[_ Old Earth _] The Amazing Discovery of DNA

[jasoncran]

asynchtitus please pm me.

 

[abrown9]

I think you said the majority of the community thinks in a certain way.

I wasn't accusing you of saying that - I was addressing the original post. I certainly said that as well, but my statement was not a flat out lie.

I want to make it clear that 'the majority of the scientific community' has been wrong, will be wrong again, and is certainly wrong on this matter now.

No argument on the first part, and we'll wait and see on the second part. The beauty of science is that it is constantly self correcting. If a major theory is to be overturned, it will come from within the scientific community and not from religious rhetoric.

The majority of the scientific community consists of people who have no knowledge of biology whatsoever, but are brow-beaten by the 'majority of the scientific community' which you mention!!!

Well I guess I wasted my time getting a degree in Biology, since I don't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

So to use 'the majority of the scientific community' as support for a useless theory is a. mistaken b. misleading and c. asserting that there is support where in fact that support is merely crowd-following to the drum beat of the media and the pressures of excommunication from the said 'scientific community'.

The "majority of the community supporting" is not the support that holds up the TOE. The support is in the evidence. The majority support is merely a byproduct a robust theory.

It is astonishing that such a brilliant mind did not have the perspicacity to see that his and Watson's discovery of the structure of DNA was the finish of any theory of the chance production of any such molecule.

Astonishing.

When I first discovered how the molecule was made up, I was left gasping at the ingenuity displayed, and the impossibility that it could have been other than the product of some incredible genius of a mind. Watson and Crick got nobels for their discovery. What should evolution receive for inventing such a thing, do you think?

Well evolution can't receive anything, since it didn't "invent" anything and also isn't an entity, but I don't think that was your point. In fact, I don't really know what your point is. If anything, millions upon millions of years of constant tinkering and test runs with millions of generations of species using DNA to hold all of their information would probably produce a lot more "perfect" result than one really smart dude's first draft.

If Dobzhansky said any such thing, then he was a bigger fool than I thought. He was a geneticist, and should have known better, as indeed, you should.

Rest assured, Dobzhansky and I take your words to heart.

How else do you think the theory of evolution has gained such a foothold?

Through rigorous scientific testing?

I made no such assertion, and you are deeply mistaken if you think that I said so. Please re-read my post with a bit more attention.

Again, that was directed towards the OP. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

I am amazed that the theory is even mentioned in respectable scientific circles.

Anyone with any real acquaintance with palaeontology and facing the improbability of mutations + natural selection producing the zillions of species in the Cambrian with the lack of time available to do so must certainly know the truth of what you said - that Biology has moved a LONG LONG WAY from Darwinism.

Anyone with half a brain would understand that a major theory proposed in the mid 19th century would not remain static. I've discussed a bit with Jason about the Cambrian explosion, but if you have any specific questions I'll do my best to answer them. "Improbability of mutations" is a ridiculous concept because its assuming that evolution is directed towards the current result, and that life could only have progressed if that very unlikely result happened. In reality, there are millions upon millions of other "unlikely results" that could have happened as well. It is what it is.

Yet,not very long ago, the Darwin Centennial celebrations were held, treating the man like some sort of pop star of the biological world.

Why was this?

Because the man proposed a groundbreaking hypothesis that has since turned into an established scientific theory?

I have pointed out, and will continue to point out, the utter impossibility of INSTINCT having evolved. It is truly the death of the theory of evolution, and it is up to you and other of its supporters, to gainsay the facts that I adduce.

I wish you well in your endeavours to do so.

Instinct = innate behaviour. At least some of instinctual behaviour is controlled genetically (environment also has effects... epigenetics are the new thing). Mutations that produce innate behaviour that causes in increase in fitness of individuals possessing that gene will be selected. If you are talking about so-called altruistic innate behaviour, we can talk about ideas on group selection or kin-selection.

 

[Green Man]

Good afternoon[smile]!
Abrown9, what kind of Biology do you have a degree in, if I may ask? I have always had an interest in the Natural Sciences.

 

[abrown9]

Good afternoon[smile]!
Abrown9, what kind of Biology do you have a degree in, if I may ask? I have always had an interest in the Natural Sciences.

The title of the degree was just "biology" but all of my work was in the microbiology, and specifically environmental microbiology area.

 

[Green Man]

That's cool...
My main interest has always been Zoology, leaning towards Herpetology. I am poor, and could never get the schooling for any of those great classes, but I have all of the best books on the subjects that stores like Barnes and Nobles are able to supply and I'm always out in the field catching creepy-crawlies, so I tend to know a little more about these subjects that most common people do,...and I have grown to be contented with that. I look forward to reading more of your posts in the future, Abrown9[smile].

 

[abrown9]

One doesn't have to go to University to learn (just to get certification saying they have learned...)

There are plenty of free lectures online. Here is a good site with a lot of free content: Web Hosting Services, Reseller Hosting, VPS Hosting, and Dedicated Servers by HostGator .openculture.com/freeonlinecourses (just get rid of the space). Ctl. F biology and Bob's your uncle.

 

[Asyncritus]

The majority of the scientific community consists of people who have no knowledge of biology whatsoever, but are brow-beaten by the 'majority of the scientific community' which you mention!!!

Well I guess I wasted my time getting a degree in Biology, since I don't even have a rudimentary understanding of it.

Please don't take this personally. If you have a degree in Biology, then you don't come in to the above description.

I am referring to chemists, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians etc etc who make up the 'scientific community.' Your phrase 'the majority of the scientific community' includes these people - and they certainly don't matter in this discussion, since their opinions are necessarily based on hearsay.

There is the odd exception, of course - Fred Hoyle springs to mind.

It is the biological community that matters most and I repeat that I am astonished that evolution is still regarded as a respectable theory since it fails to offer any reasonable explanation of any major phenomena, and flies in the face of the vast volume of scientific fact that has been uncovered since Darwin.

To take one case that falls into your area of expertise - the cyanobacteria or blue-green algae as they used to be called.

They have been found in the pre-Cambrian no less.

Now unless they were created, they could not exist. Why? Because they perform the two most important biological functions of the planet next to respiration: namely nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis.

Both of these processes require astounding knowledge of biochemistry to decipher - an considerably more to invent the processes in the first place.

Whatever happened, bacteria WITHOUT these abilities COULD NOT plausibly invent them. After all Haber and Bosch only produced their nitrogen fixing process in the 1940s, I think, and they received Nobels for their invention.

Which bacterium could have invented a process for fixing nitrogen at ambient temperatures? Haber and Bosch couldn't, and didn't.

That's a pretty pickle you're in, I would say.

The "majority of the community supporting" is not the support that holds up the TOE. The support is in the evidence. The majority support is merely a byproduct a robust theory.

I'm sorry, AB. If the explanatory power of a theory is near zero, flies in the face of all the mathematical facts of statistics, the fossil records, the genetic information we now have, and is totally incapable of explaining the origin of a single instinct, then I submit that the description 'ROBUST' is a serious misnomer.

Anyone with half a brain would understand that a major theory proposed in the mid 19th century would not remain static. I've discussed a bit with Jason about the Cambrian explosion, but if you have any specific questions I'll do my best to answer them.

You probably have some figures for the number of species rising up to phyla in the Cambrian.

I also assume you have some figures for the number of species rising up to phyla in the pre-Cambrian.

I'd like you to produce some accounting for

1 The use of the word 'explosion' by the people who matter - the palaeontologists

2 The origin of the vast numbers in the Cambrian, given the lack of them in the pre-Cambrian.

That should occupy for a while, I think.

"Improbability of mutations" is a ridiculous concept because its assuming that evolution is directed towards the current result, and that life could only have progressed if that very unlikely result happened. In reality, there are millions upon millions of other "unlikely results" that could have happened as well. It is what it is.

No, the assumption is that the current state of affairs has been produced by natural selection acting upon the products of mutations. You cannot deny that such is the case.

My point is that the facts of genetics show that mutations are almost invariably either neutral or destructive. I can give you the quotations if you wish, but being a microbiologist, you probably know that already.

Lenski went to a lot of trouble to show that hundreds of thousands of generations failed to produce a new species of anything. Given that rate of new species production, how long would it have taken for the Cambrian life-forms to evolve even if they could have been given a kick start of some kind?

You must admit that the palaeontology shows a remarkable upward trend, however, which is entirely consistent with the Biblical record of creation.



Because the man proposed a groundbreaking hypothesis that has since turned into an established scientific theory?

Instinct = innate behaviour. At least some of instinctual behaviour is controlled genetically (environment also has effects... epigenetics are the new thing). Mutations that produce innate behaviour that causes in increase in fitness of individuals possessing that gene will be selected. If you are talking about so-called altruistic innate behaviour, we can talk about ideas on group selection or kin-selection.

No, I'm talking about:

1 How any given instinct arose and

2 How it entered the genomes (if that is where they are located).

 

[abrown9]

I'm going to address your points one at a time to avoid sitting down for hours researching my post.

So, nitrogen fixation.

Nitrogen that is available for use (aka. fixed nitrogen) is required for all life. Prior to the radiation of diazotrophs (organisms that fix nitrogen), all life relied on nitrogen that was fixed through abiotic means. Lightning discharge is the most common source of nitrogen that is fixed through abiotic means.

In early precambrian life, abiotic fixed nitrogen was limited factor in the expansion of life and may have been dwindling in supply. (Navarro-Gonzalez, R., C. P. McKay, and D. N. Mvondo. 2001. A possible nitrogen crisis for Archaean life due to reduced nitrogen fixation by lightning. Nature 412:61-64).

At this point in history, it seems that any organism capable of fixing its own nitrogen would be at a huge advantage over other life forms.

Enter Nitrogenase, a complex protein comprised of two subunits that contain three unique proteins that are the product of three genes, nifD, nifK, nifH. These genes are found in every organism that fixes nitrogen. In addition, most organisms have nifE and nifN genes in the same operon that controls nifDKH. nifE and N are very similar to nifD and K, and are considered to be a result of a duplication event. These genes are very conserved throughout all diazotrophs.

Any organism in that pre-existing environment that acquired enough mutations to co-opt a protein (likely a redox-active protein) into a somewhat functional nitrogenase would be much fitter than other bacteria dependent on nitrogen fixed through abiotic means.

If you look at a phylogeny based on 16S RNA, its fairly easy to see how diazotrophs are related as they almost all cluster in one grouping. Additionally, its easy to see where the mutation first arose (very early..likely before the 3-domain split).

So, you have: 1) pre-existing conditions that would favour nitrogen fixers, 2) a common operon amongst all nitrogen fixing bacteria that is highly conserved, and 3) clustering of diazotrophs in a phylogeny based on 16S RNA (entirely independent of nif sequences) which indicates relatedness of all diazotrophs, and thus a common ancestor.

Info taken from:

The Natural History of Nitrogen Fixation
Jason Raymond * , Janet L. Siefert † , Christopher R. Staples * and Robert E. Blankenship *

ps. The fact that humans couldn't think up a process that bacteria can do is completely irrelevant. Original diazotrophs didn't sit around and say "man, we should just invent some way to fix nitrogen". One bacteria likely randomly developed a nitrogenase-like enzyme that snowballed into full blown fixation due to the massive selective advantage that the ability to fix nitrogen bestowed.

 

[Green Man]

Good morning, and thank you for the information you provided to me within post #66, Abrown9[smile].
In all honesty I will probably never take advantage of it, but I just wanted to express my gratitude for your offer of help nonetheless.

Asyncritus, where do you get your understanding of Biology/science, and scientists? AnswersInGenesis.com? The Institute for Creation Research's websites? Creation.org?
Your own personal opinions?
Just curious.

 

[jasoncran]

no, its being taught today that evolution is a slow gradual process. i have another bio student tell me just that.lol.

what and scientist somehow dont have pet theories, ahem global warming.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm going to address your points one at a time to avoid sitting down for hours researching my post.

So, nitrogen fixation.

Nitrogen that is available for use (aka. fixed nitrogen) is required for all life. Prior to the radiation of diazotrophs (organisms that fix nitrogen), all life relied on nitrogen that was fixed through abiotic means. Lightning discharge is the most common source of nitrogen that is fixed through abiotic means.

You are begging the questions ferociously.

'all life depended' assumes the existence of life.

That is a very seriously moot point, because abiogenesis has not been demonstrated, nor is it likely to be.

In early precambrian life, abiotic fixed nitrogen was limited factor in the expansion of life and may have been dwindling in supply. (Navarro-Gonzalez, R., C. P. McKay, and D. N. Mvondo. 2001. A possible nitrogen crisis for Archaean life due to reduced nitrogen fixation by lightning. Nature 412:61-64).

Correct.

At this point in history, it seems that any organism capable of fixing its own nitrogen would be at a huge advantage over other life forms.

Correct.

Enter Nitrogenase, a complex protein comprised of two subunits that contain three unique proteins that are the product of three genes, nifD, nifK, nifH. These genes are found in every organism that fixes nitrogen.

Question begging extraordinaire. 'Enter nitrogenase' indeed!

Pray tell us where it was lurking?

How did it arise?

You know very well that it is a protein - and extraordinary protein at that.

So we have the spectacle:

Org A (cannot fix nitrogen) -------aaa-----> Cyanobacteria (can fix nitrogen).

What happened at aaa?

Why did it happen? (You've answered in part above, but have failed to address the point that an organism with no brain, no intellect whatsoever, can recognise the fact that if it could fix nitrogen, that would be an amazing amount of help to existence.

So it sez, Why, I need some nitrogenase. Hmm, let's see, where can I get some from?)

Enter AB (that's you). Where does it get some from?

As I pointed out, Haber et al invented their process, involving the use of high temperatures (400 -700 deg C), high pressures (many times atmospheric), catalysts in the form of finely divided iron, platinum and who knows what, in complex reaction chambers requiring very strong walls, sources of heat and so forth. You probably know what I mean.

Now the cyanobacteria 'produced' nitrogenase - which does the job safely, at ambient temperatures, and at enormous benefit to the environment.

But we have a problem Houston - in fact, lots of problems.

Proteins require DNA, mRNA, tRNA and a host of organelles within the cell for their production. But remember, there aren't any - as yet.

Now take DNA. The nucleotides are complex chemicals, ALL REQUIRING FIXED NITROGEN in their synthesis.

But there isn't any to be had in the pre-Cambrian.

The nitrogen fixed by lightning discharges is in inorganic form - and cannot be used directly by living organisms. Nitrates and nitrites and ammonia are utilisable only by plants and a few other organisms, which ALREADY POSSESS the enzymes (proteins again) needed.

Which require fixed nitrogen in their manufacture.

So you're back to square one with a vengeance.

No cyanobacteria means no fixed, organic nitrogen.

No fixed organic nitrogen means no cyanobacteria.

So which came first?

Be back later.

 

[Asyncritus]

I've just reminded myself of the chicken and egg problem.

There is no life without proteins.

There are no proteins without life.

So, chicken or egg?

 

[abrown9]

Sigh....

Once again, to reiterate, the bacteria are not trying to fix nitrogen. A mutation (or likely several) causes one existing protein to change enough that it is able to fix nitrogen. This gives it a massive selective advantage (which you agree), and would ultimately cause that bacteria to dominate the globe.

For you to understand this, you need to accept the reality that mutations can cause proteins to develop novel functions. This has been demonstrated in vitro, and you can read about it in this article:

In the light of directed evolution: Pathways of adaptive protein evolution
Jesse D. Blooma and Frances H. Arnoldb

In that review article they mention one specific experiment that, through directed evolution, converts a cytochrome P450 fatty acid hydroxylase into a propane hydroxylase. That is a relatively smaller step (but still a NEW PROTEIN) that took place over the course of a very small time frame. What is so hard to believe about a much larger change occurring over a very large timeframe.

As for the chicken and the egg: Proteins were likely not required for first life. First life was likely a simple self-replicating entity that used only RNA machinery (RNA has been demonstrated to be capable of performing all the basic functions that protein does).

 

[Asyncritus]

Sigh....

Once again, to reiterate, the bacteria are not trying to fix nitrogen. A mutation (or likely several) causes one existing protein to change enough that it is able to fix nitrogen. This gives it a massive selective advantage (which you agree), and would ultimately cause that bacteria to dominate the globe.

AB, am I not getting this across to you?

In order for DNA,RNA or whatever they have come up with, and are likely to come up with, that DNA, RNA or whatever HAS TO EXIST FIRST.

How?

As I point out again, the synthesis of DNA is one that REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF ENZYMES which are all proteins:

DNA polymerases, isolated from cells, and artificial DNA primers are used to initiate DNA synthesis at known sequences in a template molecule. wiki

They are there, were there, and NEED to be there for DNA synthesis to take place. And you're immediately back in the chicken coop.

Without those polymerases, DNA cannot be synthesised. Without DNA, the polymerases cannot be synthesised either. So how did it start?

You may not recall Monod's statement, so I'll paste it here for your perusal:

But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle. The code is meaningless unless translated.



The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine." (Monod, Jaques [Biochemist, Director of Pasteur Institute, Paris], "Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology", [1971], Penguin: London, 1997, reprint, p.143. Emphasis in original).

For you to understand this, you need to accept the reality that mutations can cause proteins to develop novel functions. This has been demonstrated in vitro, and you can read about it in this article:

In the light of directed evolution: Pathways of adaptive protein evolution
Jesse D. Blooma and Frances H. Arnoldb

Name one of any significance in the evolution of new species and genera.

In that review article they mention one specific experiment that, through directed evolution, converts a cytochrome P450 fatty acid hydroxylase into a propane hydroxylase. That is a relatively smaller step (but still a NEW PROTEIN) that took place over the course of a very small time frame. What is so hard to believe about a much larger change occurring over a very large timeframe.

You have there the 2 elements of your problem.

1 They have been doing biochemical research for yonks now, and this is the pathetic best they can do? You cannot be serious about the production of the gazillion or so species in the Cambrian!

As for the chicken and the egg: Proteins were likely not required for first life.

Now there's an unsupported statement if I ever heard one! Rampant wishful thinking - nothing else.

Even phages have a protein capsule - and they are the lowest form of 'life' if you can call them that. So if they have proteins, what is the likelihood that more complex life DOESN'T have proteins?

First life was likely a simple self-replicating entity that used only RNA machinery (RNA has been demonstrated to be capable of performing all the basic functions that protein does).

[/QUOTE]

But you're in the hen coop again! The synthesis of RNA also REQUIRES enzymes - which are all proteins too.

wiki on RNA synthesis:

During transcription, a DNA sequence is read by RNA polymerase, which produces a complementary, antiparallel RNA strand... and so forth.

Hopeless, my friend, hopeless is the only fitting description.

And we haven't even begun to address the question of the needed instincts.

 

[abrown9]

We are talking about evolution and not abiogenesis. Your question used the evolution of nitrogen fixation as a problem for the TOE. I have shown you 1) pre-existing conditions that would provide a selective advantage for nitrogen fixing mutants, 2) the high conservation of nif genes between diazotrophs, 3) the close relatedness of almost all diazotrophs, and 4) proof that proteins can mutate to serve another function. The TOE does not = abiogenesis. You can believe god or whatever put life on earth (with proteins and DNA) and still not contradict the TOE at all.

Creationists pose the argument that our examples are all not significant enough all the time. They want to see a monkey evolve in a lab. Directed evolution experiments SHOW that evolution of proteins does occur. Google directed evolution + enzymes and read any article on the subject.

I'm not going to argue abiogenesis with you, but I will point out how your argument falls apart: original life was probably not made up of DNA, it was most likely RNA. RNA, as I said before DOES NOT REQUIRE ENZYMES. RNA molecules can act as catalysts (as enzymes.. gasp!). Read up on ribozymes. Just because we currently utilize polymerases does not mean we always did. The current hypothesis is that original life were merely nothing more than self replicating RNA organisms. Their sequences didn't matter because they weren't translating anything. Read RNA world by Gilbert.

Your arguments might make sense if you didn't have a limited understanding of biology and biochemistry.
.

 

[Green Man]

Good Afternoon[smile].

Ignoring my question to you within post #69, Asyncritus?
If you know more about this subject than we evolutionists do Asyncritus, then why not provide us with the means/sources that you have discovered so that we may lift ourselves up out of our ignorance?
Help us help ourselves like a good teacher should, Asyncritus.

 

[Asyncritus]

Good Afternoon[smile].

Ignoring my question to you within post #69, Asyncritus?
If you know more about this subject than we evolutionists do Asyncritus, then why not provide us with the means/sources that you have discovered so that we may lift ourselves up out of our ignorance?
Help us help ourselves like a good teacher should, Asyncritus.

Hi GM

Please excuse my non-reply to #69. I've been up to my ears, and just came on a couple of hours ago to find AB's post immediately. To which I did not have time to reply fully.

I then had to go out again.

I'll get back to you tonight.

Apologies

Async

 

[Asyncritus]

Good morning,
Asyncritus, where do you get your understanding of Biology/science, and scientists? AnswersInGenesis.com? The Institute for Creation Research's websites? Creation.org?
Your own personal opinions?
Just curious.

I hold a degree in Agriculture, which has given me a very broad acquaintance with the biological sciences: you know, cows and suchlike.

I rarely visit the sources you mention, and even more rarely quote them, because of their obvious bias, and the general sneering at them that the evolutionists do. Also, they occasionally talk as much nonsense as the evolutionists do.

I tend to confine my quotes to evolutionist sources. Even so, there are screams of 'quote-mining', context-yanking and such like.

You may visit my blog, where I express myself a bit more forcefully than I can do here. Asyncritus' How Does Instinct Evolve

 

[Asyncritus]

...Additionally, its easy to see where the mutation first arose (very early..likely before the 3-domain split).

So, you have: 1) pre-existing conditions that would favour nitrogen fixers, 2) a common operon amongst all nitrogen fixing bacteria that is highly conserved, and 3) clustering of diazotrophs in a phylogeny based on 16S RNA (entirely independent of nif sequences) which indicates relatedness of all diazotrophs, and thus a common ancestor.

Info taken from:

The Natural History of Nitrogen Fixation
Jason Raymond * , Janet L. Siefert † , Christopher R. Staples * and Robert E. Blankenship *

Like you, these people seem to be afflicted with irremediable myopia. Just look:

They postulate:

1 Bacteria that are already existing. This alone finishes their theory. How did bacteria evolve, and from what? Monod had this to say too:

[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The development of the metabolic system, which, as the primordial soup thinned, must have "learned" to mobilize chemical potential and to synthesize the cellular components, poses Herculean problems. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]...So also does the emergence of the selectively permeable membrane without which there can be no viable cell."

The bacterial cell is semipermeable: it must be to permit the entry and exit of food, oxygen and waste products, to mention a few.

So, says Monod, it's emergence presents Herculean problems. Can you solve them? I very much doubt it, and your authors above simply side-step the problems optimistically.

Well, I'm not going to let them do so.

[/FONT]

ps. The fact that humans couldn't think up a process that bacteria can do is completely irrelevant.

Is it?

It took intelligence to get Haber and Bosch their Nobels. I submit that it also took a far greater intelligence to produce nitrogenase. But to compound the improbability, that said intelligence also produced chlorophyll, and later on, haemoglobin.

Both nitrogenase and chlorophyll had to arise at the same time, because they are in the same organisms, the cyanobacteria.

As you know, the probability of producing nitrogenase by chance has to be multiplied by the probability of producing chlorophyll by chance. The universe itself couldn't hold the number of zero's required to express the improbability.

Therefore, the postulate that God did it is a completely relevant one.

Original diazotrophs didn't sit around and say "man, we should just invent some way to fix nitrogen". One bacteria likely randomly developed a nitrogenase-like enzyme that snowballed into full blown fixation due to the massive selective advantage that the ability to fix nitrogen bestowed.

You gotta be kidding. 'Randomly developed a nitrogenase-like enzyme'? Like Haber and Bosch 'randomly developed a nitrogen fixing process'? Is that what you really mean?

It couldn't happen, because the 'enzyme' would have to be a protein - which requires DNA instructions to construct - and the hen coop door closes again on you.

 

[jasoncran]

asynchritus a friend in church has a degree and doesnt buy evolution either. he is in charge of the cleanup of the ditches here in removal enviromental wastes and cleanup of the lagoon.

awesome, i thought you had alot of knowledge. of course you will find resistance to this stuff you see. evolutiolists are conformists. dont ask what we cant answer in broad terms.

i see one poster used likely, since when does the word likely constintute evidence. if i jump off a building i wont likely fall, i will fall!