Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Lillen]

You become aware of knowledge if you define it as science or things you know. That doesn't change that someone didn't hatch the idea for starters. But christianity works slightly diffrent, you believe in it. We have faith, and yes it is blind faith, for we believe in things we do not see.

I remeber my youth, very well, I had squinting eyes, two noses and two heads. I Honeslty thought as a marxist, that commuism was the solution to everyones problem, and I couldn't comprehand, I couldn't understand, i simply could not understand why others were conservatives or european liberals (American definition of liberal is sligthly diffrent from the european). I became aware that communism was the solution to everything and actually argued for it. I believe many science supporters have the same problem as i used to have. I simply couldn't understand why people disliked my views. But my awareness of the political idea behind communism was not perfect until I got the clue that it is a pervertion of the church. A church without God. I simply had no clue back then. But God showed me right and called upon me making me leave all I was aware of behind, and follow him instead. These days I do not lean on my own understanding, but I trust in God.

I believe this is the problem for most people discussing over the internet, that they simply do not understand why others think diffrently. I allow God to run my life these days because My awareness back then was not complete but lead me away from my creator. Today I stand complete. Evolutionist can have the same problem as I had. to lean upon their own understanding. Back then I simply could not be wrong. As long as i leaned upon my own understanding I couldn't be wrong. I had no clue, not at all. Today it is God who justify me. And i say this as an example from my own life, a story from my own life experience. Today I do not justify myself, but it is God who justify me. I could've been conservative, and i could've been libertarian and i could've been a darwinist, or why not a nazi. In the end i would've had the same problem with my two squinting eyes in my meaningless disputes, to simply do not have a clue.

Someone did hatch the idea behind evolution and you become aware of the theory, always leaning on your own understanding behind it. You contribute to it as cheerleaders contribute with their kicks to a sport. You become more and more aware of it until you start questioning it or until someone walks the second mile with you. And you cannot simply be wrong about it. If you would agree that you are wrong about it, it would be meaningless to support it. Just as it would have been meaningless for me to be a communist in my youth if I were wrong. Today I am not a communist even though I was right all the time, today I am justified by God.

 

[idscience]

You do understand that according to evolution, populations are changing all the time, right? Evolution does not produce species, anymore than it produces genera, or classes, or orders, etc. That's why we have Ring Species. That's why some "species" can interbreed with others. They are not fixed entities. According to I.D., however, the designer produced something, and maybe multiple somethings. We should be able to identify these somethings, but IDers cannot. They cannot agree even on what type of something was designed. The first unicellular organism? The first dog? Is there a way to determine this? There should be.


1.In some cases we see gradual change, in others we see stasis. Stasis is produced by Stabilizing Selection.
2.Simple. You have gene A which performs function X. Either function X is no longer needed, or Gene A duplicates. Now you have a Gene A which is free to mutate to provide another possible function, such as function Y.
3.Not sure what you mean by this. The tree of life consists of all species on earth and their genetic relationships.
4.That is a very broad question, ill suited to evolutionary biology. Would you like to rephrase it?
5.I assume you mean "arrange" themselves? By hydrogen bonding.
6.Maybe it did not. This is an abiogenesis question, in any case.
7.Because when the phrase was orignally coined, no one knew what if any function Junk DNA had. We now know, some junk DNA does have a funtion, though there are some species which do without it.
8.They aren't.
9.Abiogenesis question.
10.They can.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Scientists 'see new species born'
FreethoughtPedia.com
11.Nonsense. No fossil walks around... you have been watching too many movies like "Night at the Museum." If you are referring to "living fossils," these are extant species that look very much like extinct species (and are usually closely related), though they are not the same species. See again "Stabilizing Selection."
12.There is evidence for both.
13.See Lenski's experiments. Much more than "two steps."
14.This is how we learn and refine our theories.
16.If you are respectful to others here, others will be respectful to you. You remind me of a man who beats his wife and apologizes after each beating. Then repeats his behavior again.

1. Stabilizing selection? invented to explain why Darwin's prediction failed.


Stabilizing Selection Detected for Bristle Number in Drosophila ...

Here is a paper on how my hairs are on the belly of a fly. Apparently this is determinant of fitness? Stabilizing selection may be convenient, but there is no way of knowing anything about selective pressures millions of years ago to today. I am sure evolution scientists were very happy when somebody came up with this hypothesis.

2. Yes I understand the hypothesis, it has never been observed. Can you cite a paper where it has? I don't know of any.

3.Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

DNA studies are not supporting well-defined lineages among major groups of organisms as Darwin imagined when he sketched his tree of life. The confused and scrambled genomic patterns instead imply a tangled bush. In other words, genetic evidence for common ancestry is missing!

Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals.He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes4. Information for new features and plans. New building instructions.

4
DNA and The Genetic Code Pt 3 - YouTube
DNA and The Genetic Code pt 4 - YouTube



5.That is how they bond to the backbone, but not how they arrange themselves into the code.

6. I don't think this is the case. It is my understanding the the

7. We know that now, but Junk DNA was a prediction of evolution, and used as proof.

8. Robert Wiedersheim published a list of 180 vestigial organs that was used as proof of evolution in the Scope's trial

This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

and now the infamous Appendix.The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function.



9. This is your evidence? Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species.

• "Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species."

This is one of the problems I have with misleading headlines. You would think reading this headline that there was actually the birth of a new species (as defind by evolutionary biologists) Only to read in the body of the article no, that is not what happened by may be some day what happens, or shines new light on evolution, or, or, or. This is not good science.
Also, can't find a cite at the moment, but total reproductive isolation has not occurred, and I read a study that showed after some time the flies returned to total reproductive ability.

10. Duck!
11. There are many species found today that look identical to their fossil ancestors. Stabilizing selection is an ad hoc explanation that can in now way be verified. It is an explanation of ignorance as in there is no other explanation for their existence.

12. The only evidence for "punctuated equilibrium" is the lack of evidence for gradualism. Again, predictions fail so ad hoc solutions are invented. The evidence doesn't show gradualism so it must have happened very quickly. Why? Because common descent is a fact. Conclusions determining the evaluation of the evidence.

13. Michael Behe's December 2010 paper in Quarterly Review of Biology which extensively discusses and critiques Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiments. The discussion is about loss/gain of information.

14. I agree. Refining is good, but in evolution hypothesis, there seems to be more than refining. Major changes and rethinks occur. ie; punctuated equilibrium to account for lack of gradualism evidence, junk DNA rewrite to account for prediction failure, and stabilizing selection to account for no change, another prediction failure.

15. Nice!

 

[idscience]

I believe that if you believe in something, it becomes like a self-fulfilling idea you trust in. Personally I don't think that creationism should be made into science. And yes i believe that God created the world in the manners he did in the bible. What is so great about the bible, is that we can read the bible the way it says not involving in meaningless disputes over it. Everything else will perish except for Gods word.

I gonna tell you what I believe when it comes to creation. I believe that science and other religions explain a biblical passage in their own way. Namly the passage found in Hebrews. 10 And:
In the beginning, Lord,
You established the earth,
and the heavens are the works of Your hands;
11 they will perish, but You remain.
They will all wear out like clothing;
12 You will roll them up like a cloak,[d]
and they will be changed like a robe.
But You are the same,
and Your years will never end.[e]

I believe that the hindu concept of this is kalpa which is a pervertion of the biblical, and i believe that the rebirth of the universe scientists argue for is a pervertion of the biblcal.

How many times God had changed heaven and earth like a robe is not mentioned in the bible. But I believe that it is close that He will do that again soon. And when the thousand year reign of Christ beggings it will be in a new earth, leaving the fundations of the former in ruines causing the heathens and wise to burn up all what is concidered wisdom and knowledge and only leave behind the bible. I believe that God will form the new heaven and new earth the same manners he did before, like it's written in Genesis.

Thats what i believe. I don't argue intelligent design because I believe you shouldn 't know God exist, You should BELIEVE he exist. Thus not making creation into science. I'll wait till the day the evolutionists will see a giant walk by the horizon, for their repentance

This is another thread.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Evidence for Intelligent Design is all around us! One would have to be pretty blind or full of bitterness not to see it. A flower, blade of grass, gravity, birth, changing seasons, evolution, the stars, universe, the atom, and as previously mentioned the Life Language of DNA.

Other great pieces of evidence for intelligent design:

Onchocerciasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leishmaniasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smallpox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebola virus disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1918 flu pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idscience]

Other great pieces of evidence for intelligent design:

Onchocerciasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leishmaniasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smallpox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebola virus disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1918 flu pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a pretty weak argument. Design is false because of deseases. You left out death.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

That's a pretty weak argument. Design is false because of deseases. You left out death.

You don't get it, pal.

The other guy was claiming that the beauty of creation was evidence for creationism/intelligent design. I was just pointing out that not all of this creation is beautiful. It's easy to let your God take credit for the sunrise and pretty flowers, but man up and also give him credit for the eye-obliterating parasites.

 

[idscience]

You do understand that according to evolution, populations are changing all the time, right? Evolution does not produce species, anymore than it produces genera, or classes, or orders, etc. That's why we have Ring Species. That's why some "species" can interbreed with others. They are not fixed entities. According to I.D., however, the designer produced something, and maybe multiple somethings. We should be able to identify these somethings, but IDers cannot. They cannot agree even on what type of something was designed. The first unicellular organism? The first dog? Is there a way to determine this? There should be.


1.In some cases we see gradual change, in others we see stasis. Stasis is produced by Stabilizing Selection.
2.Simple. You have gene A which performs function X. Either function X is no longer needed, or Gene A duplicates. Now you have a Gene A which is free to mutate to provide another possible function, such as function Y.
3.Not sure what you mean by this. The tree of life consists of all species on earth and their genetic relationships.
4.That is a very broad question, ill suited to evolutionary biology. Would you like to rephrase it?
5.I assume you mean "arrange" themselves? By hydrogen bonding.
6.Maybe it did not. This is an abiogenesis question, in any case.
7.Because when the phrase was orignally coined, no one knew what if any function Junk DNA had. We now know, some junk DNA does have a funtion, though there are some species which do without it.
8.They aren't.
9.Abiogenesis question.
10.They can.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Scientists 'see new species born'
FreethoughtPedia.com
11.Nonsense. No fossil walks around... you have been watching too many movies like "Night at the Museum." If you are referring to "living fossils," these are extant species that look very much like extinct species (and are usually closely related), though they are not the same species. See again "Stabilizing Selection."
12.There is evidence for both.
13.See Lenski's experiments. Much more than "two steps."
14.This is how we learn and refine our theories.
16.If you are respectful to others here, others will be respectful to you. You remind me of a man who beats his wife and apologizes after each beating. Then repeats his behavior again.

1. Stabilizing selection? invented to explain why Darwin's prediction failed.


Stabilizing Selection Detected for Bristle Number in Drosophila ...

Here is a paper on how my hairs are on the belly of a fly. Apparently this is determinant of fitness? Stabilizing selection may be convenient, but there is no way of knowing anything about selective pressures millions of years ago to today. I am sure evolution scientists were very happy when somebody came up with this hypothesis.

2. Yes I understand the hypothesis, it has never been observed. Can you cite a paper where it has? I don't know of any.

3.Dr Rose said: "The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

DNA studies are not supporting well-defined lineages among major groups of organisms as Darwin imagined when he sketched his tree of life. The confused and scrambled genomic patterns instead imply a tangled bush. In other words, genetic evidence for common ancestry is missing!

Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals.He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes4. Information for new features and plans. New building instructions.

4 DNA is code
DNA and The Genetic Code Pt 3 - YouTube
DNA and The Genetic Code pt 4 - YouTube
UC BERKELEY Biology 1A - Lecture 22: The Genetic Code and Translation





5.That is how they bond to the backbone, but not how they arrange themselves into the code.

6. I don't think this is the case. It is my understanding the the

7. We know that now, but Junk DNA was a prediction of evolution, and used as proof.

8. Robert Wiedersheim published a list of 180 vestigial organs that was used as proof of evolution in the Scope's trial

This is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

and now the infamous Appendix.The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function.




9. This is your evidence? Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species.

• "Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species."

That is a quote from the paper you cited. This is one of the problems I have with misleading headlines. You would think reading this headline that there was actually the birth of a new species (as defind by evolutionary biologists) Only to read in the body of the article no, that is not what happened by may be some day what happens, or shines new light on evolution, or, or, or. This is not good science.
Also, can't find a cite at the moment, but total reproductive isolation has not occurred, and I read a study that showed after some time the flies returned to total reproductive ability.

10. Duck!
11. There are many species found today that look identical to their fossil ancestors. Stabilizing selection is an ad hoc explanation that can in now way be verified. It is an explanation of ignorance as in there is no other explanation for their existence.

12. The only evidence for "punctuated equilibrium" is the lack of evidence for gradualism. Again, predictions fail so ad hoc solutions are invented. The evidence doesn't show gradualism so it must have happened very quickly. Why? Because common descent is a fact. Conclusions determining the evaluation of the evidence.

13. Michael Behe's December 2010 paper in Quarterly Review of Biology which extensively discusses and critiques Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiments. The discussion is about loss/gain of information.

14. I agree. Refining is good, but in evolution hypothesis, there seems to be more than refining. Major changes and rethinks occur. ie; punctuated equilibrium to account for lack of gradualism evidence, junk DNA rewrite to account for prediction failure, and stabilizing selection to account for no change, another prediction failure.

15. Nice!

 

[David Jerome]

Other great pieces of evidence for intelligent design:

Onchocerciasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leishmaniasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smallpox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebola virus disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1918 flu pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You forgot cancer, SIDS, ED, glaucoma and the pleasant experience of natural childbirth.

 

[Split Rock]

1. Stabilizing selection? invented to explain why Darwin's prediction failed.

Here are 568 papers on Stabilizing Selection:
"stabilizing selection" - PubMed - NCBI

We know that now, but Junk DNA was a prediction of evolution, and used as proof.

I do not believe Junk DNA was a prediction of the theory of evolution, though it may sometimes be used as supporting evidence. I suppose the idea is that excess DNA does not fit in with I.D., but I would consider that to be just as bad as I.D.ers using problems with evolution as evidence for I.D. I never use Junk DNA as evidence for evolution.

13. Michael Behe's December 2010 paper in Quarterly Review of Biology which extensively discusses and critiques Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiments. The discussion is about loss/gain of information.

I'll take a look at this and get back to you. Thanks.

14. I agree. Refining is good, but in evolution hypothesis, there seems to be more than refining. Major changes and rethinks occur. ie; punctuated equilibrium to account for lack of gradualism evidence, junk DNA rewrite to account for prediction failure, and stabilizing selection to account for no change, another prediction failure.

Stabilizing selection makes perfect sense in evolutionary theory. If the selective pressure reenforces the status quo, then there will be no change. For example... if polar bears living in the arctic are always better off with white fur color, and that doesn't change, then there will be stabilizing pressure for the fur to remain white. Please explain why this is wrong.

 

[Davian]

Evidence for Intelligent Design is all around us! One would have to be pretty blind or full of bitterness not to see it. A flower, blade of grass, gravity, birth, changing seasons, evolution, the stars, universe, the atom, and as previously mentioned the Life Language of DNA.

Other great pieces of evidence for intelligent design:

Onchocerciasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leishmaniasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smallpox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebola virus disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1918 flu pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another:

Cymothoa exigua, or the tongue-eating louse, is a parasitic crustacean of the family Cymothoidae. This parasite enters fish through the gills, and then attaches itself at the base of the fish's tongue. The female attaches to the tongue and the male attaches on the gill arches beneath and behind the female. ... It extracts blood through the claws on its front, causing the tongue to atrophy from lack of blood. The parasite then replaces the fish's tongue by attaching its own body to the muscles of the tongue stub. The fish is able to use the parasite just like a normal tongue.

Cymothoa exigua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[youtube]Wg3IRJz6jZk[/youtube]

 

[idscience]

You forgot cancer, SIDS, ED, glaucoma and the pleasant experience of natural childbirth.

and environment, injestion of plastics, chemicals and polution.
It's a nonsensical path.

 

[idscience]

Here are 568 papers on Stabilizing Selection:
"stabilizing selection" - PubMed - NCBI


I do not believe Junk DNA was a prediction of the theory of evolution, though it may sometimes be used as supporting evidence. I suppose the idea is that excess DNA does not fit in with I.D., but I would consider that to be just as bad as I.D.ers using problems with evolution as evidence for I.D. I never use Junk DNA as evidence for evolution.



I'll take a look at this and get back to you. Thanks.


Stabilizing selection makes perfect sense in evolutionary theory. If the selective pressure reenforces the status quo, then there will be no change. For example... if polar bears living in the arctic are always better off with white fur color, and that doesn't change, then there will be stabilizing pressure for the fur to remain white. Please explain why this is wrong.

I don't know anybody who still uses junk DNA as evidence for evolution.

Of course it makes if you have to support lack of evidence for change. those 500 + papers you cited, are they anything like the last one? Convincing title with conflicting substance.

Stabilizing selection, and natural selection, both sides of the coin. between the two, nothing can be falsified, nothing can be proven. How do you empirically support no change? How do you prove everything that changed was selective pressure and everything that didn't was stabilizing selection? You can not. Stabilizing selection is an idea, no science.

I wouldn't doubt hundreds of future papers on it as well as evolution science grapples with an uncooperative fossil record. As with Punctuated Equilibrium, Stabilizing Selection is an invention to explain the failed prediction of change in the fossil evidence.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It's a nonsensical path.

Exactly. It makes your position look like nonsense.

If an intelligent designer created every living thing, then that intelligent designer created all of these terrible pathogens that wreak havoc on us. I'd like an explanation of why we have all these pathogens.

 

[Split Rock]

Stabilizing selection, and natural selection, both sides of the coin. between the two, nothing can be falsified, nothing can be proven. How do you empirically support no change?

Read the papers I provided. Also, you cite stasis in the fossil record and living fossil species.... is that not supportive of no change?

How do you prove everything that changed was selective pressure and everything that didn't was stabilizing selection? You can not. Stabilizing selection is an idea, no science.

Again read the papers. Can we prove everything that changed was selective pressure? No. In fact, that is a rather dated idea. Nowadays most evolutionary biologists accept that not all changes are adaptive. This is where linked traits and genetic drift come in.

I wouldn't doubt hundreds of future papers on it as well as evolution science grapples with an uncooperative fossil record. As with Punctuated Equilibrium, Stabilizing Selection is an invention to explain the failed prediction of change in the fossil evidence.

The fossil record is hardly the basis of the theory of evolution. Certainly not in Darwin's time, and even now, when we have a more complete record, is it often the best way of testing evolutionary theory. I do wonder why you guys harp on it so much... maybe because the record is by its very nature incomplete? I suppose that lets you stick your "Designer of the Gaps" in more easily....

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd like an explanation of why we have all these pathogens.

To facilitate our deaths.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

 

[Split Rock]

13. Michael Behe's December 2010 paper in Quarterly Review of Biology which extensively discusses and critiques Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiments. The discussion is about loss/gain of information.

OK. I looked over the review article you linked. Here are some interesting snippets from the paper:

From the Abstract:
"I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations."

Note that most are either loss of function or modification of pre-existing molecular function. In other words, co-option of function, which is something we discussed earlier.

From the Discussion:
"A third objection could be that the time
and population scales of even the most
ambitious laboratory evolution experiments
are dwarfed when compared to
those of nature. It is certainly true that,
over the long course of history, many critical
gain-of-FCT events occurred."

Behe is correctly indicating that not only are the experiments cited limited because of their duration whcih is short compared to the history of life on earth, but that he agrees that many critical gain of function events occurred.

 

[idscience]

Exactly. It makes your position look like nonsense.

If an intelligent designer created every living thing, then that intelligent designer created all of these terrible pathogens that wreak havoc on us. I'd like an explanation of why we have all these pathogens.

You can ask him when you see him.

 

[idscience]

OK. I looked over the review article you linked. Here are some interesting snippets from the paper:

From the Abstract:
"I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations."

Note that most are either loss of function or modification of pre-existing molecular function. In other words, co-option of function, which is something we discussed earlier.

From the Discussion:
"A third objection could be that the time
and population scales of even the most
ambitious laboratory evolution experiments
are dwarfed when compared to
those of nature. It is certainly true that,
over the long course of history, many critical
gain-of-FCT events occurred."

Behe is correctly indicating that not only are the experiments cited limited because of their duration whcih is short compared to the history of life on earth, but that he agrees that many critical gain of function events occurred.

modification of pre-existing function isn't additive information. It is already there.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

To facilitate our deaths.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I'm sure the helpless, blind African children are very grateful for their rather short, painful lifespan

You can ask him when you see him.

So...you don't have an answer for me?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure the helpless, blind African children are very grateful for their rather short, painful lifespan

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.