[_ Old Earth _] The misconception of "the missing links"

[Barbarian]

You are confusing Sinosauropteryx with the feathers found in amber. One has nothing to do with the other.

We see proto-feathers on Sinosauropteryx. And now we have some proto-feathers from the same period in amber. No bird has been known to have proto-feathers; true feathers appeared first on dinosaurs.

The so-called feathered Sinosauropteryx:
The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

Yep. That's why they call them "proto-feathers." Later dinosaurs had true feathers. Proto-feathers are just transitional to more developed ones. That's what scientists are telling you. There's even some evidence for melanosomes such as found in feathers.

In fact, there is some evidence now that Sinosauropteryx and/or it's relatives had more evolved feathers in addition to proto-feathers:
The article touched on the fact that its feathers were reported as stage 1 (simple, unbranched filaments, often referred to as "protofeathers") in the parlance of feather development researcher Richard Prum. In the comments, Heinrich Mallison pointed out that they *look* like stage 1, but as Foth showed, crushed feathers (even those of modern birds) often look much more primitive than they are due to taphonomic effects...Currie & Chen 2001 (which as far as I know is the only non-BAND paper to examine the S. prima integument in detail and actually publish their findings) concluded that "The mixture of thick and thin strands close to the body, the increased presence of thinner strands distally, the fact that the thicker strands are positioned close to the body and are normally oriented at higher angles from the body than more distal strands (Fig. 12g), the presence of areas where many of the finer strands lie adjacent and parallel to each other (even kinking together in a few places), and the tendency of finer filaments to angle away on both sides from thicker structures (Fig. 13a) all suggest a feather-like structure with central shafts and plumulaceous barbs."
http://dinogoss.blogspot.com/2012/08/did-sinosauropteryx-have-protofeathers.html

Barbarian observes:
The protofeathers may look very hair-like, but the researchers confirmed they were feathers by looking at them under a microscope, Wolfe said. Hair, found on mammals, has microscopic scales. Feathers, found in birds and dinosaurs, have features called nodes and internodes instead.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-feathers.html

They will eventually be able to do a biochemical analysis of them. Want to make a little side bet on whether they turn out to be more like modern feathers than they are like hair?

You would lose that bet since they have already determined Sinosauropteryx did not have modern feathers.

But I notice you aren't going to take the bet. In fact, I'm pretty sure you already have figured out that these protofeathers, found on several species of dinosaur, will have proteins consistent with feathers, but not with hair.

The article you linked to was about feathers found in amber and had nothing to do with Sinosauropteryx.

Which is like saying a feather you found in the grass has nothing to do with a bird.

Then again MBS didn't cite any source for his feathered dinosaur, so I just linked to Sinosauropteryx to show how science can correct errors. However, there were some red flags in the article you linked to: "Feathers believed to be from dinosaurs have been found beautifully preserved in Alberta amber.

The primitive, hair-like feathers known as protofeathers likely belonged to theropods"

Theropods are a type of dinosaur, one group of which, gave rise to birds. I thought you knew.

There were some comments about the feathers found in amber in the Scientific journal:
McKellar et al. (Reports, 16 September 2011, p. 1619) analyzed Late Cretaceous amber specimens from Canada and identified some filaments as dinosaurian protofeathers. We argue that their analysis and data do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that such filaments are feather-like structures. Further investigation, including destructive sampling, must be carried out for more convincing conclusions.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/33...796.2.abstract

So, why not take the bet?

unequivocal assignment to either birds or dinosaurs remains impossible, as we stated originally.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6070/796.3.short

I'm just willing to bet these protofeathers (not found on any known bird) will come out to be chemically more like feathers than like hair. You seem to be a bit unsure of your position.

Barbarian asks:
And have you found out which lungs those are, that your source thinks couldn't possibly have evolved?

I think Async posted this before, but here's a link:
http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/NetCevap/...utes-Evolution

Oh, the Islamic site. I thought so. Few creationists are still willing to do this story:
In birds however, air is unidirectional. New air comes in one end, and the used air goes at the other end. Thanks to special air sacs all along the passages between them, air always flows in one direction through the avian lung. In this way, birds are able to take in air nonstop. This satisfies birds" high energy requirements.

Yaha is something of a crank. (he's an interior decorator by education) Here, he just shows complete ignorance of functional vertebrate anatomy. You see, you also have a unidirectional system. It's called "collateral ventilation" and can save your life in the case of bronchial obstruction. The alveoli communicate with each other through the Pores of Kohn, by way of the Canals of Lambert:

They function as a means of collateral ventilation; that is, if the lung is partially deflated, ventilation can occur to some extent through these pores. They equalize the pressure in adjacent alveoli and thus play important role in prevention of collapse of lung.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pores_of_Kohn

In some theropod dinosaurs, this became the dominant form of respiration, and
of course, it was passed on to birds.

A recent analysis showing the presence of a very bird-like pulmonary, or lung, system in predatory dinosaurs provides more evidence of an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdrespiration.html

So why don't birds have some trace of the bidirectional system? They do. Birds have a collateral bidirectional flow through the neopulmonic bronchi.

Lacking an effective diaphragm as in mammals, this was a way to increase passage of air, necessary for the high metabolic rate of most theropods. And it served the birds as well. As you see, the shift from one form of ventilation to the other could happen rather gradually.

So, you see, there's no problem of how the system went from one to the other. It was scaffolded by combining both systems (which both we and birds have) accompanied by the increasing role of one, and a decreasing role for the other. But the evidence of a previous mode is still there in birds.

 

[Barbarian]

I believe that you're perfectly correct.

Evolution seems to say that He made dozens of errors and practice runs, and the fossils are those remnants.

Wrong again. Evolution shows that God's creation includes natural selection, by which He provided a means for living things to change and become more fit as conditions change. A creation worthy of an Omnipotent Creator, but not, of course something the ID/creationist "space alien designer" could manage.

Unfortunately for that idea, each fossil is perfect and shows no signs of error.

Wrong there, too. No living thing is perfect, something we can confirm by noting that natural selection continues to improve fitness of organisms.

They may have perished because of climatic changes, but not because of design faults.

As you have learned, the "design" (meaning "intent", not the puzzling out done by space aliens) was in creating a universe in which such things evolve by rules He set up from the beginning.

 

[Barbarian]

Why not tone down the remarks about lying and dishonesty? You wouldn't like it if everyone accused you of lying and dishonesty, so why do it to other people?

Doesn't Jesus say 'Love your neighbour AS YOURSELF'? How about trying that for a while? You'll be a lot happier, and so will we!

Pity that you don't always take your own advice, Async. When you accuse people of lying, and then refuse to substantiate the claim, you lower yourself. If you've changed your ways, and are telling others about it, now, good on you.

 

[Vaccine]

The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5341/1229.2.short

They are, however, feathers. Turns out that some of them have been preserved in amber, and they are anatomically feathers, not hair.

The protofeathers may look very hair-like, but the researchers confirmed they were feathers by looking at them under a microscope, Wolfe said. Hair, found on mammals, has microscopic scales. Feathers, found in birds and dinosaurs, have features called nodes and internodes instead.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/09/15/science-dinosaur-feathers.html

They will eventually be able to do a biochemical analysis of them. Want to make a little side bet on whether they turn out to be more like modern feathers than they are like hair?

Let's go over this again. I posted a link about structures on Sinosauropteryx, which paleontologists say are not modern feathers. You say "They are, however, feathers" even though paleontologists are still not sure (but that doesn't surprise me anymore, you say you know more than paleontologists, professors, biologists, historians, oh and stronger than most) then switch from sinosauropterxy by posting some link about possible feathers in amber which can't be assigned to dinosaurs. You want to bet they will turn out to be "more like modern feathers". Since it has been established the structures on Sinosauropteryx are definitely not modern feathers, I doubt you meant betting on those. However, unequivocal assignment to either birds or dinosaurs remains impossible to the structures in amber. So why should we bet about something that is impossible to link to dinosaurs or birds?
The title of this thread is "misconceptions" of missing links. Wouldn't it be deceiving to assert those structures in amber are evidence of proto-feathers on dinosaurs, when the people doing the research assert it remains IMPOSSIBLE to assign them to dinosaurs or birds?

In fact, there is some evidence now that Sinosauropteryx and/or it's relatives had more evolved feathers in addition to proto-feathers:

I see you linked to a blog as evidence, would you like to see some creationists blogs?

You see, you also have a unidirectional system. It's called "collateral ventilation" and can save your life in the case of bronchial obstruction......In some theropod dinosaurs, this became the dominant form of respiration, and
of course, it was passed on to birds...... As you see, the shift from one form of ventilation to the other could happen rather gradually.

I see you believe all that but I just don't by it.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi all. Im not worried that I am called dishonest or anything else. Comments like that just cement to me the scripture passage of "you will know a tree by its fruit". The doctored fossils found was by research carried out by Jack Couzzo, an orthodontist, in France and Europe. Peppered Moths fraud was done by, the perp, H B Ketwell. Other frauds, Piltdown Man Jaw of an orang-utan with tools that showed doctoring by steel implements and skull was of a just 500 yr old man. Displayed for over 40 yrs as a real one. Nebraska man was given an artist picture of him, look it up. And was just a pig tooth. Java Man and Peking man just normal human bones. Ramapithecus, Baboon skeleton. Archaeoraptor, Glued together bones. Haekels fraudulent embryo drawings. Brontosaurus was body of a Diplodocus and head of a Apatosaurus. Yes you will know the tree by its fruit. And the evolution tree has none that are good or worthy of consuming. Honestly though, in my life, what I have been through and seen, being called names or being accused of whatever is like a snow flake falling upon me. ;)

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi all. Im not worried that I am called dishonest or anything else. Comments like that just cement to me the scripture passage of "you will know a tree by its fruit". The doctored fossils found was by research carried out by Jack Couzzo, an orthodontist, in France and Europe. Peppered Moths fraud was done by, the perp, H B Ketwell. Other frauds, Piltdown Man Jaw of an orang-utan with tools that showed doctoring by steel implements and skull was of a just 500 yr old man. Displayed for over 40 yrs as a real one. Nebraska man was given an artist picture of him, look it up. And was just a pig tooth. Java Man and Peking man just normal human bones. Ramapithecus, Baboon skeleton. Archaeoraptor, Glued together bones. Haekels fraudulent embryo drawings. Brontosaurus was body of a Diplodocus and head of a Apatosaurus. Yes you will know the tree by its fruit. And the evolution tree has none that are good or worthy of consuming. Honestly though, in my life, what I have been through and seen, being called names or being accused of whatever is like a snow flake falling upon me. ;)

With the exception of the peppered moths ( which isn't a fraud and the same experiment has been replicated many times. The rest of the frauds you mentioned were never accepted in Evolutionary biology. Most of these frauds were discovered and brought to public light by biologists.

Also, none disprove evolution, but instead invalidate the credibility of the specific scientists. If evolutionary biologists are trying to hide these frauds, why would evolutionary biologists expose these frauds in the first place?

It doesn't make any sense, also most of the "frauds" you mention were never taught as actual science. Most of these are from popular media and not from journals.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I notice your post is awful heavy with personal attacks and light with facts. I wonder how anyone expects to grow if they respond in such a way anytime someone posts something that makes them uncomfortable.

I'm not uncomfortable, you've just given me that same Encode article almost 6 times now. Each time I point out it doesn't say what you think it does.

Personally I think you just skim my posts and look for an excuse to repost the encode article. Also, if you want me to stop calling you dishonest, for the last time, explain you background in education.

 

[Free Christian]

Hi MBS. I think you will find many of those frauds were included in books and taught at various points in time, some exhibited in museums. I believe that some of the false embryo drawings are still in circulation. Now if I showed that the 1 tooth thing was actually shown as a drawing, and it is upon that that I am dishonest, then... Now, whether the main stream who-evers believe this or that or once did but realised it was wrong and retracted. That still does not take away from the fact that people were and are taught fraudulently by either the, or parts of those who believe in evolution. So you or some others did or don't believe that a particular fraud was true does not make up for the fact that people in general were taught it was. Some were short lived some were long. In the end people were deceived. And you call me dishonest! So what if one learnt more than another, one went here and one went there, one studied this or one studies that. I don't care for titles or credentials, its the man and the graces he shows, the manners he exhibits, the language he speaks with that matter most to me. These are the fruit! Oh how many great minded people I have met who have none of those and oh how many simply educated men I have met who do.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Hi MBS. I think you will find many of those frauds were included in books and taught at various points in time, some exhibited in museums.

Let me know when you have actual sources and not just repeating stuff from answers in genesis or the creation institute website. ;)

I believe that some of the false embryo drawings are still in circulation.

Show me these text books then, and also read why they are in there. They were in my text book, want to know why? to show how they were wrong.

Now if I showed that the 1 tooth thing was actually shown as a drawing, and it is upon that that I am dishonest, then... Now, whether the main stream who-evers believe this or that or once did but realised it was wrong and retracted. That still does not take away from the fact that people were and are taught fraudulently by either the, or parts of those who believe in evolution.

That is nonsense. No scientific journal accepted the drawing or tooth as proof. That means biologists were standing up and practically shouting that no one should take this seriously. What this actually means is that you are a person should not trust National geographic at face value.

So you or some others did or don't believe that a particular fraud was true does not make up for the fact that people in general were taught it was.

So biologist are wrong because non biologists published a false story, and were gullible?

No, I believe in this concept called personal responsibility. You are really stretching to make this. Biology never excepted java man. Give up the bad argument. There is no reason to keep using a bad argument.

Some were short lived some were long. In the end people were deceived. And you call me dishonest!

Considering you are blaming the theory of evolution for something that it never stated as true. Yeah, that is dishonest. Its also kinda desperate.

So what if one learnt more than another, one went here and one went there, one studied this or one studies that. I don't care for titles or credentials, its the man and the graces he shows, the manners he exhibits, the language he speaks with that matter most to me. These are the fruit! Oh how many great minded people I have met who have none of those and oh how many simply educated men I have met who do.

The problem here is someone can outright lie to you and play on your ignorance, like they did when some web site told you about all these frauds. You didn't bother to double check any of this information to see if it was actually true.

So now you are trying to convince a guy who knows you took these from a website. Better yet, the guy who you are trying to outsmart with this stuff actually went to school for this stuff, and knows the real history behind most of the frauds you listed.

You don't have to have a degree to be smart. You don't have to have a degree to know a lot about something. But if you want to speak with authority, especially to people who spent time and money at college to learn about said stuff. A degree is very useful for showing authority over a subject.

 

[Asyncritus]

I believe that you're perfectly correct.

Evolution seems to say that He made dozens of errors and practice runs, and the fossils are those remnants.

Wrong again. Evolution shows that God's creation includes natural selection, by which He provided a means for living things to change and become more fit as conditions change. A creation worthy of an Omnipotent Creator, but not, of course something the ID/creationist "space alien designer" could manage.

As you've now learned, I hope, natural selection as an agency that forwards evolution is a complete non-starter. Kimura and Lynch have asked the question, and there is no satisfactory answer. I also quoted Kingsolver as saying very much the same thing.

Natural selection is one of biology's biggest errors, second only to evolution itself.

Unfortunately for that idea, each fossil is perfect and shows no signs of error.

Wrong there, too. No living thing is perfect, something we can confirm by noting that natural selection continues to improve fitness of organisms.

You're not listening. Natural selection plays little or no part in furthering evolution.

You don't understand the term 'perfect'. I mean, it cannot be faulted.

They may have perished because of climatic changes, but not because of design faults.

As you have learned, the "design" (meaning "intent", not the puzzling out done by space aliens) was in creating a universe in which such things evolve by rules He set up from the beginning.

This is pure nonsense. The bats alone show just how nonsensical a statement that is.

BTW, are you still insisting that Onychonycteris, A BAT, was the ancestor of Icaronycteris, A BAT?

Come barbarian, even the intellectually challenged wouldn't make such a silly mistake.

 

[Asyncritus]

I have accused you of lying on two occasions, and produced proof from both the offices of Lennox in one case, and the world's acknowledged expert in the field of frogs swallowing and gestating their own eggs, which proved you were lying in the other case. You never acknowledged your fault, and I left it there.

That's the evidence, and I really don't want to go there again, but if you insist, perhaps we can.

 

[Asyncritus]

MBS

The frauds WERE accepted as genuine, for a while. To the biologists' credit, they were rejected later on. Sometimes MUCH later on.

The coelacanth was highly and loudly trumpeted as the ancestor of the land tetrapods - only to be shot down in flames when they caught one in the Indian Ocean, and it showed no sign of living at less than 800 metres down in the sea!

The most recent example I know of, is Archaeoraptor, an out and out fake, touted by National Geographic as proving that dinosaurs and birds were related.

Again, the biologists recognised and acknowledged the faking.

But the real point of all this, is that they WANTED THE THINGS TO BE GENUINE so badly, that they passed as genuine for some long times.

The horse lineage exhibition is still intact, and still in many textbooks.

So don't get sidetracked into the argument about whether there were fakes or not.

Face the fact that they are so desperate for proof of evolution's truth, that whole swathes of information are swallowed uncritically by the evolutionist establishment.

I say 'uncritically' because very few of the proponents ever seem to criticise what is palpable scientific nonsense. Assumptions galore permeate their productions, and the diagrams in particular authoritatively present guesswork parading as fact.

Here's an example. Anybody looking at this one would conclude that the question of the existence of a common ancestor is forever settled: because they might easily miss the comment at the bottom of the diagram. From wiki:

A speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes, showing major branches Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucaryota

Notice, the comment is correct: it is A SPECULATIVELY ROOTED TREE. Means, they're guessing.

But the way it is presented is deceptive. Anybody would think that they know what they're talking about! And that they'd got proof!

The proper way to have done this is to place that comment AT THE TOP of the diagram, thereby alerting the suckers to the fact that this is just another piece of guesswork: but no, that's not how it's done.

​

Barbarian is the best example of this 'uncritical' attitude on the board. He cuts and pastes large slabs of nonsense, and presents it as truth and good sense.

So don't take it personally. It's the theory that's at fault.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Asyncritus. Yes they were accepted and passed off, like I said some for a short while and some for longer. And yes to their credit when they were shown to be wrong they retracted. But that will never change the fact that for a time they were not. And like you said "they wanted them to be". Like when Gingerinch said that just a few, several bone fragments, were or in his words, and with an accompanying picture that showed a whole creature under water, "in time and in it's morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full fledged whales". Sure looked like a picture drawn from just a few measly bones to me Barbarian. Amazing too is the great trumpeted fanfare given to fakes/mistakes and such muted little squeak's to the retractions/corrections. And good greif, I have seen pictures of that Ambulocetus drawn as crocodiles, monster otters, weird whales! What next, a killer amphibian giant mouse perhaps!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Wrong again. Evolution shows that God's creation includes natural selection, by which He provided a means for living things to change and become more fit as conditions change. A creation worthy of an Omnipotent Creator, but not, of course something the ID/creationist "space alien designer" could manage.

As you've now learned, I hope, natural selection as an agency that forwards evolution is a complete non-starter.

No, that's wrong, too. Even one of the guys you were touting admitted it was an essential. Would you like me to show you, again?

Kimura and Lynch have asked the question, and there is no satisfactory answer.

As I showed you, Kimura considers Darwinian theory to be correct, although incomplete. Which it is. Darwin's theory has been amended several times. Would you like me to show you that, again?

Natural selection is one of biology's biggest errors, second only to evolution itself.

I know you want us to believe you, but in the absence of evidence, and given that even the people you're touting here say it is an important factor in evolution... well, you know.

Unfortunately for that idea, each fossil is perfect and shows no signs of error.

Wrong there, too. No living thing is perfect, something we can confirm by noting that natural selection continues to improve fitness of organisms. BTW, this is what Darwin's theory predicts. If a transitional was not adequately fit, it could not survive. This is why evolution can't do all things.

You're not listening.

You seem upset that I am listening. I listened to the guys you were touting, and they support natural selection.

Natural selection plays little or no part in furthering evolution.

If so, you picked the wrong guys to quote-mine.

You don't understand the term 'perfect'. I mean, it cannot be faulted.

No organism is flawless. All have some things that are not perfectly fit.

Barbarian chuckles:
As you have learned, the "design" (meaning "intent", not the puzzling out done by space aliens) was in creating a universe in which such things evolve by rules He set up from the beginning.

This is pure nonsense. The bats alone show just how nonsensical a statement that is.

Notice that the recently found transitional between modern bats and other mammals is (as predicted) intermediate in many characteristics.

BTW, are you still insisting that Onychonycteris, A BAT, was the ancestor of Icaronycteris, A BAT?

It would be amazing if the particular bat we found was the ancestor of all modern bats. That would be pretty lucky. But it's clearly transitional, showing how modern bats evolved.

 

[Barbarian]

I have accused you of lying on two occasions, and produced proof from both the offices of Lennox in one case, and the world's acknowledged expert in the field of frogs swallowing and gestating their own eggs, which proved you were lying in the other case. You never acknowledged your fault, and I left it there.

It's always a bad idea to accuse people of lying, unless you can catch them in a direct contradiction. For example, you've posted many falsehoods about biology here, but I've always assumed that it was ignorance, not a intentional attempt to deceive. In the case of the frogs, you were corrected about your factual error. Lennox, I don't remember, but I do know that I never say anything here that I don't believe to be true. But if you slipped in an accusation I didn't catch, by all means, link us to it, and we'll see how that works out.

Go for it.

 

[Sparkey]

It's always a bad idea to accuse people of lying

I agree. Even with permission. Ad Hominem and personal attacks go against the Terms of Service here.

 

[Sparkey]

What I've asked of both of you is that you "tone it down a bit" while remaining on the subject under discussion. The request, by your Moderator, was that the banter that goes on between the both of you be set aside, so that proper discussion can be continued on this forum.

Now, since you have both ignored my private warning and request, it is made public. Knock it off.

 

[Sparkey]

Closed for Moderation

All: Keep to the subject and stay away from comments addressed "to the man".
-Moderator

Pardon my preach but within one of the posts recently made was a mention of "a teacher of some sort". This term, like so many, takes on a different meaning for the Christian than it does for those who are involved in man's studies. We, as Christians, are instructed to humble ourselves and not seek preeminence one over the other, rather to seek to give honor one to the other. Jesus was called "rabbi" meaning "teacher" and His example is fit for each who accepts the burden He gives. I'm not saying anything that is not already known but it seemed okay as a reminder, both to myself and to those who post here.

 

[Free Christian]

I agree with your statement Sparrowhawke. About not making ourselves better than another. Your preach is spot on. Unfortunately I continually get told here (not the least bit worried, just an observation) by evolutionists that I am not learned enough, easily fooled, asked where I learnt from, told where they did and so on. As if where you learnt from or where you went gives you more of a right to have a say than someone else. "I went here, I learnt this, I am right. You only went there or did not learn as much, you are wrong!" Thank goodness the same rule of thumb which is used upon us creationists was not used by absolutely everyone upon those who truly followed Jesus, or Jesus himself. Although many of the time did apply the same rule upon Him and His followers and rejected the Lord of Glory.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree with your statement Sparrowhawke. About not making ourselves better than another. Your preach is spot on. Unfortunately I continually get told here (not the least bit worried, just an observation) by evolutionists that I am not learned enough, easily fooled, asked where I learnt from, told where they did and so on. As if where you learnt from or where you went gives you more of a right to have a say than someone else. "I went here, I learnt this, I am right. You only went there or did not learn as much, you are wrong!"

There are creationists who are well-versed in science generally, and biology in particular. But those who aren't, have a really hard time, arguing the issue. Like anything else, if you're familiar with the issue, you'll do better.

Thank goodness the same rule of thumb which is used upon us creationists was not used by absolutely everyone upon those who truly followed Jesus, or Jesus himself. Although many of the time did apply the same rule upon Him and His followers and rejected the Lord of Glory.

Think for a minute how we, as Christians, would respond to an atheist, who didn't know Christianity very well, but was sure that he knew better than we do. What would our response be to him?

That's right. You see, it works for everything. As Everette Dirkson once observed, people are generally down on things they aren't up on.