Evolution - Rescuing out-of-place Fossils

[Dizredux]

We are talking about evolution, not science.

Mmm so you think evolution is not science. You are speaking, I assume, as the world's leading expert.


Here are a few sources that might disagree with you. I would suggest you contact them and let them know that what they are writing about is all wrong and they are not doing or writing about science. Their responses should be interesting.

Mount, D.M. (2004). Bioinformatics: Sequence and Genome Analysis (2nd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Cold Spring Harbor, NY. ISBN 0-87969-608-7.

Futuyma, Douglas J. (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc. pp. 108–110. ISBN 0-87893-189-9.

Haszprunar (1995). "The mollusca: Coelomate turbellarians or mesenchymate annelids?". In Taylor. Origin and evolutionary radiation of the Mollusca : centenary symposium of the Malacological Society of London. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 0-19-854980-6.

Kozmik, Z; Daube, M; Frei, E; Norman, B; Kos, L; Dishaw, LJ; Noll, M; Piatigorsky, J (2003). "Role of Pax genes in eye evolution: A cnidarian PaxB gene uniting Pax2 and Pax6 functions"

Land, M.F. and Nilsson, D.-E., Animal Eyes, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002) ISBN 0-19-850968-5.

Chen, F.C.; Li, W.H. (2001). "Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees"

Cooper, G.M.; Brudno, M.; Green, E.D.; Batzoglou, S.; Sidow, A. (2003). "Quantitative Estimates of Sequence Divergence for Comparative Analyses of Mammalian Genomes"

Theobald, Douglas. Retrieved 2011-03-10. Van Der Kuyl, AC; Dekker, JT; Goudsmit, J (1999). "Discovery of a New Endogenous Type C Retrovirus (FcEV) in Cats: Evidence for RD-114 Being an FcEVGag-Pol/Baboon Endogenous Virus BaEVEnv Recombinant"

Sverdlov, E.D. (2000). "Retroviruses and primate evolution"

Belshaw, R.; Pereira, V.; Katzourakis, A.; Talbot, G.; Paces, J.; Burt, A.; Tristem, M. (2004). "Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses"

Bonner, T.I.; O'Connell, C; Cohen, M (1982). "Cloned endogenous retroviral sequences from human DNA"

Phylointelligence: Evolution for Everyone. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. Petrov, D.A.; Hartl, D.L. (2000). "Pseudogene evolution and natural selection for a compact genome". J Hered. 91 (3): 221–7. doi:10.1093/jhered/91.3.221

Okamoto, N.; Inouye, I. (2005). "A secondary symbiosis in progress". Science 310 (5746): 287. doi:10.1126/science.1116125 . Okamoto, N.; Inouye, I. (2006). "Hatena arenicola gen. et sp. nov., a katablepharid undergoing probable plastid acquisition". Protist 157 (4): 401–19. doi:10.1016/j.protis.2006.05.011

Yunis, J.J.; Prakash, O. (1982). "The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy". Science 215 (4539): 1525–1530. Bibcode:1982Sci...215.1525Y

Ijdo, J. W.; Baldini, A; Ward, DC; Reeders, ST; Wells, RA (1991). "Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion"

Castresana, J. (2001). "Cytochrome b Phylogeny and the Taxonomy of Great Apes and Mammals"

Pallen, Mark (2009). Rough Guide to Evolution. Rough Guides. pp. 200–206. ISBN 978-1-85828-946-5.

Tanaka, Gengo; Hou, Xianguang; Ma, Xiaoya; Edgecombe, Gregory D.; Strausfeld, Nicholas J. "Chelicerate neural ground pattern in a Cambrian great appendage arthropod"

Andrews, Roy Chapman (June 3, 1921). "A REMARKABLE CASE OF EXTERNAL HIND LIMBS IN A HUMPBACK WHALE"

Tyson, Reid; Graham, John P.; Colahan, Patrick T.; Berry, Clifford R. (July 2004). "Skeletal Atavism in a Miniature Horse". Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound 45 (4): 315–317. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8261.2004.04060.x

Biello, David (2006-02-22). "Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth"

Domes, Katja; Norton, Roy A.; Maraun, Mark; Scheu, Stefan (2007-04-24). "Reevolution of sexuality breaks Dollo's law"

Held, Lewis I. (2010). "The Evo-Devo Puzzle of Human Hair Patterning". Evolutionary Biology 37 (2–3): 113. doi:10.1007/s11692-010-9085-4

Futuyma, Douglas J. (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates Inc. p. 122. ISBN 0-87893-189-9. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Viking. pp. 8–11. ISBN 978-0-670-02053-9.

Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray. p. 420.

Tuomi, J. (1981). "Structure and dynamics of Darwinian evolutionary theory"

Aravind, L.; Iyer, L. M.; Anantharaman, V. (2003). "The two faces of Alba: the evolutionary connection between proteins participating in chromatin structure and RNA metabolism"

Brochu, C. A.; Wagner, J. R.; Jouve, S.; Sumrall, C. D.; Densmore, L. D. (2009). "A correction corrected:Consensus over the meaning of Crocodylia and why it matters"

Bock, W. J. (2007). "Explanations in evolutionary theory"

Slifkin, Natan (2006). The Challenge of Creation... Zoo Torah. pp. 258–9. ISBN 1-933143-15-0.

Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. Viking. pp. 69–70. ISBN 978-0-670-02053-9.

West-Eberhard, Mary Jane (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press. p. 232. ISBN 0-19-512234-8.

Ridley, Mark (2004). Evolution

Dawkins, Richard (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Bantam Press. pp. 364–365. ISBN 978-1-4165-9478-9.

Williams, G.C. (1992). Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford Press. ISBN 0-19-506932-3.

Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Viking. pp. 26–28. ISBN 978-0-670-02053-9.

Dean, William Richard John; Milton, Suzanne Jane (1999). The Karoo: Ecological Patterns and Processes. Cambridge University Press. p. 31. ISBN 0-521-55450-0.

Schadewald, Robert J. (1982). "Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer"

Chen, J. Y.; Huang, D. Y.; Li, C. W. (1999). "An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate". Nature 402 (6761): 518. Bibcode:1999Natur.402..518C

Shu, D. G.; Morris, S. C.; Han, J.; Zhang, Z. F.; Yasui, K.; Janvier, P.; Chen, L.; Zhang, X. L.; Liu, J. N.; Li, Y.; Liu, H. -Q. (Jan 2003), "Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys", Nature 421 (6922): 526–529, Bibcode:2003Natur.421..526S

Legendre, Serge (1989). Les communautés de mammifères du Paléogène (Eocène supérieur et Oligocène) d'Europe occidentale : structures, milieux et évolution. München: F. Pfeil. p. 110. ISBN 978-3-923871-35-3.

"Shubin, Neil (2008). Your Inner Fish. Pantheon. ISBN 978-0-375-42447-2.

Niedzwiedzki, G.; Szrek, P.; Narkiewicz, K.; Narkiewicz, M.; Ahlberg, P. (2010). "Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland". Nature 463 (7227): 43–48. Bibcode:2010Natur.463...43N

Cota-Sánchez, J. Hugo; Bomfim-Patrício, Márcia C. (2010). "Seed morphology, polyploidy and the evolutionary history of the epiphytic cactus Rhipsalis baccifera (Cactaceae)"

Menkhorst, Peter; Knight, Frank (2001). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-19-550870-X.

Augee, Michael; Gooden, Brett; Musser, Anne (2006). Echidna: Extraordinary egg-laying mammal. CSIRO Publishing.

Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. Viking. pp. 99–110. ISBN 978-0-670-02053-9.

Murphy, James B.; Ciofi, Claudio; de la Panouse, Colomba; Walsh, Trooper, eds. (2002). Komodo Dragons: Biology and Conservation (Zoo and Aquarium Biology and Conservation Series). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. ISBN 1-58834-073-2.

Burdick, Alan (2007-03-25). "The Wonder Land of Socotra, Yemen"

Rabor, D.S. (1986). Guide to Philippine Flora and Fauna. Natural Resources Management Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources and University of the Philippines.

Schofield, James (27 July 2001). "Lake Baikal's Vanishing Nerpa Seal"


Have fun, let us know that they say.

Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

We are talking about evolution, not science.

Baseless assertion.

So you're still in denial that the researchers arrived at their conclusion before investigating the "anomaly" ? Even though they printed their preformed conclusions in the abstract for you to read?

hat is the article that refutes the notion that those were dino-tracks. The last line is their conclusion that the fossils are likely dated incorrectly. The article itself doesn't address dating except to say that the fossils don't match with normal fossils from the Triassic-early Jurassic. It is the article that identified the anomaly not the article that reports the subsequent investigation and resolution.
As I pointed out before with my fueling-your-car-from-water-hose example, anomalies should be investigated. The prevailing understanding regarding the appearance of birds in the fossil record is that they didn't appear until after the Jurassic. So, bird fossils in the Triassic is an anomaly and should be investigated.

This is why I stopped wasting my time replying to you, because you refuse to acknowledge basic facts and keep ranting about some vague notion of the wonders of science and how I'm anti-science for exposing evolutionary biases and rescue devices for saving theories from falsification.

You never pointed out where their investigation and subsequent changing of the fossil date was in error. That is the key point. You even admitted that they made no error that you could find.
You never provided any reason why they should have just assumed that there were birds in the Triassic instead of investigating the anomaly. That's tantamount to saying that a doctor shouldn't investigate further if he finds that a patient's heart makes noises differing from the norm.

So, what's the problem? The found evidence of something that fell outside of he current knowledge about life's history, they investigated the problem and identified a complication in the local geology that caused the initial dating of the fossil layer to be wrong.

Then, as usual, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying that because evolution theory is protected from disordered fossil sequences, it can then accommodate out of order fossils.

The punchline to this is that when certain proposed sequences are "in order" such as the mystical evolving mammalian jawbone, evolutionists will use the stratigraphic sequence to prop up their case. Then when other proposed fossil sequences are out of order, they will say the stratigraphic sequence doesn't matter. This is the kind of ambiguous nonsense passing for a scientific theory these days.

You have evidence of these out-of-order fossils? Please present the many instances of such so we can become as knowledgeable of the evolutionist scientists' conspiracy to defraud the general populace.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's called the 'literature bluff', a classic evolutionist tactic. Hurl a bunch of links to papers or books at you, implying that people can not write and speculate on a subject unless its premise is true.

Why not focus on just one paper, the one you presented in the opening post.

How was the original Triassic age established for the sediments with bird tracks? What was the relationship between the tracks and the objects that were dated? How far away were they from the actual tracks? Was there an uninterrupted sedimentary sequence linking the dated objects and the bird tracks?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's called the 'literature bluff', a classic evolutionist tactic. Hurl a bunch of links to papers or books at you, implying that people can not write and speculate on a subject unless its premise is true.

Some personal advice, I wouldn't tag team with the conspiracy nut.

 

[RickG]

It's called the 'literature bluff', a classic evolutionist tactic. Hurl a bunch of links to papers or books at you, implying that people can not write and speculate on a subject unless its premise is true.

If you want to be taken seriously, your views need to be backed up with the appropriate literature.

 

[lifepsyop]

that is the article that refutes the notion that those were dino-tracks. The last line is their conclusion that the fossils are likely dated incorrectly.

Yes, what do you think I've been telling you since Page 1?

They concluded that the fossils are younger than previously thought because, in the researchers' own phrasing, they would be if the tracks are avian.

"The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed."

Afterwards, as has already been discussed throughout this thread, researchers selected one line of data for a younger age, while discarding multiple lines of data for an older age. This is subjective interpretation and cherry-picking on steroids, not science. And as per the title of this thread, this is exactly how you rescue fossil anachronisms to save the consensus evolutionary paradigm.

You have evidence of these out-of-order fossils? Please present the many instances of such so we can become as knowledgeable of the evolutionist scientists' conspiracy to defraud the general populace.

Your own theory predicts they will be out of order, that is, the more ancestral or "basal" morphological groups can survive and fossilize contemporaneously or beyond the more descendent "derived" groups, creating a disordered sequence. You seem to be blissfully unaware of this.

Why do you think it's apparently no big deal to evolutionists when advanced tetrapods (Poland trackways) show up 20 million years older than the supposed proto-tetrapod Tiktaalik? Because the stratigraphic order doesn't matter. (unless of course its "IN sequence", in which case you shout it from the rooftops)

You can see the same thing with the temporal paradox of the alleged dino-bird transition.

"The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified."

 

[Dizredux]

It's called the 'literature bluff', a classic evolutionist tactic. Hurl a bunch of links to papers or books at you, implying that people can not write and speculate on a subject unless its premise is true.

No it is very valid and appropriate when responding to someone who says that evolution is not science.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Afterwards, as has already been discussed throughout this thread, researchers selected one line of data for a younger age, while discarding multiple lines of data for an older age. This is subjective interpretation and cherry-picking on steroids, not science.

Then show us why the Triassic date is just as accurate as the Eocene date. Give us some objective reasons why the Triassic date is better than the Eocene date. Afterall, it isn't cherry picking if the objects that dated to the Triassic are not even a part of the geologic formation where the bird tracks are found.

How was the original Triassic age established for the sediments with bird tracks? What was the relationship between the tracks and the objects that were dated? How far away were they from the actual tracks? Was there an uninterrupted sedimentary sequence linking the dated objects and the bird tracks?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, what do you think I've been telling you since Page 1?

They concluded that the fossils are younger than previously thought because, in the researchers' own phrasing, they would be if the tracks are avian.

"The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed."

Afterwards, as has already been discussed throughout this thread, researchers selected one line of data for a younger age, while discarding multiple lines of data for an older age. This is subjective interpretation and cherry-picking on steroids, not science. And as per the title of this thread, this is exactly how you rescue fossil anachronisms to save the consensus evolutionary paradigm.




Your own theory predicts they will be out of order, that is, the more ancestral or "basal" morphological groups can survive and fossilize contemporaneously or beyond the more descendent "derived" groups, creating a disordered sequence. You seem to be blissfully unaware of this.

Why do you think it's apparently no big deal to evolutionists when advanced tetrapods (Poland trackways) show up 20 million years older than the supposed proto-tetrapod Tiktaalik? Because the stratigraphic order doesn't matter. (unless of course its "IN sequence", in which case you shout it from the rooftops)

You can see the same thing with the temporal paradox of the alleged dino-bird transition.

"The concept of a "temporal paradox" is based on the following facts. The consensus view is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but the most bird-like dinosaurs, including almost all of the feathered dinosaurs and those believed to be most closely related to birds are known mostly from the Cretaceous, by which time birds had already evolved and diversified."

Ok. You say that these geologists and paleontologists worked together to "save" evolution because of bird tracks that were dated to the Triassic.

Now, what should they have done that they did not do when faced with these seemingly anachronistic fossils? Please explain what a "proper" scientist should have done since you feel that these guys were conspiratorially working to defraud the public.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ok. You say that these geologists and paleontologists worked together to "save" evolution because of bird tracks that were dated to the Triassic.

Now, what should they have done that they did not do when faced with these seemingly anachronistic fossils? Please explain what a "proper" scientist should have done since you feel that these guys were conspiratorially working to defraud the public.

Fairly obvious. A proper scientist would be able to admit the old-earth "dating" scheme is largely ambiguous and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and selectivity of data, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread.

But since we're not dealing with science, and instead dealing with a mystical creation religion that says the Earth *must* be billions of years old, then that option is not to be considered lest one be labeled a blasphemer.

 

[RickG]

A proper scientist would be able to admit the old-earth "dating" scheme is largely ambiguous and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and selectivity of data, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread.

Lifepsyop, may I ask from where you derive that claim? I ask, because you appear to be coming across as if you have a background and experience in geochemistry.

I would really be interested in reading one of "your" descriptions of this "dating scheme" as pertaining to a dating method of your choice. Understand I am asking for "your description" in your own words, not a link to a site or video or any "copy paste", though you may provide citations of the relevant literature.

Thank you.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Fairly obvious. A proper scientist would be able to admit the old-earth "dating" scheme is largely ambiguous and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and selectivity of data, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread.

Ah! Then you did find something wrong with the investigation by the geologists! What did they do wrong in their selection of the stratum that they determined is most closely related to the sediments in which the fossils were formed. Please reference their report and point out the faults in their reasoning and conclusions.

OR...

Are you simply saying that all of the old earth "dating" scheme is so unreliable that geologists should simply throw up their hands and not bother using radiometric dating ever again? This is a serious accusation against a system of processes that has been relied upon for a number of years. The consilience between the various isotopes and with other dating methods (varves, ice cores, and tree rings) seems to support the accuracy of these methods.
You should be warned that to topple this seemingly well supported scientific process, you will have to bring more to the table than wild-eyed enthusiasm, emotionally charged rhetoric, and spittle flecked lips.

But since we're not dealing with science, and instead dealing with a mystical creation religion that says the Earth *must* be billions of years old, then that option is not to be considered lest one be labeled a blasphemer.

I see my warning should have occurred sooner.

 

[RickG]

There's nothing wrong with collecting radiometric data. The problem comes when you've decided that your billion+ year timeline is the absolute truth and calling that science. From this point on, the practice of geochronology becomes a matter of either crediting the dating method when you get preferred data, and blaming nature when you get unwelcome data.

Would you please give citations from the scientific literature supporting this claim. Do you have a background in geochemistry?

 

[Loudmouth]

Fairly obvious. A proper scientist would be able to admit the old-earth "dating" scheme is largely ambiguous and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and selectivity of data, as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread.

What was subjective about the geologic relationships between the objects with a Triassic age and the sediments carrying the bird tracks? I will repeat the quesitons I had from before.

How was the original Triassic age established for the sediments with bird tracks? What was the relationship between the tracks and the objects that were dated? How far away were they from the actual tracks? Was there an uninterrupted sedimentary sequence linking the dated objects and the bird tracks?

But since we're not dealing with science, and instead dealing with a mystical creation religion that says the Earth *must* be billions of years old, then that option is not to be considered lest one be labeled a blasphemer.

Then I really have to ask what features a geologic formation or rock would need in order for YOU to accept it as being billions of years old? Is there no evidence you would ever accept? Could it be you that is ignoring the evidence?

 

[Kylie]

Our story begins with a set of suspiciously bird-like footprints found in the rocks of the Santo Domingo formation in Argentina. This formation has been previously dated as the Upper Triassic (~220 million years old)

...

Well, trouble came several years later, when more thorough diagnosis of the footprints revealed them to be indistinguishable from modern flight-based birds!

And what do the feet of flying birds look like? Because the feet of an eagle look very different to the feet of a woodpecker (both of which are flying birds), because the shape of the feet is determined by (among other things) what the bird uses their feet for.

 

[lifepsyop]

KTS the diagnosis of the bird tracks came from the researchers cited, not myself.

 

[DerelictJunction]

And what do the feet of flying birds look like? Because the feet of an eagle look very different to the feet of a woodpecker (both of which are flying birds), because the shape of the feet is determined by (among other things) what the bird uses their feet for.

Analysis by biologists have pretty much closed the case on whether the tracks are birds vs dinosaurs. They are almost assuredly bird tracks.

The problem is that lifepsyop has put forth the case that the investigation was rigged somehow so that the dating of the fossils was changed, arbitrarily by his reckoning, to be more in line with the current timeline for the development of birds.

Of course that is just an assertion.

He has not shown evidence that the investigation subsequent to the determination that they were bird tracks, was anything more than an attempt to understand and resolve an anomaly. For some strange reason lifepsyop believes that stating the reason for the investigation is the same thing as drawing a conclusion prior to the investigation.

He has not provided any reasoning for the Triassic date to be more well supported than the date determined by the anomaly investigation. I doubt he will respond to Loudmouth's request. He typically remains silent when confronted with questions that require evidence to back them up.

BTW: Lifepsyop has me on ignore so I am unable to hold his feet to the fire regarding his views on this thread.

 

[Kylie]

Analysis by biologists have pretty much closed the case on whether the tracks are birds vs dinosaurs. They are almost assuredly bird tracks.

The problem is that lifepsyop has put forth the case that the investigation was rigged somehow so that the dating of the fossils was changed, arbitrarily by his reckoning, to be more in line with the current timeline for the development of birds.

Of course that is just an assertion.

He has not shown evidence that the investigation subsequent to the determination that they were bird tracks, was anything more than an attempt to understand and resolve an anomaly. For some strange reason lifepsyop believes that stating the reason for the investigation is the same thing as drawing a conclusion prior to the investigation.

He has not provided any reasoning for the Triassic date to be more well supported than the date determined by the anomaly investigation. I doubt he will respond to Loudmouth's request. He typically remains silent when confronted with questions that require evidence to back them up.

BTW: Lifepsyop has me on ignore so I am unable to hold his feet to the fire regarding his views on this thread.

Source please?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source please?

He is right about them being bird tracks. The fact is that the original Triassic date for the strata was found to be in error.

This particular stratum was found in the midst of the Andes. Orogeny often results in thrust faults and they can lead to errors in dating. Further investigation showed that that is not a Triassic stratum. I don't have the sources on me right now, but they did appear earlier in this discussion.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The last page or two has had a clean up. It is quite possible a further cleaning will take place. If you notice a post of yours missing is was removed in the clean up.

STOP with the Flaming!!!

Here is the Flame and Harassment rules for you to read:

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

You can find the above listed within the Christian Forums Rules / Terms of Service

You should be addressing the CONTENT of the post NOT the poster personally. Please also note where it says,"Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue." That is NOT happening in this thread. If you all continue to post like this the thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~