|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 3, 2004 9:59:35 GMT -5
Now that I no longer have to rush to make it to class on time... I want to make this clear, do not take that last comment personal Jessica. I see debating the same way I see writing, you improve through criticism. That argument was flawed and could use a lot of reworking. And don't think that I see myself as above it. I know I make the same mistakes.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 3, 2004 10:12:45 GMT -5
 Okay, don't bother arguing my individual points. Dismiss the whole post, so you don't have to deal with things that might go against your view. So Stal, what is evolution? What exactly is the part of evolution that you are oposed to? I just didn't have time to deal with it. I planned on getting back to it. But I'm rushing for class. I never back down from something I can't answer. If I can't answer, I'll say so. I've said before, Natural Selection works, in a way. Yes. Guys tend to find blondes more attractive, so there's more blondes getting married and having kids and so forth, which tends to increase the blonde population. Bad example, but still an example of how it works. Natural Selection happens but on a small small scale of unimportant things. What you seem to be missing here is that the Evolution and Origin of Life is tied into one another intricately. If you don't believe in creation then you have to believe that life originated as a one celled organism and evolved from there. That's what evolution deals with, the small gradual change of one species to another. How else can you explain away Creationism? As far as I'm concerned, what you've mentioned are not cases of evolution. It's just small unimportant changes in the genetic structure but it still does not change us from being human. We're still human, we always will be human. We're not going to just someday evolve into a new species. Our systems don't adapt to the environment by providing the new genes at all. If you studied humans living throughout the different lands and cultures as the scientists have doneso with animals, we'd all still be the same and no genetic mutations based on environment. Darwin's finches, a case of Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest and not of evolution. They're still finches. The finches of long beaks always existed before and they're the dominant type of the island. but they're still finches. Always have and always will be.. You say at the end too many people confuse evolution with origin of man. Well, let me ask you a question, where did man come from? If what you describe as evolution is right and you're so sure that mine is wrong, then explain to me how man got to be. And as I said earlier, that was just a rehash of things I've all ready answered. Have you not read any of my earlier posts? You should be able to tell where I stand and wher I disagree with the theory of evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 11:28:48 GMT -5
I have not read the Davinci's code thread, and it's very long. So it's safe to say that I haven't read any of your earlier threads, or anyone else's earlier threads for that matter. The reason I wanted you to clearly define what you think evolution is, is because I think that we are on different pages at the monent and that's going to make it hard for us to understand each other. *Deep breath* Okay. I've got a lot of work to do, and I'm not quite sure where to start, so bear with me. Evolution is change over time. Biological evolution can be defined as so; "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." Taking the definition of biological evolution to count, these finches are an example of evolution, because they have changed in ways that their offspring can inherit, and the change has happened over generations. You may not think that this is evolution, but this is evolution in it's simplest form. Evolution in it's simplest form is what I am here to argue for. I may have caused some confussion when I said " I think too many people confuse evolution with the 'Origins of man' debate. " Please note that I said origins of man, not origins of life as you seem to imply I said. I am not saying that the origin of man debate has nothing to do with evolution. I am saying that you can prove evolution without proving the origin of man. I really like this quote. It gives me a great deal to work with, and I don't mean that in a cruel way. Lets break this down. "As far as I'm concerned, what you've mentioned are not cases of evolution." They match the accepted scientific defenition of evolution, so how coud they not be? The view of evolution that you are arguing with isn't even the view of evolution that most of science has! "It's just small unimportant changes in the genetic structure but it still does not change us from being human." Even unimportant changes that can be passed down over generations can count as evolution. There is no rule that says the changes have to be important, or even useful. "We're still human, we always will be human. We're not going to just someday evolve into a new species." I agree that we are currently human. The rest of this statement I will adress in a latter post, but at this point in time I don't want to overburden my post with that many extra characters. So, I'm going to sit back and wait for a response before i go any further. Sources: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlfor definition of Biological Evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 3, 2004 11:34:51 GMT -5
I have not read the Davinci's code thread, and it's very long. So it's safe to say that I haven't read any of your earlier threads, or anyone else's earlier threads for that matter. The reason I wanted you to clearly define what you think evolution is, is because I think that we are on different pages at the monent and that's going to make it hard for us to understand each other. *Deep breath* Okay. I've got a lot of work to do, and I'm not quite sure where to start, so bear with me. Evolution is change over time. Biological evolution, according to www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html, can be defined as so; "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." Taking the definition of biological evolution to count, these finches are an example of evolution, because they have changed in ways that their offspring can inherit, and the change has happened over generations. You may not think that this is evolution, but this is evolution in it's simplest form. Evolution in it's simplest form is what I am here to argue for. I may have caused some confussion when I said " I think too many people confuse evolution with the 'Origins of man' debate. " Please note that I said origins of man, not origins of life as you seem to imply I said. I am not saying that the origin of man debate has nothing to do with evolution. I am saying that you can prove evolution without proving the origin of man. I really like this quote. It gives me a great deal to work with, and I don't mean that in a cruel way. Lets break this down. "As far as I'm concerned, what you've mentioned are not cases of evolution." They match the accepted scientific defenition of evolution, so how coud they not be? The view of evolution that you are arguing with isn't even the view of evolution that most of science has! "It's just small unimportant changes in the genetic structure but it still does not change us from being human." Even unimportant changes that can be passed down over generations can count as evolution. There is no rule that says the changes have to be important, or even useful. "We're still human, we always will be human. We're not going to just someday evolve into a new species." I agree that we are currently human. The rest of this statement I will adress in a latter post, but at this point in time I don't want to overburden my post with that many extra characters. So, I'm going to sit back and wait for a response before i go any further. It's only the last two or three pages of Da Vinci code where we even discuss evolution. Not too much of a read. If you want to call that evolution at it's most simple form, then go with it. Perhaps your right. perhaps my perspective of evolution is skewed and what I'm really arguing against is the theory of Drawinism. See, those small, minute, insignificant changes that will never result in change of species does not qualify as evolution in my opinion. That falls under Natural Selection/Nature. The things you've indicated I feel are true, but not on the grand scale science has made it out to be. Really, why have we "evolved" to have a much higher intellect and so forth than other animals. It wasn't needed for our survival at all. But we did it. That goes contrary to your beliefs, it'd seem. Especially considering the other animals don't have that same level of intellect. And that's my reply. I'll type more when I get more to go on. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 12:47:24 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't see how life developing traits unnecesary for living disproves evolution. The is something in genetics called a polygene, system of genes that controls a trait, rather than a single gene. There is a famous experiment where foxes were being bred for one trait, domestication. They were not bred for curly tails, or floppy ears, or any of the other traits we associate with domestic dogs. However, they began to show these traits anyway. They are also displaying drastic Neurological changes, including the speed at which certain parts of the nuerological system developed. The genome of a human, or of any animal, is ridiculously complicated. If one thing is changed, it effects many other things. It would not be a stretch to say that the development of unrelated traits in humans- such as, for example, opposable thumbs or the larger inner toe for improved upright balance- aren't intricately linked with the deeper brain folds that account for some of our incresed intellegence. Then, there's always the possibility that the higher brain functions we pride ourselves on are mearly side-effects of related brain functions. An example; humans are social creatures (much like many other primates), and we have a need to recognize members of our groups. Our brains are set up to recognize faces, in fact it even works overtime at this. We see faces in clouds, rock formations, and the leaves of trees. Talanted wood carvers can recognize a figure, like a dancing woman, in a block of wood and bring it out for the rest of us to see. It becomes easy to see how a survival related featue can have applications in creativity, or other such functions not critical for life. (Edit: There are quite a few other cases that I'm dying to bring up, but I'm having trouble finding sources with just the internet. I'm without acces to the library right now, so if anyone could find me an article on the backbreeding of horses. May be found researching Sorraia Horse?) Sources: home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm(Belyaev's foxes) www.thehumanbrain.org/Striedter.htm(Some differences between human and animal brains, and the possibility for how those differences occured) www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030701221818.htm(Neat article on human's face recognition) |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 3, 2004 14:11:13 GMT -5
TEoW, you bring up excellent points and I cannot respond. I don't have the ability or knowledge at my current disposal to refute those things.
If I looked, I probably could...but as the weekend has approached my mind has more and more drifted to other subjects to which I can't stay focused on debates. =/
So, uhm, yeah. Ikkin, you want to give it a shot as I try to bow out of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 14:52:27 GMT -5
Besides, the Bible does not say that all the SPECIES were created at once...closer to all the PHYLA, a word similar to the word used in Greek for kind when the animals were to "reproduce after their kind." In the rocks for the Cambrian Era is a record of what is known as the "Cambrian Explosion," a relatively short period in time when almost all of the phyla (minus one) are found, FULLY FORMED. Put two and two together, perhaps? This sounds like a very valid argument for creationism, until you realize that this 'reativly short period' was still somewhere between 35 and 42 million years long. You also have to take into account that while almost every phylum appeared in this period, Mammals, Amhibians, reptiles, and fish (edit: also birds) are all in the same Phylum: Chordata. All this really means is something with a spinal cord or even something as primative as a notocord showed up at this time. Vertabrates weren't even much further along than jawless fish like lampreys. It's also been found that the oldest animal fossils came from the earlier Vendian period. Mammals didn't even show up until the mid Triassic. Sources: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.htmlWhat sort of life can be found during the Cambrian period? www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/Evolution.shtmlEarliest Mammals, and some earlier vertabrates. www.museums.org.za/bio/metazoa.htmPhylum Phun |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica Coconut on Sept 3, 2004 16:05:57 GMT -5
Now that I no longer have to rush to make it to class on time... I want to make this clear, do not take that last comment personal Jessica. I see debating the same way I see writing, you improve through criticism. That argument was flawed and could use a lot of reworking. And don't think that I see myself as above it. I know I make the same mistakes. Oh, I don't. That's understandable, as a writer, I've learned that you can only improve through critiscim. It's true, it wan't very well-thought out. Just a quickie... I was rushing. A liger was already mentioned? Oh, sorry, I only skimmed the previous posts. Besides, what would a debate be if you're arguments were never critiscized?! But in any case, I agree with TheEaterofWorlds. We have evolved, no question about it. Evolved in my opinion is a fancy word for changed, that applies to living thing over generations. But what we've evolved from is speculation. I realised how flawed the Kangaroo one is now... but anyway, my point was that if it had a different name wouldn't it have been recorded somewhere? Even in the original bible, in hebrew or latin (I'm sorry, I can't remember which). I realise it's pretty well impossible to record every name Adam came up with, being billions of different creatures everywhere, still. Shouldn't there be a record of the word "Kangaroo" in the language that Adam named it? Anyway, I still have to work out a bit more on this... |
|
Ghostision at the library
Guest
|
Post by Ghostision at the library on Sept 3, 2004 16:41:29 GMT -5
*Pokes head in* Doubtlessly I'm repeating what people have said before, but I have five minutes and not enough time to read through everything, so please don't flame me.
What makes anyone think that any of this is perfect? I've heard this sort of metaphor before, that having humans and the life processes that there are now just evolve from scratch is as likely as nature making an airplane in middle of the desert. But what makes anyone think that we are like an airplane in the desert? When we look at rocks, really look at rocks, they're really complicated in their own way, chiseled from millions of years of erosion and elements, we just can't see it that way. A rock is a rock. Same with this.
To steal a metaphor from "Nova:" If a butterfly lands on a sequoia (SP?) tree for a few days, would it believe its growing and changing? If it had human intellect, it would probably say: "I've been here all this time, and it hasn't changed at all." And a few days is a long time for a butterfly. Small things make great things, Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were all the great architectural wonders, painting sculptures or whatever, that we so admire. Same with evolution. It doesn't happen in a day, or even in a thousand years. It takes millions. I'd say more but I need to run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 3, 2004 16:42:32 GMT -5
First, some terminology rules, to prevent confusion such as we see here: When Stal or I talk about Evolution, it refers to Macroevolution. Neither of us have attempted to disprove Microevolution, which is what you attempted to prove in several of your posts. So, please, just understand that we are talking about Macroevolution, as it is the only form of Evolution with implications against Creationism. Frankly, I don't see how life developing traits unnecesary for living disproves evolution. The is something in genetics called a polygene, system of genes that controls a trait, rather than a single gene. There is a famous experiment where foxes were being bred for one trait, domestication. They were not bred for curly tails, or floppy ears, or any of the other traits we associate with domestic dogs. However, they began to show these traits anyway. They are also displaying drastic Neurological changes, including the speed at which certain parts of the nuerological system developed. The genome of a human, or of any animal, is ridiculously complicated. If one thing is changed, it effects many other things. It would not be a stretch to say that the development of unrelated traits in humans- such as, for example, opposable thumbs or the larger inner toe for improved upright balance- aren't intricately linked with the deeper brain folds that account for some of our incresed intellegence. Then, there's always the possibility that the higher brain functions we pride ourselves on are mearly side-effects of related brain functions. An example; humans are social creatures (much like many other primates), and we have a need to recognize members of our groups. Our brains are set up to recognize faces, in fact it even works overtime at this. We see faces in clouds, rock formations, and the leaves of trees. Talanted wood carvers can recognize a figure, like a dancing woman, in a block of wood and bring it out for the rest of us to see. It becomes easy to see how a survival related featue can have applications in creativity, or other such functions not critical for life. (Edit: There are quite a few other cases that I'm dying to bring up, but I'm having trouble finding sources with just the internet. I'm without acces to the library right now, so if anyone could find me an article on the backbreeding of horses. May be found researching Sorraia Horse?) Sources: home.wlu.edu/~blackmerh/jsk/canid.htm(Belyaev's foxes) www.thehumanbrain.org/Striedter.htm(Some differences between human and animal brains, and the possibility for how those differences occured) www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030701221818.htm(Neat article on human's face recognition) Well, from the fox thing, it seems to me that the neurological changes would be the thing being selected for, as the foxes which had these changes had a higher possibility of being domesticated (longer amount of time in which to become accustomed to humans) The article itself says that the changes may all have stemmed from a change in timing, carrying over some traits like the ears from childhood, aiding in the development of the star patterns, etc. It seems unlikely that a similar change, effecting suche small elements, could link toe size to intellegence. Besides, similar changes happened in other domesticated animals, suggesting that if there was a polygene, it would be part of the makeup of many animals' genetics. As links between these things have not been found in other animals, they cannot be proven to be responsible for humans. Besides, I'm sure some scientist somewhere would have tried linking such things, as such a link would be great proof for evolution, and we all know what happens to experiments that contradict evolution! About the second link: Great, bring up brain surgery, why don't you. At least it's not rocket science! ;D Anyway, I know little about this, and I am pretty sure you are not fully acquainted with this material, either. For all either of us know, it could have been made up by a joker with a liking of big words! ;D (J/K) From what I can understand of all the medical mumbo-jumbo, little of the differences in the human brain are said to be a direct result of genetics, more as side effects, fitting in well with your argument. However, the article does little to explain what the purpose of the change in the directly related parts would be. Given that I don't know half of what the author of this page is talking about, and he doesn't seem to know all he would like to either, I can say little except that I do not get impressed by big words alone, and what I understand of this doesn't prove anything to me. The third one was interesting, indeed, and the thought of computers being able to recognize people and expressions is a neat one, indeed. (My comp: Hey, Ikkin, why do you look so annoyed? Should I find some more pro-Creationist websites for you?  [J/K]) It just doesn't prove anything to me, as there is little related empirical evidence in it. Just an interesting sidenote, as I think you meant it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 3, 2004 17:56:15 GMT -5
This sounds like a very valid argument for creationism, until you realize that this 'reativly short period' was still somewhere between 35 and 42 million years long. You also have to take into account that while almost every phylum appeared in this period, Mammals, Amhibians, reptiles, and fish (edit: also birds) are all in the same Phylum: Chordata. All this really means is something with a spinal cord or even something as primative as a notocord showed up at this time. Vertabrates weren't even much further along than jawless fish like lampreys. It's also been found that the oldest animal fossils came from the earlier Vendian period. Mammals didn't even show up until the mid Triassic. Sources: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.htmlWhat sort of life can be found during the Cambrian period? www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/Evolution.shtmlEarliest Mammals, and some earlier vertabrates. www.museums.org.za/bio/metazoa.htmPhylum Phun You know, I think I used the wrong word... Anyways, I read somewhere else that it was the classes that were found at this time, but I'm not sure if I can trust the source... Anyway, I think I was using some bad information about the meaning of this phenomenon at this time. This can still be used as a Creationist argument, however. How would something with a skeleton come from something without one within such a relatively short period of time (relatively short relative to the enormous odds against such a thing happening) On a related note, where do the times given by evolutionists come from, anyway? (This is a real question, not a trap, or sarcasm, or something) I had another thought, but I forgot it. It'll probably come back later...when I need it the least... Oh, and, just for any evolutionists out there who think they can prove macroevolution: www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp This guy's offering $250,000 for anyone who can. I'm sure no one would refuse an offer like this if they could prove evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 18:01:43 GMT -5
This is a fallacy of logic called Begging the Question. This is considered very bad form in debate, as it leads the readers opinion without factual backup. I don't typically like to rag on other's debate style, but you do some things that are unforgivable in an intellegent debate. I may often/almost always disagree with Stal, but he debates well and honestly.
Then we've got the implied discrediting of my sources. 'If the source is wrong, the argument must be wrong!' However, you haven't proven my source wrong, all you manage to do is defame them. Even though you put the little j/k after it, that statement may lead any reader falsely down that path of thought.
It wasn't supposed to prove anything, but it wasn't just a sidenote either. It was a SOURCE, that's why it is labled 'Source'. All of the links I provide are websites where I got information, whether it was very little or not.
By implying that one of my links is made up, you imply that they ALL are. Yes, I guess they could be. However, the only reason I went searching for the foxes in the first place is that I had seen a documentary on them a few years ago, complete with video of cute floppy eared foxes that I want to own.
I love the part where you say 'If there is a polygene'. Maybe it isn't a polygene that controls domesticated behavior in foxes, but polygenes, not 1 all-encompassing Polygene, do exist. Sadly, their existance doesn't prove evolution, even if it helps the case a bit. Height isn't just one gene that goes Big or Little, it is controlled by a series of genes that go towards figuring out what height we can be. (I say can rather than will because enviromental factors can limit or help the height we end up being)
Yes, the article suggests that all of the traits are caused by a change in timing. The change in timing was caused by the polygene!
"As links between these things have not been found in other animals, they cannot be proven to be responsible for humans." Except links HAVE been found in none-canine animals. Cows, cats, and other domesticated animals all exibit a change in the mating cycle that can be linked to the same polygene in foxes, as well as the radically earlier onset of sexual maturity.
"similar changes happened in other domesticated animals" So, have they not been found, or have they happened in other animals? Please pick one.
I'll be back shortly to adress the rest, as I have a comic book to pick up.
I'm sure you are an intellegent person, so use your intellegence. Use facts, not opinion wherever you can. Don't try to illicit an emotional response, or lead someone to a conclusion that's not based on logic. That's very poor form. Do I debate perfectly? No, of course not. But I try to take facts, and counter them with other facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 3, 2004 18:08:26 GMT -5
On a related note, where do the times given by evolutionists come from, anyway? (This is a real question, not a trap, or sarcasm, or something) Ages are figured in a process called carbon dating. To simplify; the process revolves around an isotope of carbon. It degenerates at a known rate over time refered to as a half-life. We can use how far it's degenerated to tell how old something is. It's sometimes very flawed, and there are other systems used, this is just the one I can think of right now. I'll get more information for you later. (You don't know if you can trust the source? It's Berkley! But I'll gladly find you more sources when I get home.) |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 3, 2004 18:15:13 GMT -5
Ages are figured in a process called carbon dating. To simplify; the process revolves around an isotope of carbon. It degenerates at a known rate over time refered to as a half-life. We can use how far it's degenerated to tell how old something is. It's sometimes very flawed, and there are other systems used, this is just the one I can think of right now. I'll get more information for you later. (You don't know if you can trust the source? It's Berkley! But I'll gladly find you more sources when I get home.) It can be really skewed though. Carbon dating done to the wastelands at Mt. Saint Helena say that a lot of that stuff is millions upon millions of years old. It's not perfect or 100% reliable. |
|
|
|
Post by Ikkin on Sept 3, 2004 19:56:50 GMT -5
This is a fallacy of logic called Begging the Question. This is considered very bad form in debate, as it leads the readers opinion without factual backup. I don't typically like to rag on other's debate style, but you do some things that are unforgivable in an intellegent debate. I may often/almost always disagree with Stal, but he debates well and honestly. Then we've got the implied discrediting of my sources. 'If the source is wrong, the argument must be wrong!' However, you haven't proven my source wrong, all you manage to do is defame them. Even though you put the little j/k after it, that statement may lead any reader falsely down that path of thought. It wasn't supposed to prove anything, but it wasn't just a sidenote either. It was a SOURCE, that's why it is labled 'Source'. All of the links I provide are websites where I got information, whether it was very little or not. By implying that one of my links is made up, you imply that they ALL are. Yes, I guess they could be. However, the only reason I went searching for the foxes in the first place is that I had seen a documentary on them a few years ago, complete with video of cute floppy eared foxes that I want to own. Meh, I was just joking around most of the time...with the "And we all know what happens..." and the "joker with a liking for big words." Just trying to lighten the tone. Anyways, too much time on the Splatterboard does that to you! Besides, I think taking my little jokes too seriously could be an attempt to discredit me, as well, especially since you aren't joking. Anyway, I actually do have a quote backing up my mainly-joking "We all know what happens..." statement, I just wanted to add a little humor. It just didn't turn out right. Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and a champion of neo-Darwinism I. S. Williams, W. Compston, B. W. Chapell, and T. Shirahase This one deals with dating- that's why dating can't be trusted. R. L. Mauger of the University of Wyoming explains More dating, this one's similar to my original, which is where I got my "We all know what happens" from. It was meant as a joke, but there is some truth to it. I just didn't think I'd have to look these quotes up just to prove my joke wasn't an attempt to discredit my opponent without any evidence. And this was the quote I was looking for! Actually, this was also the point I kept forgetting, so here goes: Carbon/Radioactive dating is horribly inaccurate. A piece of live coral was dated as being dead 14,000 years, and many similar cases have been found. A dinosaur bone was found to have been 12,000 years old. In neither case did the testers know what they were testing, or else it is likely that neither of these results would be available. (see other quotes) And, here's some more quotes: www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.htmlI didn't mean to imply that there was no such thing as a polygene, just that it may not have been the case in this particular instance, and I certainly didn't think that you were implying one ultra-polygene control-all. I phrased this badly, anyways. That is one possibility; there are probably others. Something like this, however, could not be responisble for people, because the human brain is far too complex to be changed as radically as it is as simple as that. It could be used, but it also could be totally irrelevant. Some relavance would have to be proven if this were to be considered proof in any way. You misunderstood me in the first paragraph. My "These things" was in reference to a link between some helpful adaptation (toes or thumbs, as you said) and higher brain function. Since I wasn't doubting the changes due to your domestication polygene, my second quote makes perfect sense. Yeah, that's what I've been trying to do, too. My little jokes were meant to be just that- jokes, and I'm sorry if they offended you. I wasn't trying to elicit any more of an emotional response than a laugh. I did not think that my humor would effect the readers beyond that, and if they did, I'm sorry. |
|
Okay, don't bother arguing my individual points. Dismiss the whole post, so you don't have to deal with things that might go against your view. 
[J/K]) It just doesn't prove anything to me, as there is little related empirical evidence in it. Just an interesting sidenote, as I think you meant it to be.