[_ Old Earth _] The Junk-Science pillars used to prop up Darwinism

[jmm9683]

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

So.

If

God

Does

Not

Exist

Then

This

Means

Everything

We

See

Around

Us

Became

About

By

Natural

Godless

Methods.

Example

E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N

Atheists

Belive

In

EVOLUTION.

HINT: most Christians accept reality and realize evolution isn't a big conspiracy by the evil scientists.

 

[John]

FACT: most Christians accept reality, and a few are deluded.

 

[jmm9683]

FACT: most Christians accept reality, and a few are deluded.

Thanks, you just made my point. You are deluded.

 

[Jayls5]

FACT: most Christians accept reality, and a few are deluded.

Fact: Your post right here is rhetorical and void of argumentation.

 

[Barbarian]

Modern horses come in sizes from about 14 inches tall to the massive Clydesdales.

Right. As you learned earlier, number of ribs and size are not good indicators of descent. That's why we don't use them.

And as you point out -- the differences in skeletal structure among EXISTING horses does not indicate "one came from the other". No "natural selection" going on even among LIVING horses to get the 14" horse vs the Clydesdale

Artificial selection, actually. Humans mimic natural selection to get such great changes in superficial things. But adaptive variations, such as we see in teeth and ankles and spines takes considerably longer.

I am simply pointing to the "junk science methods" that ARRANGE fossils in a sequence "that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE"

Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.

Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.

Appearing a bit later than Orohippus was Mesohippus:

The skull was a bit longer, and eyes moved back a bit more. And the fourth digit of the front foot was now almost gone. And a second premolar was enlarged and with higher cusps, to make a second "false molar."

Take a look at these two, and tell me if there is a greater difference between them than there is within many mammalian species today. If you can't, we'll go on...

And it exhibited most recently in things like Archaeoraptor story telling

It's too bad the National Geographic didn't wait for scientists to check it out, um? But they were in a hurry to publish. If they had waited for peer review, they would have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment. This is why, as a number of people have reminded you, that you should never accept what magazines print about science, unless it can be verified in the literature.

and Neanderthal dating methods.

It's unfortunate that the professor in question chose to be sloppy and dishonest. But he got caught by peer review. That's why we have it. If creationist/IDers had something like that, we wouldn't be seeing so much of that from them.

 

[Jayls5]

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

So.

If

God

Does

Not

Exist

Then

This

Means

Everything

We

See

Around

Us

Became

About

By

Natural

Godless

Methods.

Example

E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N

Atheists

Belive

In

EVOLUTION.

You are apparently blind. You have ignored my comment once again. Perhaps I should beat it into your skull so you can maybe stop with these ANNOYING ass posts.
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Read this post out loud, and maybe you will remember for next time before pissing everyone off with half of a brain.

CALL them "ATHEIST ABIOGENESISTS" or something if you want, but saying ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST does not mean that they claim to know ANYTHING about the origin of life. In case you missed that,
CALL them "ATHEIST ABIOGENESISTS" or something if you want, but saying ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST does not mean that they claim to know ANYTHING about the origin of life. This person would include me, hence the annoyance of this mindless inapplicable phrase that is supposedly touted against me.

I DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION ON HOW LIFE GOT STARTED. I DO NOT KNOW. I HAVE LITTLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY POSITION WHAT-SO-EVER. SINCE I AM AN ATHEIST AND AN EVOLUTIONIST WHILE BELIEVING THIS, I AM SINGLEHANDEDLY PROOF THAT YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS. IT SUCKS. SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS. I DON'T NORMALLY RESORT TO THIS TYPE OF DIALOGUE, BUT I'VE TRIED MANY TIMES TO EXPLAIN THIS ONLY TO HEAR THIS MORONIC PHRASE UTTERED AGAIN BY THE SAME PEOPLE, IGNORING ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROOF (ME) THAT THE PHRASE IS INAPPLICCCCCCCABLLLLLLEEEEEEEEE. IT DOES NOT APPLY. SAY IT WITH ME NOW. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'VE EVEN GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO SUGGEST OTHER PHRASES THAT ACTUALLY WORK, BUT YOU KEEP GOING ON, AND ON, AND ON, AND ON, WITH THIS GARBAGE.

YOU SOUND LIKE A MORON. SIMPLY PUT. YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH A MORON IF YOU CAN'T GET IT AT THIS POINT.

 

[BobRyan]

Modern horses come in sizes from about 14 inches tall to the massive Clydesdales.

Right. As you learned earlier, number of ribs and size are not good indicators of descent. That's why we don't use them.

wrong.

The difference in skeletal structure sequences of the Darwinian storytelling kind simply oppose the storytelling by providing evidence that they are doing "desperate arranging" of fossils in a blind faith effort to provide stories about hoped-for ancestor--and-descent sequences.

You look at the problem and summarize "that is why we ignore those problems" AS IF that is a science "solution" -- it is simply admitting that the problem was too big for darwinism to solve.

And as you point out -- the differences in skeletal structure among EXISTING horses does not indicate "one came from the other". No "natural selection" going on even among LIVING horses to get the 14" horse vs the Clydesdale

Barbarian said
Artificial selection, actually.

Hint: "Artificial" from ancestors having the SAME number of ribs and vertibrae in all cases.

I am simply pointing to the "junk science methods" that ARRANGE fossils in a sequence "that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE"

Barbarian
Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.

Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.

There is no "test" there -- you simply "assume darwinian doctrine by default".

That is not science -- it is religion.

The well-known Clydesdale draughthorse, one of the largest of horses, is seen here to dwarf one of the smallest varieties, a miniature horse. Despite the obvious difference in size between these two, they are both clearly horses.

The late Dr. Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

. . . You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.â€Â[/b] 10 April 1979 [Emphasis added - ed.]

However we are getting off topic because this simply puts us down the road of "the next shell game" in the Darwinian model for horses -- which is not my purpose. The point of the thread is to LOOK at the methods and principles USED to construct the first hoax and determine the way to PURGE atheist darwinism of reliance upon such junk-science methods.

So far you seem to only want to ENDORSE the methods that lead us to promoting "WHAT never HAPPENED IN NATURE" even by atheist darwinist standards.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Atheists believe in evolution.

They believe in water and protons and the Krebs cycle, too. If it puzzles you how atheists can believe in all sorts of true things, then you are a typical YE creationist/IDer.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Right. As you learned earlier, number of ribs and size are not good indicators of descent. That's why we don't use them.

wrong.

No, it's quite right, for the reasons we made clear. If humans vary in the number of ribs, (and they do), and vary greatly in size (and they do), then you must either agree with the above, or suppose that humans comprise a number of different species. Further, if you are a creationist, you cannot consistently believe they had a common ancestor.

You look at the problem and summarize "that is why we ignore those problems"

No, you lied about that. As everyone can see here, I've addressed your objections with evidence, and you simply chose to claim I said something I did not. Bad idea, Bob.

And as you point out -- the differences in skeletal structure among EXISTING horses does not indicate "one came from the other".

No, you lied about that, too. For example, we can show the the difference in ribs explains why European horses and mustangs have the same number.

No "natural selection" going on even among LIVING horses to get the 14" horse vs the Clydesdale

Barbarian observes:
Artificial selection, actually. Humans mimic natural selection to get such great changes in superficial things. But adaptive variations, such as we see in teeth and ankles and spines takes considerably longer.

"Artificial" from ancestors having the SAME number of ribs and vertibrae in all cases.

No. Arabians, for example, have a different number. You've been badly misled on this, Bob.

I am simply pointing to the "junk science methods" that ARRANGE fossils in a sequence "that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE"

The "caps lock" key won't make you more credible, Bob. It's just evidence that you don't have anything of substance.

Barbarian continues:
Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.

Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.

There is no "test" there -- you simply "assume darwinian doctrine by default".

Since you can't find any differences between these two, greater than is found in many mammalian species, let's go to the next step. Remember, Mesohippus was not much different than Hyracotherium, and hardly at all different from Orohippus, but it had further reduced toes, a slightly longer skull, slightly longer legs, and one more premolar becoming molar-like.

Just a bit later in the fossil record, we find:

Miohippus.

Miohippus was again a bit larger, with a slightly longer face, and the ankle joint was less flexible. Not good for a forest browser, but great for a large animal on open plains.

Since you couldn't find much variation between the previous two, can you find more variation between the current two than is ordinarily found within many mammalian species?

If not, we'll go to the next step, next post.

That is not science -- it is religion.

It's called "evidence." And we're well on our way.

However we are getting off topic because this simply puts us down the road of "the next shell game" in the Darwinian model for horses --

We're testing that claim now. If you can find a gap that exceeds the variation found within many mammalian species, you're right. If not, you're wrong.

The point of the thread is to LOOK at the methods and principles USED to construct the first hoax

As you have seen, no hoax. Just evidence. And you haven't had much luck refuting it. Let's see how you do this time.

Oh, and just to save bandwidth, it could you just post the mantra once, and indicate where you want to insert it thereafter?

 

[BobRyan]

you can't have "data evidence" of a fossil sequence IN the ROCKS "That never happened in nature" when it "never happened in nature" -- what part of "never happened" are you calling "science" or even "data"??

Hint for the unbiased objective reader -- IS THERE ANY evidence in all these posts and pages given by ANY true believer in atheist darwinism where they ever said that Marsh actually FOUND his seven fossil arrangement SEQUENCED IN THE FOSSIL record??

In fact HAS ANY darwinist on record from the 1800's to the 1951 statement by Simpson (that IT IS NOT in the fossil record as Marsh "arranged it" ) mentioned a "dig" a "discovery of sequence IN the rocks" a claim that "this is how they were found" rather than "this is how they were arranged"??? If so -- what "dig" did they claim as having found that 7 fossil sequence?

None?

Why then this blind defense of the discredited debunked hoax?

Barbarian - why are you pretending that the "DATA showed" the sequence when even atheist darwinists themselves never it was a valid FOUND sequence rather than an "arranged sequence" ?

The objective unbiased reader will see through your "deny-all" policy for darwinism in the case of this famous hoax as "a thin yet desperate defense" of darwinism no matter what the damage to actual science!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. If humans vary in the number of ribs, (and they do),

Feel free to elaborate on humans where a group is found with varying numbers of vertebrae or a varying number of ribs.


actual data would be useful at that point in your story.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Abnormal Number of Ribs
Supernumerary ribs may rarely be seen incidentally as a normal variant. Increased numbers of ribs are seen in trisomy 21 syndrome and with the VATER association (Fig 2)(8,9). It is more common to see 11 pairs in the absence of associated anomalies; this situation occurs in 5%–8% of normal individuals. Eleven pairs of ribs occur in one-third of patients with trisomy 21 syndrome (9), as well as in association with cleidocranial dysplasia and campomelic dysplasia.
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/c ... ll/22/1/87

What you don't know, can hurt you, Bob.

This is why people who try to use the number of ribs to show that common descent is wrong, are such idiots. It varies within many mammalian species, including our own.

 

[BobRyan]

Here we have an atheist darwinist paying "attention" to the skeletal differences - and so ruling out ancestor-descendant lineage.

The biggest surprise by all means is that they have a rib cage radically different than a modern human's rib cage," said Sawyer. "As we stood back, we noticed one interesting thing was that these are kind of a short, squat people. These guys had no waist at all - they were compact, dwarfy-like beings."

Other bits and replacement pieces, mostly the ends of bones, were collected from half a dozen other Neanderthals. The remaining gaps were filled in with reconstructed human bones.

The finished product is "like Frankenstein," Sawyer said.

Even though the reconstructed fossil is made up of both Neanderthal and human bones, Sawyer doesn't believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species.

Evolutionary side road

"There is no way that modern humans, I believe, could have evolved from a species like Neanderthal," Sawyer said. "They're certainly a cousin - they're human - but they're one of those strange little offshoots."

Notice How "serious" they take the skeletal contradictions in their storytelling sequences depends on which species and which stories are being told.

Barbarian
But Bob, you were unable to find any two adjacent ones that differed by more than you see within many mammalian species today. Did you forget that, too?

Now see Barbarian -- what you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, because we all see you "pretending" to equivocate between individual abnormalities for humans vs entire SPECIES in the fossil record that you 'had hoped" to link to horses.

Good thing we have some atheist darwinists -- like those above who pay a bit more attention to the fossil skeletal contradictions before "telling stories" that are "not science".

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

(Bob challenges Barbarian to show that some humans have a different number of ribs)

Let's take a look and see...what it says about ribs:
Abnormal Number of Ribs
It is more common to see 11 pairs in the absence of associated anomalies; this situation occurs in 5%–8% of normal individuals.
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/c ... ll/22/1/87

HUMANS continue to have the same skeletal structure. Obviously (to all objective unbiased readers)

Turns out that they don't, Bob. Did you really think you were going to fool anyone by deleting what the paper said?

What you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, Barbarian because we all see you "pretending".

You challenged me to show that some humans have a different number of ribs. It's a fact. This is why your objection to horse evolution based on rib number is laughable. It varies even within a species.

No one reads your mantras any more, Bob. In the interest of bandwidth, why not just post them once and then refer us to "No. 1", "No. 2" etc.?

Since you were unable to find any significant differences between Mesohippus and Miohippus, let's go on...

Miohippus shows up in the fossil record, slightly before...

Parahippus

This one was a little larger than Miohippus, the side toes were even more reduced, the face just a bit longer, and the spine a bit less flexible. And in later examples of this speces, the molars had larger and more prominent crests, somewhat like those of modern horses. Note the increase in the spinal processes above the shoulder, a response to greater forces from a relatively and absolutely larger skull.

If you see any differences between these two greater than found within many mammalian species, point them out. If not, we'll go on in the next post.

 

[BobRyan]

. If humans vary in the number of ribs, (and they do),

Feel free to elaborate on humans where a group is found with varying numbers of vertebrae or a varying number of ribs.


actual data would be useful at that point in your story.

Hint the reason for mentiong people-groups is that the atheist darwinis claim is that entire SPECIES came up with contradictory sets of ribs and vertebrae "as direct descendants" -- not simply "a few individuals within a group".

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19:

Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs;

Orohippus had only 15 pairs;

then Pliohippus jumped to 19;

Equus scoff! is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbers of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

Even though the reconstructed fossil is made up of both Neanderthal and human bones, Sawyer doesn't believe that modern humans could have evolved from Neanderthals based on the pelvic and torso discrepancies between the two species.

Evolutionary side road

"There is no way that modern humans, I believe, could have evolved from a species like Neanderthal," Sawyer said. "They're certainly a cousin - they're human - but they're one of those strange little offshoots."

http://www.livescience.com/history/0503 ... ction.html

How "serious" they take the skeletal contradictions in their storytelling sequences depends on which species and which stories are being told.

See -- what you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, Barbarian because we all see you "pretending" to equivocate between individual abnormalities for humans vs entire SPECIES in the fossil record that you 'had hoped" to link to horses.

This is why people who "pretend that the skeletal structure for entire descendant GROUPS can vary" appear to be stuck in a thinly veiled "deny-all" foxhole for atheist darwinism's junk science rather than accepting the facts of the light of day.

Sadly - the tactics you have resorted to above - are rife within the junk-science temples of atheist darwinism.[/quote]

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

You asked me for evidence that humans vary in the number of ribs, and I showed you that they did. BTW, it has nothing whatever to do with Neandertals; H. sapiens differs in the number of ribs.

Since you weren't able to find any differences between Miohippus and Parahippus that would be greater than the differences within many mammalian species, we'll go on...

Parahippus:

And a little later in the rocks, we have:

Merychippus, a bit bigger, somewhat longer legs and face, and now even higher crowns on teeth.

If you can't find any differences greater than can be found in a single mammalian species today, we'll go on. Let me know.

 

[BobRyan]

You asked me for evidence that humans vary in the number of ribs, and I showed you that they did. .

I asked for "groups" not an individual variant -- some people are also born with conjoined spinal columns to their sibling. I am not talking about abberations of individual WITHIN a species -- I am talking about a parrallel to the wild claim that a single stable skeletal body type consistent for an entire group -- an entire species by atheist darwinist claims -- exists for humans. You show none as we all know and this is evidence by the fact that the oldest human fossils STILL have the same number of ribs.

You are simply barking up the wrong tree in a way incredibly obvious to the objective unbiased reader,

As pointed out in the case of humans anthropologists are not inclined to include "stories" about species with different bone structures being direct ANCESTORS to humans FOR THAT very reason!!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hints as to the CORE junk-science METHOD used to promote atheist darwinist stories.

In a letter responding to complaints from evolutionists about the quotes above – Patterson gives this response.

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists.

The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.

Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

 

[BobRyan]

Atheist Darwinist DISCUSS their STORIES -

‘It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.’
Gerald A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, New York, p. 146, 1960.

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

 

[BobRyan]

Marsh's 11 fossil "horse series" of 1870's remains as one of the most striking examples of a junk-science "horse story" ever told in an effort to prop up atheist darwinism. Yet Barbarian keeps up the attempt to "bring it back".

"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"The species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves, and trends are not continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

Barbarian your "Chain of fossils" storytelling apparently is not working with Gould.

EXERCISE for the reader: Define "Unsuccessful Lineage"

Bob