Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

I'll start off with some definition of what we are talking about ... to make sure we are talking about the same thing. In the science of evolutionary biology there are two (2) basic processes:

1. the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
2. the reproductive isolation of daughter populations from the parent populations or other daughter populations.

The first is a basic definition of "evolution" (the process that is the subject of the theory), and it is similar to other definitions used, including Darwin's original formulation ("Descent with Modification") and what is often called the genetic definition (the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time). It is also similar to what is used to teach the science of evolutionary biology at the university level.The second is a basic definition of "speciation" where descendant populations become genetically dissimilar with isolation as time passes due to the process of evolution operating in different ecologies and through different sets of new mutations\traits that arise in populations of otherwise similar organisms, and because of the lack of sharing of those new mutations\traits with the other populations.Each of these processes operate through several mechanisms, some shared some not. Natural selection is one such process, and the one that Darwin recognized as being able to cause descent with modification. Ecological changes are also a mechanism, as evolution is a response system, and populations of organisms will respond to different ecologies with different "fitness" selection.Darwin's insight was that these simple processes were sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it

• from life on earth today,
• from history (accounts of now extinct life),
• from prehistory (cave paintings and other archeological artifacts),
• from the fossil record (the natural history of life that has lived on earth in the past) and
• from the genetic record (although he did not know about genes he figured out that there was "a" mechanism that transmitted hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and that populations were related by common ancestry, genetics has just given us better information on what the various mechanisms are and how we can determine the common ancestry history from the evidence in the genes).

This is what the theory of evolution is (as opposed to the process and the science): that these simple processes, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation and the division of populations into reproductively isolated daughter populations, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the life on earth today, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.This theory is based on a series of simple basic observations and logical conclusions:

---

Observation (1): no two organisms are identical.Observation (2): some of the differences are hereditary (genetic, genotype), some are due to environmental effects (affect development, phenotype), and some are acquired by the organisms (behavioral, learned, individual traits, memes).Observation (3): some (not all) of the difference between organisms enable some (not all) of the organisms to survive and breed better than others.Observation (4): to affect the population of organisms over time, traits need to be passed from one generation to the next.Observation (5): genetic traits are passed by genes, environmental traits are passed by the environment, learned traits are passed by memes.Observation (6): traits not passed on to offspring are lost, whether they are genetic, environmental or learned.

---

Conclusion (1): some hereditary traits result in differences that enable some organisms to be better "fit" to survive and breed than the hereditary traits that hinder survival and breeding, and they will become more common in following generations of those organisms, and thus evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - will (by definition) occur.Conclusion (2): some traits due to environmental effects result in differences that enable some organisms to be better "fit" to survive and breed than the environmental traits that hinder survival and breeding, and they will become more common in following generations for those organisms that remain in that environment, and also compared to organisms that leave that environment (or when the environment changes).Conclusion (3): some traits that are learned result in differences that enable some organisms to be better "fit" to survive and breed than acquired traits that hinder survival and breeding, and they will become more common in following generations for those organisms that continue to teach them.

---

Observation (7): "fitness" selection operates on the individual organism as a whole, on the combination of genetic traits, environmental traits, and acquired traits of each individual organism and the net differential in ability to survive and breed.Observation (8): individual organisms that have a "net fitness" can carry traits that would otherwise be detrimental to selection.Observation (9): hereditary traits, environmental traits, and acquired traits, that don't affect survival or breeding would be neutral to selection.Observation (10): stochastic (chance) events can wipe out individuals, subpopulations or entire populations depending on their (catastrophic) severity.

---

Conclusion (4): neutral and harmful traits can still spread within breeding populations, just not as readily as beneficial ones.Conclusion (5): "fitness" is a relative term, relative to both the other organisms in the neighborhood population/s and to the environment/s where each organism lives.

---

Observation (11): traits that are a disadvantage or neutral in one environment can be an advantage in another.Observation (12): environments are not static, but change over time due to ongoing geological and astronomical processes.Observation (13): adjacent environments can be similar but not identical.Observation (14): more offspring are usually produced by populations than are needed to replace the current population.

---

Conclusion (6): the amount of selection operating on any generation will be relative to the proportion of the population that can be supported by the various environments where the organism can survive and breed.Conclusion (7): organisms that are better "fit" to survive in adjacent environments would tend to go where living was easier.Conclusion (8): subpopulations of organisms in adjacent environments are more likely to breed with other members of that subpopulation than with members in other environments.Conclusion (9): isolated populations of originally similar organisms will over time, generation after generation, become different from each other. After several generations they will have different distributions of genetic traits, different traits due to environmental factors and different learned behaviors.Conclusion (10): when such populations become reproductively isolated, no longer share hereditary traits, they are not restrained from diverging into different forms of organisms as they adapt to different environments.

---

By this process diversity arises: populations of organisms spread into different ecosystems, the subpopulations evolve to adapt to their new surroundings, becoming first different varieties, then different species, as the breeding between different populations declines. When populations are reproductively isolated they are free to evolve in different ways to adapt their different ecosystems.The question that arises is whether this process is sufficient on it's own to explain the total diversity of life as we know it, from the world today, from history, from prehistory, from the fossil record and from the genetic record.This, then, is the theory of evolution: This can be tested against the diversity of life: is there any evidence from the vast record of diversity of life that cannot be explained by these processes? So far the answer is no. Note that this is how science operates: take observations, develop conclusions from those observations and then formulate a theory based on those observations and conclusions, and then test the theory.This is NOT how faith operates. Thus science in general, and evolution in particular, are not based on faith, but on observation and logic. Science in particular can be tested and concepts can be invalidated. Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added end comments. Edited by RAZD, : replaced chopped off comments at endEdited by Admin, : Change title.Edited by RAZD, : title to reflect focus on diversityEdited by RAZD, : withEdited by RAZD, : updated added reformattedEdited by RAZD, : sub

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This is intended to continue part of the discussion from the "Equating science with faith" to show why it is rather silly to claim one "disagrees" with evolution.

better?

Thank you. Now we wait for the evophobes to comment?I am particularly interested in AntiLie's reasons for "disagreeing" with evolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Welcome to the fray, Wumpini. Only if you are afraid of learning what evolution is really about.

quote:

---

Conclusion (5): isolated populations of originally similar organisms over time will become different from each other. After several generations they will have different distributions of genetic traits, different traits due to environmental factors and different learned behaviors.

---

In order to disagree with this conclusion you would need to show that isolated populations can transfer hereditary information, that environmental effects will be transmitted from one population in one environment to another population in another environment, AND that behavioral traits learned in one population can be communicated to the other population, all while they are isolated.Disagreement is not just refusal to accept evidence, you need a reason to disagree.

quote:

---

Theory: this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see in the world today, in historical accounts, in the fossil record and in the genetic evidence.

---

The real question is not whether you agree with the theory or not, but whether you can invalidate it: can you demonstrate an instance where it is not possible to explain the diversity of life by the accumulation of changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation? And now we ask the question of what is microevolution and what is macroevolution? Perhaps because that does not happen? What if I said that all evolution occurs within species? Species is the correct term, and what you are talking about is conclusion (5) again: daughter populations that become different over time to the point that, when they interact, they do not behave as one species but two, due to accumulated differences. See Asian Greenish Warblers for an example of how little change is needed for this to occur.One of the questions, though, is how much change is sufficient to demonstrate this? The currently accepted theory is that apes and man evolved from a common ancestor that would be classified as an ape (as is man, btw). See hominid skulls. Interesting question. Do we know that it did? If it did not happen, would that mean that life can't evolve? And one of the important questions is how do you test for truth?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The answer is simple: they don't. If you think this is part of evolution, then you need to revise your thinking. Why? Consider that life was created, but it was simple single cells: what prevents evolution from occurring after this point? Why? We can even consider that the universe was created in a way that life would develop naturally.Further, how does this prevent evolution from occurring? There are. Practically speaking all fossils are transitional, as they all show features intermediate between ancestor species and daughter species. Why not? What prevents it? Do you know how many different kinds of eyes exist that show intermediate forms from light sensitive patches of skin to eyes capable of seeing 6 primary colors and focusing on mice from hundreds of feet in the air?You wanted to see a picture of macroevolution. In one very real sense this is one:http://biology.unm.edu/...iology_203/Summaries/Phylogeny.htm

quote:

---

Phylogenetics- a discipline of evolutionary biology which seeks to accurately depict the evolutionary relationships among living and non-living taxa.

​

Taxa are best classified according to monophyletic groups, or clades. In these monophyletic groups, an ancestor (node) and all descendents are included. For example, “mammals” are a monophyletic group when we include the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all known mammals.

​

Humans are a third chimp
DNA homology suggests that humans are more closely related to living chimps than either are to other living primates.

---

It also answers your previous question about human evolution. Each branch shown is a speciation event, where two (or more) daughter populations no longer interbreed with each other, and thus are free to evolve separately. Each line after branching represents evolution within each lineage, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Macroevolution is the divergence of populations after speciation has occurred, they are still related by ancestry to their common ancestor, but the evolution within each daughter population allows them to diverge - sometimes a lot, sometimes a little.Macroevolution is really nothing more than the structure of life due to common ancestry and the divergence after speciation, with changes caused by microevolution.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I agree, this needs to refocus. I think it's going to be difficult to keep new people from going there initially, the question is whether we can get them to address the OP directly without it. How about the Biological Evolution forum then?We can stipulate that it is not about origins or the evolution of eyes or any specific features, just the simple process of changes to hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation leading to diversity.Perhaps a discussion of what diversity means is appropriate.Diversity Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

di·ver·si·ty n. pl. di·ver·si·ties
1.
.. a. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference.
.. b. A point or respect in which things differ.
2. Variety or multiformity: "Charles Darwin saw in the diversity of species the principles of evolution that operated to generate the species: variation, competition and selection" (Scientific American).

​

American Heritage Dictionary 2008

---

Diversity is just difference.Once you established that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - causes continual change based on survival and breeding or organisms in a continually changing world, the question becomes how you generate two different populations from one parent population.Once you've established that it is possible to generate sufficient difference between two isolated populations of related organisms to the point they no longer interbreed -- the P. t. viridanus and P. t. plumbeitarsus varieties of Asian Green Warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), for instance -- the question then becomes how much difference is necessary to generate all the different forms of life we know.This gets down to the question of how much difference will satisfy the creationist.Thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It looks like the first question is how much difference is "dramatic" enough to explain the diversity of life we see, and the second one is how long does it take.antiLie in message 87 of the "Fish on the Ark?" thread said: Color added for emPHAsis. I would say this one sentence sums up the basic creationist position pretty fairly.The reason I put "dramatic" change before the length of time issue is because we need to know what needs to be done before we can talk about how long it takes.I would also leave the question of whether there is enough time to another thread, the idea being that we generate the information that:

we need to show "X" amount of change to be able to explain the diversity of life, and

​

this nominally takes "Y" amount of time.

​

If we establish these two answers then we can proceed to the question of how much time is available.

​

I would also suggest that to qualify as sufficient difference, that some feature be evolved that did not exist before, something new. In this regard the cecal valve evolved by Podarcis sicula lizards on Pod Mrcaru, an Adriatic island, don't qualify as they exist in other lizards (albeit rare).

​

Thus we could end up with a number of novel features in the fossil record, and then the various different time periods it took for that feature to evolve.

​

Finally, I would like to say that we can expect a number of side issues to arise in the process of answering these questions, and I would like to request that anyone responding on this thread stick to the focus, and make new threads to deal with side issues if necessary. I would also hope we can refrain from having 3 or 4 replies to one post. It may be a vain hope, I know.

​

Also please pay attention to subtitles folks.

​

Enjoy.

​

ps - I'm changing the title to "Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity" to show that this is the prime focus of this thread.

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I read his post to say that he agrees with microevolution as the means, the small steps from New York to Washington State, that by "dramatic" that it should show the progress from coast to (Appalachian) mountains to prairie to (Rocky) mountains -- and that he doesn't think you have enough time to get from a to b to c to d. If you only have 5 days, you can't walk very far.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Not one single scientific theory is ever proven true. It's like proving a negative. Not really. We can demonstrate all kinds of changes in just generations, changes that have been observed. The problem is that creationists generally claim that such changes are not ("dramatic," to use antiLie's term) enough to demonstrate diversity: the question is what kind of change would be enough. Yep, and they have yet to be falsified in spite of years of attempts. When evolution was introduced the idea met stiff skepticism, but its ability to explain taxonomic relationships by common ancestry was testable against the fossil record. It not only passed that test but proved able to suggest where and when to look for additional evidence: Tiktaalik roseae was found because of just that kind of prediction.When genetics came along it provided the biggest test of evolution: would the genetic information match that developed from natural history and morphological phylogenies, or would it be something entirely different.The match is astonishing. Just like DNA testing for parenthood in humans, the DNA comparison between species shows their relationship from common ancestry -- and this genetic phylogeny matched that previously developed from the fossil record. Why do birds and mammals share several traits not shared with other animals?We can demonstrate evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - and we can demonstrate speciation - the separation of a parent population into two or more daughter populations that don't interbreed due to an accumulation of differences such that they don't recognize each other as mates - but creationists are always wanting to see more change, more difference.The problem is like making an animation out of a bunch of still pictures in the corner of a pad that you can fan to show gradual change adding up to something "dramatic" -- but first you need to define what "dramatic" means in this context.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Welcome back Beretta, care to take up where we left off on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ???? Well I am a Deist, although I do believe that life developed "naturally" on earth - it is just that "naturally" was originally designed, and the universe was primed for life to develop. See RAZD - Building Blocks of Life for some ways that the universe may have been primed. Let's start a new thread on the Cambrian "explosion" (that occurred over millions of years ...), as it is worth a topic on its own (it comes up often enough). Again, care to take up where we left off on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ???? If I am going to consider the "design option" then it needs to be done completely - see Is ID properly pursued?. If you want to talk about scientific presuppositions then we should start a new thread.This thread is about how evolutionary theory explains diversity. The two basic mechanisms are:(1) evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and(2) speciation - the reproductive isolations of daughter populations from parent or other daughter populationsBoth of these are observed phenomena, and the question is whether or not this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, natural history, historical record, the fossil record and genetics.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Marcosll, and welcome to the fray. Sorry for the delay in response, but work has been busy. type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: For other formating tips see Posting TipsIndividuals don't evolve, they have a set phenotype dependent on their genes and the environment they grew up in. They are transitional between the phenotype of their parents and any offspring they will have. Natural selection operates on the phenotype and that with genetic drift determine what individual DNA, and thus which traits, are passed to the next generation.Evolution is not the morphing of an individual life-form into another nor the sudden birth of a new life form, but a gradual process. You can liken it to the still pictures that make up a movie, each frame fixed, but the appearance of change with time. You can also liken it to the stick figure "animation" you can do with a pad of paper, making little changes on each page from the bottom up, and then when you flip through the pages you see the accumulated effect of those changes. Wounded King has already addressed this, the issue is being in the same area and not interbreeding. The biological definition of species is populations that don't interbreed with other population, thus each of the varieties of the Greenish Warbler are considered the same species with the ones adjacent to it, with which they do interbreed, but when you get to the closing overlap you do not have interbreeding. This demonstrates a problem with the biological definition of species, and shows that the concept of species is not easily defined. No, because they did interbreed when they came into contact. We have several "hybrid zones" around the world of various mixes of human genes.The real issue, as far as biology in general and evolution in particular is concerned, is that populations can and do divide into non-breeding populations that are descended from a common breeding population. We call this process speciation, and it has been observed in many instances. I recognize that species is hard to define precisely, but that this isn't that critical to the study of biology in general or evolution in particular. The biological definition of species also cannot be applied to asexual species. Species is really just a word we use to help describe what we are talking about, and our definitions and understanding don't effect what goes on in the natural world: that is based on the behavior of individuals in interaction with other individuals and the environment around them.We also see from genetics and molecular biology that there is not much real difference between organisms, we all have DNA made of the same materials and we all have cells with the same basic structures and organization. My wife just bought a new car. My old car is 12 years old, and it shows a number of rust patches on it. How come there are no rust patches on my wife's car? Surely the metal on it is corroding?Humans have a recorded history of some 4 thousand years, while life has existed for 3.5 billion years, so our observation has only covered less than 1 millionth of the natural history record. During those 3.5 billion years how many "very distinct new forms" have appeared? What do you define as "very distinct" in terms of change? And we have observed several new species in the last 50 years. The question comes down to what your expectations are and then how realistic they are. For instance, why should evolution occur faster now than in the past? All the ecological niches are pretty full with existing life and the environment has been pretty stable - that doesn't offer much opportunity for new life forms to develop ... unless you want to discuss what may happen with global warming ... What else do I need? Microevolution within populations, the division of populations into non-interbreeding daughter populations, the subsequent diversification of the daughter populations by microevolution within their now distinct populations.This explains diversity. We can theorize that this is sufficient to explain all the life forms we know of from the world today, from history, from the fossil record and from genetics. We can test that theory by looking for common ancestor population in the histories and checking them with the genetics.How much change is needed to develop "very distinct new forms of life" depends on what you mean by "very distinct" -- and this is an issue that is discussed on the Dogs will be Dogs will be ???, and I'd be happy to discuss it there.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The Key points of Evolution is getting close to the 300 post limit, and anyone who wants to continue the discussion or evolution and the relation to diversity are welcome to add comments to this thread.

1. Evolution is simple. There are a few basic principles that are sufficient for a basic understanding of real evolution (not creationist mythology).
   

   Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

   
   This can easily be observed in the world around us. No two individual organisms are identical, every breeding population is composed of individuals with different mixtures of variations in traits. Some of those individuals will be more successful at surviving and breeding than other individuals. This results in their being able to pass on genes to more of the next generation than others, thus changing the mixture of traits from one generation to the next. Their relative success or failure to survive and breed are related to the phenotype of each individual organism and to the ecology in which they are living. Different phenotypes will have different relative success or failure in different ecologies.
   ​
2. Diversity is inevitable. Every subpopulation of every species inhabits a different ecology, although differences may seem relatively minor. Traits that are advantageous in one ecology can be disadvantageous or neutral in others, thus the relative success or failure of different phenotypes will be different results in different ecologies. Without sharing of the genepools between subpopulations inhabiting different ecologies, the subpopulations will inevitably diverge based on the different relative success or failure of different phenotypes to survive and reproduce in the different ecologies. Because the earth ecology is constantly changing, the relative success or failure of different phenotypes to survive and breed will be changing from generation to generation. Because catastrophic change to ecologies do occur, isolation of subpopulations will occur that will prevent sharing of the genepools between the subpopulations.
   ​
3. Time only increases the effect. Once subpopulations have become non-mixing daughter species from their respective common ancestor parent population there is no mechanism to remix, reintegrate, rejoin two species into one. It is inevitable that they will become increasingly diversified from each other and that they too will have subpopulations living in different ecologies that will accumulate different traits with different success and failure in survival and breeding for the various phenotypes in each subpopulation. It is inevitable that isolation will occur, it is inevitable that as time passes the process will repeat time after time.
   ​
4. The Theory of Evolution can be briefly stated as the theory that these simple, ongoing, inevitable, processes are sufficient to have caused all the diversity of life we know, from the world around us, from history, from the natural history of geology and paleontology, and from the genetic record embedded in the DNA of all living (and many dead) organisms.

The evolution has been observed, both in the changes in traits from generation to generation, and in the separation of subpopulations where gene mixing ceases, and in the different results in different ecologies. In this regard we have factual evidence that all these processes of evolution have occurred and will continue to occur. We also see exactly the same trends in the fossil record. We also see exactly the same trends in relationships between different populations of organisms in the fossil record and in the genetic record, thus confirming the relationships of organisms to common ancestor populations.

We can say that evolution is a fact of life, and that as a result, diversity is inevitable.

The only remaining real question, then, that creationists can have is not whether evolution occurs, but how far back can we go to determine how many common ancestor populations were involved at the start of the process.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

interrelation in Message 1 of Is natural selection enough to explain asks Natural selection alone, no. Evolution in general, yes.See Message 1 for more detail.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : esig

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi interrelation, and welcome to the fray. Interestingly, what you personally think has absolutely no effect on reality: life continues to evolve as the earth orbits the sun. What you need to do is show how this is different and distinct from evolution, and then propose a test, a prediction, of what should occur if "Interrelation" is true and should NOT occur if evolution is true.Note that this means (a) doing your homework, and (b) understanding evolution at a PhD level.What is your testable prediction? It is bad form to use this forum to advertise your website, and it is against forum guidelines to argue with bare links. I'll take this as just intending to be your reference for your "definitions"Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •