Looking for all the missing links

[Astridhere]

Thanks, I'll check that out...

But for the moment, have you got a source that is accepted among the relevant scientific community as true that states that Lucy's species is not on the branch that Humans are on? Because the quote from the book you provided said that there was a small group of scientists who had proposed that chimpanzees are descended from Lucy's species. This does not mean that all scientists in the field share this opinion.

I made mention already, 'regardless of common thinking today' in anticipation of such a generalisation. If evo researchers could reason that Lucy was a chimp/gorilla ancestor, or dead end, then I likely wouldn't need to say that evos have mountains of misrepresentation.

This is published research as was Gribbin and Cherfas, but your evo researchers are free to ignore it and any other research that is uncomfortable to them.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

There is much more to Lucy that makes me think evo researchers are desperate to find humanity in her, like her curved fingers and arboreal upper body, short stature, the fact that she is yet another mosaic of who knows what, and is not credible evidence of anything, let alone an intermedate human/ape.


The thing is that I am entitled to my opinion. I can support my opinion using information provided by your very own well credentialed researchers, regardless of it being a minority group of well credentialed evo scientists.

Should all the atheists go off and start happy clapping. Not necessarily. However, I maintain that the views I put forward that support my creationist paradigm could not be worse than any support evolutionists provide, regardless of the mountains of outdated research you have. I see new data aligning well with my view with no need for knee jerk changes in response to new information.

Over the past week or two I have spoken to birds, whales and now the human line. I see many links in the chain missing as per thread topic, #1. I also see the few links offered as misrepresented and given examples.

You are entilted to believe Lucy the chimp ancestor has human feet, despite evo research to the contrary. You are entitled to believe a creature, Indohyus, that is very similar to a modern day mouse deer is morphing into a whale and its' closest living relo is a hippo instead. You are entitled to believe that some dinosaur had modern bird feet and left modern bird footprints 212mya.

I do not believe these things and see them as non plausible scenarios, mostly. Now you should at least have some understanding as to why, regardless of whether or not you agree.

 

[Tiberius]

I'm still curious as to what claim exactly you think that Dawkins made in TAT that you think is wrong...

 

[USincognito]

Wow. It's like taking a peek into Bizarroworld.

From An Ancestors Tale, around page 87.

"An" Ancestors {sic} Tale? "around page 87"?

Look folks, I only keep bringing this up with Astrid so people understand what they are dealing with when trying to have an honest discussion here. The Russian site (not Dawkins' site, nor a copy of the book) can't even get the name of the book right, and the citation is "around page 87".

After all this time, it's clear she still has no idea what the actual content of the book is or what Dawkins actually wrote.

It's mind blowing that she can't even go to Google books and read those pages herself - or have actually looked at the screen caps I provided months ago:

Note, there's nothing in here even resembling what she claims Dawkins is supposed to have written. Further, that section - and again, someone who had actually read the book would note that "Ape Men" are in Rendezvous 0 and "Chimpanzees" are in Rendezvous 1.

And then it gets worse for her when she quotes this Russian site to supposedly support her bogus claims about the bogus Wiki content.

{quoting the Russian site}
Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like ‘Dear Boy’).

You bolded the wrong part. See where it says "by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas". Notice that neither of those names are "Richard Dawkins". They are the ones making the claim, not Dawkins and they claim this in two books entitled "The Monkey Puzzle" and "The First Chimpanzee". Notice how neither of those books are "The (not An) Ancestor's (with an apostrophy) Tale".

[Hence, Wiki cites Dawkins as supporting Lucy being a chimpanzee ancestor. Dawkins indeed supports Gribbin and Cherfas's work. As you see Dawkins states he will 'go with the majority - RELUCTANTLY', which further backs his initial support for Lucy being a chimp ancestor.

The rest of the links USincognito supplied are him having a tanty.

There I rest my case on the photo.

Poor USincognito, being a big scientist and all, is prepared to misrepresent his mate Dawkins to save face on CF locking horns with little old me.

So for fun let me restate this because I love it. Lucy, and all her humanity, is likely no more than a chimpanzee ancestor and this is supported by several well credentialed evolutionary scientists.

That is what the photo was about and I am not the one telling huge porkies...

This is what you guys are going to deal with if you try and have a discussion with Astrid...

 

[USincognito]

O.k. I did some more digging and I made a bit of a mistake above, ironically though, one that show's Astrid for what she is all the more. Here's post #712 of this thread again (bolding mine):

The story behind the photo is this.

I was demonstrating how all of Lucy's (afarensis) humanity is debated by several well credentialed evolutionary researchers. I was running into him "Lucy and all her humanity" is a figment of evos imagination, basically.
So I quoted Wiki which quoted Dawkins.

USincognito said he was Dawkins mate was given this book by Dawkins and that he should know what Dawkins said in it and posted a photo of him and Dawkins. I suggested that the photo may be fake because Wiki has no reason to lie but USincognito does.

USincognito had a shot at wiki and stated that Dawkins did not support Lucy being a chimp ancestor in his book An Ancestors Tale. He ran it into me me for weeks as my misrepresenting Dawkins, not knowing what I was saying and Wiki being wrong. He also posted a trophy for me, the picture above to show it is him and that I am always wrong.

Well, as the story goes, I got sick of it so I looked up a free copy of An Ancestors Tale. Low and behold, there it was where Dawkins did indeed support research that suggests Lucy is a chimpanzee ancestor; with no humanity in her, I might add. So USincognito had to suck it up.

Of course after this USincognito went into denial, had a little tanty, and put me on his ignore list.

Hence USincognito does not respond to me because I wooped him!

The quotes she mines in post #733 are indeed by Dawkins from The Ancestor's Tale. Just one problem, they don't refer to page 87 or Lucy or Au. afarensis. They are several paragraphs apart, discuss Orrorin and Toumai - neither of which are "Lucy" or Au. afarensis and most importantly the entire section has nothing to do with Au. afarensis per se, but is instead Dawkins weighing the various theories about what Concestor 1 might look like (see first screen cap) and concluding, based on studies of known species, that for the purpose of the book he'll go with a quadrupedal chimp-like Concestor (see second screen cap).

Again, this is what you have to deal with if you choose to attempt a discussion with Astrid.

 

[Astridhere]

Wow. It's like taking a peek into Bizarroworld.



"An" Ancestors {sic} Tale? "around page 87"?

Look folks, I only keep bringing this up with Astrid so people understand what they are dealing with when trying to have an honest discussion here. The Russian site (not Dawkins' site, nor a copy of the book) can't even get the name of the book right, and the citation is "around page 87".

After all this time, it's clear she still has no idea what the actual content of the book is or what Dawkins actually wrote.

It's mind blowing that she can't even go to Google books and read those pages herself - or have actually looked at the screen caps I provided months ago:

Note, there's nothing in here even resembling what she claims Dawkins is supposed to have written. Further, that section - and again, someone who had actually read the book would note that "Ape Men" are in Rendezvous 0 and "Chimpanzees" are in Rendezvous 1.

And then it gets worse for her when she quotes this Russian site to supposedly support her bogus claims about the bogus Wiki content.



You bolded the wrong part. See where it says "by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas". Notice that neither of those names are "Richard Dawkins". They are the ones making the claim, not Dawkins and they claim this in two books entitled "The Monkey Puzzle" and "The First Chimpanzee". Notice how neither of those books are "The (not An) Ancestor's (with an apostrophy) Tale".






This is what you guys are going to deal with if you try and have a discussion with Astrid...

Oh USincognito will you stop it now.

You are continuing to try to bamboozle your credibility back. It won't work USincognito. This lot can read, so can I and so can the Wiki writers. Wiki had the book. You appear to be only one that is having difficulty in comprehending what Dawkins has said and squirming so badly.

You have pasted up copies of the relevant pages of the book. Good. It does not matter what page it is on. I quoted the page I thought was on the link which, regardless of numbering, is exactly the same as your post picture of the text.

Here it is AGAIN!!!!

The Blind Cave Fish's Tale, which is about Dollo's Law, will reassure us that this last is not the case. There is nothing in principle wrong with Theory 4. Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like ‘Dear Boy’). For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case. It centres on an interpretation of human evolution which has long been widely accepted, although not without controversy: people are juvenile apes who have become sexually mature.

Even if we accept Orrorin and Tournai as bipedal, I would not choose with confidence between Theories 2, 3 and 4. And we mustn't forget Theory 1, that they walked on all fours and the problem goes away, which many people think is the most plausible. But of course these different theories make predictions about Concestor 1, our next stopping point. Theories 1,2, and 3 agree in assuming a chimpanzee-like Concestor 1, walking on all fours, but occasionally rising on the hind legs. Theory 4 by contrast differs in assuming a more humanoid Concestor 1. In narrating Rendezvous 1, I have been forced to make a decision between the theories. Somewhat reluctantly, I'll go with the majority, and assume a chimpanzee-like concestor. On to meet it!

Ancestor's Tale, The - Dawkins R.A.


Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's Tale proposes that robust Australopithecines: Paranthropus, are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecus are the ancestors of chimpanzees, the others being human ancestors (see Homininae).[20]
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dawkins said that Gribbins and Cherfas 'make a good case' for LUCY being a chimpanzee ancestor. That sounds like supports it to me. Did you miss this every time you read it. Further Dawkins likes theory 4, the huminoid ancestor as concestor 1 but goes with the majority thinking, chimp like, reluctantly.

What is it about you, USincognito, that you absolutely refuse to admit that Dawkins supports Gribbin and Cherfas suggestion that Lucy is a chimp ancestor? What does 'they make a surprisingly good case' mean to you?

Seriously USincognito you will never get your credibility back with misrepresentation and evasion.

 

[Astridhere]

I'm still curious as to what claim exactly you think that Dawkins made in TAT that you think is wrong...

Tiberius this is getting tedious. This is not about what I think Dawkins said that was wrong. All your researchers are wrong. That is not the point.

In relation to USincognito the point is he has no idea what 'they make a surprisingly good case' means.

In relation to the thread you have already asked for a statement and I have given a couple. Here is one again in case you missed it.

I am saying Lucy is just another misrepresentation that evos use, and an example of the mountains of non credible supports evos provide as evidence for evolution.

 

[Tiberius]

The Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), and gorillas from robust australopithecines (like ‘Dear Boy’). For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case. It centres on an interpretation of human evolution which has long been widely accepted, although not without controversy: people are juvenile apes who have become sexually mature.

It seems to me that Dawkins is saying, "Here are two people who make a particular claim, and while they make a good argument for their claim, it is not yet entirely convincing and their claim also goes against the currently accepted scientific concensus."

In short, Dawkins is saying two guys have made the claim that Lucy was the ancestor of chimps and not Humans. That is all he is saying. It does not mean that their claim is true, and it does not mean that he is also supporting their claim.

Even if we accept Orrorin and Tournai as bipedal, I would not choose with confidence between Theories 2, 3 and 4. And we mustn't forget Theory 1, that they walked on all fours and the problem goes away, which many people think is the most plausible. But of course these different theories make predictions about Concestor 1, our next stopping point. Theories 1,2, and 3 agree in assuming a chimpanzee-like Concestor 1, walking on all fours, but occasionally rising on the hind legs. Theory 4 by contrast differs in assuming a more humanoid Concestor 1. In narrating Rendezvous 1, I have been forced to make a decision between the theories. Somewhat reluctantly, I'll go with the majority, and assume a chimpanzee-like concestor. On to meet it!

If you read the book instead of looking at small parts of it, you'll understand what he is saying.

He says that he thinks that the concestor is more like a chimp than a modern Human because Humans, being relatively hairless, are the odd ones out. If the concestor was more Human like, we'd have to assume that two groups then grew their hair back, whereas if we assume a chimp-like concestor, then all the groups kept their hair, except for us. This is a more parsimonious explanation, and so Dawkins supports a chimp-like concestor.

And the reason for his reluctance is that those two others have made a good case. However, that doesn't mean that it is fact, and it doesn't mean Lucy is on the chimp side of the split.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins"]Richard Dawkins

in his book The Ancestor's Tale proposes that robust Australopithecines: Paranthropus, are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecus are the ancestors of chimpanzees, the others being human ancestors (see Homininae).[20]
Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you read this, you'll see that it says SOME of the gracile australopithicines are ancestors of chimps, others of gorillas and others of Humans. Since this passage doesn't say which of these three groups Lucy falls into, it offers no support for your case.

Dawkins said that Gribbins and Cherfas 'make a good case' for LUCY being a chimpanzee ancestor. That sounds like supports it to me. Did you miss this every time you read it. Further Dawkins likes theory 4, the huminoid ancestor as concestor 1 but goes with the majority thinking, chimp like, reluctantly.

Yes, he does say that they make a good argument, but that doesn't make it fact, which is why he doesn't say their hypothesis is true.

Get it?

What is it about you, USincognito, that you absolutely refuse to admit that Dawkins supports Gribbin and Cherfas suggestion that Lucy is a chimp ancestor? What does 'they make a surprisingly good case' mean to you?

Seriously USincognito you will never get your credibility back with misrepresentation and evasion.

Because USincognito, like me, recognizes that there is a big difference between saying, "That's an interesting argument and it might be true, but it requires further study to be sure" and saying, "That's an interesting argument, so I'm going to accept it as true."

Dawkins, as a scientist, will not hold a viewpoint on this unless there is sufficient evidence to do so.

And you also don't seem to realise that even if he thinks they make a good argument, he must think that the general concensus makes an even better argument, which is why he's gone with it.

Or do you really think he's saying, "Well, they make the best argument, but I'm going to go with a weaker argument."

 

[Astridhere]

It seems to me that Dawkins is saying, "Here are two people who make a particular claim, and while they make a good argument for their claim, it is not yet entirely convincing and their claim also goes against the currently accepted scientific concensus."

In short, Dawkins is saying two guys have made the claim that Lucy was the ancestor of chimps and not Humans. That is all he is saying. It does not mean that their claim is true, and it does not mean that he is also supporting their claim.



If you read the book instead of looking at small parts of it, you'll understand what he is saying.

He says that he thinks that the concestor is more like a chimp than a modern Human because Humans, being relatively hairless, are the odd ones out. If the concestor was more Human like, we'd have to assume that two groups then grew their hair back, whereas if we assume a chimp-like concestor, then all the groups kept their hair, except for us. This is a more parsimonious explanation, and so Dawkins supports a chimp-like concestor.

And the reason for his reluctance is that those two others have made a good case. However, that doesn't mean that it is fact, and it doesn't mean Lucy is on the chimp side of the split.



If you read this, you'll see that it says SOME of the gracile australopithicines are ancestors of chimps, others of gorillas and others of Humans. Since this passage doesn't say which of these three groups Lucy falls into, it offers no support for your case.



Yes, he does say that they make a good argument, but that doesn't make it fact, which is why he doesn't say their hypothesis is true.

Get it?



Because USincognito, like me, recognizes that there is a big difference between saying, "That's an interesting argument and it might be true, but it requires further study to be sure" and saying, "That's an interesting argument, so I'm going to accept it as true."

Dawkins, as a scientist, will not hold a viewpoint on this unless there is sufficient evidence to do so.

And you also don't seem to realise that even if he thinks they make a good argument, he must think that the general concensus makes an even better argument, which is why he's gone with it.

Or do you really think he's saying, "Well, they make the best argument, but I'm going to go with a weaker argument."

A real long reply that ignores the obvious.

Dawkins says alot of things and can hardly make up his own mind about things from the plethora of contradicting theories around each of his concestors. I also know what 'reluctantly means' in relation to Dawkins going with a chimp-like ancestor, which of course has been falsified anyway because it 'common knowledge' now that the common ancestor was not a knucklewalker, and a chimp is.

The Blind Cave Fish's Tale, which is about Dollo's Law, will reassure us that this last is not the case. There is nothing in principle wrong with Theory 4. Chimpanzees really could have passed through a more humanoid, bipedal stage before reverting to quadrupedal apehood. As it happens, this very suggestion has been revived by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas, in their two books, The Monkey Puzzle and The First Chimpanzee. They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy), ......For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case.

"They go so far as to suggest that chimpanzees are descended from gracile australopithecines (like Lucy)" "For such an in-your-face radical suggestion, they make a surprisingly good case." These are Dawkins own words. Dawkins also wrote ..(like Lucy)... I did not put that there. Do you think Dawkins just put that there to stuff USincognito around?

Dawkins also says this..."Gribbin and Cherfas are in effect suggesting that modern chimpanzees and gorillas are like the Earl of Gonister. They are humans (or australopithecines, orrorins or sahelanthropes) who have grown up and become quadrupedal apes again, like their, and our, more distant ancestors. I never thought the Gribbin/Cherfas theory was obviously silly. The new findings of very ancient hominids like Orrorin and Tournai, whose dates push up against our split with chimpanzees, could almost justify them in a sotto voce ‘We told you so’."..again lending his support for the work.

Lucy is renown for being a biped. Dawkins is supporting that chimpanzees 'evolved' from gracile bipedal humaniod australopithecines. Dawkins also speaks to bipedability possible dating back to the chimp/human split. Hence agreeing with many researchers that bipedability is no longer a human trait. Of his 4 theories Dawkins likes 4, the humanoid concestor 1 but chooses to go with the majority that look to chimp-like and he does so reluctantly. Again this stated reluctance that Dawkins he himself spoke to reiterated his support from Gribbins and Cherfas's work.

Now you and USincognito can go around in circles as much as you like. Dawkins has made enough commentry of his own in support of Gribbins and Cherfas to discern that Dawkins supports their work. That is that, and that is all there is to it. I may use Dawkins as an example of researchers that have dubious thoughts about Lucy being a human ancestor along with the other sources I quoted.

My goodness I have never seen the likes of the denial and convolutions you lot can make out of a simple thing. USincognito simply needs to suck this up and deal with it like a man.

 

[Tiberius]

Dawkins has made enough commentry of his own in support of Gribbins and Cherfas to discern that Dawkins supports their work.

Dawkins' decision to go with the scientific consensus instead of Gribbins and Cherfas clearly shows that he does not support their work as much as he supports the current scientific consensus. Dawkins is able to say that Person A makes a very good case, but he still finds person B to be more convincing.

You are ignoring this.

 

[USincognito]

Man, this is like watching some sort of weird performance art.

{snip posting the same thing over and over again which is what got you into trouble when this first started}

Richard Dawkins in his book The Ancestor's Tale proposes that robust Australopithecines: Paranthropus, are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecus are the ancestors of chimpanzees, the others being human ancestors (see Homininae[20]

Footnote 20 cites page 86 of the The Ancestor's Tale. In fact, you quoted the screen caps of that page in this response. Where on page 86 and 87 does it say "Paranthropus are the ancestors of gorillas, whereas some of the gracile australopithecus are the ancestors of chimpanzees"? Here it is again Astrid, transcribe, describe, take a screen cap and highlight it. Show me and anyone still watching your death spiral exactly where it says that!

 

[RickG]

This is published research as was Gribbin and Cherfas, but your evo researchers are free to ignore it and any other research that is uncomfortable to them.
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

I see nothing in that paper that discredits evolution. Why would anyone who understands the theory of evolution be uncomfortable?

 

[MostlyLurking]

Dawkins says alot of things and can hardly make up his own mind about things from the plethora of contradicting theories around each of his concestors.

And yet he has tenure and you don't. How do you explain that?

Perhaps you need to publish your findings and then a decisive victory would be yours. Where did you say that you are publishing your work? Has it already been accepted by peer-review?

 

[Astridhere]

I see nothing in that paper that discredits evolution. Why would anyone who understands the theory of evolution be uncomfortable?

That would be because nothing short of a precambrian rabbit would discredit evolution. In fact I am sure evos would come up with some convolution to explain it anyway.

The TOE is one scientific idea that has no credible support for it. After 150 years your researchers are still debating as to the how, when where and why of evolution.

Robust debate and inconsisted, unstable and opposing theories are what you call evidence.

 

[GrannyM]

That would be because nothing short of a precambrian rabbit would discredit evolution. In fact I am sure evos would come up with some convolution to explain it anyway.

The TOE is one scientific idea that has no credible support for it. After 150 years your researchers are still debating as to the how, when where and why of evolution.

Robust debate and inconsisted, unstable and opposing theories are what you call evidence.

I am new here, and don't know the players. Are you someone who accepts a 4.5 billion year old earth?

 

[NailsII]

I am new here, and don't know the players. Are you someone who accepts a 4.5 billion year old earth?

I don't think that Astrid actually accepts anything other than 'goddidit'.

 

[Astridhere]

And yet he has tenure and you don't. How do you explain that?

Perhaps you need to publish your findings and then a decisive victory would be yours. Where did you say that you are publishing your work? Has it already been accepted by peer-review?

All the evo researchers that for the past 150 years supported human knucklewalking ancestry were wrong. Hence publlished works in relation to evolutionary theory aren't even worth the paper they are printed on.

These published works now reside in the great rubbish bin of evolutionary delusions past that were once evidence for evolution. There resides human knuckelwalking ancestry, Turkana Boy the athlete, your predictions around the Y chromosome, your theories around increasing complexity, the revolving door of human ancestors, non coding dna being junk, Mendelian inheritance being the only form of genetic inheritance, ancestors cohabitating with their descendants, gradual as oppposed to punctuated evolution, etc etc etc.

So much for published and peer reviewed papers and the credentialed academia behind them!

 

[GrannyM]

I don't think that Astrid actually accepts anything other than 'goddidit'.

Well, "goddidit" is the only possible answer if you are working within a time frame of 6000 years.

 

[Astridhere]

I am new here, and don't know the players. Are you someone who accepts a 4.5 billion year old earth?

I guess I'd describe myself as someone that doesn't care about the age of the earth. Days can be whatever. I lean toward an old earth view. I like YEC stuff though and think they have some good points and supports. I just don't see any reason why the earth has to be literally young for the bible to maintain its credibility, so I do not debate it unless dating is the topic at hand.

Welcome!

 

[GrannyM]

I guess I'd describe myself as someone that doesn't care about the age of the earth. Days can be whatever. I lean toward an old earth view. I like YEC stuff though and think they have some good points and supports. I just don't see any reason why the earth has to be literally young for the bible to maintain its credibility, so I do not debate it unless dating is the topic at hand.

Welcome!

Great. As I noted to Nails, it is pointless to debate evolution if the time scale is limited to 6000 years.

 

[RickG]

That would be because nothing short of a precambrian rabbit would discredit evolution. In fact I am sure evos would come up with some convolution to explain it anyway.

A Precambrian rabbit would be more than enough to discredit evolution. Perhaps you can go searching for one.

The TOE is one scientific idea that has no credible support for it. After 150 years your researchers are still debating as to the how, when where and why of evolution.

Talk about denial...szheeeesh! Even the paper you referenced supports evolution. Try citing one paper in the relevant credible scientific literature that contradicts evolution. Clue, there aren't any.

Robust debate and inconsisted, unstable and opposing theories are what you call evidence.

One thing is for sure Astridhere, when you post we can always find quote mines and/or citations to the scientific literature that support the opposite of what you claim.