cambrian death cause

quote:

---

do some reading. the modern great white has 3000 some teeth at any given time. that's a lot more than two row

---

I think loudmouth was refering to some shark like fossil with 2 sets of teeth? In other words, I think he meant 2 sets on top, 2 on the bottom. This was the point in question, not great whites, or any others.

quote:

---

however, they exist only in a certain range, from somewhere in the mesozoic to modern times.

---

The mesozoic were fairly modern times, as were the cambrian! So if shark teeth were not extant below the meso, that we have found yet, then (aside from evo thoughts) why not? There are only so many possibilities here. Besides, if it were not an option to consider shark never used to shed teeth like they now do, and have done since the meso, then what proof can you offer? Is it just because it so drastically goes against your premise, your foundation?

quote:

---

especially if you're of the sect that believes eden was in heaven.

---

I never heard of that sect. I'll need to throw out some shark teeth, and see how they land, and see if what they say is true, even though the bible already made it crystal clear it was right here on earth.

quote:

---

For the last time, evolution and the big bang have absolutely nothing to do with each other,

---

Fair enough, I'll accept you are unaware of the connection. Just think of it, the one who came up with the inspiration for both these ideas must really hate men! Think of all those 'out of eden' cambrian worms, trilobites, etc. Now think of how insulting it would be to say man came from these things!

quote:

---

god made a promise to noah that no matter how bad mankind got, he wouldn't kill us all, again.

---

Actually, no, He did not. Only that it would not be by a flood of water!

quote:

---

fine, explain to me how both can be literally true, and we're due for a THIRD flood, and not have god be a liar? you realise that that implication is blasphemy, right? saying that god breaks his promises.

---

If I remember correctly, it was about free will? How can God allow it? Simple, He limits His power for the time being, to allow us to see the bad we chose. Not forever, there is a plan to the whole thing.

quote:

---

jonah says it was a fish. not a whale

---

I think fish was more or less a big sea dweller, in the usage here.

quote:

---

and i never said rodent. i said rodent-like. all mammals come from small rodent-LIKE animals, including whales.

---

Well, since these rodent like evo creations had teeth, I guess I can see why you have no questions about it! Has a real religious ring to it--"all mammals come from small rodent-LIKE animals, including whales.". Like some doctrine we must accept without question. 'We are borg'!

quote:

---

fairly obvious point comes to mind about sharks in the cambrian. Just because it is assumed most cambrian life was sea life, was it really?

---

There could have been worms that could live in moist soil and respire through moist skin, as they do now. However, there wasn't an organism with lungs till well after the Cambrian, at least among the fossils collected so far. The first organisms on DRY land were plants, and animals followed after plants as they were a prodigious food source. Before that, the only reason to come up on land was to avoid predators.

quote:

---

In other words, could cambrian life have been living outside of a strict 'sea' condition?

---

How about the question at hand. Where are the sharks in the cambrian? We find their vertebrae in the correct layers per evolutionary theories, we don't even have to rely on teeth. Where are the shark vertebrae in the cambrian? Oh right, they lived longer as evidenced by . . . nothing.

quote:

---

However, there wasn't an organism with lungs till well after the Cambrian, at least among the fossils collected so far. The first organisms on DRY land were plants, and animals followed after plants as they were a prodigious food source. Before that, the only reason to come up on land was to avoid predators.

---

This was in reply to cambrian life needing a sea. I am missing how this amswers the question. Are you saying because cambies had no lungs all must have been sea? Couldn't something with no lungs live in a lagoon, or swamp, or lake, or river, or wetland, or such, for example?

quote:

---

We find their vertebrae in the correct layers per evolutionary theories

---

Well, they are in the correct place for me too. (despite evo theory)
I'll give you guys a hint, since you are falling short here. Imagine how thick the soil was in the cambrian, and how fast, according to my proposed model here, it must have accumulated! Why, it just don't work like that now, under our conditions. (Maybe it isn't a big problem, but I expected it to be raised long ago)

the point was that one of the qualities of being a shark is having multiple rows of teeth, that get shed. um, actually, that would be a "macro-evolutionary change" wouldn't it? going from having a single row of teeth and not sheeding them, to going to multiple rows and shedding them. sorry, either way, you lose. really? it did? book chapter and verse? you haven't answered any of my other verse requests, i don't imagine you'll answer this on either. and everybody who read and followed the book of adam and eve and the book of jubilees probably thought eden was in heaven.even in genesis, when god kicks the two out of the garden, part of the curse is giving adam the barren earth. evolution is change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next in biological organism.the big bang was the event at the beginning of the universe that produced the outwardly-accelerating universe we observe today. this event was long before, and had nothing to do with biology.now, please show me the connection between a biological certainty and an astrophysical hypothesis. the bible says we were made of dust. what's the difference?

quote:

---

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

---

what bible are you reading? no. answer my question, please. i was asking for an explanation of how it can be literally true that god will again destroy all of mankind, especially by a flood which you think that verse seems to be saying, even after god made a covenant with noah to never do such a thing again.it has nothing to do with free will. it has to do with your misreading of a bible verse, versus the words of god himself. no, a fish was a small sea-dweller. and the word is fish. not whale. it says a BIG fish. not an average whale. that would actually make some sense if all we had were whales and mice. no, we got a lot of stuff in between.what's religious doctrine is "there's some magical device that prevents small changes from adding up to big changes"

quote:

---

Couldn't something with no lungs live in a lagoon, or swamp, or lake, or river, or wetland, or such, for example?

---

Sure. The hard part is keeping the salt concentrations in the body steady while the salt concentrations outside the body fluctuate. Even human blood is close to the salt concentration found in the ocean. Organisms in sea water have to either adjust their physiology to one type of water (saline or fresh) or have physiological mechanisms to deal with both conditions. This is especially true for gilled organisms, since they are separated from the water by only one or two layers of cells. I am not sure if trillies and the like were found in fresh and saline waters. I would venture a guess that most were specialized to one, but probably not both. However, their could have been a few species that were specialized to estuaries where the salinity is in constant flux.

quote:

---

Well, they are in the correct place for me too. (despite evo theory)

---

And despite anything called evidence. Somehow you call evoluton a great leap of faith when it has evidence backing it up, but yet expect me to swallow your speculations that are backed by zero evidence. Why do you expect more from evolution than you ever expect from theories you already accept?

quote:

---

I'll give you guys a hint, since you are falling short here. Imagine how thick the soil was in the cambrian, and how fast, according to my proposed model here, it must have accumulated!

---

I will give you a hint. Show me any evidence that the mechanisms of sedimentation wer any different then than they are now. A proposed model needs positive evidence backing it up. Up until then, it is an ad hoc hypothesis that is used to support a falsified theory. Using ad hoc hypotheses is the first sign of weakness when constructing a theory. If you have to add things which are not evidenced then you are not making a theory but a faith based belief.

quote:

---

Why, it just don't work like that now, under our conditions.

---

Evidence?

quote:

---

that would be a "macro-evolutionary change" wouldn't it? going from having a single row of teeth and not sheeding them, to going to multiple rows and shedding them. sorry, either way, you lose.

---

Don't you wish. Now, if these 2 creatures were the same, then we might talk. Your assumptions of things coming from some ancestor seem to be the bain of your existance. I would look at it more like if there were tons of sharks around, in the areas trilobites, etc. were at, and they used to shed like now, then we might expect teeth coming out our armpits. As it is, however, other factors come into play, and those poor assumptions get left in the dungheap.

quote:

---

really? it did? book chapter and verse?

---

I would be pleased to decimate your biblical misconceptions, as to how the earth and universe were not made in seven (6 actually, days, mornings, and evenings) soon as I deal with the issue at hand.

quote:

---

even in genesis, when god kicks the two out of the garden, part of the curse is giving adam the barren earth

---

Perhaps it would not have been so barren, if the poor cambies got to finish their job!

quote:

---

evolution is change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next in biological organism.

---

Good, so may 'alleles' rest in peace. Dead, defeated, disgusting, and disbelieving.

quote:

---

The big bang was the event at the beginning of the universe that produced the outwardly-accelerating universe we observe today. this event was long before, and had nothing to do with biology.

---

One minute they are not connected, the next, here you go connecting them. Let's face it, granny, and the cup o soup are lovers!

quote:

---

now, please show me the connection between a biological certainty and an astrophysical hypothesis.

---

Maybe there is hope, you seem to doubt the big bang a little!

quote:

---

the bible says we were made of dust. what's the difference?

---

The difference between decending from worms, and being personally endowed with qualities of the Almighty creator, including eternal life? To be put in charge of all earth's creatures, as the top dog? You gotta be kidding!

quote:

---

what bible are you reading?

---

"2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. "
"2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? " There is more, but it's too deep for this little thread.

quote:

---

answer my question, please. i was asking for an explanation of how it can be literally true that god will again destroy all of mankind, especially by a flood which you think that verse seems to be saying,

---

No, I don't think such a thing. It's a flood of fire next time, and not for all mankind, just those fighting God.

quote:

---

no, a fish was a small sea-dweller.

---

No. It was clearly, even as Jesus refered to, big enough to swallow Jonah. Your interpretation is absurd.

quote:

---

that would actually make some sense if all we had were whales and mice.

---

No, the little rat becoming a whale , as well as everything else makes no sense at all, and is, in effect, I would say, insanity. As far as big changes, yes we have them too, try the flood, and the split. ( or at least death coming into the world for the evo chumy puritans)

quote:

---

The hard part is keeping the salt concentrations in the body steady

---

So, then, you can tell us, it would appear the salt concentrations of cambrian creatures?

quote:

---

I am not sure if trillies and the like were found in fresh and saline waters.

---

I didn't think so!

quote:

---

However, their could have been a few species that were specialized to estuaries where the salinity is in constant flux.

---

Yes, there may well have been some salty areas.

quote:

---

Somehow you call evoluton a great leap of faith when it has evidence backing it up

---

Bull. Not an iota!

quote:

---

Why do you expect more from evolution than you ever expect from theories you already accept?

---

Why do you think I expect anything from a deceptive pile of rubbish? I only may ask, in a taunting fashion, knowing the wizard behind the curtain is a phoney, and has nothing!

quote:

---

I will give you a hint. Show me any evidence that the mechanisms of sedimentation wer any different then than they are now.

---

Ok, hint taken, I'm now ready for your line of reasonless reasoning.

quote:

---

If you have to add things which are not evidenced then you are not making a theory but a faith based belief.

---

Thank you! OK, so granny, and the cosmic cup o soup, rest in peace.
You know, I may make fun of the evo doctrine, but I do appreciate the imput, likely based on years of 'learning' that you folks do offer.

your assumptions that everything was around at the same time seem to be the bain of your existance.frankly, we ARE up our armpits in fossil shark teeth. like i said, i have a box of them somewhere. want some? the problem is that there are NO shark teeth in the cambrian and precambrian layers. now you're suggesting a creature that's a shark, but doesn't have one of the characteristics that makes it a shark, namely, shedding teeth.this is pure speculation, and contrary to any claims you are making regarding evolution. you need to cut it out with "suppose if" situations that just aren't reality. evenings and mornings. night comes before day.and, uhh, your inability to decimate my biblical claims are the issue. you're founding something on a belief in the bible being literal. therefore, it is of absolute importance to determing what the bible actually says. the bible seems to indicate that the rest of earth is a desert in that verse though. what do you say to that?

quote:

---

evolution is change in frequency of alleles from one generation to the next in biological organism.

---

that's the definition. i don't know what you're talking about. do you hear yourself? this going to be a common theme here. you post something in response to me, and then i post back what i wrote because apparently you don't actually read it the first time.

quote:

---

The big bang was the event at the beginning of the universe that produced the outwardly-accelerating universe we observe today. this event was long before, and had nothing to do with biology.

---

i explicitly said they weren't connected. one is physics, one is biology. where's the connection? do tell? contrasting is not correlating.and what in god's name are you talking with granny all the time? do you have some kind of grandmother issue buried in your past? no, i accurately called it what it is. a hypothetical model. it's kind of tricky to observe or test for, but it fits all the evidence. but it says we were made from dust. i've read genesis. all of it. have you? it says we were made from something LOWER than worms, too barren even to be food for worms. hey look, third time i've posted this verse.

quote:

---

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

---

if you believe the words of paul regarding the end of life on earth, then you make god out to be a liar. personally, i don't like paul. i'll go with god. god didn't destroy all of mankind the first time either, did he? you know, people write in these things called paragraphs. mine are short and easy to read. how do you miss this stuff?

quote:

---

no, a fish was a small sea-dweller. and the word is fish. not whale. it says a BIG fish. not an average whale.

---

get that? it was a BIG example of something that was otherwise average-sized. it says "great/old fish" not "whale" do you realized i just said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and then you denied it saying it "makes no sense at all?"seriously, do you even read what other people write, or do you just like to hear yourself spouting one liners and propaganda? go take a biology class, college level, and tell me it's insane. until you've done that, i won't accept random, uninformend, and simply ignorant babble.

here's an example of an uninformed one liner: do you realize a lot of people here actually post evidence? loudmouth does it ALOT. saying it doesn't exist is like me standing outside in the pouring rain and saying clouds don't exist. it's just not true, even you say such witty remarks as "bull."what doesn't have an iota of evidence is your crazy death-ray idea. all you have are suppositions, hypotheticals, and cases that fail to match reality.and then you fail to come through on challenges. you won't even cite the bible for me when i ask. no, the hint wasn't taken. where's the evidence? what's reasonless is asserting that things worked different against all evidence, and would instead produce effects that looked like nothing had changed. yeah. here's a suggestion. enroll in your local community college, and take a intro geology class, an intro astronomy class, and an into biology class. that won't even be one year, it'll be half a year. i bet you'll find it fun, entertaining, and completely shattering to any young-earth creationist anti-evolution beliefs you may have.heck, just ask rubystars here.

quote:

---

suggesting a creature that's a shark, but doesn't have one of the characteristics that makes it a shark, namely, shedding teeth

---

Well, if cambies dwelled in places other than seas, this also would be a reason not to expect shark carcasses in the same locations. Also, aside from asumptions, and 'it must be sos' I haven't heard anything solid as to why sharks would have been identical in every way in the tooth department back then, and, lastly, we can look even now at where favorable conditions can cause an explosion in certain life types. If nuts abound. squirels abound, when conditons are right, we get red tide,(etc.) and in a similar vane - if we have a lot of dead things, I would expect more sharks! Besides the longer life spans, there well could also be the factor of far fewer sharks were needed then.

quote:

---

therefore, it is of absolute importance to determing what the bible actually says.

---

Glad you claim to place a high impotance on the evo basher of all evo bashing books!

quote:

---

the bible seems to indicate that the rest of earth is a desert in that verse though. what do you say to that?

---

Well, in verses I posted, I never saw a thing that would spark such thoughts in me. What do you say to that?

quote:

---

that's the definition. i don't know what you're talking about.

---

I was talking about your evo dreams, the alleles, and every other imagination that exists to support the lie.

quote:

---

i explicitly said they weren't connected. one is physics, one is biology. where's the connection?

---

The connection is both leave God out of the picture, both are diobolically inspired, both are insulting to man and creator, both assume timeframes that are non existant, both are usually embraced in one form or another by the same people. Two heads of the same beast, so to speak, regardless of the fact so many only have the ability to see the one.

quote:

---

and what in god's name are you talking with granny all the time?

---

I've got lot's of grandmothers, and fathers buried, and none of them are bacteria relatives, cockcroches, rodents, or monkeys!

quote:

---

called it what it is. a hypothetical model. it's kind of tricky to observe or test for,

---

Well, isn't that conveinient?

quote:

---

it says we were made from something LOWER than worms,

---

It says God breathed the breath of life into us, regardless of the building materials, and that we were made a fully formed (by Him) man. It says He planted a garden for us, it doesn't say He made a bowl of worms, or trilobites, and slopped us together with that!

quote:

---

if you believe the words of paul regarding the end of life on earth, then you make god out to be a liar. personally, i don't like paul. i'll go with god.

---

So now Paul the apostle, whose name is written on the walls of the Heavenly city itself, you don't like. Anyhow, technically God is not going to wipe all mankind out, even when He burns the planet, to clean it up, as He will have long ago ressurected us billions of believers. After the melt, when the mountains are made low, and a new earth is cooked (just the surface, not the ball) we will all come down to live on, and enjoy it forever, even God is moving here!

quote:

---

do you realized i just said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and then you denied it saying it "makes no sense at all?"

---

Actually, I do think it is riddiculous for whales coming from rodents! Unless you are saying you don't really beleve the rat story, after all, and I got you wrong, then can you tell me what this 'point' is you seem to think has some merit?

And nuts certainly do seem to abound, indeed. It is usually hard to tell what you are saying so I'll check: are you saying alleles are dreams or imagination? I know it seems odd to ask but even this much I wouldn't put past you; I have to check.

if they weren't, then that's a fundamental change in the features -- alleles -- of the creature. it means that the modern shark is morphologically different than the "cambrian shark." suppose such a creature existed relies heavily on "macro" evolution.you can't have both. doesn't matter. there are no shark teeth ANYWHERE in the cambrian and precambrian layers. land, sea, wherever. no, that's your opinion. the only thing the bible says doesn't change is god, and even that's pretty shaky. there's evidence in genesis that god used natural processes to create. i'm sorry -- that's what it says. you're the one making up stuff.

quote:

---

cursed [is] the ground for thy sake.... Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee....

---

etc. so, you deny the basic principles of genetics now, do you? how do you just keep on going denying things that people spend their entire lives studying and observing and experimenting with? maybe it's time for a reality check. duh. so does every other scientific thought. but we don't see you on here debating gravity, or newton's first law. science investigates the natural, not the supernatural. we have religion for that.but that's not a connection. that's like saying britney spears and tax day are related -- because i don't like either of them. interesting. you up on your reading?

quote:

---

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

---

now, where's that from? was that inspired by god, or the devil, would you say?

quote:

---

till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

---

sounds like an insult to man to me. as for insulting to creator, i think creationism is. my god is vast and majestic and eternal. your's has only been around for 6000 years or so, and is confined to this little book that people wrote about it. actually, neither do. evolution happens today, whether or not were were created 6000 years ago. and the big bang... well, the logic actually goes the other way around. everything is speeding away from everything else. we just mapped it back until everything was in one point. the time frame of about 15 billion years was actually drawn from the rates of recession currently observed.as for non-existant time-frames... well, try eternity. you mean people who've been educated in scientific fields? curious, both are rejected by the same people too. i wonder why that is... even though the big bang sounds suspiciously like creationism to me. i shall thank you for the wonderful setup there, but i will have to decline on the joke since it would have been particularly rude. yeah, only unlike creationism, it actually fits and is drawn from the observable evidence. check with amlodhi for the tenses and mood of the verbs there. one indicates a simple action, but one indicates a lengthy process. it doesn't say we were made fully formed. it says we were made from one thing into another through a process. i've never liked paul. his advice i find offensive (see above) and his credentials i don't trust. he said he had a vision. well, so did emporer constantine. and all the roman soldiers put crosses on their shields, and killed in the name of jesus. sound liek something jesus would tell people to do? does the advice i quoted above? remember, jesus said things like "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" and gave women a chance when no one else would.like i said, i'll go with god, not paul. is english your native language?i said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and you said your own point makes no sense at all.

quote:

---

are you saying alleles are dreams or imagination?

---

"Alternate forms of a gene or DNA sequence, which occur on either of two homologous chromosomes in a diploid organism"
"Variants of a single gene are known as alleles, and differences in alleles may give rise to differences in traits, for example eye color. A gene's most common allele is called the wild type allele, and rare alleles are called mutants. " http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Gene
Do I think these are real? What difference does it make, unless you chose to interpret it towards evolutionary thought, in which case, as I say, it would be imagination. This I would not put past you!

That was supposed to be an answer?

[quote]If they weren't, then that's a fundamental change in the features {/quote
I'd say a cockcroach or a rat is a fundamental change in features from a human and a whale, so what about it? I raised it as a possibility. Seems like living a thousand years, or living 90 years is a pretty fundamental change for humans as well! Fundamentally, let's face it, there has been a lot of change since the cambrian/eden period.

quote:

---

there are no shark teeth ANYWHERE in the cambrian and precambrian layers. land, sea, wherever.

---

This brings to mind another issue. That is the things you may call 'cambrian' seem possibly to be based on fossils in many cases alone!? If this is true, and, say an ancient sea was pushed up in a seperation of the continents, or something, and it had no "cambrian" fossils (since it was the sea, you know, with sharks and stuff) then how would you know it was 'cambrian' or not? I know this one requires a little chewing, and may be too hard for you to grasp, if so, let me know, so I can slow it down for you.

quote:

---

there's evidence in genesis that god used natural processes to create

---

No doubt, these 'natural processes' you think you may perceive in the bible took millions of years, so He could go ahead and lie about how long it really took?

quote:

---

cursed [is] the ground for thy sake.... Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee....

---

My take on this would be that the ground was now going to require hard work, and no longer the breeze things used to be. I can't see a rational interpretation of this, as being a worldwide dessert! Come on now, that's pretty lame!

quote:

---

So, you deny the basic principles of genetics now, do you?

---

Of course not. Except, of course where they might be attempted to suggest evolution was in effect our 'creator'.

quote:

---

but that's not a connection. that's like saying britney spears and tax day are related

---

Something tells me she pays tax too.

quote:

---

now, where's that from? was that inspired by god, or the devil, would you say?

---

So, first you paste a verse, then ask me if I think the devil may have inspired it? Well, God allowed it, and so who am I to question? Perhaps you may prefer this kind of gal Pr 6 "there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart. 11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: 12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)

quote:

---

sounds like an insult to man to me.

---

Not at all, just a fact, because of man's disobedience. Besides, He also said a lot of things more like this Ps 133:3 "As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore." Granny, eat your heart out!

quote:

---

evolution happens today, whether or not were were created 6000 years ago

---

Yes, we could call it that. But to take His processes, and extrapolate it backwards beyond God and reason is another matter altogether!

quote:

---

we just mapped it back until everything was in one point. the time frame of about 15 billion years was actually drawn from the rates of recession currently observed.

---

Ha, now 'we' mapped it back. Yeah, back beyond God-some cockeyed map!

quote:

---

curious, both are rejected by the same people too. i wonder why that is...

---

Because you were taught a lie. However, many who were taught the same lies have found the wherewithal to reject them.

quote:

---

it says we were made from one thing into another through a process.

---

A process lasting 6 days.

quote:

---

does the advice i quoted above?

---

Well, I can take it for what it's worth. My main gripe with your quote is in how the word 'church' is now thought of. As far as women, learning some meekness, I think it's a great idea! Less makeup, more meekness makes for a more hot, sexy, lovely, godly, wonderful, natural chick!

quote:

---

i said a point of yours would make sense if some condition were true, and you said your own point makes no sense at all.

---

Some poor nincompoop trained poster said all mammals including whales came from a small 'rodent like creature'. So it makes only total sense when I say "Actually, I do think it is riddiculous for whales coming from rodents! "! Now if you want to try to harp on the rodent 'like' part, that is really of no concequence, still like a little rat or mouse! 'A rose by any other name, is still a rose'. And you can still smell it!