|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Evolution is not an act of random chance or process but of order and purpose even as it peddles along without intrusive periodical divine intervention. |
So we agree! Great!| The fact that it has worked as well as it has suggest an intelligent creator... |
Okay, we don't agree on the unevidenced philosophical nonsense. What a shame.
|
You have just agreed to a quoted in your first instance by Kenneth Miller who is a listed theistic evolutionist.
| Miller said: Evolution is not an act of random chance or process but of order and purpose...... |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrptftaQx58&feature=related
Miller said that to refute Dawkins position that evolution was a random and chance process. The order and purpose designed by the creator holds creation to a moral obligation and not as Dawkins believes chance, accident, orderless.  |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:54:03 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
BTW Dr Behe is a biologist/scientist too. |
So? It's been pointed out and demonstrated over and over again that he is wrong and worse, dishonest. He's a creationist. His train ran off the rails many years ago. Shall we go through it again? Nothing he has proposed as being irreducibly complex has turned out to be irreducibly complex. And when presented with a huge amount of positive data on something he said is impossible, he just shrugged it off and said it isn't good enough. La la la la la la la... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:58:06 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
You have just agreed to a quoted in your first instance by Kenneth Miller who is a listed theistic evolutionist. |
No. Actually he's an evolutionary biologist who happens to be a theist. He has never supported theistic evolution as put forth by some people of faith who accept evolution with an asterisk. He supports a very naturalistic view of evolution. And he believes in God. Deal with it... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 05:28:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You have just agreed to a quoted in your first instance by Kenneth Miller who is a listed theistic evolutionist.| Miller said: Evolution is not an act of random chance or process but of order and purpose...... |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrptftaQx58&feature=related
Miller said that to refute Dawkins position that evolution was a random and chance process. |
No, Dawkins did not assert that evolution was random. Both Miller and Dawkins agree that while the variation that evolution has to play with is random, natural selection is not at all random, since it is dictated by the environment.
The single phrase of Dawkins' that Miller was trying to refute was that the universe shows no evidence of "purpose," in a "grand scheme of things" sense. However, Miller makes a false equivocation of the term, and mocks Dawkins' ability to find a personal purpose and avoid nihilism. It's a bad argument that Miller should be ashamed of.| The order and purpose designed by the creator holds creation to a moral obligation and not as Dawkins believes chance, accident, orderless. |
The unstated argument in there is that the order in the universe allows you to infer the existence of a creator. I don't agree, and would like to see you make a logical defense of that.
The second flaw in this argument is that the mere fact that the alleged designer has created "order and purpose" in the universe "holds creation to a moral obligation." I don't see how that follows logically at all. Just because an entity has that sort of power doesn't give us an obligation to obey, because might does not make right. We have a moral obligation to oppose tyrants, for example. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 06:50:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jamalrapper:
You have just agreed to a quoted in your first instance by Kenneth Miller who is a listed theistic evolutionist. |
No. Actually he's an evolutionary biologist who happens to be a theist. He has never supported theistic evolution as put forth by some people of faith who accept evolution with an asterisk. He supports a very naturalistic view of evolution. And he believes in God. Deal with it...
|
You might want to update your knowledge of who's who in the scientific publication world. I thought this was a skeptic forum....critical thinking, skeptical inquiry, some thoroughness. All I am getting is a bunch of deniers displaying a knee jerk reaction to Irreducibly Complex discourses albeit well beyond the scope of skeptic wannabees. Critical thinking is so rare here it is stifled to the point of suffocating boredom. Try exercising your other options. Surely you are not all bound to the standard 12 step programmed, protracted responses because after the third denial your positions become redundantly repetitious.
| Contemporary advocates of theistic evolution |
[Once again, jamalrapper: Don't do copy-and-paste jobs this big without providing citation or a link to the source. In this case Wikipedia.
Contemporary advocates of theistic evolution
//Dr. Mabuse]
Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic evolutionists include:
* Paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
* R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
* Microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
* Geneticist Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health and director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief in which he has suggested the term BioLogos for theistic evolution. Collins is also the founder of the BioLogos Foundation.
* Biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
* Biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
* Evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
* Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God" (Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" in the 2001 PBS special "Evolution")
* Biologist Joan Roughgarden at Stanford University is author of various books including Evolution and Christian Faith: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist
* Paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe
Philosophers, theologians, and physical scientists who have supported the evolutionary creationist model include:
* Eco-theologian Fr. Thomas Berry
* Eco-theologian and evolutionary evangelist Rev. Michael Dowd
* Fr. George Coyne of the Vatican Observatory
* Astronomer Owen Gingerich
* Physicist Karl Giberson of Eastern Nazarene College, author of several books: Worlds Apart: The Unholy War between Religion and Science, Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story, The Oracles of Science: Celebrity Scientists Versus God and Religion, and Saving Darwin.
* Theologian and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop of Durham and contributor to the BioLogos Foundation.
* Theologian John Haught of Georgetown University.
* Biochemist and theologian Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford.
* Theologian Thomas Jay Oord of Northwest Nazarene University (known for saying, "The Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the details of how life became abundant.")
* Pope John Paul II, who is famous for praising evolutionary biology and calling its accounts of human origins "more than a hypothesis"[39]
* Ted Peters, co-author of the book Can You Believe in God And Evolution?
* Physicist and theologian Rev. John Polkinghorne of Cambridge University.
* Theologian Rev. Keith Ward, former Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, author of God, Chance, and Necessity
* Theologian-philosopher Rev. Micha#322; Heller, professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Kraków, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff.
* Theologian-philosopher catholic archbishop Józef #379;yci#324;ski, professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology in Kraków, Poland.
* Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, University of Munich, author of "Toward a Theology of Nature."
|
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/16/2012 13:00:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 08:22:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
All I am getting is a bunch of deniers displaying a knee jerk reaction to Irreducibly Complex discourses... |
You haven't presented any scientific evidence that Irreducible Complexity presents the barrier to evolution that you think it does. Behe's arguments weren't scientific (that was proven beyond any doubt during Kitzmiller v. Dover), and they were all refuted years ago. If you want a serious discussion, then offer something new, and not the same old creationist nonsense we've heard a million times before. Do you think we need to re-debunk this garbage from scratch every time someone chants Behe's dogma at us again?
In other words, you're a massive hypocrite for assuming that references to Behe and IC are a good enough argument against modern evolutionary theory to justify accusations that we aren't being skeptical. You need to work much harder than that. Especially when you refuse to acknowledge your own blatant errors of fact.| Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic evolutionists include: |
Who cares about a list of names? What do a bunch of theistic evolutionists have to do with ID or IC? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 09:03:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You might want to update your knowledge of who's who in the scientific publication world. I thought this was a skeptic forum....critical thinking, skeptical inquiry, some thoroughness. All I am getting is a bunch of deniers displaying a knee jerk reaction to Irreducibly Complex discourses albeit well beyond the scope of skeptic wannabees. Critical thinking is so rare here it is stifled to the point of suffocating boredom. Try exercising your other options. Surely you are not all bound to the standard 12 step programmed, protracted responses because after the third denial your positions become redundantly repetitious.
|
Nice adhominen
In return, throughout this thread you have been asked dozens of question none of which you have answered. I suspect this to be a defense mechanism employed to avoid an apoplectic meltdown brought on by having to honestly defend your arguments.
In regard to your list, I believe it was you who said, "some scientist believe things that they cannot defend." What none of the scientists in your list have provided are
1. How postulating a creator enhances our understanding of natural processes.
2. How to measure the creator effect on those processes. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 11:19:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You might want to update your knowledge of who's who in the scientific publication world. I thought this was a skeptic forum....critical thinking, skeptical inquiry, some thoroughness. All I am getting is a bunch of deniers displaying a knee jerk reaction to Irreducibly Complex discourses albeit well beyond the scope of skeptic wannabees. Critical thinking is so rare here it is stifled to the point of suffocating boredom. Try exercising your other options. Surely you are not all bound to the standard 12 step programmed, protracted responses because after the third denial your positions become redundantly repetitious.
|
Nice adhominen
In return, throughout this thread you have been asked dozens of question none of which you have answered. I suspect this to be a defense mechanism employed to avoid an apoplectic meltdown brought on by having to honestly defend your arguments.
In regard to your list, I believe it was you who said, "some scientist believe things that they cannot defend." What none of the scientists in your list have provided are
1. How postulating a creator enhances our understanding of natural processes.
2. How to measure the creator effect on those processes.
|
We are getting closer to the problems skeptics have on this forum. They are not capable of critical thinking and more often than not begging for some authoritative figure to help them overcome their clouded incapacity to arrive at their own conclusions. Their inability to process data when presented with opposing views and evidence is more than apparent, it is contagious.
It has been presented here.
1. When scientist cannot even determine the origin of life and provide theories of primordial soup or extraterrestrial origins. That should be insulting to any intelligent person.
2. Unable to determine the origin of life but undeterred advance to explain the origin of species. That is adding insult to injury to any intelligent person.
3. Relying on the decision of a court9Kitzmiller v. Dover) to validate scientific fact is the blind leading the absurd.
The courts rules abortion is legal. So when do they believe life begins in the womb. If at conception then it is murder. And yet should you kill a woman with a fetus...that is double manslaughter or the taking of two lives.
Why do the courts in different states have different ruling on gay marriages? In fact laws are different in different states.
Science should be left to the scientist and not judges whose own interpretation of their disciple are often controversial.
So why are skeptics struggling with original critical thinking on subjects such as Irreducible Complexity. Surprising the answer is self evident....the concept cannot be reduced to their level of comprehension.
Ken Miller artfully convinced Judge Jones the T3SS was a precursor to the bacteria flagellum. There is no evidence of that nor can that be proven and in fact it is declared impossible. Douglas Axe in a paper refutes such claims. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4 |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/14/2012 11:24:44 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 11:42:25 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and theistic evolutionists include: |
Who cares? Also, by including Miller on that list means that whoever put it together doesn’t get the difference between someone who accepts a naturalistic view of evolution and theistic evolution which is guided. Apparently the criteria for the list is only if those on the list are both scientists and theists. I have already quoted Miller who makes it very clear that he accepts the naturalistic view. If you want to take up space on our forum with baloney, it’s okay with me. But it does make you look like you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Or perhaps you just ignore that which is counter to your claims. But allow me to help you out again. These are Miller’s words:
| I have never argued for the sort of divine tinkering that Coyne finds so disturbing. In fact, I have argued exactly the opposite. Evolution is not rigged, and religious belief does not require one to postulate a God who fixes the game, bribes the referees, or tricks natural selection. |
The fact that you keep trying to include Miller as a theistic evolutionist even to the point of posting a whole list of theistic evolutionists on which he’s included, (“Evolutionist” and “Darwinist” are creationist terms, by the way) reminds me of how creationists repeat falsehoods and mistakes even after being repeatedly corrected. Here’s one of many examples of that:
Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors
And then there was that silly creationist canard that transitional “forms” don’t exist. You haven’t defended that one either.
I’m assuming at this point that your refusal to address our criticisms of the central supporting tenet of ID, Irreducible Complexity, is another such dodge. Apparently you prefer to address the issue by moving the goal posts (abiogenesis), quote mining and ad hominem attack. You are apparently not averse to using logical fallacies, while accusing us of our lack of critical thinking skills. That’s some pretty funny stuff! Thanks!
I’m resisting posting The List of Steves, scientists named Steve who have signed a statement in support of naturalistic evolution. You know. As long as we are posting lists.
jamalrapper:
because after the third denial… |
By the way, about denial, given that over 99% of all evolutionary biologists (actual scientists) support the naturalist version of evolution, which is a huge consensus and probably well beyond what most theories in science enjoy, the denial thing you mentioned is logically on the part of those who support creationism and ID. That doesn’t mean you guys are wrong, of course. What it means is that you all have utterly failed to make your case.
jamalrapper:
… your positions become redundantly repetitious. |
You could solve the problem by addressing our criticisms.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2012 : 11:53:27 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
We are getting closer to the problems skeptics have on this forum. They are not capable of critical thinking and more often than not begging for some authoritative figure to help them overcome their clouded incapacity to arrive at their own conclusions. Their inability to process data when presented with opposing views and evidence is more than apparent, it is contagious. |
This is pretty funny too, given that all you did in the beginning is post links to others and later quote mined Dawkins, Hawking (with an attribution mistake) and Miller. Oh, and then there were all the links to the DI pages. I mean, really! I was the one who asked you to drop that crap and present your argument. Most of what we wrote, you simply ignored.
jamalrapper:
It has been presented here.
1. When scientist cannot even determine the origin of life and provide theories of primordial soup or extraterrestrial origins. That should be insulting to any intelligent person. |
Abiogenesis is being studied. We don’t know the answer yet. In your world, if we don’t default to a creator, it’s insulting to “any intelligent person.” But again, this is a case of coming up with the answer first and then call what we don’t know support for your answer. A lack of evidence is evidence in your book. And you call that intelligent?
jamalrapper:
2. Unable to determine the origin of life but undeterred advance to explain the origin of species. That is adding insult to injury to any intelligent person. |
See above. But to help you out, evolution describes what happened after life formed. It has never claimed to be anything else. The origin of a species is not about the origin of life. Why do you guys always get that wrong? How life came to be, and what happened after are not the same science!
jamalrapper:
3. Relying on the decision of a court9Kitzmiller v. Dover) to validate scientific fact is the blind leading the absurd. |
The case is useful, because several of the major ID players testified. But validation actually comes from the many thousands of studies published in reputable journals that support evolution. And by the way. The biggest critics of every paper are the scientists themselves. Each paper is scrutinized to see if it holds water. That’s where peer review, replication and ultimate verification or rejection happens. It’s not a method for the faint of heart.
jamalrapper:
The courts rules abortion is legal. So when do they believe life begins in the womb. If at conception then it is murder. And yet should you kill a woman with a fetus...that is double manslaughter or the taking of two lives.
Why do the courts in different states have different ruling on gay marriages? In fact laws are different in different states.
Science should be left to the scientist and not judges whose own interpretation of their disciple are often controversial.
So why are skeptics struggling with original critical thinking on subjects such as Irreducible Complexity. Surprising the answer is self evident....the concept cannot be reduced to their level of comprehension. |
See above.
"To achieve its aim, BIO-Complexity is founded on the principle of critical exchange that makes science work. Specifically, the journal enlists editors and reviewers with scientific expertise in relevant fields who hold a wide range of views on the merit of ID, but who agree on the importance of science for resolving controversies of this kind."
Ha ha ha ha ha! An in-house journal!!!
BIO-Complexity
This paper was published in 2011. It was the last thing published in the journal so far.
Dembski is on the review board. To date, only three papers have been published, one of them by Dempski himself, who's not even a scientist. What a joke!
Okay, I admit that was an ad hominem. But really... If the paper is a good one, why not have it published it in a respected journal? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 13:55:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
We are getting closer to the problems skeptics have on this forum. They are not capable of critical thinking and more often than not begging for some authoritative figure to help them overcome their clouded incapacity to arrive at their own conclusions. |
Actually, I've been begging for you to present a decent argument.| Their inability to process data when presented with opposing views and evidence is more than apparent, it is contagious. |
You haven't presented any data. Certainly not with regard to IC.It has been presented here.
1. When scientist cannot even determine the origin of life and provide theories of primordial soup or extraterrestrial origins. That should be insulting to any intelligent person. |
Yes, you called scientists stupid. That's not an argument in favor of ID.| 2. Unable to determine the origin of life but undeterred advance to explain the origin of species. That is adding insult to injury to any intelligent person. |
Yes, you think Darwin's theory post-dated abiogenesis research. It's quite silly, really, to be lecturing us on skepticism when you can't even get some pretty basic history correct.| 3. Relying on the decision of a court9Kitzmiller v. Dover) to validate scientific fact is the blind leading the absurd. |
That's just you lying to yourself about why Kitzmiller v. Dover is the response when you bring up Behe. Behe embarrassed himself with his utterly dogmatic and unscientific testimony at that trial. He fully discredited himself as having a serious voice in the realm of biological sciences.| Science should be left to the scientist and not judges whose own interpretation of their disciple are often controversial. |
And that's why Behe isn't taken seriously here. IC is a completely unscientific idea. If science should be left to the sciences, then Behe should have his degrees revoked.| So why are skeptics struggling with original critical thinking on subjects such as Irreducible Complexity. |
When has any original critical thinking been shown to us on the subject of IC? None has come from Behe. Nor you.| Surprising the answer is self evident....the concept cannot be reduced to their level of comprehension. |
No, the problem is that you're lying to yourself about our objections to what you've said. We can't get through the dishonesty and disrespect you show yourself.So you're just going to parrot someone else's argument? Hypocrite.
Of course, since the evolution of complex traits does not require all intermediaries to be neutral or maladaptive, the Axe paper doesn't declare "impossible" the evolution of the T3SS into the flagellum. And David vun Kannon points out that Axe's model doesn't match reality very well, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 16:16:42 [Permalink]
|
| DaveW wrote: Of course, since the evolution of complex traits does not require all intermediaries to be neutral or maladaptive, the Axe paper doesn't declare "impossible" the evolution of the T3SS into the flagellum. And David vun Kannon points out that Axe's model doesn't match reality very well, anyway. |
So now we have 2 computer geeks David vun Kannon a self aggrandizing highly opinionated terribly unrugged whimpy and our local skeptic wannabee DaveW commenting on a highly complex peer-reviewed work published by Douglas Axe a molecular biologist.
How the two got binary molecular nomenclature confused with base2 binary numeral system can only be described as two confused functional idiots in the mathematical sense. Poor substitutions, nevertheless. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 18:39:30 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
...commenting on a highly complex peer-reviewed work published by Douglas Axe a molecular biologist. |
In house peer review doesn't really count for much. Just saying. Here we have a Journal that has published a total of three papers in three years, and one of them was by a guy on the "editorial team." Call it peer reviewed if you like. But the journal is a joke. More to the point, nothing seems to have come from the paper. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 18:45:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
| DaveW wrote: Of course, since the evolution of complex traits does not require all intermediaries to be neutral or maladaptive, the Axe paper doesn't declare "impossible" the evolution of the T3SS into the flagellum. And David vun Kannon points out that Axe's model doesn't match reality very well, anyway. |
So now we have 2 computer geeks David vun Kannon a self aggrandizing highly opinionated terribly unrugged whimpy and our local skeptic wannabee DaveW commenting on a highly complex peer-reviewed work published by Douglas Axe a molecular biologist.
How the two got binary molecular nomenclature confused with base2 binary numeral system can only be described as two confused functional idiots in the mathematical sense. Poor substitutions, nevertheless. |
So you are incapable of actually addressing any of the criticisms of Axe's paper, you merely resort to insults, an argument from credentials, and a ludicrously hypocritical assertion of peer-review. I think that gives me a win in Absurd Creationist Rhetoric Bingo.
You might want to try following a different script next time. Your Dunning-Kruger-inspired shtick is as old as Lazarus. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2012 : 19:12:15 [Permalink]
|
| Oh. I didn't notice that Douglas Ax is the managing editor of Bio-complexity. And I checked. The third paper also has a couple people on staff. Must be a serious grind to get through peer review, eh? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
