ERVs place common descent beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Barry Desborough]

This is my FAQ. Further questions and comments would be most welcome. Just check that your question has not already been covered. Thanks.

1. Retroviruses replicate by invading the cells of host organisms, converting their RNA genomes into DNA, and inserting (integrating, in the jargon) the DNA into the DNA of the host cell. The host cell then "reads" the viral DNA, resulting in the production of more viruses.
2. Retroviruses tend to target certain types of cells. Their "environment" proteins tend to be specialized to attach to the surfaces of these cells.
3. The insertion is made by a retroviral enzyme called integrase. While certain retroviruses can show a general tendency to insert their DNA in certain types of regions of the host genome, they do not target specific points (loci).
4. We find, in the genomes of creatures such as ourselves and chimpanzees, inherited structures that appear to be broken retroviral insertions. Some are more complete than others, but many have the full set of genes that would be necessary for a complete retrovirus, were they not faulty. We call these structures endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They appear in the exact same spots in the DNA of every cell.
5. Although certain components of some ERVs perform functions in the host, one or two even being essential in some species, design, as an explanation for ERVs, does not make any sense. A designer would have no need to include specifically retroviral genes in its designs, which now do nothing, or can even cause harm. There would also be no need to design in non-functional traces of the action of integrase, traces of which are present in ERVs.
6. The only explanation that makes any sense is that ERVs are the result of retroviral insertions into germ-line DNA - egg cells or sperm cells, followed by reproduction and consequent cell division. Cell division will duplicate the ERVs in the same positions in the DNA of every cell. Separate, parallel infection would not infect every cell, and the ERVs would end up in different locations, comparing one infected cell with another.
7. All human beings have some 200,000+ ERV and ERV fragments in the DNA of every one of their cells. Most of them are in identical DNA locations going from cell to cell, and person to person. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections.
8. All human beings and chimpanzees have some 200,000+ ERV and ERV fragments in the DNA of every one of their cells. Most of them are in precisely corresponding DNA locations going from cell to cell, and individual to individual. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections. See http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm#Amount_of_Shared_ERVs

 

[Foxhole87]

This isn't the place where reasonable doubts are the ones screeched about.

 

[Doveaman]

ERVs place common descent beyond any reasonable doubt.

Any scientific conclusion based on human reasoning is always doubtful. That's why common descent is called a theory and not a fact. A scientific theory is always held tentatively precisely because there is always reasonable doubt. If there was no reasonable doubt it would be considered a fact and not a mere theory.

We have no doubt that humans and apes share similar DNA, but we will always have doubt that humans evolved from apes. That's why this idea, or theory, is always held tentatively -- it's precisely because there is always reasonable doubt. It would be unreasonable for Scientists to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that humans evolved from apes. Otherwise, it would no longer be a scientific theory because a scientific theory always leaves room for doubt.

If you are not prepared to conclude that common descent is a fact and not a mere theory, then you have reasonable doubt.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is my FAQ. Further questions and comments would be most welcome. Just check that your question has not already been covered. Thanks.

1. Retroviruses replicate by invading the cells of host organisms, converting their RNA genomes into DNA, and inserting (integrating, in the jargon) the DNA into the DNA of the host cell. The host cell then "reads" the viral DNA, resulting in the production of more viruses.
2. Retroviruses tend to target certain types of cells. Their "environment" proteins tend to be specialized to attach to the surfaces of these cells.
3. The insertion is made by a retroviral enzyme called integrase. While certain retroviruses can show a general tendency to insert their DNA in certain types of regions of the host genome, they do not target specific points (loci).
4. We find, in the genomes of creatures such as ourselves and chimpanzees, inherited structures that appear to be broken retroviral insertions. Some are more complete than others, but many have the full set of genes that would be necessary for a complete retrovirus, were they not faulty. We call these structures endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They appear in the exact same spots in the DNA of every cell.
5. Although certain components of some ERVs perform functions in the host, one or two even being essential in some species, design, as an explanation for ERVs, does not make any sense. A designer would have no need to include specifically retroviral genes in its designs, which now do nothing, or can even cause harm. There would also be no need to design in non-functional traces of the action of integrase, traces of which are present in ERVs.
6. The only explanation that makes any sense is that ERVs are the result of retroviral insertions into germ-line DNA - egg cells or sperm cells, followed by reproduction and consequent cell division. Cell division will duplicate the ERVs in the same positions in the DNA of every cell. Separate, parallel infection would not infect every cell, and the ERVs would end up in different locations, comparing one infected cell with another.
7. All human beings have some 200,000+ ERV and ERV fragments in the DNA of every one of their cells. Most of them are in identical DNA locations going from cell to cell, and person to person. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections.
8. All human beings and chimpanzees have some 200,000+ ERV and ERV fragments in the DNA of every one of their cells. Most of them are in precisely corresponding DNA locations going from cell to cell, and individual to individual. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections. See http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm#Amount_of_Shared_ERVs

No, it means we (humans) all share a common ancestor that was infected by a retrovirus that was inserted from a chimp host and vice versa. That DNA segment was passed on horizontally - and only then did it pass on vertically.

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

"Retroviridae is a family of enveloped viruses that replicate in a host cell through the process of reverse transcription. A retrovirus is a single-stranded positive-sense RNA virus with a DNA intermediate and, as an obligate parasite, targets a host cell.... This new DNA is then incorporated into the host cell genome by an integrase enzyme, at which point the retroviral DNA is referred to as a provirus."

ALL retroviruses are foreign to the host. They bring with them DNA from other host's. The current host then incorporates it into it's genetic makeup - using the proteins. It then becomes part of the host's DNA - which you then mistake as meaning common decent - instead of what it means - the point at which the foreign DNA was inserted.

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

"An obligate parasite, or holoparasite, is a parasitic organism that cannot complete its life-cycle without exploiting a suitable host."

ALL are foreign to the host - as is the DNA they bring from the prior host to the new host.

Why try to pretend any differently?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

But you are refusing to accept where the science is leading - that all the foreign DNA has been inserted by lateral transfer from those retroviruses.

All have specific methods of inserting into specific cells.

"A number of obligate intracellular parasites have evolved mechanisms for evading their hosts cellular defences, including the ability to survive in distinct cellular compartments. One of the mechanisms that hosts employ in their attempt to reduce the replication and spread of pathogens is apoptosis (programmed cell death). Some obligate parasites have developed ways to suppress this phenomena, for example Toxoplasma gondii although the mechanism is not yet fully understood."

And this is why the invasion points are cell specific - because they have devised strategies for evading that particular type of cell's defenses. Not any Fairie Dust belief that it means decent.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... This new DNA is then incorporated into the host cell genome by an integrase enzyme, at which point the retroviral DNA is referred to as a provirus."

ALL retroviruses are foreign to the host. They bring with them DNA from other host's. The current host then incorporates it into it's genetic makeup - using the proteins.

You've misunderstood the process - the DNA is the complement of the retrovirus RNA. The retrovirus brings only its own RNA to the host, then transcribes it into DNA so they can insert that into the host genome for the host to transcribe into viral proteins. They don't take DNA from the host. That's precisely why retrovirus DNA in the host is such a useful indicator of heredity.

 

[The Cadet]

Any scientific conclusion based on human reasoning is always doubtful. That's why common descent is called a theory and not a fact. A scientific theory is always held tentatively precisely because there is always reasonable doubt.

Wait, what? No, I'm sorry, you don't understand what "reasonable doubt" means. Reasonable doubt implies that doubting a theory is reasonable. As in, the evidence presented is still unclear or there are still realistic, viable alternative explanations. It is reasonable to claim that it could be wrong.

By your heuristic, there is reasonable doubt that the earth goes around the sun, that germs cause disease, and that mass attracts itself. The term "true beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard language used to describe theories which are so completely backed by the evidence that there simply is no justifiable way to deny them.

If there was no reasonable doubt it would be considered a fact and not a mere theory.

You pretty clearly do not understand what at least one of those words mean in the context of science.

No, it means we (humans) all share a common ancestor that was infected by a retrovirus that was inserted from a chimp host and vice versa.

This makes perfect sense right until someone understands anything about how retroviruses work or the numerous insertion sites in numerous species.

 

[pshun2404]

More than likely they are just remnant microscopic fragments of disintergrated cells of long dead organisms...they enter the cell and the functional transcription translation process duplicates these varied strands of genetic material and they DO NOT change the actual inheritable Genome so that in no way can be used to "prove" a common ancestor (in the Darwinian sense)...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

More than likely they are just remnant microscopic fragments of disintergrated cells of long dead organisms...they enter the cell and the functional transcription translation process duplicates these varied strands of genetic material and they DO NOT change the actual inheritable Genome so that in no way can be used to "prove" a common ancestor (in the Darwinian sense)...

Not really, no. Cells have protective barriers against passive contamination (think what a mess it would be if they didn't!). Viruses have evolved active ways to overcome those barriers. Also, known ERV sequences have been matched in host genomes. ERV DNA will only be inherited in sexually reproducing creatures if it is inserted into the gamete genome without destroying the gamete or its viability - which does occasionally happen.

 

[loveofourlord]

No, it means we (humans) all share a common ancestor that was infected by a retrovirus that was inserted from a chimp host and vice versa. That DNA segment was passed on horizontally - and only then did it pass on vertically.

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

"Retroviridae is a family of enveloped viruses that replicate in a host cell through the process of reverse transcription. A retrovirus is a single-stranded positive-sense RNA virus with a DNA intermediate and, as an obligate parasite, targets a host cell.... This new DNA is then incorporated into the host cell genome by an integrase enzyme, at which point the retroviral DNA is referred to as a provirus."

ALL retroviruses are foreign to the host. They bring with them DNA from other host's. The current host then incorporates it into it's genetic makeup - using the proteins. It then becomes part of the host's DNA - which you then mistake as meaning common decent - instead of what it means - the point at which the foreign DNA was inserted.

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

"An obligate parasite, or holoparasite, is a parasitic organism that cannot complete its life-cycle without exploiting a suitable host."

ALL are foreign to the host - as is the DNA they bring from the prior host to the new host.

Why try to pretend any differently?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

But you are refusing to accept where the science is leading - that all the foreign DNA has been inserted by lateral transfer from those retroviruses.

All have specific methods of inserting into specific cells.

"A number of obligate intracellular parasites have evolved mechanisms for evading their hosts cellular defences, including the ability to survive in distinct cellular compartments. One of the mechanisms that hosts employ in their attempt to reduce the replication and spread of pathogens is apoptosis (programmed cell death). Some obligate parasites have developed ways to suppress this phenomena, for example Toxoplasma gondii although the mechanism is not yet fully understood."

And this is why the invasion points are cell specific - because they have devised strategies for evading that particular type of cell's defenses. Not any Fairie Dust belief that it means decent.

Problem with the idea of HGT is that it's generally random,so it wouldn't appear in the same place, while there are YES certain locations that are more likly to have ERV's it's only because in other places it will kill the new organism as it breaks a protein that is important.

The chances even with the smaller areas that can have ERV"s, of them being in the exact same place are astronomical, there are many locations where ERV's show up, and you have to explain why ERV's always follow evolutionary chain. We see orangatangs with ERV's that all apes have, we see ERV's that humans have ane orangatang's that that are unique to that species, but we don't see gorilla's and humans sharing a ERV in the exact same spot that some how chimps don't have. How is it that these ERV's in all species follow evolutionary chains. If there was HGT as you suggest, or ERV's some how being the same by other means in multiple species you would expect to have gorilla ERV's shared with humans but not chimps.

 

[pshun2404]

Frum...of course the cell is semi-permeable and selective, and these retro viruses are 1000 times smaller (or more) than a single cell (an easy fit), and biochemically they are of the type of materials a cell can use (hence the cell is deceived in a sense)...but it is not as if they are a living thing...they only act as if alive when incorporated and hooked into the system so to speak....they have no power of their own. In effect, it is just a piece of code...so it should not be a surprise we find some sections in animals that are similar.

We are working on and have succeeded to some extent in blocking some, and activating the receptors to reject entry (a feat worthy of further study and testing)...

 

[joshua 1 9]

1. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections. See http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm#Amount_of_Shared_ERVs

Perhaps you could say: "This could mean" or something to that effect. There is far to much in science that changes as we grow and gain more understanding and knowledge. Also from the very beginning they mix truth and error into one. That is why knowledge only has a half life. In time the error will be sorted out. Now we have Biology books with 15 editions and many more editions on the way. This of course means new information is proving old information to be less then accurate. As appendix or update can add information. New additions are needed to remove inaccurate information.

So "common ancestor" is far from evidence for the theory of "common descent". Even when you have indisputable evidence that does not mean your theory or explanation for that evidence is valid. It only means you have the current best explanation until a better explanation or theory comes along. Just like Newton could explain gravity until Einstein came along with a better explanation and we still have a lot we do not understand about gravity. When Darwin says: "whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity". Even if we accept there is gravity that in and of itself does not substantiate Darwin's theory. No more then common ancestor substantiates the theory.

There is a huge supply of outdated books or books that have been revised because of inaccurate information.

 

[loveofourlord]

Frum...of course the cell is semi-permeable and selective, and these retro viruses are 1000 times smaller (or more) than a single cell (an easy fit), and biochemically they are of the type of materials a cell can use (hence the cell is deceived in a sense)...but it is not as if they are a living thing...they only act as if alive when incorporated and hooked into the system so to speak....they have no power of their own. In effect, it is just a piece of code...so it should not be a surprise we find some sections in animals that are similar.

We are working on and have succeeded to some extent in blocking some, and activating the receptors to reject entry (a feat worthy of further study and testing)...

Except it's not that we find X gene in the genome in middle of no where, they are in the same spots as related species, these things would be inserted randomly as there would be no way of knowing where this gene was in another species.

So when we have the gene for stronger jaws that it's breaking gave us our brain, why is this gene not just analgous, not just simular, it's in the same spot as it is in other great apes? Why is it that when we compare the genomes of simular species where not too much genetic drift as changed the location of genes we see them side by side. Lets look at Human Chromosone #2, we know it's a fusion of two chromosones that apes have because they line up perfectly, this wouldn't work if if there was some drastic change to the genomes and so on.

It's as much the simularities and differences in genes as their location and placement. Your argument makes no sense, because it doesn't fit the data.

 

[loveofourlord]

Perhaps you could say: "This could mean" or something to that effect. There is far to much in science that changes as we grow and gain more understanding and knowledge. Also from the very beginning they mix truth and error into one. That is why knowledge only has a half life. In time the error will be sorted out. Now we have Biology books with 15 editions and many more editions on the way. This of course means new information is proving old information to be less then accurate. As appendix or update can add information. New additions are needed to remove inaccurate information.

So "common ancestor" is far from evidence for the theory of "common descent". Even when you have indisputable evidence that does not mean your theory or explanation for that evidence is valid. It only means you have the current best explanation until a better explanation or theory comes along. Just like Newton could explain gravity until Einstein came along with a better explanation and we still have a lot we do not understand about gravity. When Darwin says: "whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity". Even if we accept there is gravity that in and of itself does not substantiate Darwin's theory. No more then common ancestor substantiates the theory.

There is a huge supply of outdated books or books that have been revised because of inaccurate information.

Actually most changes to books are newer information, it's not like biology has some how drasticly changed in the last 100 years that everything we knew before was wrong, every new information helps us strengthen our knowledge and shrink the errors,but it's extremly unlikly that the knowledge we still have to learn will some how overturn evolution when every bit of data continues to grow and improve out knowledge.

And you fail on the example of newton, it should be pointed out we still use newtons explanation of gravity, it's part of einsteins equation, it just didn't work well in larger and smaller distances, so had to be modified. But it's still used, if something replaces evolution, it has to both explain why evolution works while showing where it doesn't and why.

This hatred of knowledge I never get, this idea that because science is always learning and improving and changing it can't be trusted, it gets small things wrong, but even with your example newton wasn't wrong, newtons laws didn't suddenly get removed, knowledge was gained and we got a better understanding of gravity and such and instead of brand whole new knowledge, entstein expanded on what newton figured out. Knowledge expands upon, it doesn't replace. When we figured out the earth was round we both explained why it appaered to be flat and expanded up.

Now without adhoc explanations show how evolution will be replaced by something else that both explains why evolution works and why it is wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This hatred of knowledge I never get, this idea that because science is always learning and improving and changing it can't be trusted, it gets small things wrong,

Doctors are considered to be the third leading cause of death. When you take this into consideration then it is advisable to be very careful what you accept just because science endorses it. I have been with my current doctor for around 10 years. Even in this short period of time there has been quite a few changes and things that they do different now from the way they did 10 years ago. This is where they have your best interest at heart. Then you have big business that has making money as their main priority and what is beneficial compared to detrimental far to often has very little to do with the equation. A former peanut company CEO was just sentenced to 29 years in prison. So they are now starting to hold them accountable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/why-are-medical-mistakes-_b_5888408.html

 

[Barry Desborough]

Any scientific conclusion based on human reasoning is always doubtful. That's why common descent is called a theory and not a fact. A scientific theory is always held tentatively precisely because there is always reasonable doubt. If there was no reasonable doubt it would be considered a fact and not a mere theory.

We have no doubt that humans and apes share similar DNA, but we will always have doubt that humans evolved from apes. That's why this idea, or theory, is always held tentatively -- it's precisely because there is always reasonable doubt. It would be unreasonable for Scientists to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that humans evolved from apes. Otherwise, it would no longer be a scientific theory because a scientific theory always leaves room for doubt.

If you are not prepared to conclude that common descent is a fact and not a mere theory, then you have reasonable doubt.

Any scientific conclusion is open to doubt. However, in order to doubt it reasonably, you must provide evidence against it, point out faults in the evidence presented, or point out errors in the reasoning that arrives at the conclusion. This is not an argument from general similarity, but from specific markers that all the evidence says are inherited and are of viral origin. Any reasonable doubt would have to address that evidence.

 

[loveofourlord]

Doctors are considered to be the third leading cause of death. When you take this into consideration then it is advisable to be very careful what you accept just because science endorses it. I have been with my current doctor for around 10 years. Even in this short period of time there has been quite a few changes and things that they do different now from the way they did 10 years ago. This is where they have your best interest at heart. Then you have big business that has making money as their main priority and what is beneficial compared to detrimental far to often has very little to do with the equation. A former peanut company CEO was just sentenced to 29 years in prison. So they are now starting to hold them accountable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/why-are-medical-mistakes-_b_5888408.html

How many doctor deaths are caused by malpractice or accidents, or mistakes that have nothing to do with science. Bacterial infections you get at the doctor can't be compared to a drug that turns out to be harmful, and it's still science that shows it's dangerous.

Also as the article points out they alot of issues arn't science based but logistic based like keeping drug interactions low. Thats not failure of science, thats science knows the answer, but the doctors.

Also doctors don't generally do science, they apply science, and can make mistakes, this is a bit disengenous to say, "Doctors make mistakes herefore we can't trust evolution or any other science." Science corrects it's mistakes, and medicine is a tricky thing because we don't have the technology to know and discover all possible interactions, we can't find out for sure if something will be safe 100% in all incidents, but we can test as best as possible. But at the same time, this is why medicine and science is needed it will find the answers, but you can't compare this to evolution where we have the data from multiple lines, for evolutio to be wrong, for earth to be only say 6000 years old your basicly saying all of science is wrong, not just in small bloopers, but fundementally got everything wrong, thats a tall order to accept, we don't just get all of science rewritten on a routine basis.

Your also looking at scewed results, you can only see those that died from doctors, you can't see the figures for those that would have died without doctors, or were dead anyway but the doctor gave them a small chance.

Small statistical point, most people that go into the doctors office and die from a mistake, were likly to die before hand anyway, not all but alot. If you go into the doctors office for cancer, your going to die without treatment, even with treatment your chances may still be low.

 

[loveofourlord]

Any scientific conclusion is open to doubt. However, in order to doubt it reasonably, you must provide evidence against it, point out faults in the evidence presented, or point out errors in the reasoning that arrives at the conclusion. This is not an argument from general similarity, but from specific markers that all the evidence says are inherited and are of viral origin. Any reasonable doubt would have to address that evidence.

Exactly we know it's ERV's because we know what a RV looks like we've sequenced them, and they have very particular genes and such that are unique to them, like what causes the replicants of them to become viruses, and thats what we see. It's not like we see with ERV's a protein from another animal, we see a part of a virus with very reconizable genes and such.

 

[Barry Desborough]

No, it means we (humans) all share a common ancestor that was infected by a retrovirus that was inserted from a chimp host and vice versa. That DNA segment was passed on horizontally - and only then did it pass on vertically.

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

"Retroviridae is a family of enveloped viruses that replicate in a host cell through the process of reverse transcription. A retrovirus is a single-stranded positive-sense RNA virus with a DNA intermediate and, as an obligate parasite, targets a host cell.... This new DNA is then incorporated into the host cell genome by an integrase enzyme, at which point the retroviral DNA is referred to as a provirus."

ALL retroviruses are foreign to the host. They bring with them DNA from other host's. The current host then incorporates it into it's genetic makeup - using the proteins. It then becomes part of the host's DNA - which you then mistake as meaning common decent - instead of what it means - the point at which the foreign DNA was inserted.

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

"An obligate parasite, or holoparasite, is a parasitic organism that cannot complete its life-cycle without exploiting a suitable host."

ALL are foreign to the host - as is the DNA they bring from the prior host to the new host.

Why try to pretend any differently?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

But you are refusing to accept where the science is leading - that all the foreign DNA has been inserted by lateral transfer from those retroviruses.

All have specific methods of inserting into specific cells.

"A number of obligate intracellular parasites have evolved mechanisms for evading their hosts cellular defences, including the ability to survive in distinct cellular compartments. One of the mechanisms that hosts employ in their attempt to reduce the replication and spread of pathogens is apoptosis (programmed cell death). Some obligate parasites have developed ways to suppress this phenomena, for example Toxoplasma gondii although the mechanism is not yet fully understood."

And this is why the invasion points are cell specific - because they have devised strategies for evading that particular type of cell's defenses. Not any Fairie Dust belief that it means decent.

See http://erv-faq-for-creationists.wik...DNA?+Doesn't+this+explain+corresponding+ERVs?

 

[Barry Desborough]

Doctors are considered to be the third leading cause of death. When you take this into consideration then it is advisable to be very careful what you accept just because science endorses it. I have been with my current doctor for around 10 years. Even in this short period of time there has been quite a few changes and things that they do different now from the way they did 10 years ago. This is where they have your best interest at heart. Then you have big business that has making money as their main priority and what is beneficial compared to detrimental far to often has very little to do with the equation. A former peanut company CEO was just sentenced to 29 years in prison. So they are now starting to hold them accountable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/why-are-medical-mistakes-_b_5888408.html

Please address the evidence, if you can.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Please address the evidence, if you can.

I was answering someone elses question. The world does not revolve around you.