Charles Darwin and his Evolutionary Studies of Religion at ESEB 2011 - Lecture
Today, the 13th Congress of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) convenes at Tübingen University. A special I am looking forward to is the Outreach Symposium "Evolution - More than Biology" with Joseph Carroll (Literary Studies, University of Missouri, St. Louis), Esben Andersen (Economics, Aalborg University), Frank Ryan (Medicine, University of Sheffield) - and with me, from the field of scientific study of religion. Our shared aim is to introduce the colleagues from biology into thos interdisciplinary fields that have opened up to an evolutionary perspectives these last years. I am glad and grateful for the honor to introduce evolutionary studies of religiosity and religions.
As my topic, I decided to present the works of a theologian, whose works are not only important to evolutionary biology, but should be understood as awesome, interfaculty bridge building: Charles Darwin. - Yes, Darwin graduated in theology (and nothing else) and his great "Descent of Man" (1871) included a whole subchapter, definitions and hypotheses about the evolution of religiosity and religions.
In order to use and enrich the chances of the new media, I decided to put an extended version of my Darwin-lecture at my science-blogs:
"Evolutionary Studies of Religiosity and Religions, started by Charles Darwin",
Lecture at the 13th Congress of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB), Tübingen University 2011
And for those preferring to listen and to see the slides, I am presenting the lecture as a two-part YouTube-lecture:
Second Part:
Just enjoy (by reading or listening) - and thank you very much for your interest!
Retrospect: The Outreach symposium at the ESEB-conference has been a huge success! Here is a picture taken two minutes before the start of my talk...
Printview
It is an issue of perspective and perception. It has been noted for thousands of years that the greatness of God exceeded the capacity of mere mortals to comprehend. Science has continuously reaffirmed that understanding, as the greatest of our telescopes to the most sensitive of our microscopes and all other instruments of technology fail to detect a measured presence. Science (as do we when discussing issues of science) limits itself to that which can be measured. This is not an exercise in denial, but of understanding, from a ‘scientific’ perspective. The perspective of the measured universe.
Dr. Lyons,
The Origin of the Homo Sapiens Species:
That is a question that science cannot answer, but we know it's origin is not in evolution because the intellectual and volitional powers are beyond the capacity of non-human mammalian species.
The origin of the Intelligence, Reasoning Power and Volitional Powers of Homo Sapiens - all we can say is that in each individual member they come with conception, because, in the conception of any species), the parents pass on the totality of their nature to their offspring and in human conception that means the biological powers, the somatic and psychosomatic powers, the intellectual powers and the volitional power.
The ultimate cause - again empirical science can say nothing - but Aristotelian science may be able to conclude to something from the evidence.
Both Erwin Schrodinger and Max Delbruck begged biologists to look to Aristotle for a lot of solutions to certain scientific questions, but few heeded them.
They, along with Einstein and Louis Pasteur are my masters in the sciences, plus maybe someone like Father Georges LeMaitre who discovered the Cosmic Egg theory in Physics.
That is my response. You cannot solve those problems by empirical science because there is no evidence exists to answer the questions - I just know that your answers are not scientifically based.
All respects for your person, your scientific dedication and a cordial question. I hope we can continue in this manner.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
Whenever something new is discovered, say Newton’s gravity, there is a tendency, even desire, for that revelation to be the final word, the grand and comprehensive answer. It never is, and that applies to Darwin’s evolution as well. Every scientist worth his salt recognizes this, at least at some level, and is likewise prepared to continue with the investigations. In relying on studies that are more than 70 years old, you miss significant developments in biology and science.
It is widely recognized that man is not viable via biology alone, so many are addressing that gap. Aspects of this investigation are taking place from the perspective of science – from what we can measure within this universe, and that is the perspective addressed at this web site. It is the observation of many that religion has played a significant role in the evolution of man, and this site specializes, you could say, in reviewing some of the science surrounding those observations.
You are not the first nor only observer to notice that questions about life and the universe remain. That hardly justifies attacking people and ideas you cannot trouble yourself to understand.
Dear Father Stevens,
You write "That is a question that science cannot answer, but we know it's origin is not in evolution because the intellectual and volitional powers are beyond the capacity of non-human mammalian species."
That is not the case. Science can and does answer this question Father. Any standard modern biological text will tell you that it has been clearly established from fossil evidence that early homonids and the Pan species had a common ancestor until about 6m. years ago. A speciation event occurred due to an environmental change that was triggered either by (a) a change in the behaviour or (b) a change to the natural environment of a sub-population of the common ancestral species.
After the speciation event, homonids evolved by natural and sexual selection adapting gradually to their new environment/ culture eventually becoming Homo sapiens via a number of earlier stages; Homo habilis, Homo erectus etc.
The main thrust of this account is not disputed in modern biological science.
Dr. Lyons - My reply to your inquiry about the Origin of the Human Species and Human Intelligence and Reasoning Power did not go through. I saw it listed as well as our reply but I could not find the texts on SciLog, so here is a more extended reply.
The Origin of the Species is a historical question and cannot be reached by science - it is as simple as that.
The Origin of Human Intelligence, Human Reasoning and Human Volitional Powers - we know only one thing from science: human conception passes on an offspring with the totality of the human species of the parents, not just human biology, that is a fact of science, just as it is a fact of every species. Science can tell us no more.
It is possible that Aristotelian science and lead to some conclusions, but the answer does not lie in empirical science.
It is possible that Aristotelian science can lead to some conclusions, but the answer does not lie in biological science.
Guesswork has two possibilities: the Darwinian answer and the answer of Thomas Aquinas. The Darwinian answer has already been disproved by the very nature of the Intellectual and Volitional Powers and the Aquinas answer can be neither proved nor disproved by science.
I don't intend to go ourside of science in this debate - and the answer is simply outside the domain of science. All that the Aristotelian science can determine is that the effect cannot be greater than the cause, but it could be equal to the cause. The cause, however, cannot be reached by sciencel
The Darwinian model of Homo Sapiens has been shown to be defective, and the Thomistic model covers the facts of Homo Sapiens completely. I think that is as far as we can go scientifically - and I am sure that is an answer that you cannot accept.
I respect your dedication to science and really admire your sticking to your guns, but I stongly disagree with your concept of a "Biology of Religion" for all the reasons I have given and I will fight you to the death on this issue.
Because what you have is not religion, it is an evolutionary counterfeit, but sounds authentic if you dig deepdown into what you accept as evolutionary history, but I can show you that that evolutionary history of Homo Sapiens is bogus.
However I say these things respectfully because I recognize a genuine concern for truth.
With best wishes, Father Clifford Stevens
Father Stevens,
I outlined the current scientific explanation in my post here at 22:37 today. To my knowledge, all the biologists in the world accept that the available evidence supports the principals of this account.
If you reject it, I would very much like to understand what you find unacceptable about it and would be grateful if you would do so by addressing its premises and conclusion.
Father Stevens,
You also write "I don't intend to go ourside of science in this debate - and the answer is simply outside the domain of science."
This sounds as though you are not prepared to nail your true colours to the mast Father Stevens.
Why this surprising coyness?
Apparently our means of communication has been cut off, so I can't really answer your questions. My Comments seem to get to you, but your Comments do not come back, even though both are listed on the Recent Comments column on this website. I'm sorry we can't continue our conversations and our debate.
Father Clifford Stevens
John Jacob Lyons,
Look like I would take no longer to tackle your question. I suppose to be less than a month or slightly more. Be ready to answer all my questions!
Fron the first words of your last post, you seem to be asking if I intend to discuss only science in my Comments why do I memtion St. Thomas Aquinas. I only make reference to his Anthropology, to his writings on science, not to his theology.
I have the imppression and again I don't mean to offend, but you seem to hold that emprical science is the only pathway to truth, or do I judge you wrong? I can't really get your answer because your posts do not come through to me and I can read part of your first sentence in the Recent Comments column, but it does seem that you are getting mine.
Perhaps I have been excommunicated because of my intense disagreements with you and your colleagues and express myself quite forcefully. If so, we have come to the end of our conversation. If I ever get to London I will look you up, and I do come there very rarely to visit the tombs of St. Cuthbert and St. Bede in Durham Cathedral and to visit Holy Island where Cuthbert spent some time. I do have deep religious roots in the U.K. and lots of historical memories.
Next time I will have to visit John Henry Newman's place in Birmingham and the Cavendish Laboratories where so many scientific wonders were wrought.
Father Clifford Stevens
John Jacob Lyons,
The website address http://en.wikipedia.org/...line_of_human_evolution shows the evolution of homo sapiens that has its derivation from Eukaryota since 2,100,000,000 years ago from cells with a nucleus.
Refer to the website address http://www.sciencedaily.com/...02/100211111549.htm pertaining to the invention of time machine which accuracy could be up to the maximum of 50,000 years. There are a few queries to be raised about the accuracy of this time machine:
a)As the time machine has been invented and improved currently, have the scientists tested the time machine on how accuracy that the time machine would be? There might be a possibility that there would be some minor variation in the accuracy in the short time and yet and yet the gap of variation in accuracy through measurement of time through time machine might well be broadened and a number of years later. As the time machine should have been tested, let’s say, within the length of time 100 years, would the gap of variation be increased immensely if the measurement would be extended beyond a million years? Has any biologist tested and ensure that the time machine has been tested with accuracy even they could check that the variation beyond 1000 years would be accurate? However, nobody would live more than 1,000 years in this world so as to see what the result they have got 1,000 years would be accurate. There is a query about the accuracy of time machine.
b)Refer to the time machine in the website, it is mentioned that the accuracy of time machine would be extended up to 50,000 years. There would be a question about the accuracy of time measurement of Eukaryota that would live 2,100,000,000 years ago. Would the time machine be so accurate that could determine the life of Eukaryota to be meant for 2,100,000,000 years? It might be that the fossil that Eukaryota would have been discovered, might live shorter time than 2,100,000,000 years ago.
Let’s assume that time machine could be accurate and let’s proceed with the next discussion of evolution:
Please reply!
To be continued with more queries.
Dr Lyons -
Well, something quite remarkable happened. I pressed the little red spot over the Recent Comments box on the website and lo! another page came up with all our Comments. So if I cannot find your Comments in the usual way, on the blog, I'll find them in this way.
What did you mean by coy? I discuss science with scientists, not theology, or any of the other specialties and interests that I have. I happen to like kite flying and composing Gregorian Chants for English texts on an Irish Harp, and keep in touch with the maple syrup industry in my state of Vermont. I discuss music with musicians and chess with chess players and Native American lore with experts like our John Neihardt who wrote "Black Elk Speaks", but is now gone. I cam handle Hebrew, Greek and Latin in small doses, but I am not fluent in them and I am fond of an obscure French musician named Satie, because of his playful way of composing.
I am somewhat of an authority on the pueblo Indians of New Mexico where I spent some time and I am a bit of an authority on Antoninus of Florence who is one of the first economist of the Western world who recognized that money had more than an exchange value.
I have studied and written much about Francisco de Vitoria, the Father of Constitutinal Law and one of my heroes is Barolome de Las Casas, the great protector of the Indians of "New Spain", who died fighting for the restoration of the Inca kings.
I mention these because I have a lot of interests but do not impose them on others unless I see a matter of truth and justice involved. In my debate with truth, it is a matter of both, but I see no reason to discuss theology unless you request and you should know that I am the only Astro-theologian in existence. I say that with tongue-in-cheek because it is not really a science, but only a commentary on God and Science, Technology and Theology.
I would certainly like to know more about yourself.
Father Clifford Stevens
I know some may find this very hard to believe, but human knowledge has advanced considerably since the 13th century. Who would have guessed that anything has changed since the last Crusades and Mongol invasions?! Judging by this comment thread, it seems that some got stuck there.
John Jacob Lyos, Pending for your reply on the accuracy of time machine since this would determine the accuracy of timeline of homo sapiens.
I would proceed my reply soon presume that time machine could be accurate.
Your query about the origin of homo sapiens will be attempted soon.
Good morning Father Stevens,
" --------- I discuss science with scientists, not theology -----"
Yes, I have gathered that this is so. The problem with this demarcation is that sometimes one has to make intelligent guesses in order to get a complete picture of your position. And making such guesses in philosophical/ scientific debate is very unsatisfactory and, in this instance, it seems completely pointless. Anyway, I will seek your agreement for any assumptions that this unnecessary demarcation forces me to make.
I gather that your view on evolutionary theory is that you accept it with a clear reservation with regard to Homo sapiens (HS). That much you have stated. However, it becomes necessary to read between the lines to get at your personal views about the origin of HS in particular.
My working assumption at present is that your position may be described as "HS Creationist". That is, I am assuming that you accept the biblical account of the creation of humanity. Am I correct?
John
" No science, and least of all theology, may restrict itself to its own shell."
A relevant quote from your own book!!
And Biology is a science.
John
There are only three theories that are available in this world for the formation of human beings and there are creationism, evolutionism and theistic evolutionism. Other than these theories, there would not be any theory that supports otherwise on how human beings were formed.
Despite there would be evidence for evolution, yet questionable reliability of the evolution tree, fossils and etc., have caused evolution theory to be in doubts. As the evolution theory would seem not to be reliable, the only source that would seek for, should be no other than creationism. This is due to there has been no other theory that could support how human beings could evolve from. That is why it is rational for anyone could support creationism due to evolution theory is questionable.
Other than Christianity, Holy Quran does provide the proof of human beings were formed through dust.
Let’s assume that the timeline of homo sapiens as laid out in the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/...line_of_human_evolution is accurate despite the accuracy of time machine would be up to 50,000 years.
The website, http://dienekes.blogspot.com/...igin-of-homo.html, gives us the information that there were only a few fossils of the same type of animal that have been dug out by archeologists to be the evidence of the origin of homo sapiens. Indeed, there should be numerous fossils of the similar type of animal that could be found everywhere especially the place where this fossil has been dug out on the condition that the animal that was found in the fossil, did exist once in the past. It is irrational to assume that the animal in the fossil was the only one that could exist in the past and it turns up that this to be the only fossil in this world. Or in other words, if the animal that was in the fossil did exist in the past, there should be more than a thousand or even millions of similar kind of animal fossils to be dug out especially at the place where the fossil was dug out. As there were only a few similar type of animal fossils could be dug out, a query would be raised that where the rest of this similar kind of animals’ fossils could be? The most likeliness would be that many of the animals’ bones might turn up to be dust currently and vanished. If the bones would not be turned up to be dust ultimately, where would all the animals’ bones be?
Let’s use the example as extracted from the website address http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm as an illustration. The middle of the picture reflects the skull that has been dug out by archeologists and has thought to be the oldest human race that was located from Ethiopia. Why was it that there were only a few skulls to be dug out at Ethiopia? Does it mean that there were only three oldest human beings to stay at that region? Certainly! The population of the oldest human beings should not be limited to that few instead, it should be many more. Their bones might turn up to be dust currently and could not be located.
From the above illustration, it could come to the conclusion that the absence of skulls does not imply that no human being or no other creature would stay during that period of ancient time since there would be a possibility that their skulls and ribs would have turned up to be dust and be vanished into the ground (except some would have preserved in shape due to their surrounding conditions) so that archeologists could not be able to locate them despite they might once alive during that period then.
As many human skulls would have turned up to be dust and vanished into ground, would there be a possibility that there would be a certain type of creatures that are presumed to live under a certain taxonomic rank, (such as animals from vertebrates, that lived 505,000,000 years ago), and yet would have lived in a period that would be preceded by other category (, such as, under taxonomic rank of kingdom, and that should be 590,000,000 years ago)? As all the bones would have been turned up to be dust and be vanished into ground, no fossil would have been dug out despite they might well live right before the indicated taxonomic rank that it should have existed. If that could be so, the arrangement of animals under different taxonomic ranks could be questionable since many other animals might have survived other than the scope that they have been classified by biologists under a specific class of taxonomic ranks, let’s say, vertebrate, and yet they might once alive in a class of taxonomic rank that could be preceded by this rank, such as, kingdom, and yet their skulls and bones would have been vanished into the ground. As a result, it could not provide the proof that they did survive during that period. If that could be so, the timeline of homo sapiens for each specific class of taxonomic ranks might be classified with more than a type of animal and the whole timeline would be affected accordingly. No doubts this is a little subjective. However, there could be a possibility there.
The following discussion is based on the condition that all the dates in the Timeline of all living things are correct, ignoring the accuracy of time machine might be up to 50,000 years, and that the living things could be classified correctly, ignoring the possibility of the Timeline might not be accurate due to many animals’ skulls and bones might have been vanished in the ground and that might cause the Timeline to be re-structured.
Refer to the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/...ine_of_human_evolution, under the sub-title of Timeline. There are a few queries to be raised pertaining to the evolution theory:
a)The timeline of all the living things in this website does not mention what external factors that had been contributed to the evolution from time to time.
As mentioned in Newton’s principle in the website, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/...ry/newton3laws.html, that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remains in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Or in other words, everything should remain the same as it is unless external factor that influences it and to cause it to change. When this theory is applied to evolution, it gives the implication that there should be the external force that would cause the living thing to be evolved from time to time.
However, there is a deficiency in the timeline in the sense that it fails to explain whether there would be any external factors that would influence the living things to evolve from time to time. For instance, it fails to explain the reason why the first living thing would evolve to chordates. What would be the external factors that would have contributed to the evolution? If no external factors would cause the living things to evolve, why should there be any evolution then?
Thus, the evolution theory is questionable from the scientific point of view.
The website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human, under the sub-title, Timeline, mentioned that the sexual reproduction evolves that leads to faster evolution in 1200 Ma. There are a few queries raised pertaining to this description:
a)As the evolution of living things as mentioned in 1200 Ma could speed up, it certainly contradicts Darwin and his contemporaries’ view that evolution as a slow and gradual process as mentioned in the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/...roduction_to_evolution, under the sub-title of ‘Rate of Change’.
b)What would be the external factor that caused the rapid increase in evolution?
The above shows the inconsistency between the timeline of evolution and Charles Darwin’s theory. The reliability of evolution theory is in question.
The website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human, under the sub-title, Timeline, mentioned that the sexual reproduction evolves that leads to faster evolution in 1200 Ma. There are a few queries raised pertaining to this description:
a)As the evolution of living things as mentioned in 1200 Ma could speed up, it certainly contradicts Darwin and his contemporaries’ view that evolution as a slow and gradual process as mentioned in the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/...roduction_to_evolution, under the sub-title of ‘Rate of Change’.
b)What would be the external factor that caused the rapid increase in evolution?
The above shows the inconsistency between the timeline of evolution and Charles Darwin’s theory. The reliability of evolution theory is in question.
Prior to the analysis of timeline, let’s assume that the dates that are indicated in the timeline are correct despite the current time machine could have its accuracy up to 50,000 years. Besides, let’s assume also that the arrangement of the living things in timeline is in sequential order despite the possibility of the absence of animals’ bones and skulls that might have vanished into dust, would affect directly the arrangement of the order in timeline.
The website, http://en.wikipedia.org/...ine_of_human_evolution, under the sub-title of ‘Timeline’. From the timeline table, it is obvious that it would take 30 Ma (and that is 580 Ma minus 530 Ma) in order for cnidarians to be evolved to flatworms. It would take 10 Ma (that is 550 Ma minus 540 Ma) for flatworms to be evolved to acorn worms. It would take 10 Ma (that is 540 Ma minus 530 Ma) for acorn worms to be evolved to Pikaia, Lancelet as well as concodonts. It would take another 25 Ma (that is 530 Ma – 535 Ma) for this to be evolved into agnatha. The data above shows that the evolution of living things seems to be very slow and it took very long time for low living things to be evolved into less complexity of animals. Yet within 25 Ma (that was between 505 Ma and 480 Ma), the agnatha could evolve into a prehistoric and sophisticated fish, i.e. a placoderm, which head and thorax were covered by articulated armoured plates. As the evolution was quite a sudden with just 25 Ma that an agnatha could evolve into a more sophisticated animal, i.e. a placoderm, the evolution would seem to be rapid. The same that it happened to hylonomus that looks similar to modern lizards. Yet within 44 Ma, the hylonomus could evolve into a much bigger size and more complexity of animal, i.e. phthinosuchus. Despite there were rapid evolution of these living things, nothing is mentioned what would have caused the contribution of rapid evolution. Besides, it certainly contradicts Charles Darwin’s theory that mentions that evolution should be a slow and gradual process. The rapid evolution of these living things has brought out to the doubts of the reliability of the evolution theory.
The word, evolution, is being defined in the Webster Dictionary as a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex or better state. However, the timeline shows that the repenomamus (that lived in 220 Ma) had gone backward and turned up to be in smaller size and less complexity of an animal namely, eomaia scansoria (that lived in 160 Ma). Or in other words, repenomamus did not evolve into higher and more complexity of animals instead, it had turned up to be a lower and less complexity of animal and that was eomaia scansoria. As evolution does not seem to be able to apply to this creature, it gives doubts about the reliability of evolution theory. What external factor would have caused the theory of evolution not be workable upon this creature? Why was it to be so? The negative evolution of this animal gives query to the acceptability of evolution theory and the reliability of timeline since this animal had turned up to move backward instead of evolving.
Refer to the timeline again, it is mentioned that the bipedal australopithecines (a genus of the Hominina subtribe) evolved into savannas of Africa in 3 Ma. It mentions that the loss of hair took place in the period 3-2 Ma on the process of the evolution of human beings. However, it fails to explain why there should be hair loss occur in these animals. Has the hair loss contributed to the privilege of evolution or has it been moving backward? What external factor that would have caused this living thing to have lost loss? If losing hair would not be any advantages to this animals, there would be a doubt in the reliability of evolution since nothing has been contributed to hair evolution.
The above irregularities have placed the reliability of timeline and the evolution theory to be in question.
As the reliability of evolution theory is in question, it is rational for anyone to uphold the theory of creationism since evolution theory is itself questionable.
Could the origin of the intelligence and reasoning power of homo sapiens be evolved from past? This question is rather subjective. There are many factors that contribute to intelligence and it does not have any link with evolution or creation: The size of the brain could not be used as a source to determine how much a person could be. A person whose head could be comparatively smaller than those with bigger heads and yet he might be able to obtain master degree in university. Those who would spend time on doing research about the size of the heads among the graduates, would discover that there are some university graduates whose heads are smaller than the rest and yet they could excel in their study. Thus, it is irrational to use the size of the head of human being to determine how smart a person could be. The same principle should be applied to animals that it is irrational to use the size of the heads between animals and to comment that this animal is more intelligent than the other. A person that could be born to be mentally retarded even in a wise man house, would not have his intelligence to be evolved to better stage due to his inability to absorb the knowledge from public or to be educated in school. If a person that is born in this world and to be isolated in this house without any exposure to the public and is unfortunate not to be given with education, his intelligence would not be better than those people who are educated and like to socialize. If a person is lazy to study and refuses to upgrade his knowledge from time to time, his intelligence would be lower than those people would are eagerly to pick up new thing and like to expose to new knowledge.The stubbornness of a person that refused to accept advanced technologies and whatever new concepts that would have established, might well have a direct influence upon the intelligence of human beings and it has nothing to do with evolution but the person himself. Even if a person has given a chance to socialize and yet he has not been granted an opportunity to proceed to school to upgrade his knowledge, his intelligence would be lower than those that have been to schools for education in upgrading their knowledge. Should we mention that human intelligence could be evolved? Certainly! Human intelligence is merely depends upon how the person would react upon new knowledge whether to accept or to reject. From the above explanations, it would come to the conclusion that intelligence sometimes has nothing to do with the size of a brain or even the evolution of knowledge, it sometimes depends upon how a person would respond the new knowledge whether he is willing to pick up or to reject.
The following explanations are based upon the assumption that evolution did occur in the past and from then, to determine whether the support of evolution could be justifiable:
Refer to the website address, http://www.newscientist.com/...er-complexity.html, pertaining to evolution myths. The following are the extracts:
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your weblog? My blog is in the very same niche as yours and my users would truly benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thanks a lot!
Please feel free to cite any article you like with giving credit and linking back. Thanks for your interest!
A lot of of the things you assert happens to be astonishingly precise and that makes me ponder why I hadn't looked at this in this light before. This particular piece really did switch the light on for me as far as this specific topic goes. But there is one particular issue I am not necessarily too comfortable with and while I attempt to reconcile that with the main idea of your position, permit me see just what all the rest of your subscribers have to say.Nicely done.