[Closed] Evolution - I`m not buying it.

warfarin resistance in mouse and rat species is also great for showing how mutation in the VKORC1 gene is expressed as a resistance to warfarin and similar products, which is then rapidly spread into the population by interbreeding of those survivors that have the mutation conferring that Resistance down the generations.

I read something a while ago that for the first time babies are now mostly born with thumbs stronger than their index fingers. This is evolution in motion and as a result of previous generations using thumbs more with texting, playing video games etc.

Cougar - Moderator

God allowed sin to enter the world.

That was pretty sloppy of him. Why did he do that, then?

Omnipotence

I read something a while ago that for the first time babies are now mostly born with thumbs stronger than their index fingers. This is evolution in motion and as a result of previous generations using thumbs more with texting, playing video games etc.

How could this possibly be true if there was no reproductive advantage from increased txting and game playing ability?

Sounds like nonsense to me...

I think what the OP is getting at is an amazement at how many different species there are in the world today, not an issue with evolution per se

This^

Im not religious in the slightest. I dont doubt that evolution happens. Im just not sure it could of happened to the extent it has in the timescale available.

I read something a while ago that for the first time babies are now mostly born with thumbs stronger than their index fingers. This is evolution in motion and as a result of previous generations using thumbs more with texting, playing video games etc.

hahahha, thats a joke right?

I read something a while ago that for the first time babies are now mostly born with thumbs stronger than their index fingers. This is evolution in motion and as a result of previous generations using thumbs more with texting, playing video games etc.

doubtful, as a strong thumb is derived from use not genetic inheritance, unless there is "strong thumb gene" that is now more desirable in choosing a mate, so that over time the smartphone users only choose to mate with other smart phone users with a pronounced strong thumb and then as a by product of that selection you would get a selective breeding effect. Much like breeding dogs with shorter muzzles for appearance

I dont doubt that evolution happens. Im just not sure it could of happened to the extent it has in the timescale available.

[Looks around]

Got any better ideas?

Well perhaps it's time to accept it has. Is there another competing theory that explains something happening in the time scales?

Omnipotence

He allowed sin because he's omnipotent? Surely if he was omnipotent he'd have stopped it. Seems a pretty mean thing to do intentionally.

[Looks around]

Got any better ideas?

Well perhaps it's time to accept it has. Is there another competing theory that explains something happening in the time scales?

No I dont. But why should buy into a theory just because a better one doesnt exist?

eazyd74 - Member
Evolution is just a theory. Not yet a proven fact, no matter what Richard Dawkins would have you believe. To my knowledge there is no evidence of macro evolution, only tiny interspecies changes. And someone mentioned the moths changing colour. I read somewhere that these moths were not in the habit of sitting, camouflaged on the tree trunks. They were stuck onto the tree in the photo in an attempt to strengthen the theory. Many science books still contain evidence of evolution that has since been proven to have been falsified. Our planet has not been around long enough for the diversity of life to just 'evolve' in that time.

So how did it happen then?

Im just not sure it could of happened to the extent it has in the timescale available.

why? you can express genetic variation in Drosphilla in a few weeks based on a reproduction cycle of 8-14 days so in less than year you can demonstrate allopatic speciation in a laboratory

Because you haven't actually provided any evidence of why it's not a good fit, all we have is your gut feel. What's your background? How long goes have you studied the field? Where is your evidence?

Evolution is just a theory. Not yet a proven fact

No, it isn't "just a theory." Evolution is a [i]scientific[/i] theory. This has a specific meaning beyond the common usage where you might have a theory that the moon is made of jam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[i]A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. [/i]

Well perhaps it's time to accept it has. Is there another competing theory that explains something happening in the time scales?

At least you're aware it's a theory. And yes, there are other theories available that require a similar level of faith to evolution, the obvious one being creation, but you know that already..

Hard to tell who's joking. But it's true that evolution through natural selection is just a theory, albeit one with a shed load of evidence in support (tho its mechanism may be a little more complex than pure natural selection, whatever).

What surprises me is that despite superficial differences how similar multicellular life is. How similar our skeletons are to other mammals, let alone physiological mechanisms, cells under a microscope, or at a genetic and biochemical level. Life is all pretty closely related.

Cougar - Moderator

God allowed sin to enter the world.

That was pretty sloppy of him. Why did he do that, then?

That was pretty sloppy of him. Why did he do that, then?

Cougar - Moderator

He allowed sin because he's omnipotent? Surely if he was omnipotent he'd have stopped it. Seems a pretty mean thing to do intentionally.

As mortals we are unable to define the true will of God. Yet he desires that you come to him freely, so therefore you must have knowledge to make those choices.

At least you're aware it's a theory. And yes, there are other theories available that require a similar level of faith to evolution, the obvious one being creation, but you know that already..

os he thought it would be a good idea?

yeh but if god created man, and had good idea, then that would mean that having a dangly man sack made out of recycled elbow skin is best design out there? Why not just make bollocks and sperm less temperature sensitive and stick them some where safe (like in a little bollock cage just under the ribs) rather than leaving them swinging in the breeze and oh so easy to sit on when jumping on and off a cx bike?

As mortals we are unable to define the true will of God. Yet he desires that you come to him freely

How can us mere mortals possibly comprehend what god desires?

you must have knowledge to make those choices.

Why is sin a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge?

Because you haven't actually provided any evidence of why it's not a good fit, all we have is your gut feel. What's your background? How long goes have you studied the field? Where is your evidence?

Assuming this is directed at me.

You are correct. I am not aiming to disprove the theory, i am asking someone to explain to me how its possible. Not just by saying a bacteria can change in a lab in a few weeks. I mean show me how its possible for life to go from single cell, to complex organism (mammals) in the timescale avaliable. I just someone to help me wrap my head around it.

there are other theories available that require a similar level of faith to evolution

The scientific method doesn't require faith at all, that's kind of it's raison d'etre. We formulate conclusions based on available knowledge and evidence.

Evolution is currently the best explanation we've come up with, but if we found new evidence to disprove it or suggest an alternative explanation then we'd review our conclusions.

In short, it couldn't be farther from creationism as a theory, where you come up with an idea and then manipulate all the evidence to fit.

What Cougar said above, creationism isnt a theory it's make believe. When you have to factor in planting false evidence to make it work its got no scientific basis to it.

Come again? 😆

Creationism is most definitely a theory.. [url= https://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.php ]Lazy link[/url]

Look; OP wants TL:DR on Entire scientific field of evolutionary biology. Is that too much to ask?

@Cougar, thanks for posting the difference between Scientific Theory and common usage of theory. The 'it's just a theory' (non)argument PROPERLY boils my piss...

Creationism is most definitely a [s]theory[/s] crack pot idea with no evidence to back it up whatsoever..

FTFY. Actually read Cougar's post ffs.

The problem the OP has is that the assumptions underlying his maths is rubbish. Not only are mammalian generations much shorter than he assumes ( a generation is the time it takes to reach sexual maturity) but even more significantly the genetic variation occurs within each individual not within each generation. So his figure of 2 million variations needs to be multiplied by every mammal which has ever lived. That is quite a big number of potential genetic variations.

The idea that evolution is about progress toward something "better" as a process of "improvement" is a common misconception, probably based on the idea that a complex brain that can reason is superior in some way to, let's say, the ability to fly from having wings.

It isn't. It's just a different thing that's evolved as a random gene selection in response to environmental conditions.

Indeed, a complex brain doesn't in itself even convey the ability to reason, as in the OP's contributions this far, starting with the original posit...

Creationism is most definitely a theory crack pot idea with no evidence to back it up whatsoever..

just like to add "intelligent Design theory" what an absolute sack of festering bottom discharge, for the educationally bereft.

Cougar - Moderator

How can us mere mortals possibly comprehend what god desires?

Read your bible, go to church, repent and accept Christ as your savior. Start today.

Why is sin a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge?

It isn't. But in relation to understanding what God wants you to do, so that you can be in a relationship with him it is relevant.

Which ever view you have, you've got to be pissed if you happen to be a woodpecker 😆

so how did it happen then?

I don't know. Only theory that makes sense to me so far is Intelligent Design. The complexity of life is just so... well, complex that I think there has to be an intelligence behind it. The code within our DNA for example. I just can't accept that it exists by pure chance.

so, because you don't understand something, that means it can't be true?

(best thread in ages, btw so much dead pan trolling 🙂 )

anyway, "the complexity of life" - who said it's all that complex?

we all know the made-up stat that humans share 90% of their dna with a banana, it's bollocks, obviously, but there's some truth in it. That's because the chemistry required to grow a banana, is roughly the same as the chemistry require to grow a human, or a chestnut tree, or chewk. once the basic chemstry was sorted out, 4 billion years ago, all it took was time...

well we share about 90% of our genome with mice, which is why they have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently used in genetic research to test gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes.

or

Mice are merely the protrusion into our dimension of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings who, unbeknownst to the human race, are the most intelligent species on the planet Earth. They spent a lot of their time in laboratories running complex experiments on humans. They paid Magrathea for the planet (Earth) and will now collaborate to create a new one due to the interruption of Vogons.

Still waiting for someone to show me how its possible.

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member
If evolution is about the improvement of the species and it's gradual improvement, how come after millions of years of it we ended up with chewkw?

In my opinion both evolution and creation can be unfair to some people when it comes to thought process.

You are trying to demonstrate thought process aren't you BBSB? 😆

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/edexcel_pre_2011/environment/evolutionrev1.shtml ]GCSE basics of evolution, nice and simple explanation of the evidential basis of the scientific theory of evolution [/url]

Still waiting for someone to show me how its possible.

Honest question - how do you want it explaining, and exactly what do you want in terms of 'how it's possible'?
Plenty of decent answers already and plenty of people on here who know the subject inside-out, some professionally.

Slow day huh...

eazyd74 - Member
so how did it happen then?
I don't know. Only theory that makes sense to me so far is Intelligent Design. The complexity of life is just so... well, complex that I think there has to be an intelligence behind it. The code within our DNA for example. I just can't accept that it exists by pure chance.

You're taking a big chance on something intelligent existing.

Still waiting for someone to show me how its possible.

The code within our DNA for example. I just can't accept that it exists by pure chance.

Think of it this way: it [i]didn't[/i] happen on billions of other planets and at billions of other points in time.

It may be incredibly unlikely that we exist - but if we [i]didn't[/i] exist then who would be asking that question?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Still waiting for someone to show me how its possible.

Someone, please, just have sex with a monkey and put an end to this silly debate.

jonnyboi - Member
Read your bible, go to church, repent and accept Christ as your savior. Start today.

Why is sin a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge?
It isn't. But in relation to understanding what God wants you to do, so that you can be in a relationship with him it is relevant

You aren't showing much respect to your god with your random capitalisation. I'd be very angry with you if I was god. (Any god, not one in particular. The god of biscuits would do this afternoon.)

Still waiting for someone to show me how its possible.

still waiting for you to review the basic answers already given...

Of course instead of asking for everything to be handed to you on a plate you could go and do some reading and research on the subject* to better equip yourself for such a discussion.

I really don't mean that in a derogatory way, but instead of just repeatedly asking someone else to give you all the answers (in a single forum post?) to what is a very complex and large topic you could attempt to further your own understanding. If you read about the subject, do some research and evaluate the evidence put forward and still disagree with particular points then you'll at least be equipped to discuss them in detail and refute individual elements.

Addressing your basic question though, you've said you don't think there's enough time, while throwing around numbers in the millions and billions, I get the feeling you don't have a full grasp of how big those numbers are, and how they interact with other numbers that big, but essentially

a big number (of time) * a big number (of creatures) = a VERY big number (of creatures, and thus variations)

couple that to being able to see changes within a small population over just a few generations can you not see how things can change relatively quickly? (in geological terms, but slowly in human terms)

*hint - it might take longer than this afternoon to get a full grasp.

FWIW you can argue the toss about why/when/how life originally started and why/when/how our planet came to be the(a?) lucky one and if it was chance or not, but evolution of the species on this planet is pretty well supported by the available evidence.

Survivorship bias is a good argument against all the 'wow isn't it amazing how this thing is designed' hooha. All the crap / poorly functioning things that evolved aren't here any more.

Some nice stuff here on how cicadas evolved a prime number based life cycle - without even knowing about prime numbers!!!111

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-cicadas-love-affair-with-prime-numbers

The code within our DNA for example. I just can't accept that it exists by pure chance

It doesn't, it's a complex mix of genes to express protein coding, stability, the ability to switch proteins on and off and an element of "scrap"

To appreciate the origin and extent of "scap" DNA in our cells, you need to understand how it evolved. One of the most critical events in evolution i.e. the duplication of genes, or the exons – give the cells and organisms a chance to test new function without endangering their viability or fitness. As duplicated genes, exons or non-coding DNA diverge through errors in replication or DNA repair over many years, the functions of either new or ancestral copies may change. The cell may select sequences underlying new, similar or even opposite functions, leaving either copy in the genomic scrapyard. This does not mean, however, that the discarded DNA segments are no longer useful to the cell.

Genomes are extremely dynamic entities: new functional elements continuously appear and old ones may become extinct. This can be illustrated by repetitive elements named “Alus” that are found in primate genomes, that have accumulated a total of over one million copies and occupy about 11% of human DNA. Alus are often transcribed as RNA and are an important source of new coding parts, gene regulatory elements and protein diversity, especially in highly organised tissues such as the brain. They had a key role in human development and most likely contribute to our distinction from other primates

"Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is another good example."

They never have creationists on the serious news programs when discussing Antibiotic resistance, although the same programs will happily dig up all sorts of loons when covering climate change.

IdleJon - Member

You aren't showing much respect to your god with your random capitalisation. I'd be very angry with you if I was god. (Any god, not one in particular. The god of biscuits would do this afternoon.)

My capitalisation is entirely appropriate and correct. Stop trolling

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/christ?s=t

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/god?s=t

Someone, please, just have sex with [s]a[/s] this monkey and put an end to this silly debate.

Oi, that's a chat up line I've used many times!!

km79 - Member
I read something a while ago that for the first time babies are now mostly born with thumbs stronger than their index fingers. This is evolution in motion and as a result of previous generations using thumbs more with texting, playing video games etc.

That's the wrong way round. If people with stronger thumbs gained an advantage somehow by playing video games then the 'strong thumb' gene may be spread through the population. (Because the best child bearers would chase the big thumbed nerds, I'd guess?) Thumbs would get bigger and bigger. Perhaps compare it to bird of paradise tail feathers? (Explained really really poorly!)

You were the candidate that first sprang to mind as it happens.

Only theory that makes sense to me so far is Intelligent Design. The complexity of life is just so... well, complex that I think there has to be an intelligence behind it.

That is a pretty silly argument. You don't understand how complexity can arise from simplicity, but you choose an answer that raises far more insoluble questions.

Life isn't very intelligently designed anyway. From men having balls on the outside, to the world being stuffed with things trying to kill other things, to Pandas only eating bamboo to human beings having the capacity to think, be self aware, to love and cherish everything that will simply be torn away from them eventually. If that was all specifically designed by someone.. well..

You were the candidate that first sprang to mind as it happens.

*waves big banana at TSY* ook xx

My capitalisation is entirely appropriate and correct. Stop trolling

But in relation to understanding what God wants you to do, so that you can be in a relationship with him it is relevant.

Read your bible, go to church, repent and accept Christ as your savior. Start today.

You've already said we're "unable to define the true will of god" yet are now asserting that doing this will tell us what he wants. These things are mutually exclusive, which is it?

Why is sin a prerequisite to acquiring knowledge?

It isn't.

Then how is it relevant?

I asked why god allowed sin, you said "omnipotence" (which explains nothing, incidentally) and when I queried that you said it was because we needed knowledge.

[img] [/img]

"trailwagger - Member
OK, first of all this is not a trolling post.

Secondly i understand the theory of evolution (at a basic gcse level)

So let me put some maths to my post.

In terms of mammals, the earliest mammal dates to 200M years ago.

If the average lifespan of a mammal is 10 years then there are

20m generations.

If a genetic mutation/variation occurs every fifth generation thats

4m genetic variations.

Only a certain percentage of those variations would be successful or advantageous, lets say 50%

2m variations.

Is that really enough to allow such a vast array of mammals to exist?"

Every individual who was born in each generation will be genetically different to its parents and to its siblings (unless twins). Your estimated frequency of genetic variation occuring once every 5th generation is woefully underestimating things by orders of magnitude.

Only theory that makes sense to me so far is Intelligent Design. The complexity of life is just so... well, complex that I think there has to be an intelligence behind it.

That is a pretty silly argument. You don't understand how complexity can arise from simplicity, but you choose an answer that raises far more insoluble questions.

Quite! When faced with something which you don't understand, it doesn't mean the answer is 'magic'.

There are many things I don't currently understand, some of them I could understand if I put enough effort into learning/investigating/testing how they worked, others will probably remain a mystery to me. But just because I don't understand it doesn't mean they are inexplicable, or that other people don't understand, nor does it mean that I can put forward an untestable alternative as the explanation and expect it to receive any credibility.

In fact I'd go so far as to say if I do not understand* the explanation put forward by others then I really shouldn't be the one claiming to have the answers...

* for clarity 'do not understand' is different to 'understand but can find fault with the the explanation'

To my knowledge there is no evidence of macro evolution, only tiny interspecies changes.

There's much less evidence of intelligent design.

To my knowledge there is no evidence of macro evolution, only tiny interspecies changes.

Despite all those bones lying around that start looking more and more like human beings physiologically, the more modern they get.

Still waiting for someone to show me how its possible

okay

the moment you have something that can make copies of itself with minor variation (let's call it a replicator) in an environment that varies, you will get more of those replicators whose variations suit them to particular aspects of that environment. Over time different types of replicator will emerge.

My capitalisation is entirely appropriate and correct. Stop trolling

Why, does it annoy you if I write god and/or christ? I think that my non-capitalisation is entirely appropriate and correct too.

You may 'believe' in a god, but there is no evidence to prove its existence. So your belief is not founded on anything substantial.

I don't 'believe' in evolution, but there is a lot of evidence that supports it. So my acceptance of it is based on a whole branch of science with research by many scientists, fossil evidence, etc.

tiny interspecies changes.

Was this meant to read "intraspecies changes"?

Whatever. Pedant points count, and I'm not going to beat the suggestion that reading "the Origin of Species" might help with this one.

I think this thread is pretty good argument for a 21st century program of eugenics - time to design the stupidity out of humans with genetic engineering.

OP :

still waiting for someone to show me how it's possible?

Well, why not show yr hand? (if not trolling)? So tell us how 'it's not possible' according to you, then people can tailor their responses to your existing level of understanding/education. I assume that you wouldn't have the time or inclination to invest a few hrs or more typing out a lengthy comprehensive answer to me if I (for example) asked 'someone convince me of the 'tennis-racket theorum' ? I mean it's just unlikely? Totally spins me out so why can't someone just spend 5 hours educating me?' - when I don't even first exhibit the care or time to specify/detail exactly what about the theorum doesn't make sense to me? See? 😕

time to design the stupidity out of humans with genetic engineering.

oh god, dont get started with the nature/nurture argument as "stupidity/education/reasoned thought process" is very much in that domain.

to be fair though, some of the ramblings and "lalalalala cant hear you" discussions of the creationsit/IDT folks are equivalent to a bonobo finger painting with its own shite

Why didn't everything just evolve into a super-creature that is just 'the best'?

Why haven't we as "intelligent designers", invented a super-bike that is 'the best' for doing cross-country, trials, commuting, leisure cycling, touring the world, towing kids, equally capable of winning the Tour de France and the World Cup Downhill?

Same reason. Niches.

Specialising in a niche is far more successful than trying to be 'the best' at absolutely everything.

That's also why you don't see many sumo wrestlers winning the 100 meters at the Olympics.

Tazzy

Now, geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health thinks he has the first proof that some part of religious behavior is innate. He spells out his ideas in The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes, a book that was featured on the cover of Time magazine and turned quite a few heads in bookstores.

Hamer claims to have confirmed what James suspected: Although the forms and practices of religion are memetic, a tendency toward religious faith is in our genes.

https://magazine.nd.edu/news/the-genetics-of-belief/

I think I know what I am going to tell my scientists to do when I set up a Technocratic world order. 😛

also niches are temporary, the world we live in is constantly changing, eg climate is dynamic

which is why evolution never ends or reaches a perfect organism

That's also why you don't see many sumo wrestlers winning the 100 meters at the Olympics.

Thank you Graham! I've been wondering about the under-represention of sumo wrestlers in sprint events for YEARS, I thought it was some kind of institutionalised discrimination problem...

[b]To my knowledge[/b] there is no evidence of macro evolution, only tiny interspecies changes.

What evidence is 'missing'? In your knowledge? Like a frogfish? Mudskipper thingummy? Alligatorfish? Unicornape? Worm becoming horse during lunch?

Tom_W1987

its obviously a recessive gene, hence the reason why more evolved folks dont have the need for mystic sky pixies, spiritualism or a particularly friendly oak tree 😀

I sincerely miss Hitchens Tazzy, everything in this thread has already been put to bed by him in a far funnier, more eloquent and amusing way than Dawkins.

I'll leave my favourite here

Well, why not show yr hand? (if not trolling)? So tell us how 'it's not possible' according to you, then people can tailor their responses to your existing level of understanding/education. I assume that you wouldn't have the time or inclination to invest a few hrs or more typing out a lengthy comprehensive answer to me if I (for example) asked 'someone convince me of the 'tennis-racket theorum' ? I mean it's just unlikely? Totally spins me out so why can't someone just spend 5 hours educating me?' - when I don't even first exhibit the care or time to specify/detail exactly what about the theorum doesn't make sense to me? See?

Look, Im at work. I have nothing to do and im bored. I thought i would start a little disscussion on the internet with people ive never met to pass the time. I picked a subject that interests me, but in all honesty i have little oe no time to learn/research/investigate on my own.
I`m not asking for a 5 hour lecture or "free" knowledge without paying tuition fees.
Show me numbers? There must be a probability equation for it... how many times can a species x reproduce and mutate in a given timeframe sort of thing.

I get it at a basic life (single cell etc) level, but once things get more complicated it all seems to slow down to a crawl. Posters are saying about how a single celled organism can change in a lab in a matter of weeks, but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years.

going back to this...

If the average lifespan of a mammal is 10 years then there are

20m generations.

If a genetic mutation/variation occurs every fifth generation thats

4m genetic variations.

Only a certain percentage of those variations would be successful or advantageous, lets say 50%

2m variations.

Is that really enough to allow such a vast array of mammals to exist?

average mammal generation time of all know 5000+ mammals is 4.3 years, BUT for the majority of life on earth mammals have mostly been much smaller eg mnouse sized so pronbably half that at most likely https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1343

also mutation rate is much higher eg humans 64 mutations per generation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

so you are actually looking at 128 billion mutations, not 4m million, though actual beneficial fraction of that much smaller, but as our genomes are 3billion bases long.....

either way the observed mammalian mutation rate compares very favourably with the genetic differences we see between species and when we estimate them to have diverged over time, by fossil record
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/2/803.full

but humans have change very little in thousands if not millions of years.

Except that they've actually changed quite a lot in that time period. and a million years is a VERY LONG TIME, but simultaneously that time period is a VERY SHORT TIME in geological terms.

You need to 'think bigger'.

EDIT - humans are terrible at perceiving time, [url= https://waitbutwhy.com/2013/08/putting-time-in-perspective.html ]have a look here[/url] for an amusing and accessible take on things.