Biological classification vs 'Kind'

While Bob's "bigger picture" reasonings may be wrong, I do think his use of "ancestor" is correct. The situation is proposed as being something found outside of the expected evolutionary sequence.An analogy is the "rabbit in the pre-Cambrian" scenario. That rabbit would have been found in "strata older than its evolutionary ancestors", and thus would put a dent in evolutionary theory. But this, as I see it, is off-topic. Further discussion should find an appropriate topic, be it already existing or a proposed new topic.Moose (with assistance from Adminnemooseus)

quote:

---

This would include feathered bats, would it not?

---

Yes, in a YEC model there could theoretically be a feathered bat.

quote:

---

What evidence would you accept for human/chimp common ancestry, outside of time travel? Any?

​

The fossil evidence clearly shows transitional fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

​

The genomes of both humans and chimps carry irrefutable markers that point to common ancestry (e.g. shared pseudogenes, ERV's).

​

What more do you want?

---

I'd like to dive into this topic a little deeper - and I fully admit I'm bumping into the limits of my knowledge on the subject. I'd like to learn more - and I'd be happy to let you guide me in that learning process if you wanted to set up a separate thread for such purpose. Though I admit - I'm starting to get spread a little thin here....I'm behind about 20 posts of replies at this point (and the OCD in me prevents me from just ignoring those replies).

quote:

---

Nope, those are the assumptions. I find it strange that you accuse me of not seeing these other assumptions and then fail to describe them yourself.

---

My point is that initial conclusions are then used as assumptions for further evaluation of data. Take the example of radiometric dating - once a common decay rate is concluded - that conclusion is then assumed to be correct when evaluating the age of a fossil. Yes, that is how science works - and I don't have a problem with it. But if one (or more) of the base conclusions/assumptions turns out to be wrong all subsequent conclusions based upon that assumption must be re-evaluated.

quote:

---

Flatly wrong. It is useful period. Using an algorithm based on evolution scientists are capable of predicting the function of proteins with 96% accuracy.

---

OK, you've got me interested - can you provide me with some links detailing further information on the SIFTER project? I'd like to learn more.

quote:

---

With this comment, I think you're just asking somebody to throw out a list of "recent" things that have been shown to outperform things that humans have accepted and used for as far back in history as we can determine. For instance, guns, cars and calculators easily outperform spears, chariots and abacuses, respectively.

---

Not at all. I'm suggesting that just because something is new doesn't mean it is better than the old. Take for example Betamax, LOLspeak, or Google Wave . Before accepting the naturalistic approach to the origin of life we should have some good evidence that it is a better assumption than the supernatural one humanity has traditionally assumed.

So, you consider yourself to be an ancestor of your grandfather?My point was that, if you read the paper (or just the abstract), what has been described was a primitive ancestor of cephalopods thirty million years older than cephalopods.That is not analogous to rabbits in the pre-cambrian, it is analogous to finding a species that is ancestral to rabbits 30 million years before the first known rabbits, or to finding out, surprise surprise, that your grandfather was born before you were.I know it was proposed as being like rabbits in the pre-cambrian, but in order to make that mistake, someone would have to not know the difference between ancestors and descendants. Once againI know it's sort of off-topic, but then large parts of Bob's posts are, and we are talking about taxonomy, which covers a lot of ground. That's why my original answer was brief, with a link to the relevant (and interesting) paper.But we can bring it more on topic by asking Bob and other creationists whether this tiny soft bodied proto-cephalopod is of the same "kind" as a modern octopus, which would mean that they've descended from a common ancestral organism, and diverged from each other during the last 6,300 years, or, maybe, this little primitive was the original God-created prototype (or protokind).Let's have some baraminology.

quote:

---

Before accepting the naturalistic approach to the origin of life we should have some good evidence that it is a better assumption than the supernatural one humanity has traditionally assumed.

---

Science is a method to describe the natural world through natural processes. This also means that the supernatural is per definition not science.If you put the variable "God" into an equation you can get any result because God is for some reason not bound to nature and are therefore supernatural. Despite it might be true God exists it is not science. I do not think I am wrong when I say this (but I might be); if we assume we have proved the existence of God with science; he affirm his existence and proves he is the creator. That should not be a problem for a God and then the great question.... is God considered to be an accepted variable for the scientific method? Not really, since he is supernatural.God can make any outcome, we might be able to explain everything in the universe with God as the variable and some phenomena might be necessary to explain with God as the variable. However, if we need God to explain such thing it is no longer science since it is not a description of the NATURAL world, nor does it use NATURAL processes solely. To repeat; science is a method to describe the natural world through natural processes.I understand why creationists try to search for God with the scientific method and it would definitely be interesting if they proved the existence of God. Personally, I do not think they will ever prove God simply because I do not consider it likely that God(s) exists. It is probably just another natural phenomenon (Occam’s Razor).I hope you can see the problem with God as variable; people will start screaming out loud GOD DID IT THIS AND THAT, which you probably have encountered a lot of times, both as arguments and as parody. Again, it might be true in some situations, but then it is not science. If the above example happened there might be formed a new field closely related to the scientific method, but it is not strictly science as we define it today.Furthermore, the scientific community world wide is during pretty well in explaining the natural world with natural processes. Of course it happens a lot of time that when scientists come up with an answer we become aware of new things that raise a new series of question. It is not like we are at the edge of the knowledge wall, but with the knowledge the scientific method has provided with is quite useful and we can explain a lot of things, such as the Theory of Evolution. We can still learn more about it, but we have a very clear picture of how we evolved.

quote:

---

(lengthy explanation of GULO gene observations - omitted for brevity)

​

You know the result before I say it, because why else would I bring it up?

---

I read several articles to check up on this - here'sone. Apparently there are 47 'shared mistakes' between humans and guinea pigs which suggest mutational hotspots as the more likely conclusion (instead of common ancestry). Or am I missing more recent data showing otherwise?

quote:

---

Well I'm glad you accept that you might be fallible but I fail to see the point of citing poetry? Actually, of course, I do know. You think that the evidence (the heavens/firmament) is staring us in the face. But then - that's just the personal opinion of a long dead poet and that should be remembered.

​

The question is - was he right?

---

To you, it may just be the words of a long-dead poet. I accept it as the divinely inspired word-of-God - but that's moving into the realm of apologetics and not scientific debate which means I took us off-topic

quote:

---

I have no idea what a 'supernatural cause' is and how we would tell there had been one. Nor am I a 'darwinist'. I'm just a guy that heard someone say that evolution was falsified by the 2nd law of thermodynamics so I excitedly began to study the subject to find out more. I quickly learned that evolution was on much stronger evidential ground than I had originally suspected - though understanding what was being claimed by the two broad camps took a lot of time and supplementary reading.

---

I use 'darwinist' in the sense of "subscribes to the darwinian theory of evolution" which it appears you do....my apologies if I am mistaken.Another tangent that might be of interest to you: Here's another article from my favorite Dr. Wile on why the second law of thermodynamics does NOT falsify evolution, but does impose some constraints upon it.

quote:

---

Basically, if someone found evidence that there was a designer, then it wouldn't be premature to conclude that there was a designer. "I can think of no other way than to invoke a mysterious agent." is not evidence of a mysterious agent. It's just giving up. Be glad the police do not use this methodology: "Well I can't figure out how a robber can break into the shop, kill the manager, steal the goods and not be seen by any witnesses...so we're clearly looking for an invisible robber."

---

I see your example - but I stand by my assessment that this leads to flawed science. The naturalistic detectives in this case would rule out invisibility before ever evaluating the evidence - thus they would never be able to catch an actually invisible robber, were such a thing to exist. A silly example, yes...but it does make my point.

quote:

---

What surprises me is that you think recent ideas are somewhat lesser than older ones. Surely if the modern era has taught us anything its that we got a lot of things wrong in the past, and fantastic things are possible when we get them right (disease, communications, travel, sanitation etc).

---

Not at all. I believe modern ideas should supersede ancient ideas ONLY in cases where they are shown to be more correct than the ancient idea they replace. Just because an idea is new doesn't mean it should be accepted without question.

quote:

---

I have a thread that explains why I have confidence in evolution, feel free to check it out and participate - Confidence in evolutionary science

---

I appreciate the invitation, and if/when I have the time I would be glad to join the discussion. I also appreciate your response to my post - yours has been one of the more reasoned and thought-out replies I have received and I appreciate the consideration and discussion.

Hi Bob, this is the second time you have used this line of argument I noted you didn't respond to my early message, so I'll ask again.According to your logic, should we assume the possibility of ancient demon possession when evaluating illness?Would you be comfortable if a doctor of medicine put you through an exorcism just to make sure you were not possessed?Or checked if you were a witch by throwing you in the lake to see if you float?As you can see, that sort of logic is ridiculous, if not down right dangerous.

Did you know that John Woodmorappe is really called Jan Peczkis? I prefer his real name myself.When you get time, could you summarize the argument with the sources? Only I've not found Mr Woodmorappe to be the most reliable source in the past, you see. If I get time, I'll try and wade through it all and figure it out.I briefly saw him point out the known phenomena that using a single gene to create phylogenies can break down when you are looking at closely related species. I also saw that the paper that mentions the 47 mutations was talking about stuff that happened after the gene was initially broken.So I fail to see how this relates to the point.Yes - there appears to be mutation hotspots - but these are more easily detectable in non-functioning genes since they are free to mutate without causing further loss of function, so no selection is taking place.Are you suggesting that the most parsimonious explanation for the Guinea pigs having a completely different mutation that broke the gene than primates is because the primate one is more predisposed to happen? If it were a hotspot we would expect to find other animals that eat vitamin C and don't synthesize it, with precisely the same mutation as the primates. Can the modern science of bariminology shed light on this mystery?That's an important question: how does barimonlogy give us a deeper understanding of the evidence? I've shown how evolutionary ideas can lead to a deeper understanding of what is going on in two examples. Now it's your turn Indeed they would fail to catch the hypothetical invisible robber. But on the other hand, they won't waste time on every crime they get stuck on looking for supernatural creatures and superpowered criminals. If you think they should - blimey.Anyway - nobody is ruling out a designer. If you want to go looking for a being that has powers to avoid you finding it, be my guest. If you can convince someone to cough up money to pay for your quest, that's awesome. You can't force scientists to perform experiments to falsify or confirm your hypothesis - they've got bills to pay.And don't assume that just because scientists don't tend to look for a Hot Jupiter Orbit Designer to explain why there are so many Hot Jupiters or whatever other unsolved mystery crops up, it's because they aren't being thorough. They are finite beings that don't have time to waste and so they make judgement calls on what funding to apply for to do what experiment. The modern science of bariminology can look for a designer if it wants, though. It's not like Darwin's ideas were universally accepted without question though is it? No worries. You seem like a perfectly nice person, and its nice to find someone who is both pleasant and who disagrees with me

In discussing baraminology, lets not forget what some creationists have written. The following is from: What are the Genesis kinds? Baraminologyclassification of created organismsThis article is unattributed, but probably by Wayne Frair. One section reads, in part:

Guidelines

​

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include.

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.

An article which appears to be largely the same, titled "Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms," by Wayne Frair, appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000).This shows that baraminology is anything but a science. It is religious apologetics dressed up in fancy words pretending to be a science.Epic fail.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And I suggest the opposite, namely that just because something is old, doesn't mean it is better than the new.One of the most important points made by Jesus is in the Sermon on the Mount where he tells the assembled it is their duty to heal the sick and feed the poor. If necessary I can quote chapter and verse.Some reasons why the new is better than the old according to the Sermon on the Mount (look them up in Google if you don't recognize why) are due to:A few people (reasons why and how this connects to the OP to follow)Norman Borlaug
Johannes Gutenberg
James Watt
Nickola Tesla
Louis Pasteur
Crick, Watson & Rosalind Franklin
Gregor Mendel
(and so on, but the listed are to make a point)Now for some obvious reasons:Smallpox
Yellow Fever
Measles
Rubella
Diphtheria
Cholera
Childbirth 'sickness'
Leprosy
Malnutrition
Syphilis
Tuberculosis
Gonorrhea
Polio
Chicken Pox
(and so on)Some reasons why the "old ways" are inferior:human sacrifice
cannibalism
witch burnings and/or other hideous torture
religious warfare between Catholics and Protestants (assuming it has ceased)
bleeding
exposure (murder) of infants due to physical conditions or gender[please note: I have limited this list to conditions that either no longer exist or are heavily suppressed in modern times, which is why I did not include genocide, church-sanctioned pederasty, or so called Christians who reject the teachings of Jesus as delineated in the Sermon on the Mount].OK, now to the topic of biological classification vs. kind.Are you familiar with the book Genome by Matt Ridley? It is arranged chapter by chapter covering each chromosome in humans, explains in broad strokes what each chromosome does, and then tells a relevant story to help explain the effects each chromosome has upon all humanity and indeed in other arrangements, all life.He goes from largest to smallest, hence he first covers chromosome number one, which controls basic biologic processes common to all life next to number 2 that covers that fusion of the two other ape species chromosome into one in humans, hence we have 46 instead of 48 like chimps and gorillas.And so on.Now the point I would like to make is that it is the appropriate sequence of GTAC that makes genes and therefore makes chromosomes, is responsible for all differences between 'kinds' or species.I would also like to point out that those boogeyman scientists are very well on their way to determining the difference between species based solely upon the genetic code and ultimately the physical arrangement of that code made of four amino acids, namely GTAC.How does that happen to relate to the modern providing better information than the ancient?To repeat:Norman Borlaug
Johannes Gutenberg
James Watt
Nickola Tesla
Louis Pasteur
Crick, Watson & Rosalind Franklin
Gregor MendelHere's why:Gutenberg introduced Europe to the printing press, which was not only used to bring the Bible to the 'common herd' but later, the discussion of ideas and empirical findings which propelled the populace out of the Dark Ages, a sore point among the authoritarian churches, whose evident purpose was to keep the laity ignorant of both the Bible and science.James Watt rediscovered the power of the steam engine.Tesla, through Faraday, figured out how it could produce electricity, and therefore energy to power not just lighting but also other needed energy to fuel the modern scientific laboratory using the relatively safe alternating current.Pasteur discovered that microorganisms actually had an effect upon humans, such as causing disease.Mendel discovered the concept of genetic inheritance.Crick, Watson & Rosalind Franklin discovered DNA, the mechanism of genetic inheritance.Norman Borlaug, using the principles of all the aforementioned used his knowledge to save the lives of between one and two billion people, more than all war combined managed to kill throughout all recorded history.In the meantime, Robertson blames earthquakes and hurricanes on the wrath of God against anyone who does not kowtow to him. Faith (a former member) blames all disease on the actions of evil spirits.So who is doing the work of God? Borlaug, who used science to save over a billion, or Robertson, who acts against Jesus' dictate to heal the sick and feed the poor in favor of his 'speaking for god' in invoking the action of 'demons' and some supposed 'wrath of god' against homosexuals, hippies, college professors, uppity women, minorities, atheists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Catholics, Muslims, 'humanists' and democrats. Essentially anyone who questions his authoritarian or any other self-proclaimed prophet of his liking to speak for god.The central point I am making is this. Science has been and is at this moment decoding the code, learning about how to heal the sick, how to feed the poor.Evangelicals are trying to stop the intellectually independent from healing the sick and feeding the poor through their interference in public education and politics.Now to the main point - as a byproduct of science healing the sick and feeding the poor they will soon have a precise definition of species based upon DNA, indeed the very arrangement of four proteins, GTAC, alone.While creationists promote 'kinds,' an indefensible concept promoted by those against Jesus' dictate to heal the sick and feed the poor. Edited by anglagard, : too much to list, just make it better.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

quote:

---

Another tangent that might be of interest to you: Here's another article from my favorite Dr. Wile on why the second law of thermodynamics does NOT falsify evolution, but does impose some constraints upon it.

---

And when you read both it and the 2nd part you realist that Dr. Wiles is somewhat confused by evolution (and thermodynamics).There is a direct link between the processes of evolution and the sun's light and heat. Plants power themselves by solar energy, animals eat plants and so on spreading that energy through the food chain. And this is the energy that powers the processes of evolution (Wiles' quibble about there being many ideas about evolutionary processes is wildly irrelevant).I do suggest that if you are serious about fairly evaluating the evidence you should be a lot more cautious about trusting creationist sources. Wiles, for instance, is obviously heavily biased and anything he writes needs to be balanced against more reliable sources.

Hi!
You responded to the wrong guy

Granting for the sake of discussion that the 47 shared mistakes between humans and guinea pigs occur at mutational hotspots, why are the mistakes the same? It isn't like copying down coin flips where there's only one way to be wrong. So in an ID context, how did this happen?--Percy

quote:

---

To say that "both sides are showing bias" is to do serious violence to the meaning of "bias". Actually, this term tends to be used in so many ways with so many nuances that we should drop it completely when comparing scientists and YECs. Consider: I can honestly say that people who engage in rational, objective research are biased against unfounded assertions and vague generalizations, and I doubt that any of the people I'm referring to (the scientists) would dispute my statement. (They might express a preference for saying it in a different and more direct way, like "we do not accept unfounded assertions...") I can also say honestly that religious apologists are biased against any factual findings that contradict or diminish their articles of faith, and there's no shortage of evidence to support this claim. I am therefore able to agree with your statement that both sides are "biased", while disagreeing completely with your intent. This word doesn't help the discussion

---

You may be surprised that I agree with the gist of this paragraph (if you were to insert the word "some" before religious apologists).That being the case, I was using the word "bias" in a specific manner - to indicate that both Woods and Matzke were most likely (and did) come to a conclusion that fit their model (and which is reasonable within their respective models) - this I'm sure came as no surprise to either of us.

quote:

---

But the important thing here is to clarify the contrast between Wood and Matzke -- that is, between the two approaches that they represent. Wood begins with a hypothesis that the fossils of interest should fall into two clearly distinct groups: human and non-human. It turns out that the evidence does not fully support this hypothesis. There is one group that is clearly "human" and another group that is not, but then a third set of fossils turns out to share characteristics of both of those other groups, and doesn't fall clearly into one or the other.

---

Woods hypothesis is supported by the evidence. The fossils do separate into human and non-human - there were just two groups of non-humans. It may not be the conclusion you would come to as a darwinist - but it is the reasonable conclusion given a YEC model.

quote:

---

If you say "well then, this is a third distinct group", you are (a) admitting that the initial hypothesis was wrong, and (b) misinterpreting the results rather badly, because this "third group" doesn't actually have any traits unique unto itself that make it different -- it simply has a distinct combination of the traits found in the other two groups. (That was the basis for Wood's "experiment": grouping fossils based on differentially shared traits.)

---

This still does not preclude the possibility of a third group. The data fits both a third kind and common ancestry as possible conclusions.

quote:

---

Now, Matzke's review of Wood didn't actually lay out the details of the evolutionary account for this same set of fossils -- that information is available elsewhere: several good urls are provided under the "Paleoanthropology" heading on the Panda's Thumb links page (NB: this heading is about two-thirds down from the top of a very long page full of many fascinating things). For example this one (chronology view) and this one (line-of-descent view). I'm sure there are even better ones to be found (I've seen them cited and quoted here at EvC over the last couple years).

---

I briefly reviewed these....and I've seen similar charts in the past. Creationists have a variety of evidential reasons to not accept many of the "hominid" fossils as human ancestors - but that seems to be beyond the scope of this thread.

quote:

---

Not only does the evolutionary explanation provide a consistent account for all the gradations of features displayed by all the fossil evidence, but its account is also consistent with the temporal relations among the fossils, which have been established and confirmed by multiple independent measurements of both the fossils themselves and the materials in which they were embedded when they were uncovered. Again, there's nothing here having to do with bias -- just straight observation.

---

It would be nice for you were this true. Unfortunately it is not. While I agree there is SOME consistency and evidence indicating common ancestry it is not the overwhelming body that you suggest. For example, take a look at this recent article outlining some of the internal conflicts between darwinists over the Ardi fossil.

quote:

---

As for the large number of sites that present the information accurately, please don't waste time asserting that this is a "conspiracy". The facts and explanations arise from detailed debates and critical reviews about data collection methods, analytic procedures, and the logical consistency of conclusions. Researchers don't just make this stuff up, and presenters and publishers don't just buy it wholesale.

---

I'm not crying conspiracy. Certainly the majority of scientists subscribe to the darwinist model. Apart from some fringe elements I don't think there is a concerted effort to suppress the creationists or to falsify data. I do however believe that darwinist scientists are more apt to come to a conclusion that fits a darwinian model than to arrive at a much more reasonable conclusion that does not. This is due to that 'bias' we've been talking about.

quote:

---

Dr. Wile advertises himself as having a "PhD in Nuclear Chemistry", mainly to help sell his set of "science" text books that are tailored to the Christian home-schooling market. (His arguments against radiometric dating make it clear that he either forgot or never learned some very important stuff from his college and graduate courses.)

​

There's no denying that Wile puts religious apologetics first in his priorities (one of his home-schooling titles is "Exploring Creation with Chemistry"). His blog is rampant with quote mining and distortions, citing articles in popular science magazines in order to draw conclusions that really aren't warranted by those articles, let alone by the original research that the magazines are summarizing.

​

It's clear that he has an economic incentive for promoting creationism, so he can sell more books. And it's pretty easy to spot details in his blog posts that show how "promoting creationism" includes being dishonest, so apart from falling short of being a competent scientist, he isn't even a good Christian. I'd avoid him like the plague.

---

This is pure rubbish. You discredit Dr. Wile because he does not subscribe to a mainstream view on radiometric dating - a dissenting viewpoint does not indicate ineptitude. Also, according to your line of reasoning we should throw out the opinions and of any scientist who has ever published - since data and conclusions are subservient to cashflow - or is this only the case among the Christian homeschooling movement? You accuse him of dishonesty without citing any examples. Perhaps if you'd like to perform a character assassination of Dr. Wile a new thread would be appropriate?I personally highly respect Dr. Wile for his willingness to look at the data and draw the most reasonable conclusions. Yes, he quotes frequently from papers published in darwinist journals, but only to demonstrate how the data from those papers actually far better supports a YEC model - a conclusion the scientists who published the paper were unwilling to draw because it conflicted with their model (their 'bias').

quote:

---

(discussion on convergent evolution regarding bats and dolphins omitted for brevity

---

We have another thread going for this topic now, so I won't respond here.

quote:

---

Common ancestry is not an assumption. Every time you see a family walking down the street, the tall ones are the common ancestors of the short ones. We all know from personal experience that all people trace back to common ancestors, even creationists who believe that the two principle common ancestors were Adam and Eve . We all agree about common ancestry - it is not an assumption.

​

What you're actually arguing is that common ancestry does not continue infinitely back in time. You believe that at some point in the past all the species were created in independent acts of creation, and that the original individuals of each species were the common ancestors for multiple lines of descent leading to the modern species of today. That's your hypothesis. Now all you need is evidence.

---

Yes, of course. I've tried to be clear about this. I was using the term "common ancestry" as short-hand to indicate "common ancestry of all life forms".

quote:

---

The real world doesn't really care what you believe, it carries on just the same. Mutations can both create and destroy information.

---

Of course....but my belief is based on the evidence. If I were to see evidence demonstrating mutationally created new usable information in the genome I would revise my belief accordingly.The closest I've seen so far was a study done on E. Coli (I believe - sorry I can't find the link right now) in a nutrient-deficient environment. A mutation in a gene caused the breakdown of the coded protein that allowed the bacteria to synthesize the nutrients in the solution. However, this was simply the result of a deterioration in an existing protein, and not the creation of a new mechanism. I may be unintentionally mis-representing this study slightly, as it's been a while since I read it and I can't find the link.If you have evidence suggesting the evolution of new features I'd love to review it.