layi:

So we'll become extinct like the dinosaurs and other beigns will take over?

Well we humans are pretty intelligent we'll be a tough cookie to be eradicated . But it can happen. Where I am getting at however is that the Universe is independent of our own fate. That we humans might perish because we can't adapt to new condition like sun running out of gas does not means the Universe per se will stop existing.

Can we get back to the debate?

layi, do you have other material that you think falsifies the Theory of evolution? Do you have any counter-refutations to my arguments?
If not, maybe you can explain the Theory of Creationism you adhere to, so that we can investigate it's merits and see whether or not it fits the evidence better.

well after reading everything i got more confused wat exactly does evolution mean?

U are obviously the one using a strawman approach here. You call it a MYTH. I call it Creationism. Why don't you start a thread on your case against the supposed myth and we battle it there. This thread is on the errors in the evolution theory. Thank You

....Ther are historical proofs of the so called stories u call myth.

creationism as i know it is a myth. "creation myth" as it is called.  And there are actually different versions depending on the geographical areas and time periods. Some building on each other.
you say there are "historical proofs". I would like to know these prooves if you don't mind and don't give me a "this is a case against evolution" thread story.

I'm waiting for the historical proofs you've got on how the world was created in six calendar days. Maybe when you bring those prooves (they have to be reliable too) I can take back my position on creationism being a myth.

Also i think you should also take a look at this book The Epic of Gilgamesh http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014044100X/103-6468954-1296611?v=glance&n=283155 (the copy i own is a David Ferry rendition because it's less complicated since i was 13 when i acquired it)
This book certainly outdates the book of Genesis but share lots of similarities on the Flood (Noah's ark) the question now is: Is Genesis a sort of copy of the Gilgamesh epic. i.e, did Genesis copy Gilgamesh? There's lots of evidence to support that it did.
the story is certainly a myth (you'll see if you read it that it certainly wasn't real. The story in itself is sort of primitive and very simplistic. the Genesis version is more complicated and makes more sense as it is newer.

After you've fully answered Nferyn's questions of course.

layi:

Also go through this link http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html by astrologers
You'll learn about the projected life of the sun and how it'll end.

I gotta be careful how i post now. I might use just links and lil texts from now on

Indeed, you do have to be careful, as that information is probably made up by astronomers, not astrologers

damygurl:

well after reading everything i got more confused what exactly does evolution mean?

I can understand that you get confused. Creationists like to make the concepts as blurry as possible so that they can attack their strawman of evolution more easily.

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that in the past there were countless life forms that are no longer here. It is a fact that these lifeforms differed depending on the time they lived on our planet.
The theory of evolution offfers a scientific explanation for that fact. It explains that all current life forms originated from a common ancestor and diverged and evolved over time. The processes that caused these changes are:
[list]
[li]natural selection[/li]
[li]sexual selection[/li]
[li]gene drift[/li]
[/list]
All these processes work from the natural genetic variations witin the populations that stem from sexual recombination, mutations and DNA copying errors.
If you want a very good introduction to the Theory of evolution, go and visit http://web.archive.org/web/20011201194909/www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.html
after you have gone through this and you still want to know more, you can visit http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Based on my previous posts, it is clear i am in support of creation and young-earth creation in fact however i have this idea to pass on to the atheists on this site. It is called Pascal's wager

"If God does not exist, it is not detrimental to your progress to believe in him but if he does exist, it would be dangerous not to."

kodewrita, if you want to discuss Pascal's Wager, please post a new subject in Religion. I'd be happy to join the discussion and debate with you, but please do not mess up this thread.
If you want to present a case for young earth creationism, do not hesitate to create a new topic as well.

"If God does not exist, it is not detrimental to your progress to believe in him but if he does exist, it would be dangerous not to."

So Kodewrita your belief in god is for speculatory gain heh? For your reward just in case he exist? That really is an insight, knowing that Nigerians preach one thing and do another. They don't really believe they merely adhere just to be on the safe side. SMH.

Btw nice post nferyn. Few Nigerians are really aware of the origin of the religion they so adamantly hold on to. And I wish they would make CRITICAL THINKING a compulsory subject from primary school up.

demmy:

So Kodewrita your belief in god is for speculatory gain heh? For your reward just in case he exist? That really is an insight, knowing that Nigerians preach one thing and do another. They don't really believe they merely adhere just to be on the safe side. SMH.

This is once more evidence that one of the main drivers of religion if fear, far more than love.
But let's leave our discussion on religion at that ,we can open a new thread if wanted.

I have created a new thread (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6404.msg198915.html#msg198915) to present positive evidence for creationism. This way we can keep the threads as tidy as possible

It seems to me that when a thread is posted, people, instead of taking critical looks at the issues posed, tend to make fun out of it by turning the debate away from what is was meant to be to other mundane matters. Maybe this might be for lack any knowledge of the subject matter, in which case it would have been better to simply stay away from the thread or in the very least, read intelligent opinions posted by others.

As regards evolution, Layi, this is a very nice thread you started, but surely you dont believe half of the things you wrote, do you? Let us tackle the issue of evolution as a "Thoery" as you stated. If Evolution is a theory in the sense you use it, would it not follow logically that the concept of "god" is also a "theory"?

There are several pieces of evidence in support of evolution. There is the theory of Homologies. Now let us look into that and see if it makes sense. Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. They can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

An example of homology is the forelimb of tetrapods (vertebrates with legs). Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

Understanding the history of life on Earth requires a grasp of the depth of time and breadth of space. We must keep in mind that the time involved is vast compared to a human lifetime and the space necessary for this to occur includes all the water and land surfaces of the world. Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the movie that is the history of life on Earth.

Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. Looking at interactions of organisms in ecosystems helps us to understand how populations adapt over time. Experiments demonstrate selection and adaptive advantage. And we can see nested hierarchies in taxonomies based on common descent.

Individual organisms contain, within their bodies, abundant evidence of their histories. The existence of these features is best explained by evolution.

Several animals, including pigs, cattle, deer, and dogs have reduced, nonfunctional digits, referred to as dewclaws. The foot of the pig has lost digit 1 completely, digits 2 and 5 have been greatly reduced, and only digits 3 and 4 support the body. Evolution best explains such vestigial features. They are the remnants of ancestors with a larger number of functional digits.

People (and apes) have chests that are broader than they are deep, with the shoulder blades flat in back. This is because we, like apes, are descended from an ancestor who was able to suspend itself using the upper limbs. On the other hand, monkeys and other quadrupeds have a different form of locomotion. Quadrupeds have narrow, deep chests with shoulder blades on the sides. Hoatzin chicks have claws on their wings, as do some chickens and ostriches. This reflects the fact that bird ancestors had clawed hands.

Organisms that are closely related to one another share many anatomical similarities. Sometimes the similarities are conspicuous, as between crocodiles and alligators, but in other cases considerable study is needed for a full appreciation of relationships.

Whales and hummingbirds have tetrapod skeletons inherited from a common ancestor. Their bodies have been modified and parts have been lost through natural selection, resulting in adaptation to their respective lifestyles over millions of years. On the surface, these animals look very different, but the relationship between them is easy to demonstrate. Except for those bones that have been lost over time, nearly every bone in each corresponds to an equivalent bone in the other.

Studying the embryological development of living things provides clues to the evolution of present-day organisms. During some stages of development, organisms exhibit ancestral features in whole or incomplete form.

Some species of living snakes have hind limb-buds as early embryos but rapidly lose the buds and develop into legless adults. The study of developmental stages of snakes, combined with fossil evidence of snakes with hind limbs, supports the hypothesis that snakes evolved from a limbed ancestor.

Layi, I do not know if this has answered any misgivings you have about evolution. If it has not, please visit http://www.evolutionhappens.net/. I am very sure you will find pertinent information relating to evolution.

Nice post you have there Elbaron

Nferyn and Elbaron have actually changed some of the misinformation i got (if actually your version is the correct explanation of the evolution theory). I'll do more studies. There is absolutely nothing wrong with freethinking. Any religion against that is obviously false.

I appreciate your posts. I have so many questions but from your write up, it seems the evolution theory i studied was a bit on the extreme.

Do I take it that evolution theory does not explain the origin of human life in particular and life in general but just the evolutionary processes that took place amongst various life forms from time immemorial?

Great thread
sorry to go off topic
I've just been reading oladeoye's post regarding Plagiarism and just to clarify a few things as it seems people take it personal when it is pointed out.

oladeoye:
There is no plagiarism in Layi's first post. Like he said He couldnt find better words to replace such statements. If he had added links,it wont change a thing. It would still have been HIS CASE.

It should have been pointed out, it doesn't diminish the arguments if Layi acknowledges the site he got it from. It just proves he did a bit of research.

oladeoye:
Its irrelevant bringing in such accusation at this point. Its just too trivial an issue.

Its not a trivial issue, in Academic circles Plagiarism is a serious offence and should not be encouraged. I did point this out on another thread i was contributing to here on NL but had to leave the debate when someone felt i was making a personal attack.

oladeoye:
Some else's thought automatically becomes yours if u agree with it.

even if you agree with it you have to give credit and acknowledge the author/site

wiki has more on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

layi, I salute you from the bottom of my heart. Don't hesitate to ask any more questions. If i do not know the answer (which is not unlikely), I can make sure that I get the information from the relevant sources.

Layi, that, is the spirit of a good debater. keep it up

layi:

Do I take it that evolution theory does not explain the origin of human life in particular and life in general but just the evolutionary processes that took place amongst various life forms from time immemorial?

Evolution Theory does not explain the origin the common ancestor we share with all living species on earth, but it does explain how we evolved from there on, even though not all the pieces of the puzzle are know (if we will ever know them).
Evolutionary theory explains the underlying processes that caused all lifeforms to evolve from a common ancestor. The theory will very likely be further expanded and refined as new evidence pops up.

A very interesting subject is the new scientific field of Evo-devo or evolutionary developmental biology, which explains the development of lifeforms from a fertilised egg to a full grown adult. We are finally starting to unlock the DNA codebook that underlies the formation of life forms from fertilisation onward.
As a medical doctor, this subject will very likely be of interest to you.

have a look at:
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/lectures/
especially lectures 3 and 4

@elbaron and nferyn
I sure will. I'm choked up wit time at the moment (school n stuff)who knows i might still win

But first; All life forms from a common ancestor and who/what is that ancestor? I'll still do my research anyway but a 'simplifed version' from you wont do harm.

@ijebuman
Thanks for going offtopic to deal with an issue that has obviously been dealt with. Your post isnt appreciated this time egbon.

layi:

@elbaron and nferyn
I sure will. I'm choked up wit time at the moment (school n stuff)who knows i might still win

Is that your purpose? Does your belief need a refutation of scientific knowledge to stand on it's own?

@nferyn
U saw the icon. That was meant for a comic relief.

layi:

@nferyn
U saw the icon. That was meant for a comic relief.

My bad, sorry

layi:

@ijebuman
Thanks for going offtopic to deal with an issue that has obviously been dealt with. Your post isnt appreciated this time egbon.

No problem Layi i'm glad not to have helped

Layi, I think Abiogenesis maybe the answer you are looking for. But to understand it, you first have to understand the meaning of "life".  Life is defined as the specific position and movement of the quantifiable energy (Quantum State) which permits that some quasi-stable thermodynamism systems be structured and to establish autonomously a series of periodic intervals that delay the dispersion of diffusion of their internal energy to more available microstates.

From this definition, we can safely conclude that the quantum energy promotes a temporary delay in the increase of the thermodynamic systems’ local entropy through a set of physicochemical processes that confer autonomy to the whole system as a result of a specific position and momentum of that quantum energy. Quantum energy means any amount of energy that exists in discrete packages or “quanta”.

Before I continue to describe the scientific concept of life, let me call your attention to the words of Dr. Frank L. Lambert with respect to the real meaning of entropy,  “Entropy is not disorder, not a measure of chaos, not a driving force. Energy's diffusion or dispersal to more microstates is the driving force in chemistry. Entropy is the measure or index of that dispersal. In thermodynamics, the entropy of a substance increases when it is warmed because more thermal energy has been dispersed within it from the warmer surroundings. In contrast, when ideal gases or liquids are allowed to expand or to mix in a larger volume, the entropy increase is due to a greater dispersion of their original unchanged thermal energy.” “From a molecular viewpoint all such entropy increases involve the dispersal of energy over a greater number, or a more readily accessible set, of microstates. Frequently misleading, order-disorder as a description of entropy change is also an anachronism. It should be replaced by describing entropy change as energy dispersal--from a molecular viewpoint, by changes in molecular motions and occupancy of microstates.” (Citation: Lambert, Frank L. J. Chem. Education, 2002, 79-187). What Dr. Lambert describes here is the real concept of Entropy established by the modern Physics and accepted by modern Physicists.

Life was an energetic possibility in the whole universe since the end of the inflationary period, some milliseconds after the big bang. The terrestrial living beings arose billions of years after the big bang (about 9,000 million years later). The elements were synthesized at the solar nebula thanks to the radiation emitted by the nuclear thermo-reactions of the young sun. Water and other short organic and inorganic molecules formed in the solar nebula, just when a fluctuation of the density of energy of the solar system allowed the elements to bond forming more-complex compounds.

Frozen dust at the protoplanetary nebula allowing the synthesis of organic compounds, for example, carbohydrates, ammonia, quinones, amino acids, lipids, glyceraldehydes, and globulins, into the grains of dust containing also icy water. Diverse chemical reactions that produced biomolecules could occur inside ice crystals embedded into fractals thanks to irradiation and uv photolysis. Perry a. Gerakines, marla h. Moore and reggie l. Hudson from the physics department of the university of Alabama, at Birmingham, Alabama, have experimentally confirmed the formation of organic molecules from frozen mixtures (at 20 -100 k) due to irradiation (0.8 mev protons) and uv photolysis (6-10 ev). This experiment supports the theory about the high probability of inorganic synthesis of complex biomolecules at the protoplanetary clouds, which contained frozen crystals of diverse materials, like water, methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methyl, acetylene, sulfur dioxide, phosphate groups, etc.

Uv light, heat and gravitational, electromagnetic and electrodynamic forces caused the synthesis of complex carbohydrates, proteins, globulins, organic bases, phosphate groups, and lipids. The last can form simple bilayered membranes. Lipids and phosphate groups jointed as phospholipids and formed amphiphilic membranes that integrated as microscopic globules inside water drops trapped into grains of dust (fractals forming the planetary nebulas). This synthesis occurred into the planetary clouds; for example, the disk-like cloud in orbit around earth.

Jamie e. Elsila, j. Seb gillette, richard n. Zare, max p. Bernstein, jason p. Dworkin, scott a. Sandford and louis j allamandola from the department of chemistry of stanford university, at stanford, ca have demonstrated experimentally that the frozen grains of dust at 10-20 k can be photo-processed by uv light to form more complex biomolecules. This observable fact is known as uv-photochemistry of biomolecules and supports my theory.

Thanks to uv light emitted by the sun and the heat generated by multiple collisions between particles of the planetary cloud, after the planetary nebula cooled as much as necessary, more microspheres were synthesized, being limited spontaneously by membranes of lipoproteins. The microspheres contained a larger diversity of organic compounds and continued retained into the particles of dust (fractals) already orbiting as planetary atmospheres.

The grains of dust (fractals) acted as protective “eggshells” for the biomolecules against ionizing solar radiation and uv photolysis (remember that the dimension of the icy particles at planetary clouds fluctuates from a few centimeters to one meter in diameter). Therefore, chemical mutations permitted the synthesis of molecules still more complex of carbohydrates, proteins and lipids, which built highly stable and lasting membranes that wrapped the microspheres. However, those membranes were ephemeral by the intensity of the cosmic radiation that could destroy them; however, many microspheres enclosed by membranous vesicles subsisted under that hostile environment because they were held into solid grains of dust and water ice.

Due to their very low resistance against cosmic radiation, nucleotides only had resisted if they had been synthesized behind protective screens at temperatures lesser than 70° c; thus, it would not be possible the synthesis of dna at that moment. However, rna nucleotides would be able to keep stable at temperatures lower than 70° c.

Ultraviolet radiation, heat and inorganic chemical reactions promoted the synthesis of catalytic proteins. Later, these catalytic proteins directed the synthesis of short molecules of rna, then the synthesis of larger rna molecules that already could contain the encoded information for the synthesis of more catalytic proteins identical to the initial catalytic proteins in their molecular arrangement. The flexibility of this theory permits us to assume that the ribozymes were not central for the synthesis of catalytic biomolecules, which could replicate themselves in a similar way as prions replicate themselves.

The gravity force and the electrodynamic force coerced the small dust grains to form lumps (fractals), containing microspheres enclosed by membranes made of phospholipids, at the planetary orbits. They formed a very dense cloud of lumps of dust, water vapor, ammonia, methane, quinones, acetylene, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfurs and other gases; however, the orbital angular moment of those particles and the intense heat irradiated by the planetary crusts prevented the grains of dust to fall down onto the planets’ surfaces.

Orbiting in planetary atmospheres, the microspheres agglutinated inside the grains of dust and liquid water to form the prebiotic structures called protobionts, which at that moment were not yet living forms, but limited by membranes of peptoglycan vesicles, into which happened few metabolic processes.

The subsequent chemical evolution directed the fusion of protobionts. One protobiont engulfed to other protobionts. The integration of molecules of proteins, nucleotides, carbohydrates, lipids, and other chemical substances to the protobionts’ plasma involved the formation of complex structures. Despite the fact that most protobionts did not persist for large periods, many assemblies of protobionts can maintained stable structures near the next and very important planetary event.

Fortuitously, only the protobionts that had formed in the protective planetary clouds (water vapor and dust clouds) persisted. Protobionts were the ancestors of archeobionts.

At this time, only those protobionts that possessed the adequate molecular arrangement experienced the energy state of life, thanks to a phase transition in the terrestrial nebula caused by a fluctuation in the density of energy in the solar system. As a result, the first living archeobiont appeared on earth. Archeobionts were the ancestors of all living beings that exist on our planet and, perhaps, on other world of our solar system.

Many thermodynamic and electrodynamic incidents occurred all through the integration of our solar system. The fluctuations in the energy density and a series of drastic phase transitions in the solar system as a whole were the most important episode. For the early period of nucleosynthesis, the intermittent emissions of particles -derived from nuclear fusions- generated fluctuations in the energy density of the system, besides the development of energy holes. We think that the molecules of the protobionts were excited at one of those spontaneous oscillations, so their internal energy acquired the indispensable positions and momentum that block for short periods its diffusion or dispersion toward more possible microstates.

When the crusts of the planets got colder and pluvial precipitations took place, the drops of water dragged the fractals enclosing archeobionts onto the surfaces of the planets. For this to occur, the orbital angular moment of the dust and gases cloud had to have diminished to a speed lower than the speed of the rotational movement of the primitive earth. This lessening of the orbital angular momentum of the grains of dust was possible thanks to earth’s gravity and the collisions of the lumps of dust between.

Once placed in planetary soils, bionts remained stable by means of staying behind protective screens, for example, the dense clouds of water vapor, icy water and dust of the planetary atmospheres. Billions of bionts were destroyed by the aggressive conditions of the planetary environment; however, when the planets got colder enough and the sun got more stable, bionts could remain as integral structures more easily. The difference consisted on having or not each factor essential to confer them more resistance against the hostile environment, and to prevail under the pressure of the fundamental natural selection caused by the environments of all the primitive planets. I should clear up that in agreement with this theory, only was needed a viable biont to generate all the living beings that have existed and exist on our planet.

Protected by a sky full up with dust, water vapor, hot volcanic ashes and diverse vapors, submerged in deposits of water at no more than 36° c, the bionts can reproduce themselves generating more living molecular systems. Apparently, the earth was the unique planet in our solar system with all the favorable conditions for bionts survival. The emission of particles from the sun propitiated the biotic energy field, or life (the term “biotic” refers to any thing related to life, the term “abiotic” to any inert thing, while the term “biont”, whether used like substantive or as a suffix, refers to any living being).

Here is what is deemed to have occured during the solar fluctuations of energy.
1. The arrangement of simple molecules in molecular more complex structures (microspheres) in the solar nebula.
2. The adhesion of complex molecular structures (microspheres) in the planetary nebulas forming microspheres enclosed by membranes.
3. The fusion of multiple and diverse microspheres enclosed by membranes forming protobionts or coacervates.
4. The induction of those conglomerates toward an energy state that induced those conglomerates to produce no-spontaneously intervals in the dispersion or  diffusion of their internal energy.

These four energy processes converged in earth. However, we cannot exclude other planets of our solar system like probable hosts of living beings. The divergences that could have occurred at other planets of our solar system correspond to times, places and events that continued after the energy fluctuation that generated the autonomy of some molecular arrangements. Perhaps, the first primitive living organism did not need organic or inorganic sources of chemical energy. Perhaps the first biont can capture energy and simple chemical substances directly from the environment to elaborate the necessary structures for its subsistence.

The first living thermodynamic system could have been a myxotrophic (able to take energy both from radiation emitted by the sun and from chemical substances) and hyperthermophyllic (resistant to extreme high temperatures) organism. However, the contemporary hyperthermophylles are not equivalent to those primitive bionts. The current hyperthermophylles (which tolerate more than 70° c) evolved from a later group called archaea, which evolved from chemosmotic primitive bionts.

Recently, some scientists have found bacteria from the group archaea that survive to very low temperatures, under antarctic glacial. All these recent discoveries will turn out an unyielding competition between adherents of the smoldering origin and the fans of the frosty origin to find out which one of them had the reason, if the followers of the scorching origin of living beings or the followers of the frosty origin of living beings. However, the theory is clear at this issue: the first living organisms synthesized spontaneously in the warm (not too cold, not too hot) environments formed by the clouds of dust and water. Let us say, into gentle surroundings, which temperatures should not reach up to 36° c.

Has this helped? I don't know. Should you require further research material, let me know and I could send you some by FEDEX or DHL. I apologise for the very long post

elbaron,

this is extremely interesting. You can send it to me if layi doesn't want it

*

virozuru:

Very interesting comments on this topic.

I do not believe in the theory of evolution. First there was nothing, then a big explosion, and everything is formed. Let's say you have a jigsaw puzzle jumbled up inside a box. You cannot shake this box with all your might, open up the box, and expect a nice and neat jigsaw puzzle. I feel the same with the theory of evolution.

virozuru, I think you really need to educate yourself on what the Theory of Evolution entails before you make statements like that. I suggest you visit
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ and http://web.archive.org/web/20011201194909/www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.html
If you still have questions or doubts about the Theory of Evolution after going through these sources, I'd be happy to answer your questions or direct you to somebody more knowledgeable than me.

virozuru:

@elbaron: I read the same article that you posted here from a site on google. It is very important that you note the source of this information, instead of plagarizing; it could land you in jail. It's also good to do so for different references people may want to look into on the topic of evolution.

Ouch... apparently elbaron is guilty of the same thing layi did.
elbaron, can you explain?

Ooops. Seems its human afterall. lol

*

layi, I suppose you're not going to make a positive case for Creationism? Would be interesting though, as there seem to be as many flavors of creationism as there are Christian denominations and then more

@ virozuru
Please read the thread, as I've been the one debating layi. Elbaron just chimed in later today.
By the way, the Big Bang Theory has absolute nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

*

@nferyn
Is there a thread on that already? Obviously can't be debated here. I'm happy you are not too busy to debate. I obviously am (school) but i'll create time (even if i have to sleep late). Lets do some intellectual wrestle. I'm enjoying every bit of it.
I'll also want to know if www.talkorigin.org is authentic enough to speak for evolutionists.
Would be back