|
Author
|
Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 51 of 321 (114606)
06-12-2004 1:27 AM
|
|
|
Some Peoples Kids!
I have been reading through the posts in this thread and have determined that some are worth following and others are not, and a few posts, (their authors shall remain nameless), contain such asinine statements that it boggles the mind. Let's start at the beginning and take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly.
DC85 writes: The main Idea of this logic is that the universe is so complex it must have been designed, but wouldn’t the designer of the universe be inherently more complex than the universe itself? If this is true , who designed the designer, and so on? (Message 1 of 46) This line of reasoning, (which we have all employeed at one time or another in our lives), is sophomoric at best as it demands infinite progression backwards in time. But to be fair, DC's one-liner in this same post was short, sweet, and to the point, and the answer seems quite obvious to me.
DC85 writes: why does Complex = Design? Observation alone is sufficient enough to show us that complex = design, but does not necessarily reveal the designer.
Perdition writes: If you want to design something, the simpler the better. There are much less things to go wrong or need fixing if the design is simple. (Message 7 of 46) Probably not the same reasoning used by most design engineers, thankfully, who purposely incorporate complexity into their designs in order to eliminate known problems in simpler designs.
Brad Mcfall writes: One answer might be that they are able to conclude the sublime in that pattern and then THINK to a beauty that it is not and from there guess it IS THUS designed but I would have thought there is not this much sophistication but rather from a moral position instead ANY practical reason might grant that no matter how nature is traced the invention of it (in any human terms) could apirori have been and if it was then it will at least by will be by design should the thinker have a head on their shoulders. (Message 12 of 46) What the hell did he just say? 
sidelined writes: In a complex design is the designer not also complex and if we follow the logic of the statement that complexity indicates design to its apparent conclusion how then does the designer escape being designed? (Message 19 of 50) Dj Vu!  Sorry, I had to skip over the next several posts so as not to pull my hair out while wondering how some of these people developed the thought process that they employ, because logic is most surely absent from their vocabulary, and their method of reasoning.
sidelined writes: Excuse me for being thick.....(Message 31 of 47) You're excused!  Sorry sidelined, that one was just to tempting to pass up.
John Paul writes: .....you don't have to know or have any knowledge of the designer in order to detect and study the design. (Message 38 of 47) Quite possibly the most logical statement I have read thus far.....damn it! 
crashfrog writes: Oh, I get it now. (Message 50 of 50) Oh sure, switch sides midstream.....traitor! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 53 of 321 (114612)
06-12-2004 1:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 1:44 AM
|
|
Jump Froggy, Jump!
In addition to being prolific at spouting out pedantic statements, you are obviously handicapped with a severely limited sense of humor, hence, your latest post. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 1:44 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 2:09 AM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 57 of 321 (114620)
06-12-2004 2:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 2:09 AM
|
|
Frog legs taste like chicken for a reason!
I have come to the conclusion that it is individuals like yourself who give all the rest of the evolutionists a bad rep. When confronted with a poster whose views, for whatever reason, are contrary to yours in some degree, even if that person is an evolutionist, that you tend to follow those individuals from forum to forum with nothing more in mind than hurling baseless insults at them. Stop kidding yourself, you are no debater. Rather, you seem to prefer the role as an instigator of contention. I have not seen a single one of your posts, in any forum, which are directed at a number of individuals, that was in line with what you demand from others. You offer up nothing but parrot phrases, end up on the losing end of a discussion and immediately begin with the insults because you have obviously reached the inevitable conclusion that your arguments have no basis in logic, or reason, or fact. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your type comes a dime a dozen. Jeers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 2:09 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 2:44 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 62 of 321 (114746)
06-12-2004 10:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by sidelined
06-12-2004 2:53 AM
|
|
Re: Some Peoples Kids!
sidelined writes: What observation have you made that is sufficient to show that complex = design without refering to a designer? I think the biggest problem I have with people in this type of discussion is when the inclusion of a creator/designer, aka god, is demanded by certain individuals when discussing the theory of intelligent design while these same individuals become abrasive and insulting when other individuals demand a little reciprocity and want them to agree to the necessity of inclusion of a creator/designer, aka abiogenesis, when discussing the theory of evolution. I feel it is most disingenous to require one while ignoring the other. Either include them both or ignore them both, for as yet neither has been, nor can be, confirmed or denied through scientific means and yet both are, in my humble opinion, irrefutable and undeniable requirements when considering origins. If one wants to argue that the theory of evolution only deals with life after abiogenesis occurred then they should not be dismayed when one wants to argue that the theory of intelligent design only deals with life after creation. I have absolutely no problem discussing the theory of intelligent design with someone without insisting that the discussion include an intelligent designer, aka god, and I would hope that they would not insist that while discussing the theory of evolution with me that I include an unintelligent designer, aka abiogenesis. Once we have agreed to move beyond those barriers, the discussions move with more grace, style, and civility, moving us towards a greater understanding of each others point of view. What's good for the goose, so to speak. I have little to no patience when dealing with obtuse individuals who demonstrate their obstinate thought processes by refusing to ruminate the benefits of such open discussions. I recognize and acknowledge numerous patterns and designs, visible to the naked eye, which are present in nature. Honeycombs and spiderwebs are obvious visual examples. But well beyond that, from the smallest particle to the entirety of the known universe, there is pattern and design, extremely intelligent design. Whether or not there was an intelligent designer does not negate the fact, or change my willingness to admit, that the design itself is intelligent by definition and description alone. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2004 2:53 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 64 of 321 (114758)
06-13-2004 12:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 10:27 PM
|
|
Frogs have very small brains, but they jump really well!.
crashfrog writes: You ID'ists..... This shows exactly how well you have been paying attention, which is not very! I have never said that I am an ID'ist. But if you had been paying close attention to my posts, you would have known that. Jeers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 10:27 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2004 12:46 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 68 of 321 (114768)
06-13-2004 1:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by DC85
06-13-2004 12:56 AM
|
|
Re: Some Peoples Kids!
DC85 writes: the thing you don't seem to realize is life hasn't always been this complex... so you cannot look at life now and Infer design as it has evolved to become that complex I am not that dogmatic. The understanding behind the theory of evolution, what is known, what is not, and what is taught, has changed continually since I was a child. Things that were taught dogmatically when I was a child have now been abandoned as a result of new discoveries, new technologies. I remain as openminded as possible to even newer discoveries and newer technologies that may someday cause us to once again abandon what we were once convinced of, and embrace even newer realities that we could not have conceived within our minds as being a possibility. Forever and always upward in the spiral of life, and knowledge, and truth. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by DC85, posted 06-13-2004 12:56 AM | | DC85 has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 72 of 321 (114921)
06-13-2004 10:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by sidelined
06-13-2004 6:37 AM
|
|
Re: Some Peoples Kids!
sidelined writes: In other words you will state in your next post to me the theory of intelligent design correct? That would be a big no. The reason being, I have neither deeply studied that theory, nor have I stated that I am a strong advocate of the theory of intelligent design, although I do accept and acknowledge the existance of design with regards to what I have learned in the observance of nature. What I have said is that I am able to identify pattern, design, and yes, even intelligent design in nature and throughout the universe. While I may not be a strong advocate of the theory of intelligent design, I am a very strong advocate of the Anthropic Principle. I can state for you what little understanding I have about the theory of intelligent design, an understanding that I have gained through intercourse and exchange with a number of proponents of the theory of intelligent design. This is obviously a very limited understanding of the theory of intelligent design, and that suits me just fine. The things which are visible throughout this world in which we live, throughout our solar system, throughout our galaxy, and throughout the entirety of the known universe show a pattern, a high degree of design, even intelligent design, perhaps even purposeful design. If I compare the complexity of designs viewed in nature, that is, those that are not man-made designs, with those that are man-made designs, I may well understand that the same rules of design that apply to man-made entities could indeed be a requiring force in the application of non man-made entities. Now the argument has been made by some that if one were to discuss an element of intelligent design, that they must also include the designer within the discussion of the design. I disagree. If I chose to inject myself into a discussion regarding an intelligent design such as an automobile, must I therefore include within that discussion the designer of said automobile? No, I need not do so. Why? Because the designer is not the central focus of the discussion. The discussion is about the design itself, and not the designer. Now, were I to open a dialogue with some individual regarding the designer of said automobile, I would obviously accept the inclusion of said designer within the confabulation. The resultant product and/or products of said designer may or may not be introduced into the conversation as a side note but by default, the main emphasis of that discussion would continue to focus on the designer. Now perhaps the honeybee is able to construct that wonderful, intelligently designed structure we all know as a honeycomb for no other reason than the honeybee is just pretty damn smart. Or perhaps, just perhaps, there is another explanation, other than the honeybee perfected this excercise after millions of years of trial and error, although that too is also a viable explanation of the honeybee's expertise in construction. Now if I purposely chose to enter into discussion with someone regarding the honeybee's ability to construct such an intelligently designed structure and then question how the honeybee gained such ability, then the conversation must necessarily lead somewhere beyond the mere discussion of the honeycomb itself. Perhaps my sagacious intellect is an affront to certain individuals, but it has served me well all my life and I shall make no plans to change the intentional design of my thought processes in order to satisfy subaltern individuals whose nescient behaviour reveals their true level of intellect. Not that I consider you in this class of individuals, far from it, but there are such individuals within this forum, individuals with whom interlocution is not desired by me, for I have found them to be less than worthy, and not deserving of my time. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by sidelined, posted 06-13-2004 6:37 AM | | sidelined has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 75 of 321 (114983)
06-14-2004 3:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
06-13-2004 11:26 PM
|
|
The Anthropic Principle
crashfrog writes: Ok, then you should have no trouble with this: Over here I have a pile of pennies scattered across the floor, at random. No design whatsoever. Over there I have a pile of the same number of pennies, painstakingly laid out into the same arrangement as the first pile, through my own intelligent design. Which is which? If you're able to detect design in the universe, surely you can show me which of these piles was designed? Because only one of them was. This is a prime example of flawed reasoning. Both piles were designed. One via chaotic distribution, one via painstaking involvement in the distribution. They are obviously both designed and they both have a designer responsible for their origin. The problem with using this analogy is that it has no correlation to the visible designs in nature without the acceptance of a designer.
crashfrog writes: I presume you meant "the strong Anthropic Principle," right? Well, let's take a look and see.
Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. Because: 1. There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'. Or... 2. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being (Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP)). Or... 3. An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe (which may be related to the Many_Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics). Example #1 is nearly adequate enough to explain my point of view.
crashfrog writes: After all what would the weak anthropic principle have to do with intelligence and design? Again, let's take a look and see.
Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm No, that surely won't suffice so let's try something more.
Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm Combining various aspects of this line of reasoning with the first example of Strong Anthropic Principle moves us a bit closer to my position regarding pattern, design, and intelligent design.
The Anthropic Principle was first suggested in a 1973 paper, by the astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter from Cambridge University, at a conference held in Poland to celebrate the 500th birthday of the father of modern astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus. The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life at we know it to exist. The Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, another example of Paley's watch. William Paley (1743-1805)
Design must have had a Designer Many will contend that Mr. Paley was right, but does the evidence support his view? The single answer to that question is that it always depends upon the individual who is viewing the evidence at hand. Where one may see random chance, another may see purposeful design, and still another may see intelligent design, and yet another may see see intelligent design, and the evidence of the handiwork of an intelligent designer. This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-14-2004 02:47 AM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 06-13-2004 11:26 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 84 of 321 (115105)
06-14-2004 3:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by MrHambre
06-14-2004 10:44 AM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
MrHambre writes: And it could just be that people are seeing what they want to see. Usually, when someone talks about seeing the 'handiwork of an intelligent designer,' we notice that they're only looking at the things that confirm their claim. This is very true. The exact same thing can be said of those who see only random chance and/or natural processes at work. They see what they want to see.
MrHambre writes: Yes, living organisms are often beautiful, as well as amazing in their complexity and diversity. However, does everything we see appear to be what a purposeful designer would intend? This would most surely depend on individual perceptions of what the designer, if there is one, actually intended.
MrHambre writes: If life on Earth also appears to be chaotic, cruel, messy, and wasteful, can we assume that this also supports the notion of intelligent design? I would suppose that this must depend on any number of factors, including, but not limited to, what is referred to as the "sin factor" that the bible says was introduced into the world. If one rules out the bible, (or any religious record, for that matter), and in doing so also rules out the possibility of the sin factor as playing a role in cause and effect, then one would have to hypothisize on the nature of chaos, its function and purpose, and whether that function is a stabilizing or destabilizing unit within its environment.
MrHambre writes: How would life on Earth look if it weren't the product of intelligent design? This question is unanswerable due to it's presupposition of having a full understanding of an unknown. One can hypothesize what the earth may look like, but one can never state matter-of-factly exactly what the earth must look like. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 10:44 AM | | MrHambre has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 86 of 321 (115135)
06-14-2004 4:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Loudmouth
06-14-2004 3:24 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
Loudmouth writes: You might also want to read up on Hardy-Weinberg equilibriums. They show how natural selection causes non-random distribution of alleles in response to natural selection. Define for me, if you would, your understanding of natural selection, its absolutistic function, and how the absense of same would affect any environmental entity. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Loudmouth, posted 06-14-2004 3:24 PM | | Loudmouth has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 92 of 321 (116993)
06-21-2004 1:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by sidelined
06-20-2004 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
sidelined writes: What the hell is "absolutistic function"? Is that a lack of understanding you are showing or are you just having fun again? Really, I would like to know. Enlighten me. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by sidelined, posted 06-20-2004 12:14 PM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by sidelined, posted 06-21-2004 1:36 AM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 93 of 321 (116996)
06-21-2004 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by sidelined
06-20-2004 3:34 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
sidelined writes: We are not worthy!! Considering your inability to understand language that a second year college student would find routine, I would have to agree.....you are not worthy! Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by sidelined, posted 06-20-2004 3:34 PM | | sidelined has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 96 of 321 (117003)
06-21-2004 1:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by MrHambre
06-14-2004 4:56 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
MrHambre writes: So what's your perception? It would be great for intelligent design creationists DarkStar inserts: which I have never claimed to be. if we could all assume that an intelligent designer would intend for there to be a world full of mass extinctions, birth defects, excruciating and incurable diseases, and so on. However, since you want to believe there's a designer anyway, DarkStar inserts: Again, something I have never said. I have acknowledged the patterns, designs, and intelligent designs evident in nature and throughout the universe based solely upon personal observation and investigation. you have to concoct an explanation that makes use of the "sin factor" DarkStar inserts: Another premise that I have not laid claim to but only referenced as an explanation proffered by creationists as to the reason for conditions that currently exist. and other convenient but unscientific details.
Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by MrHambre, posted 06-14-2004 4:56 PM | | MrHambre has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2004 10:26 PM | | DarkStar has replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 104 of 321 (117393)
06-22-2004 1:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
06-21-2004 10:26 PM
|
|
Re: The Anthropic Principle
Dark Star:
I am curious ... If you are not a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID), why do you post on a topic about ID? Now I am curious. Are all posters in this forum proponents of ID? When creationists post, they are usually posting in reference to the theory of intelligent design, or ID. I tend to post on observations of intelligent design, or id. There is a difference. Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by RAZD, posted 06-21-2004 10:26 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 110 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2004 4:42 PM | | DarkStar has not replied |
|
DarkStar
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 105 of 321 (117405)
06-22-2004 1:59 AM
|
|
|
Methinks it is Like a Weasel
The observation that things in nature change has been considered and theories proposed as explanations throughout recorded history. Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc. all proposed theories to explain the flowing or liquid quality of a changing nature.1 Naturalistic and evolutionary ideas appeared early on in recorded human history. However, not until Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published his On the Origin of Species in 1859 did a purely naturalistic process become generally accepted by scientists and even society... Obviously Darwin was correct in his observations that living creatures do in fact change over time. He then proposed a theory to explain these changes. He theorized that the small changes he observed in nature could add up over generations to produce larger, and still larger changes to the point of evolution between species. He in fact proposed that all living things, including humans, evolved from a single common ancestor and that all life continues to evolve... This is a great theory. It sounds reasonable. It does in fact explain some interesting observations and it makes some predictions that can be tested... The small changes are testable, but the larger changes are not because they are theorized to take many thousands or even millions of years to occur. This is far too long to be observed or tested for, even in many lifetimes. Can it then be said that large-scale evolution is not observable or directly testable and therefore not a true science? Well, no not at this point... In fact, it seems like the only reason that it was not accepted without any qualms whatsoever is because it clashed with the prevailing understanding of origins in the religious communities of the day... This is a common human reaction in the face of an unanswerable challenge to a cherished idea. However, just because no effective challenge could be given during Darwin’s day does not mean that a theory should not continue to be tested and questioned. Only by testing and retesting do theories grow and improve. We are now in the age of genetics where these small changes noted by Darwin can be analyzed on the sub-cellular/molecular level... The Theory of Evolution claims not only that life has evolved in the past, but that it continues to evolve. Its claim to the past is one thing, but its claim to the present and to the future is quite another. If this claim to the present and the future is to be born up scientifically, then this theory is going to have to be subjected to tests that give evidence to this present evolutionary activity... To do this, not only do changes that are informationally unique have to be demonstrated, but the extent to which these changes can add up must be tested. For example, by appealing to genetic recombination alone, it is impossible to turn a dog into a cat or a monkey into a man regardless of the selection pressure applied... The Theory of Evolution is in serious crisis because of this very problem despite much effort by many great minds to explain it away. One valiant attempt was made by the famous British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. In his 1986 book called The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins described an experiment of his that showed how evolution is supposed to work... The theory of evolution is based on natural selection and natural selection selects based only on sequence function. If two genetic sequences are both non-functional or if they both have the same function, then natural selection cannot select between them. In other words, nature is blind to their genetic differences if they both have the same function. If Dawkins had wished to mirror the type of selection proposed by the theory of evolution, he would have based his computer model on functional phrase selection... If we still do not really know how many genes we have in our genome, even after having sequenced the entire human genome, how can we be so sure that our genes evolved from lower organisms? How do we know that we are between 94% and 99% the same as chimps? And, even if we are, who is to say that our similarities were the result of common descent over some other possibility? If the differences can be explained by the theory of common descent, well and good. However, there seem to be differences between various genes and gene functions that cannot be explained as a result of common descent. The problem is that these small differences might turn out to be rather huge. Even a single gene difference can be gigantic depending on how isolated it is in functional sequencing from the available genetic realestate of a given gene pool. ...An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.22 Has Design Theory come full circle? Many, even among the most respected of scientific minds, seem to be giving it more than another look.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/...ksitislikeaweasel.html Question: For those of you who have read, or are familiar with the book by Richard Dawkins, does the blind watchmaker's watch ever stand a chance of actually working or must we at some point realize that it could never properly function and we must therefore turn elsewhere for a functioning timepiece, i.e., a new and more viable theory on the origin of life that can also explain the enormous complexity inherent in life forms which we have already observed? Could hardcore evolutionists abandon their long held beliefs in favor of a more rational explanation of the scientific data? Could hardcore creationists accept any concept other than god as the explanation for life? Cheers
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
™ Version 4.2
