How the heck does something like this evolve?

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
[

It's a waste of time to argue with people who use the world of make believe to support their ideas. Religion and Science exist within two completely different paradigms that have no common ground.

Really? There is a micro biology major on this board that is a Christian. One of my good friends is a psychology professor and believs in God. Were the founding fathers living in a world of make believe? Is President Obama?

I am not one to push my beliefs on others but I have definitely studied enough to be able to back up my claims. Can you say the same?

I'm a chemist. I believe in God. Both science and God co-exist in my worldview, and I cannot love and serve God's purpose for my life without loving him with all my mind as well as having faith in him. The immenseness of the universe, the incomprehension of what it is to be eternal, the intricacies of how physical life seems to just work so seamlessly, and just plain living within this perfect habitat we call earth; I am left with nothing but awe every time I try to contemplate it all.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Golgatha


I'm a chemist. I believe in God. Both science and God co-exist in my worldview, and I cannot love and serve God's purpose for my life without loving him with all my mind as well as having faith in him. The immenseness of the universe, the incomprehension of what it is to be eternal, the intricacies of how physical life seems to just work so seamlessly, and just plain living within this perfect habitat we call earth; I am left with nothing but awe every time I try to contemplate it all.

I saw a biologist on tv that was describing all the steps that are required for a child to go from conception to birth, along with all the chemical changes required. He made a very good case that all of this just happening by accident was pretty remote.


I keep an open mind to both sides.

I think he contributes to this site:
http://creation.com/answers

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Babbles
Also blind cave fish are a bit interesting. However nature, at least to my knowledge, does not evolve the elimination of "useless" body parts. It is all about breeding and basically having eyes or not having eyes in a cave does not provide any benefit to nature selection; both situations are effectively neutral. Any reason for nature to favor not having eyes doesn't involve any sort of directional change to remove a useless body part, but rather there must be some benefit to not having them (e.g. conservation of energy during embryonic development).

There is also a fish like creature that has no eyes but its skin camouflages itself to whatever it is near. Pretty amazing feat for something blind. They are studying it now to possibly use it in color changing devices like e-paper.

That is some impressive evolution.

Yeah, and we get thunderstorms and volcanic eruptions because we have angered the gods.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Golgatha


I'm a chemist. I believe in God. Both science and God co-exist in my worldview, and I cannot love and serve God's purpose for my life without loving him with all my mind as well as having faith in him. The immenseness of the universe, the incomprehension of what it is to be eternal, the intricacies of how physical life seems to just work so seamlessly, and just plain living within this perfect habitat we call earth; I am left with nothing but awe every time I try to contemplate it all.

I saw a biologist on tv that was describing all the steps that are required for a child to go from conception to birth, along with all the chemical changes required. He made a very good case that all of this just happening by accident was pretty remote.


I keep an open mind to both sides.

I think he contributes to this site:
http://creation.com/answers

I think citing the development of an embryo as something to great to happen by accident is just about the worse possible example to use against evolutionary theory. Fertilization and the changes that an embryo undergo is very well understood. Even outside of the physiological process the embryos of just about every chordate out there visually look strikingly similar. It is a remarkable process and complicated enough, but that should not be evidence of some creator guiding the process.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Modular
God

No, I was sleeping off a wicked hangover when those things came around (we only drink the finest single malt up here). Beats me *shrug*

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Modular
God

No, I was sleeping off a wicked hangover when those things came around (we only drink the finest single malt up here). Beats me *shrug*

Add in some orange soda and you have a tasty drink.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Babbles
[
I think citing the development of an embryo as something to great to happen by accident is just about the worse possible example to use against evolutionary theory. Fertilization and the changes that an embryo undergo is very well understood. Even outside of the physiological process the embryos of just about every chordate out there visually look strikingly similar. It is a remarkable process and complicated enough, but that should not be evidence of some creator guiding the process.

I don't think any creator controls the process. But the idea that all of those processes developed through evolution seems wrong. Evolution just like religion still has a lot of holes.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: sao123
there are plenty of examples of irreducibly complex things which could not have evolved.

No there aren't. Religious people have been plugging away at that one for years. A satisfactory explanation for the evolution of every single proposed irreducibly complex structure has been put forward, with varying degrees of evidence to back each case..

The professors of anthropology, biology and chemistry would love to see your work, since even they admit evolution cannot explain everything.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

It's a waste of time to argue with people who use the world of make believe to support their ideas. Religion and Science exist within two completely different paradigms that have no common ground.

This really isn't true at all, or rather is only true for very shallow small-minded people. I've been a professional scientist for nearly ten years now and have worked in two different states in different parts of the country with different colleagues and I would say, on average, most of my fellow scientists have religious beliefs of some nature.

As an aside I found it sort of crazy that in two different states I had a colleague who left the science industry and went to seminary school.

Now, with all of that being said I would say that I haven't run into any crazy fundies in the science world. Most of them - by nature of being scientist, I think - are practical in their religious approach.

Many great scientists of the past acknowledged religious beliefs and even Dr. Stephen Hawking touches on God here and there in "A Brief History of Time." In a way religion and science really aren't so different nor are they innately incompatible with each other. People just make it that way.

People of science who hold spiritual beliefs do not base their scientific work on those spiritual beliefs. Those two spheres of thought exist in the same person because of a conscious or unconscious choice to ignore inherent incompatibilities between the two systems.

I may pray for spiritual guidance but I could not stay a sane and rational human being if I applied the same methodology to my pursuit of spiritual matters that I would to the question, "Why does my foot hurt".

 

[torpid]

The Man O' War mates collectively still (i.e. one Man O' War mates with another Man O' War). I don't think each sub-animal mates separately.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

It's a waste of time to argue with people who use the world of make believe to support their ideas. Religion and Science exist within two completely different paradigms that have no common ground.

This really isn't true at all, or rather is only true for very shallow small-minded people. I've been a professional scientist for nearly ten years now and have worked in two different states in different parts of the country with different colleagues and I would say, on average, most of my fellow scientists have religious beliefs of some nature.

As an aside I found it sort of crazy that in two different states I had a colleague who left the science industry and went to seminary school.

Now, with all of that being said I would say that I haven't run into any crazy fundies in the science world. Most of them - by nature of being scientist, I think - are practical in their religious approach.

Many great scientists of the past acknowledged religious beliefs and even Dr. Stephen Hawking touches on God here and there in "A Brief History of Time." In a way religion and science really aren't so different nor are they innately incompatible with each other. People just make it that way.

People of science who hold spiritual beliefs do not base their scientific work on those spiritual beliefs. Those two spheres of thought exist in the same person because of a conscious or unconscious choice to ignore inherent incompatibilities between the two systems.

I may pray for spiritual guidance but I could not stay a sane and rational human being if I applied the same methodology to my pursuit of spiritual matters that I would to the question, "Why does my foot hurt".

I get the feeling that you are trying to make an argument out of nothing for no apparent reason. You are generalizing the belief systems of scientists; contrasting with my above example where I state my personal experiences "on average" and rather not that all of "us" scientists think one way or another. I feel it is fallacious to assume that some people do not base their scientific work on spiritual beliefs. In fact if I remember correctly, for example, Newton did exactly this. He did science to support his religious beliefs. I would just as well assume that there has been other scientists - past, present, and future - who will do science to try to support their personal spiritual beliefs. Granted many people do segregate their beliefs and perhaps do so due to some incompatibilities. Obviously that is a personal choice and to generalize what all scientists think is somewhat silly.

Additionally I don't see why you could not apply the same methodology to religion as opposed to wondering why you hurt your foot. Both (religion and science) can be methodologically approach with an eye for pragmatism. Again as I noted above, the differences are merely because you choose to make them different, not because they are intrinsically different.

Now with all of that being said religious beliefs do need to be tempered or you get uninformed opinions such as:

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I don't think any creator controls the process. But the idea that all of those processes developed through evolution seems wrong. Evolution just like religion still has a lot of holes.

Evolutionary theory does indeed have holes (hence why it is called a theory), but rest assured probably none that you can understand (nor myself) as they are complicated chemical processes - not the large general outline of evolutionary theory. You can think that fertilization and birth being the products of evolution "seem wrong" but rest assured you would indeed be "wrong" about that opinion.

Furthermore:

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: sao123
there are plenty of examples of irreducibly complex things which could not have evolved.

No there aren't. Religious people have been plugging away at that one for years. A satisfactory explanation for the evolution of every single proposed irreducibly complex structure has been put forward, with varying degrees of evidence to back each case..

The professors of anthropology, biology and chemistry would love to see your work, since even they admit evolution cannot explain everything.

This is just ignorant, plain and simple. First off evolution is not meant to explain everything and as such you are measuring it against some standard that is not even remotely appropriate. I challenge you to find me any reputable biologist to state that the goal of evolution is to explain everything (FYI the study of actual creation of life would be abiogenesis, not evolution).

Anyhow it is a great misunderstanding of science - any scientific field - to think that there is any one thought that can indeed explain everything. This is just plain scientific illiteracy, pure and simple.

 

[SagaLore]

Its no different than coral reefs, or lichens, etc.

Symbiosis is cool. Most plants, animals, and insects are extremely dependent on the complex ecosystem they live in. Some times the relationships get a little closer and even more dependent.


I always thought it would be cool if there was a planet of alien life, where every lifeform consisted of multiple organisms - where even advanced humanoids actually consisted of 12+ genetically different organisms that worked together.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: sao123
there are plenty of examples of irreducibly complex things which could not have evolved.

No there aren't. Religious people have been plugging away at that one for years. A satisfactory explanation for the evolution of every single proposed irreducibly complex structure has been put forward, with varying degrees of evidence to back each case..

The professors of anthropology, biology and chemistry would love to see your work, since even they admit evolution cannot explain everything.

"Cannot" or "does not currently"?

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Golgatha
I'm a chemist. I believe in God. Both science and God co-exist in my worldview, and I cannot love and serve God's purpose for my life without loving him with all my mind as well as having faith in him. The immenseness of the universe, the incomprehension of what it is to be eternal, the intricacies of how physical life seems to just work so seamlessly, and just plain living within this perfect habitat we call earth; I am left with nothing but awe every time I try to contemplate it all.

I saw a biologist on tv that was describing all the steps that are required for a child to go from conception to birth, along with all the chemical changes required. He made a very good case that all of this just happening by accident was pretty remote.


I keep an open mind to both sides.

I think he contributes to this site:
http://creation.com/answers

Do you know all the steps that go from digging stuff out of the earth to delivering a packaged laptop?

Just because I don't understand how a video card is made doesn't mean I assume it's some irreducible element that was delivered by God.

I doubt there's a single person on earth that could be given raw materials and make a functioning computer (OS and all).

Technically, ANYTHING that happens in our world is extraordinarily remote. Does that mean there is a higher power which controls all actions? If you believe in free will, that how can you possible comprehend the possibility of the exact combination of the specific sperm you come from mating to the specific egg, at the exact moment which would allow for your current upbringing. This is even ignoring the possibility that out of 6 billion people your two parents decided to mate.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

It's a waste of time to argue with people who use the world of make believe to support their ideas. Religion and Science exist within two completely different paradigms that have no common ground.

This really isn't true at all, or rather is only true for very shallow small-minded people. I've been a professional scientist for nearly ten years now and have worked in two different states in different parts of the country with different colleagues and I would say, on average, most of my fellow scientists have religious beliefs of some nature.

As an aside I found it sort of crazy that in two different states I had a colleague who left the science industry and went to seminary school.

Now, with all of that being said I would say that I haven't run into any crazy fundies in the science world. Most of them - by nature of being scientist, I think - are practical in their religious approach.

Many great scientists of the past acknowledged religious beliefs and even Dr. Stephen Hawking touches on God here and there in "A Brief History of Time." In a way religion and science really aren't so different nor are they innately incompatible with each other. People just make it that way.

People of science who hold spiritual beliefs do not base their scientific work on those spiritual beliefs. Those two spheres of thought exist in the same person because of a conscious or unconscious choice to ignore inherent incompatibilities between the two systems.

I may pray for spiritual guidance but I could not stay a sane and rational human being if I applied the same methodology to my pursuit of spiritual matters that I would to the question, "Why does my foot hurt".

I get the feeling that you are trying to make an argument out of nothing for no apparent reason. You are generalizing the belief systems of scientists; contrasting with my above example where I state my personal experiences "on average" and rather not that all of "us" scientists think one way or another. I feel it is fallacious to assume that some people do not base their scientific work on spiritual beliefs. In fact if I remember correctly, for example, Newton did exactly this. He did science to support his religious beliefs. I would just as well assume that there has been other scientists - past, present, and future - who will do science to try to support their personal spiritual beliefs. Granted many people do segregate their beliefs and perhaps do so due to some incompatibilities. Obviously that is a personal choice and to generalize what all scientists think is somewhat silly.

Additionally I don't see why you could not apply the same methodology to religion as opposed to wondering why you hurt your foot. Both (religion and science) can be methodologically approach with an eye for pragmatism. Again as I noted above, the differences are merely because you choose to make them different, not because they are intrinsically different.

My point is that people who pull the God card out of the hat to explain natural phenomenon can't be rationally argued with. The scientific method has no place for the spiritual. A person can claim that God directed the evolution of an organism and there is absolutely no counterargument that can be made because there is no God in science. At no point in the scientific method does it state that prayer and mediation are necessary to move to the next step.

Newton's science may have been in pursuit of religious goals but he never pulled his data out of thin air. He may have seen God in the apple falling from the tree, but he never used God to explain why and how that apple fell. Spiritual men of science will never substitute their beliefs for data or they cease being men of science. Granted in Newton's later years he fell into this trap during his investigations of alchemy. Which is why he never reached a successfully conclusion to his investigation because he tried to merge God and Science.

Spirituality and Science are intrinsically different. You can not apply the scientific method to big spiritual questions like, "What is the meaning of it all", it's a non starter. Which is why I take offense to the interjection of spiritual commentary on a non spiritual question like what the OP posed.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: NSFW
ever really looked at the anatomy of a giraffe? I'm no expert, but I know enough that they have a super strong heart in order to be able to pump blood up their long neck to their brain. The thing is, when it bends down to drink water, the heart is strong enough to pump blood right out the top of its head. So they have some special muscle that stops the flow when they bend down. They also have some storage system for the blood while that valve is closed. From what I know, they are the only animals that have anything close to that.

Too many perfect pieces exist to the puzzle for there not to be a Grand Creator.

go back to your jesus channel

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: actuarial
[
Do you know all the steps that go from digging stuff out of the earth to delivering a packaged laptop?

Just because I don't understand how a video card is made doesn't mean I assume it's some irreducible element that was delivered by God.

So it is okay for science to claim things they don't understand as being something that science some day will explain, when they have no proof that it will ? Science in many ways has become the new God.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: sao123
there are plenty of examples of irreducibly complex things which could not have evolved.

No there aren't. Religious people have been plugging away at that one for years. A satisfactory explanation for the evolution of every single proposed irreducibly complex structure has been put forward, with varying degrees of evidence to back each case..

The professors of anthropology, biology and chemistry would love to see your work, since even they admit evolution cannot explain everything.

Besides the few fringe loonies that exist in any given school of thought, they would agree with me in the specific case we are arguing. Even though we may not have done it yet, it is possible to explain every biological structure that is part of every organism on earth in evolutionary terms. It MUST be, because evolution is a fact. Evolutionary biologists, even religious ones, believe that. The people pushing irreducible complexity are rarely experts in the field and rarely know any more about evolutionary theory than is necessary to make a poor attempt at disproving it.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: actuarial
[
Do you know all the steps that go from digging stuff out of the earth to delivering a packaged laptop?

Just because I don't understand how a video card is made doesn't mean I assume it's some irreducible element that was delivered by God.

So it is okay for science to claim things they don't understand as being something that science some day will explain, when they have no proof that it will ? Science in many ways has become the new God.

Science and evolution is miraculous, isn't it? Omnipresent God? No. Way.

Science and evolution? Proven.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: actuarial
Do you know all the steps that go from digging stuff out of the earth to delivering a packaged laptop?

Just because I don't understand how a video card is made doesn't mean I assume it's some irreducible element that was delivered by God.

So it is okay for science to claim things they don't understand as being something that science some day will explain, when they have no proof that it will ? Science in many ways has become the new God.

Who in science does that? I don't do it. If we don't know we don't know.

If we want to know, I would suggest following the process that involves using what the natural world gives us to make a testable hypothesis, and then testing it, and advancing our knowledge.

I actually assume humans will NEVER understand base creation, since we can't understand infinite time in a meaningful way. Using God as a (very loosely defined) "logic" exercise to explain it is intellectually dishonest for two reasons. 1) It requires defining God such that the same question doesn't arise (thereby not actually answering the question of infinite time), and 2) There are an infinite amount of equally logical solutions, all of which have the same level of testability (zero).

That's not even getting into making the leap from something creating us to that creator caring about us (which I am not suggesting you ascribe to). I think if we were created it is more likely that we are akin to putting a lab rat at the beginning of a maze, only on a much higher order. But I would never base my life around this assumption, because I know it's just a silly thought experiment.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

It's a waste of time to argue with people who use the world of make believe to support their ideas. Religion and Science exist within two completely different paradigms that have no common ground.

This really isn't true at all, or rather is only true for very shallow small-minded people. I've been a professional scientist for nearly ten years now and have worked in two different states in different parts of the country with different colleagues and I would say, on average, most of my fellow scientists have religious beliefs of some nature.

As an aside I found it sort of crazy that in two different states I had a colleague who left the science industry and went to seminary school.

Now, with all of that being said I would say that I haven't run into any crazy fundies in the science world. Most of them - by nature of being scientist, I think - are practical in their religious approach.

Many great scientists of the past acknowledged religious beliefs and even Dr. Stephen Hawking touches on God here and there in "A Brief History of Time." In a way religion and science really aren't so different nor are they innately incompatible with each other. People just make it that way.

People of science who hold spiritual beliefs do not base their scientific work on those spiritual beliefs. Those two spheres of thought exist in the same person because of a conscious or unconscious choice to ignore inherent incompatibilities between the two systems.

I may pray for spiritual guidance but I could not stay a sane and rational human being if I applied the same methodology to my pursuit of spiritual matters that I would to the question, "Why does my foot hurt".

I get the feeling that you are trying to make an argument out of nothing for no apparent reason. You are generalizing the belief systems of scientists; contrasting with my above example where I state my personal experiences "on average" and rather not that all of "us" scientists think one way or another. I feel it is fallacious to assume that some people do not base their scientific work on spiritual beliefs. In fact if I remember correctly, for example, Newton did exactly this. He did science to support his religious beliefs. I would just as well assume that there has been other scientists - past, present, and future - who will do science to try to support their personal spiritual beliefs. Granted many people do segregate their beliefs and perhaps do so due to some incompatibilities. Obviously that is a personal choice and to generalize what all scientists think is somewhat silly.

Additionally I don't see why you could not apply the same methodology to religion as opposed to wondering why you hurt your foot. Both (religion and science) can be methodologically approach with an eye for pragmatism. Again as I noted above, the differences are merely because you choose to make them different, not because they are intrinsically different.

My point is that people who pull the God card out of the hat to explain natural phenomenon can't be rationally argued with. The scientific method has no place for the spiritual. A person can claim that God directed the evolution of an organism and there is absolutely no counterargument that can be made because there is no God in science. At no point in the scientific method does it state that prayer and mediation are necessary to move to the next step.

Newton's science may have been in pursuit of religious goals but he never pulled his data out of thin air. He may have seen God in the apple falling from the tree, but he never used God to explain why and how that apple fell. Spiritual men of science will never substitute their beliefs for data or they cease being men of science. Granted in Newton's later years he fell into this trap during his investigations of alchemy. Which is why he never reached a successfully conclusion to his investigation because he tried to merge God and Science.

Spirituality and Science are intrinsically different. You can not apply the scientific method to big spiritual questions like, "What is the meaning of it all", it's a non starter. Which is why I take offense to the interjection of spiritual commentary on a non spiritual question like what the OP posed.

I fear that you may be treading into that area which I would call small-mindedness. You are creating statements and points to argue which need not happen. Scientists can be spiritual without having to pull out the God card - there is no reason at all for you to imply otherwise. Again you create these false dichotomy between the scientific method and being spiritual. Somebody can have spiritual beliefs while still able to follow, apply, and appreciate the scientific method. Hell I would imagine for some people following the scientific method could be a spiritual practice for them.

Of course Newton didn't pull his data out of thin air (then he did invent calculus out of thin air to explain it all). I never said, nor did I mean to imply, that "spiritual scientists" pull data out of thin air - stop making things up, that is not a very scientific thing to do.

If you take offense to the interjection of spiritual commentary in non-spiritual questions, then your reading of scientific history is going to be massively limited.

Don't limit yourself to your preconceived notion of what religion, God(s), and spiritual beliefs may (or may not) be.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: NSFW
ever really looked at the anatomy of a giraffe? I'm no expert, but I know enough that they have a super strong heart in order to be able to pump blood up their long neck to their brain. The thing is, when it bends down to drink water, the heart is strong enough to pump blood right out the top of its head. So they have some special muscle that stops the flow when they bend down. They also have some storage system for the blood while that valve is closed. From what I know, they are the only animals that have anything close to that.

Too many perfect pieces exist to the puzzle for there not to be a Grand Creator.

Oh GOD save me.......................I can't believe you wrote that.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I was just reading about the Portuguese Man o' War jellyfish and saw this interesting paragraph:

They are commonly but erroneously thought of and referred to as a jellyfish. In fact, a Portuguese Man O' War is not a single animal, but rather a siphonophore ? a colony of four kinds of minute, highly modified individuals, which are specialized polyps and medusoids.[1] Each such zooid in these pelagic colonial hydroids or hydrozoans has a high degree of specialization and, although structurally similar to other solitary animals, are all attached to each other and physiologically integrated rather than living independently. Such zooids are specialised to such an extent that they lack the structures associated with other functions and are therefore dependent for survival on the others to do what the particular zooid cannot do by itself.

That's just really fucking cool! But how does something like this come about?

How do nearly all Eukaryotic cells survive without mitochondria?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: TheVrolok

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Mitochondria are similar. We can live without them now

Oh?

We can live without mitochondria? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... link?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU


CANT . I MEAN CANT

:laugh:

:beer:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: NSFW

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: NSFW
ever really looked at the anatomy of a giraffe? I'm no expert, but I know enough that they have a super strong heart in order to be able to pump blood up their long neck to their brain. The thing is, when it bends down to drink water, the heart is strong enough to pump blood right out the top of its head. So they have some special muscle that stops the flow when they bend down. They also have some storage system for the blood while that valve is closed. From what I know, they are the only animals that have anything close to that.

Too many perfect pieces exist to the puzzle for there not to be a Grand Creator.

i cant tell if this is a troll post or not

I'm way too old to troll. Just stating a fact.

Everything but your last sentence is fact. That is merely speculative assumption, that has no place in science.