of elephants & the room...

[jean le nègre]

i haven't been here in a while....i see various threads on political issues and scientific issues and substantial debates about 'creation' and 'evolution'...but i think these all skirt the real issue that *every* human being must face (certainly any human being with any philisophical thought, which i would argue is something each human must have):

what is the point of life??
surely it can't be found in another person (sex, romance, companionship, etc.)
or mere political theories (of which, i'd argue, religious theories come under).
so what is it? anyone care to discuss something real? is it even worth discussing?
does it matter if life has a point?

[Squirrel]

The meaning of life is that it ends.

[jean le nègre]

Originally posted by Squirrel
The meaning of life is that it ends.

then why haven't you commited suicide?
if it's a rat race towards an ending,
then why don't we all end it ourselves?
this can't be it.

[In Dust and Ashes]

when humans make things we make them for a specific purpose, a use, etc. so we generally think in the mannor that everything has a purpose or a use, but most will deny that we were even "made" so if we weren't "made" than how could we have a use outside an environmental balance?
I don't really see that as logical, I mean, why does there have to be a balance? scientists have already declared that it's all gonna end horribly anyway. I say, quit trying to preserve the earth, let it go to waste, let matter break down, explode, and change form as it pleases. let earth die and another universe begin.

of course, I don't actually believe that's how it works, so my opinion on the purpose of life is quite different.

[jean le nègre]

good point, jacki
if we are just 'animals' then we
can talk about what is the point
of life of other animals and apply
it to ourselves....but if we are somehow
superior, does that entail religion?
does human nature naturally entail
'community'? social aspects?
does that figure into the purpose
of life?
how do you believe it works, exactly?
do tell.

[Atomsk Iscariot]

Originally posted by jean le nègre
does it matter if life has a point? Not really. It doesn't do much to change the fact that we're alive.

[DrHibbert]

This is like a religious discussion because anything we say about the meaning of life is almost certain to be a *gut feeling* and cannot be proven.

That said, my gut feeling is that community and social aspects must have some degree of influence if we are to somehow rate ourselves in terms of whether we have lived life in the right or wrong way or conformed to the true "meaning of life." I don't know how to put this.

How about this: Something tells me John Wayne Gacy was doing things wrong. Raping and murdering boys is not the meaning of life. I can't prove it, it's just a gut feeling. It's somewhat easier to point out what isn't the meaning of life than what is. But the things we innately focus on tend to be our social interactions - our families, friends, acquaintances, how they view us, and how we view ourselves. Even if that isn't itself the meaning of life, it seems to me it must have an effect on what is the meaning of life, if there is one.

[Jackal]

I think we are the same as plants and animals, the stars, the planets. We merely exist.

We are born, we grow, we reproduce get old and die. No purpose.

A 200 yr. old tree in the South American rain forest and a parakeet in a skanky pet store in Alabama, and me are just the same.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by jean le nègre
good point, jacki
if we are just 'animals' then we
can talk about what is the point
of life of other animals and apply
it to ourselves....but if we are somehow
superior, does that entail religion?
does human nature naturally entail
'community'? social aspects?
does that figure into the purpose
of life?
how do you believe it works, exactly?
do tell.

personally, I think the fact that we have a logic to wonder about this is a sign that we have more of a purpose than balance of matter or whatever. if we were here to consume and reproduce, why would we have anything other than instinct to do so? people use evolution as an answer to everything we have, but how does logic evolve? how does wonderment evolve?

I think, to say we're no different from the animals degrades us to their level of instinct when clearly, we've been given so much more.

[Squirrel]

Originally posted by jean le nègre
then why haven't you commited suicide?
if it's a rat race towards an ending,
then why don't we all end it ourselves?
this can't be it.

That's not even my saying, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean the point of life is to die. It's just about context. If we lived forever, life would just be a constant thing, so it'd be like... what's the meaning of sand or something. You know?

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Bird Breath
It's somewhat easier to point out what isn't the meaning of life than what is.

how is that? by going with your gut? what is your gut? how can you trust your gut? my gut can't even find North when lost in a city.

[DrHibbert]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
how is that? by going with your gut? what is your gut? how can you trust your gut? my gut can't even find North when lost in a city. Exactly! No one knows. Jackal might be right and we are all just life to dust. It wouldn't bother me. If our instincts are wrong, then they're wrong, big deal.

To me, the "meaning of life" can be separate from religous belief. There could be no god and still be a meaning of life. But our feeling of having a purpose on this earth is just as unprovable as a person's conviction that there is a god.

[Kinbote]

Originally posted by Jackal
I think we are the same as plants and animals, the stars, the planets. We merely exist.

We are born, we grow, we reproduce get old and die. No purpose.

A 200 yr. old tree in the South American rain forest and a parakeet in a skanky pet store in Alabama, and me are just the same.

I agree.

We just happen to have the brain capacity and the leisure time to consider these things and invent solutions, or submit in fear, to our existential dread. Foolish, that.

[In Dust and Ashes]

"we just happen to?"
that's a cop out answer if I've ever heard one. you guys push evolution so hard, but when it gets down to the specifics you rely on "it just happened to work out that way". you guys put your faith into something that you havn't even learned. hmm...sounds a lot like blind faith to me. ironic.

[Nak Nak]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
"we just happen to?"
that's a cop out answer if I've ever heard one. you guys push evolution so hard, but when it gets down to the specifics you rely on "it just happened to work out that way". you guys put your faith into something that you havn't even learned. hmm...sounds a lot like blind faith to me. ironic.

Your argument is clumsy, of course.

[Fab]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
"we just happen to?"
that's a cop out answer if I've ever heard one. you guys push evolution so hard, but when it gets down to the specifics you rely on "it just happened to work out that way". you guys put your faith into something that you havn't even learned. hmm...sounds a lot like blind faith to me. ironic. "we just happen to" is just a statement based on the percieved randomness of the universe. However, I don't believe anything can be random, but that was a different discussion altogether. I'm too tired to go into more detail right now, and I'm struggling to understand exatcly what you said, it was a very clumsily put together outburst.

Oh aye, and back on topic, I think the point of life is simply to reproduce. I don't think life has a meaning.

[In Dust and Ashes]

all I"m saying is
"it just happend" : evolution :: "God works in mysterious ways" : christianity.
it has value, but it's not an answer for people that don't believe the same as you. therefore, it is quite invalid in such a discussion.
and for a belief based on science, "it just happened" isn't even an adequet answer for those that believe in it.
and I know what it's refering to. as many times as I've gotten into debates on evolution on this board and elsewhere, I'm not ignorant about it, although, I am still learning. but so far, I've never been given an explanitory answer for how and why random mutation works.

[Kinbote]

Your counterargument appears to be based solely on your disagreement with the argument.

[In Dust and Ashes]

um, yeah, that's kind'a the point. I think your argument is flawed and incomplete.

[Kinbote]

It wasn't really an argument.

[In Dust and Ashes]

my bad. replace argument with statement and it still remains true.

[Kinbote]

Well, whatever. But that's the thing with evolution, a lot of things "just happen" to work out the way they do. Random mutations happen all the time, all over the place: this is an amply demonstrated fact. Some of them prove advantageous, and over time, those with the mutation outsurvive those without. Those mutations allowing for us abstract thought gave a clear and handy and all advantage in terms of surviving; an unrelated corollary was (is) the ability to ponder all sorts of things without real bearing on survival. Awareness of being aware of being aware.

Someone with more passion on the subject could figure a way to say all this better. I don't care too much, alas.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

My perspective:


To question the meaning of life requires a person to feel unfullfilled with their own existance. The search for a meaning in life is a desire for stability and security. As a hypothetical analogy, if a person was eternally happy, felt no pain, and had complete understanding of that person's existence, would not the meaning of life be that existence justifies itself? So often we overlook that our lives appear to be chaos, that there are so many facets of ourselves and existance that we don't understand. Once things begin to make sense, existence is the meaning itself.

Think about it this way. Life perpetates itself. All organisms are the result of cell division, meaning that all life is a result of one basic origin (single-celled lifeforms), eventually dividing itself through asexual reproduction. All the life on Earth is essentially the same organism which managed to reproduce itself in successive forms, each slightly different from it's former self (a bit of a simplification, but it still maintains the process which has been going on for as long as it was possible). From the perspective of life, the "meaning in life" is that life can exist.

[Hi There, Am Pam]

An anyone quick witted would realize that the above, is of course, my justification for the problems in life. See, you can never escape it no matter how hard you try. GOTHTEARS.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Kinbote
Well, whatever. But that's the thing with evolution, a lot of things "just happen" to work out the way they do. Random mutations happen all the time, all over the place: this is an amply demonstrated fact. Some of them prove advantageous, and over time, those with the mutation outsurvive those without. Those mutations allowing for us abstract thought gave a clear and handy and all advantage in terms of surviving; an unrelated corollary was (is) the ability to ponder all sorts of things without real bearing on survival. Awareness of being aware of being aware.

Someone with more passion on the subject could figure a way to say all this better. I don't care too much, alas.

mutations happen. but they're not that random and they don't "just happen" theres always a cause even if scientists havn't figured it out yet. they can tell the basics of whats going on.
evolution states every aspect of our being is meant to better ourselves. to make us stronger, faster, more enduring. everything else in us that doesn't help is sooner or later killed off.
apply that to this discussion. how does our ability to second guess instinct help us?

[Hi There, Am Pam]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
mutations happen. but they're not that random and they don't "just happen" theres always a cause even if scientists havn't figured it out yet. they can tell the basics of whats going on.

This is the basis of chaos theory, the idea that all things are interrelated and have an effect on each other. Truth is, this is proven in certain systems, such as population statistics, and certain aspects of the atmosphere. However, science tends to prove that reality is a bit flakey, in that it doesn't behave in a consitent manner. Trying to prove or disprove randomness is rather impossible in it's entirity because we don't understand all aspects fully. Science can only offer models that try to match the results.

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
evolution states every aspect of our being is meant to better ourselves. to make us stronger, faster, more enduring. everything else in us that doesn't help is sooner or later killed off.

Not really. Look at the dinosaurs. They evolved to the top of the food chain compared to small mammals, but not every aspect about them was bettered over time. Evolution only states that aspects of a species are "bettered" reletive to two things;

1. surival relative to the environment
2. successful reproductive chances

If the environment changes, such as with the dinosaurs, then they no longer are "better" than smaller animals who are able to survive. The progress of evolution is not linear, but simply relative to the two aspects above.


Originally posted by hambakmeritru
apply that to this discussion. how does our ability to second guess instinct help us?

It makes it easier for people to attempt to justify things out of their control. By having an explanation for their existence, and the aspects of things they don't understand, it allows them to focus on living rather than paralyzed in fear. It only becomes a problem when a person's ideology fails to live up to the person's experiences. Then the person does some introspection/soul searching, and can come out better through having a better model of existence.

I don't mean to be absolute in the above, because things are much more complex, of course. But it's an aspect of second guessing instinct.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
. but so far, I've never been given an explanitory answer for how and why random mutation works.

There is an error margin in every process, and that includes the translation and transcription of DNA. In that respect a mutation in DNA is nothing more than a mistake in normal cellular processes. Such mutations are fairly common, with cells relying on the capacity to repair a certain extent of damage or mutation to function normally. In terms of DNA replication, 'random' usually refers to the place in your DNA where the mutation has taken place, not the chance of it happening. The mutation that takes place can be inconsequential, cause cancer, or when the mutation has taken place in sperm or egg DNA, can cause a change (for better or worse) in the offspring of the parent.

[Jackal]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
personally, I think the fact that we have a logic to wonder about this is a sign that we have more of a purpose than balance of matter or whatever. if we were here to consume and reproduce, why would we have anything other than instinct to do so? people use evolution as an answer to everything we have, but how does logic evolve? how does wonderment evolve?

I think, to say we're no different from the animals degrades us to their level of instinct when clearly, we've been given so much more.

I'm not convinced we have been given more. Name these things specifically and proove we are alone in those qualities.

My dogs are logical, communicate with eachother and strange dogs too. They have wonderment with the world. They have feelings and show love. They think and learn. My chihuahua which I think is pretty stupid for a dog, can figure out a way to use three chairs and a table to get where she wants to go. One can learn a three-step trick in 2 tries. They can learn my language and we aren't the same species.

Assuming dogs and other animals aren't asking what the meaning of life is, is pretty close-minded isn't it? Just because you don't speak their language.

Animals use tools, which requires logic.

I'm not talking about evolution or religion.

I'm controlled several times a day by my instincts alone.

[Jackal]

Plus, tell me those guest on Jerry Springer are anything but fucking animals!

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Spaced
There is an error margin in every process, and that includes the translation and transcription of DNA. In that respect a mutation in DNA is nothing more than a mistake in normal cellular processes. Such mutations are fairly common, with cells relying on the capacity to repair a certain extent of damage or mutation to function normally. In terms of DNA replication, 'random' usually refers to the place in your DNA where the mutation has taken place, not the chance of it happening. The mutation that takes place can be inconsequential, cause cancer, or when the mutation has taken place in sperm or egg DNA, can cause a change (for better or worse) in the offspring of the parent.

exactly. anyone learns that in Bio 101. but that doesn't go very far in explaining the evolutionary "random mutation". explain to me how dinosaurs sprouted wings and feathers.

damn. Jason, I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to turn this into another evolution thread. :(

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Hi There, Am Pam
This is the basis of chaos theory, the idea that all things are interrelated and have an effect on each other. Truth is, this is proven in certain systems, such as population statistics, and certain aspects of the atmosphere. However, science tends to prove that reality is a bit flakey, in that it doesn't behave in a consitent manner. Trying to prove or disprove randomness is rather impossible in it's entirity because we don't understand all aspects fully. Science can only offer models that try to match the results.



Not really. Look at the dinosaurs. They evolved to the top of the food chain compared to small mammals, but not every aspect about them was bettered over time. Evolution only states that aspects of a species are "bettered" reletive to two things;

1. surival relative to the environment
2. successful reproductive chances

If the environment changes, such as with the dinosaurs, then they no longer are "better" than smaller animals who are able to survive. The progress of evolution is not linear, but simply relative to the two aspects above.




It makes it easier for people to attempt to justify things out of their control. By having an explanation for their existence, and the aspects of things they don't understand, it allows them to focus on living rather than paralyzed in fear. It only becomes a problem when a person's ideology fails to live up to the person's experiences. Then the person does some introspection/soul searching, and can come out better through having a better model of existence.

I don't mean to be absolute in the above, because things are much more complex, of course. But it's an aspect of second guessing instinct.

I agree with most of what you said, but your conclusions of each are off. hope you don't mind if I take some time before I reply.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Jackal
I'm not convinced we have been given more. Name these things specifically and proove we are alone in those qualities.

My dogs are logical, communicate with eachother and strange dogs too. They have wonderment with the world. They have feelings and show love. They think and learn. My chihuahua which I think is pretty stupid for a dog, can figure out a way to use three chairs and a table to get where she wants to go. One can learn a three-step trick in 2 tries. They can learn my language and we aren't the same species.

Assuming dogs and other animals aren't asking what the meaning of life is, is pretty close-minded isn't it? Just because you don't speak their language.

Animals use tools, which requires logic.

I'm not talking about evolution or religion.

I'm controlled several times a day by my instincts alone.

dogs still rely on instict to do anything. feelings are instinct. logic helps them overcome small problems like how to get around a fense. that's necessary for survival. all of this works on a stimulis/response basis: something gets in their way, they get around it; something hurts them, they yelp; something flashes, they get curious and follow it or pick it up; someone yells at them, they get sad.
what they're lacking is the ability to think about things that arn't stimulated by their environment. or to make decisions that counter-act the survival instinct. has a dog ever committed suicide? my cat died from not eating, but that was because it didn't have the strength. has a dog ever jumped off a cliff?

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
exactly. anyone learns that in Bio 101. but that doesn't go very far in explaining the evolutionary "random mutation". explain to me how dinosaurs sprouted wings and feathers.

You ignored my last piont, re germline mutations.
It has been shown experimentally that only very small changes to genes (via mutation) can lead to large differences in phenotype, or the physiacal features of an animal. In that regard, mutations over a very long time in the 'arm' genes could lead to physical modifications that instead give rise to 'wings'. Of course it's much more complicated than this, so you'll have to ask an evolutionary geneticist to explain it to you.

[In Dust and Ashes]

yeah, see thats the answer I'm always given down to the passing of the ticket to the next higher up person that might know.
at least in the church, the highest up you have to go for answers is someone that is readily available and talks at your level ;)

[Spaced]

Yeah well sorry for the cop-out, but the basic machinery of small mutations having the capacity to cause heritable chages to phenotype remains, so the principal is there. And mutations do 'just happen', so in effect, there can be random mutation.
On your last point, Religion also has the advantage of being able to say 'because God said so' or 'it's in the Bible', a concession not available to science.;)

[In Dust and Ashes]

exactly. "it just happened" = "god said so"/etc.
I dont' believe yours as much as you don't believe mine.

[Squirrel]

I would like to announce that I am respectfully withdrawing from this thread. Bye.

[In Dust and Ashes]

darn it, did I ruin it that fast?

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
exactly. "it just happened" = "god said so"/etc.
I dont' believe yours as much as you don't believe mine.

Well, no. The mutations "just happen" in the context of the process of DNA replication not being 100% accurate. They are not an independent event.

[jean le nègre]

some good points raised here :)

i think, perhaps, our instinctive questioning of 'the point of life' may be something of a foil for a larger but less definable question: what is life? hence the easy dissolvement of this thread into evolution/creation debates. now i don't think the questioning of life is about evolution vs. creation, but there is an underlying principle behind these two concepts: materialism vs. extra-materialism (there's got to be a better word for this...essentially what i mean here is that creationism necessarily entails some form of dualism, with souls and deities, and the like which are outside of the simple material makeup of the physical world). each of these views necessarily includes a progressive temporal component (i.e. evolution requires time for the changes to occur, while creationism requires time in that there is creation, then there is what comes after creation, etc.); and it seems to me that it is this time component that initiates the 'purpose' sense (time marches on, we get older, surely there is reasoning behind/for this progression). yet, as some posts show, it is easily (and quite logically sound) to question the questioning of purpose. thus, the crux, perhaps, of all this adds up to an argument against materialism (and thus both physical/evolutionary views of the world and dualistic/creationist views), leaving room only for a view of idealism (which entails no temporal component)—simply put, a view of life as merely an incredible, beautiful, pure infinity which lasts the length of an infinite snap of the fingers. this view eliminates not only the need to search for a purpose of life, but eliminates any need for any purpose for anything (and does so, i'd argue, in a rather logically satisfying way that doesn't leave us with absurd existential thoughts about the utter trivialty of life).

or something. :lamb:

[Fab]

Out of curiosity, how do people who don't believe in evolution approach the subject of viruses becoming immune to certain treatments, and like the bird flu thing at the moment, going from only contagious between poultry, to being contagious from poultry to humans, to being contagious between humans.

[Squirrel]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
darn it, did I ruin it that fast?

I just have nothing to add, and thinking about this spaces me out. Man.

[Jackal]

I missed my mark there with the dog thing, I knew it was weak when I wrote it. Ha ha.

Ok. I think some animals do just choose to die out of sadness because of a lost mate.

I still don't believe people are the most wonderful, purposeful, be all, end all of the world. We think we are because of all this stuff we thought of and think of and create.

Regardless of where we came from or where we go after we die, I still don't believe we have an actual purpose.

[Herr Lipp]

Sorry this is late, but the meaning of life is such a stupid fucking topic. It's easily explained, it falls into two categories.

Basic: Stay Alive, Have Kids (in that order)

Secondary: Whatever other bullshit answers people come up with.

We're just animals with larger brains man.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Fab
Out of curiosity, how do people who don't believe in evolution approach the subject of viruses becoming immune to certain treatments, and like the bird flu thing at the moment, going from only contagious between poultry, to being contagious from poultry to humans, to being contagious between humans.

I haven't really studdied this as indepth as I like, but I do believe there is a difference to be had between micro and macro evolution. I believe in micro evolution which is much like adaption. the species can undergo small changes to counter their environment. I do not believe, however, that a species can evolove to become something of a different sort. that's macro.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by jean le nègre
some good points raised here :)

i think, perhaps, our instinctive questioning of 'the point of life' may be something of a foil for a larger but less definable question: what is life? hence the easy dissolvement of this thread into evolution/creation debates. now i don't think the questioning of life is about evolution vs. creation, but there is an underlying principle behind these two concepts: materialism vs. extra-materialism (there's got to be a better word for this...essentially what i mean here is that creationism necessarily entails some form of dualism, with souls and deities, and the like which are outside of the simple material makeup of the physical world). each of these views necessarily includes a progressive temporal component (i.e. evolution requires time for the changes to occur, while creationism requires time in that there is creation, then there is what comes after creation, etc.); and it seems to me that it is this time component that initiates the 'purpose' sense (time marches on, we get older, surely there is reasoning behind/for this progression). yet, as some posts show, it is easily (and quite logically sound) to question the questioning of purpose. thus, the crux, perhaps, of all this adds up to an argument against materialism (and thus both physical/evolutionary views of the world and dualistic/creationist views), leaving room only for a view of idealism (which entails no temporal component)—simply put, a view of life as merely an incredible, beautiful, pure infinity which lasts the length of an infinite snap of the fingers. this view eliminates not only the need to search for a purpose of life, but eliminates any need for any purpose for anything (and does so, i'd argue, in a rather logically satisfying way that doesn't leave us with absurd existential thoughts about the utter trivialty of life).

or something. :lamb:

haha. wow. that was a headful. I got lost in the wording, but I'll see if I can reread it and figure it out sometime. is there any more simple way to put that?

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Spaced
Well, no. The mutations "just happen" in the context of the process of DNA replication not being 100% accurate. They are not an independent event.

it happens through a glitch. I get it. but that glitch is the cause. and if there is a cause, it's not really that it "just happened" which implys it came out of nowhere.
right? I feel like we're both speaking past eachother here.

[In Dust and Ashes]

Originally posted by Hi There, Am Pam
This is the basis of chaos theory, the idea that all things are interrelated and have an effect on each other. Truth is, this is proven in certain systems, such as population statistics, and certain aspects of the atmosphere. However, science tends to prove that reality is a bit flakey, in that it doesn't behave in a consitent manner. Trying to prove or disprove randomness is rather impossible in it's entirity because we don't understand all aspects fully. Science can only offer models that try to match the results.

I'd love to learn more. I know the basics of this all, but I never really understood the methoods behind it.

Not really. Look at the dinosaurs. They evolved to the top of the food chain compared to small mammals, but not every aspect about them was bettered over time. Evolution only states that aspects of a species are "bettered" reletive to two things;

1. surival relative to the environment
2. successful reproductive chances

If the environment changes, such as with the dinosaurs, then they no longer are "better" than smaller animals who are able to survive. The progress of evolution is not linear, but simply relative to the two aspects above.

understood. that's kind'a what I meant. sorry if it didn't come across like that.
did I ever mention before that scientists are tracking down dinosaurs in PNG? I thought that was awesome when I found it out. I always knew there were a lot of animals there that no one knew about and that's why the island is swarmed with scientists all the time, but now they claim that there are dinosaurs living there and the scientists are trying to find them and study them.

It makes it easier for people to attempt to justify things out of their control. By having an explanation for their existence, and the aspects of things they don't understand, it allows them to focus on living rather than paralyzed in fear. It only becomes a problem when a person's ideology fails to live up to the person's experiences. Then the person does some introspection/soul searching, and can come out better through having a better model of existence.

I don't mean to be absolute in the above, because things are much more complex, of course. But it's an aspect of second guessing instinct. [/B]

I think the ability to anylize life may cause us to worry even more about it all and become paralyzed with fear. when you second guess what's been given to you, it causes confusion and worry. but I think both of us are working off of relative terms of what is a better existance and what is the goal of humanity.

there was something else I wanted to add, but I forgot.

[Spaced]

Originally posted by hambakmeritru
it happens through a glitch. I get it. but that glitch is the cause. and if there is a cause, it's not really that it "just happened" which implys it came out of nowhere.
right? I feel like we're both speaking past eachother here.

OK. So we disagree on what the' cause' may be. Good for us. Good to hear you accept the concept of micro-evolution. That's good enough for me as I thought you insisted that no forms of evolution are possible.