain disorder that does not impair your life until you try to pick up a book. Infact look at humans with disabilities period. Many severly disabled people could not out bench mark a 2 million year old humanoid. Infact some great apes alive today can physically and mentally exceed some severely crippled humans.
First of all I don't want to ask you where you got your remarks about dyslexia from, secondly I am not sure if I've ever seen a "severly mentally crippled" rocket scientist - again you mixed up my two examples.
I ask you to be a little bit more fair and careful next time! I'm sure you can do it for me.
Junk DNA and vestigal organs cannot be explained by anything except evolution. Whales have DNA for legs. Humans have DNA for tails. Blind fish who live in absolute darkness have DNA for eyes. The list goes on and on. As animals and humans evolved and adapted some no-longer-needed DNA was still retained.
Why would "God" "create" creatures with DNA that now serves no useful purpose.
It's possible that God may have started with some sort of creation and then let nature take its course. But given the overwhelming scientific evidence, it is ridiculous to state all creatures are the same now as they were at creation.
Farkel
