PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Facts

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:28 AM on March 11, 2009 :
I agree that a bird population can diverge into different species. But they are still birds. And at what point would a different genus "evolve"? or family?


Right now.  But you have to wait long enough for them to diverge.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:42 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:46 PM on February 5, 2009 :
Last night I had a long conversation with one of my MD friends, Pathologist, who believes in creation and is currently working on his masters. I asked him why I can't find an evolutionist willing to recognize the difference between what was formerly known as micro and macro evolution and he said because they don't want to officially recognize the difference. He said that in his over 25 years of highly technical practice he has seen no reason why macro evolution needs to be taught as "necessary" to understanding biology.


I also have a pathologist friend, an  MD/PHd.  He uses common descent to find homologous genes in other mammal species to develop cancer treatments for humans.   He says that if common descent weren't true, his research would be impossible.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:52 PM on March 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
There are 4 (four) spcecies of elephants alive today!  DNA analysis has shown that the two spcecies of African elephants began to diverge about 2 1/2 million years ago.  Then there are two species of Asian elephants.
Haha! I thought they were only three!

So, if these elephants belong to the same biblical 'kind', then 'microevolution' goes much further (and quicker) than what creationists tend to acknowledge. Right?

Some of them say (there are few things that you can say that ALL of them say) that the limit is specific. Species don't transform into other species.

The genetic difference between the two African elephant species is bigger than that between lions and tigers.

But creationists say (always some of them) that speciation happens by losing stuff.

So the forefather of all felines must have had stripes, and the lion's cool hair, and the speed of a cheetah...

Is that what they (some of them) say?

timbrx
I don't have a "concept" of species. Species is the word used to describe the bottom rung in the taxonomic scheme. Though widely used and constantly built upon, this particular rung is the most subjective by either side, as you well know.
I certainly don't know.

The limit you impose to your belief in Evolution is the species. So if the limit is clear (as it should be), so should your concept of 'species'.

How else shall we know what you're talking about?

YOUR concept of 'species' interests me much more than that of biology.

In biology every term names something found in nature. Knowing nature is more interesting to me than knowing terms.

But you deny natural processes, using only words, and no facts, or even specific problems.

If your attacks on Evolution are semantic, and i don't even know the concept behind your words... I give up. I don't know what to tell you.

You have yet to answer me if interspecific breeding is even possible under your concept of 'species', whatever it might be.

Yes and no (as you well know).
I can't know (well or bad). And you can't either, if you don't have a concept of 'species'.

Take 3 species of rabbit: x, y and z. X an z can interbreed, y and z can interbreed, but x and y can't.
When i ask about your concept of 'species' i also mean to ask its relationship with the biblical 'kinds'.

If you equate 'species' to 'kinds', then animals that belong to different species should not be able to mate, i think.

Or are you saying that God made different kinds that can mate????

I showed you once a reptile that could procreate without mating (only females). I told you that they are the product of interspecific mating (well, that's how they appear, even if they reproduce later by parthenogenesis).

What sense does that make under your present understanding?

Did the speciation happen before or after the ark?

Please, give it a little thought, and tell me what you think about it.

All are still a KIND of rabbit.
Ok, so your species and kinds are not the same thing...

Do hares belong to the same (leporidae) kind? Or do they belong to another (hare) kind???

Do hares, rabbits and pikas belong to the same (lagomorph) kind, or do pikas belong to a separate (ochotonidae) kind?

Here's a pika, in case you don't know it:

Notice the same cute little nose?

Do they belong to the same kind, or did God say 'What a cute little nose i've put in rabbits! That calls for some copypasting!"?

The lack of ability to interbreed between x and y is due to a DIMINISHED gene pool.
So, to you, it's a downward spiral.

But since the flood event all gene pools must have been very diminished. And yet, just by losing stuff, a lonely couple of animals of the same (felidae) kind devolved into the 41 known species. Oh, or perhaps some of them had died by the time of the flood... If that's the case, did all of them come from one species in the garden of Eden?

(I'm trying not to make any strawmen, but it's very hard, as nobody really knows what a creationist might believe.)

Or perhaps they were not two, but four, being the ancestors of the pantherinae (which includes the Lion, the Tiger, the Jaguar, and the Leopard), and Felinae (which includes the Cougar, the Cheetah, lynxes and the Caracal, along with the Domestic Cat). (And did Noah embark the Sabertooth kind, or was it already dead by then?)

That should be easy to determine. We either find one set of mitochondrial DNA, or two.

But we find eight main mitochondrial lineages. (Mitochondrial tracing can give you a pretty accurate depiction of the evolutionary tree too, and it shows you the relationship between most living organisms, that could have the same mitochondrial DNA if God made the mitochondrias.)

From Wikipedia:
This taxon originated in Asia and spread across continents by crossing land bridges. As reported in the journal Science, testing of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA by Warren Johnson and Stephen O'Brien of the U.S. National Cancer Institute demonstrated that ancient cats evolved into eight main lineages that diverged in the course of at least 10 migrations (in both directions) from continent to continent via the Bering land bridge and Isthmus of Panama, with the Panthera species being the oldest and the Felis species being the youngest. They estimated that 60 percent of the modern species of cats developed within the last million years.

Tracing mitochondrial DNA shows us ancient migratory patterns (none of which has ever had anything to do with the ark myth).

I think there are only 16 families of mammals. So perhaps Noah only carried 32 mammals (plus 5, times the clean ones) that devolved into the most conspicuous of all the creatures on Earth.

How come that all animals names in the Bible maintain the same morphology (and remain as ONE species), but the ones not mentioned in the Bible become so diversified?

How come Noah didn't save any of the animals that we say are ancient transitionals?

Or did he???

Let's talk about specific problems, and give straightforward answers. Please.
Than please ask strait forward questions rather than flinging a barrage of strawmen as skepticus would put it.
What are you saying? I ask LOTS of straightforward questions.

And what strawmen are you talking about?

Point them out to me, and i'll take them back and apologize. I hate strawmen.

So, again, please, be specific.

They were trying to make conical teeth? What??
Apparently they are trying to make a pre-chicken out of the existing DNA in order to prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
I know that. But you said that they were trying to make the results fit their presuppositions. Conical teeth match our presuppositions, so apparently you'd be saying that they were trying to produce conical teeth.

Am i wrong? Please, be more clear, so i can avoid strawmen (i hate them so much!).

timbrx, did God gave evolutionists magic powers to make predictions based upon a false theory? Because we just keep guessing right. And this will go on and on and on.
The "guesses" you refer to that prove to be right must be the ones that work within the subspecies area of evolution because to date nothing has been proven to support trans-speciation.
Did you see the land-mammal to whale transitionals?

They fit our predictions. For legged whale wannabes match our predictions.



The layers in which they were found also match 'Evolutionist' predictions.

You're smart. You can guess which one of these two was found higher in the strata. You too are able to make guesses.

Assuming that Evolution is true automatically gives you the best possible rate of correct guesses.

Why would that be? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

It fits into the box you made for it,
I didn't make hares and rabbits look alike.
but there is no demonstrable emperical evidence for it that would move it from hypothesis to theory.
Mitochondrial DNA tracing. DNA tracing. Fossil record. Behavioral patterns.

What do you need?

Perhaps you see taxonomy the same way as Stephen Gould:
“But,” says Gould, “how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?” For an evolutionist, why should there be species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries.
I tried to find the source of your quote. Strangely enough i only found it in two sites. Both of them are creationist sites, and one of them is down.

And the source of the quote is this:
(Quote from Gould; Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.)

Another creationist source. Not the original, i presume (Gould is not a creationist). Having the context would be nice. But anyway that phrase is not very obscure. He obviously used it to reinforce his idea of punctuated equilibrium (which only makes sense in the context of Evolution, that Gould never denied).

Anyway, why did you quote this?

Darwin also recognized the problem.
The 'problem' is not with Evolution. The problem is with a constant slow change rate.

There are some things that make me think that Gould is right.

But please, tell me what's your point.

He finally ended by denying the reality of species. But, as Gould points out, Darwin was quite good at classifying the species whose ultimate reality he denied.
Ooooh, i see! You're talking about my claim about blurriness of genera and families!

But that wouldn't be seeing taxonomy like Gould does! It would be the opposite!

It 'would' be, but it's not. Specific blurriness is not the same as generic or familiar blurriness.

And, says Gould, Darwin could take no comfort in fossils, since he was also successful in classifying them into distinct species. He used the same criteria we use to classify plants and animals today.
That's not a problem for Evolution. Gould could be perfectly right, and Evolution would still make perfect sense.

It would be like a ball in a constantly spinning roulette. You drop a ball and it will behave chaotically for a moment, and then it will settle. Till something happens. Like someone kicking the roulette. The ball will jump chaotically again, and will eventually settle.

I'm sure that sometimes that does happen. But i don't think it's the norm regarding every phylogenetic trait. Some things are just slow.

BUT you're basically saying 'Ok, you can give three steps, but not ten. And you definately cannot walk for a mile.

It's up to you to say what's the difference between three steps and a mile. THAT would be naming your specific problem with Evolution.

Besides, NOW you're ok with speciation. But you had said that you did NOT believe in extra-species evolution before.

And you still don't say what a species is to you, and its relation with biblical 'kinds'. And if interspecific (or interkinded) breeding is possible under your two concepts.
I hope I've already cleared this up.
Not in my opinion. I still don't know the specific limit you impose on microevolution.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:08 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 09:27 AM on March 12, 2009 :
Demon - excellently defined and explained.  Good job!


Ditto, Well done Demon. I was going to attempt a similar post.
But I just love the last bit. I don't think it's subjective either. To our fundie friends:  What part of 'If you don't understand it, you can't say its subjective / philosophy etc, don't you understand?'




-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 05:31 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:30 AM on March 10, 2009 :

The narrow mindedness of such a statement is utterly staggering to me.

Perhaps because you have never believed in something more deeply than your intellectual understanding allows.  


That's a telling point isn't it? When believing is placed upon a pedestal as an object of honor and as a goal to be aspired to without any reason. Then you have given permition to belief without reason. You may then come (very matter of factly) to conclusions (beliefs) that are not hinged on intellectual understanding, nor anything else you can account for, using any kind of rational means, that deserve to give you confidence, in what you are believing.

If the question 'What reason do you have to believe that?' ceases to be a meaningful (and deserving) question, in any situation, then I would suggest that you have a serious problem, not the person asking the question.

Beliefs should always be byproducts of reason. Inert, tangential byproducts of reason, which come free of charge with our intellectual understandings. beliefs should be of no use or importance to anyone except to unravel their reasoning by means of reverse engineering. i.e. 'So you believe the Copenhagen interpretation!! How do you square that up with the many worlds theorem?" Beliefs should never be regarded as the cause of anything in nature. This is utter madness, unless you are revering to psychological effects. i.e. 'I believe I can cut a half a second of my lap time'. Your own mind is the only thing a belief can have any effect on, madness or delusion not withstanding. Heres my little poem about beliefs:

BELIEFS:
~~~

Show me something believing can do,
I don't have to believe, for it to be true.

I'll show you some facts you'll find hard to conceive,
That turn out the same, outside of belief.

For here's just something between me and you,
facts don't rely on belief to be true.


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 06:40 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:52 PM on March 12, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 4:46 PM on February 5, 2009 :
Last night I had a long conversation with one of my MD friends, Pathologist, who believes in creation and is currently working on his masters. I asked him why I can't find an evolutionist willing to recognize the difference between what was formerly known as micro and macro evolution and he said because they don't want to officially recognize the difference. He said that in his over 25 years of highly technical practice he has seen no reason why macro evolution needs to be taught as "necessary" to understanding biology.


I also have a pathologist friend, an  MD/PHd.  He uses common descent to find homologous genes in other mammal species to develop cancer treatments for humans.   He says that if common descent weren't true, his research would be impossible.



Perhaps God is not timbrx's only imaginary friend. ;)



-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 06:45 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I fully believe that timbrx would have some creationist doctor friends.  One can be a competent physician without accepting evolution.  Another friend of mine once compared finding a good doctor to finding a good mechanic, and I think the comparison is very apt.  A good mechanic can have an intuitive grasp of mechanical engineering without understanding or even believing the details.

But don't expect cutting edge medical research from anybody rejecting evolution.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:03 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well put, Apoapsis. I agree completely.

Perhaps because you have never believed in something more deeply than your intellectual understanding allows.
That's a telling point isn't it? When believing is placed upon a pedestal as an object of honor and as a goal to be aspired to without any reason. Then you have given permition to belief without reason.
We all believe that we exist. How many of us have good reasons? Wouldn't you say that most (if not all) of us believe in our existence with little or no intellectual understanding?

Because that's what timbrx said. He said nothing about reason.

'So you believe the Copenhagen interpretation!! How do you square that up with the many worlds theorem?"
In quantum physics models are no longer treated as reality. The map is not the territory.

We only have access to models that give us partial understanding, and predicting cappabilities. That's pretty much it.

If the many worlds don't fit with the Copenhagen interpretation, you can always switch from one to the other. No big deal, really.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:30 AM on March 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you go to websites like 'Science Daily', which reports on science news (research papers being published in science journals) you will see a steady stream of articles relating to evolution.  These articles show that TOE is very much a basic foundation in biology, medical research, etc.  

I have not once seen an article presented that has cited predictions made by Creationism, or any discoveries that were a result of Creationism thought.

I use the word 'thought' rather than 'theory' for the simple reason that Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory.  

So Timbrx, Lester, gluteus - do a search of 'Science Daily' on the word evolution.  You will see that TOE is indeed a thriving scientific theory that is leading to daily new discoveries in a wide range of fields - biology, agriculture, medicine, paleontology, psycholgy, ecology, geology, etc.  You have to be willfully ignorant not to see that evolution is all around us.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:02 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I use the word 'thought' rather than 'theory' for the simple reason that Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory.
I don't even see an invalid one. I see no theory at all.

It's not a model, but a lack of one.

Ok, God made everything: then what? How did parasites and carnivores develop?

Bah, should stop asking questions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:13 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

On the other hand...
If the creos actually put up a plausible hypothesis for HOW God created... that was evidence-based and testable then..  then they MIGHT be able to attract scientific interest.... maybe.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:45 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sometimes i think that they intimately know that there's no plausible model that would suit the biblical myths.

Sometimes i think that all they really want is the benefit of the doubt.

They make statements that can be (or so they think) vague enough to avoid (not resist) scrutiny.

They leave blanks deliberately so that they can be filled temporarily (with water filtering from the ground, for instance) just to escape from a critic, and then it will be blank again (as if nobody ever made that claim).

You can't disprove their blanks.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:05 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

From what I can make out...  what 'creation scientists' there are spend all their time trying to disprove evolution. But that really makes them 'evolution scientists' since they are about the business of 'testing' evolution.

Are there really any 'creation scientists' in the world who actually have an hypothesis of their own that they are actively testing? Im starting to doubt it.

Perhaps the 'creation scientist' is just another mythical creature like a unicorn or a centaur?

 


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 9:15 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The concept of 'creation scientist' is oxymoronic and self-discriminatory.

Why not call yourself just 'scientist'? There are just good scientists and bad scientists.

By calling yourself a 'creation scientist' you're announcing beforehand what you try to prove (which makes you a terrible scientist).

They are announcing beforehand that they will actively look for evidence to support their claims (i know, they mostly try to disprove Evolution, but bear with me), discarding anything that doesn't fit (i know, nothing fits, but bear with me).



(Edited by wisp 3/14/2009 at 11:22 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:30 PM on March 12, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:28 AM on March 11, 2009 :
I agree that a bird population can diverge into different species. But they are still birds. And at what point would a different genus "evolve"? or family?


At a point we arbitrarily define.  As I said before, genus, family and all the rest of our classifications for life are man made and have no meaning in nature.  Speciation is all that's required.  If a bird population diverges into different species, then evolution is taking place, the theory of evolution has been proven valid and after many many generetions, the descendents of the original bird poplulation can be radically different from the original population.  

And thank you orion and Skepticus for your kind words.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:39 AM on March 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With Evolution as our model we can explain and predict facts.

I like looking at organisms and imagine (yes, imagine) their evolutionary path.

My imagination, my knowledge and my intuition undergo a constant feedback. But if my conclusions don't match the facts, i abandon them.

Do you deny our ability to explain and predict things?

With your attitude this is the best you can do:




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:29 AM on March 14, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.