Evolution has been observed... right?

[Dan From Smithville]

No it's directly related. You can't have species without a starting point. That's like saying it's not important to understand where the parts of a motor came from only how it was assembled.

So a guy practiced in the art of engine assembly cannot assemble an engine if he doesn't know where the parts come from? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Life is the starting point. How life came to be is a different question.

All that is required for evolution to take place is living things however they came to be, heritable variation and a mechanism to select on that variation.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

First, rocks and minerals are not classifications in biology or of living organisms, so I don’t know why you would bring them up in the first place..

Second, living organisms are divided into groups known as “kingdom” of which there are 5 main kingdoms, with possibilities of 1 or 2 extra kingdoms. I am no expert in biology, so I am not certain if those extras are officially standard, yet.

The five are:

1. Bacteria
2. Archea
3. Fungi
4. Plantae (plants)
5. Animalia (animals)

One of those extras, is the Protozoa, unicellular eukaryotic microorganisms that are usually seen as parasites. I believed that’s what @Kangaroo Feathers referred to as “single celled animals”, read below, his reply to me:

​

But I am not sure protozoans should fall under the Kingdom Animalia, or that Protozoa should belong in separate “kingdom”.

Those 5 kingdoms (6, if you include Protozoa) are grouped into 2 distinct “domains”:

1. Prokaryota (prokaryotic cells)
2. Eukaryota (eukaryotic cells)

Bacteria and Archea are Prokaryotes.

Animalia, Plantae and Fungi are Eukaryotes, as well as Protozoa.

Third.

As I am not a biologist, I don’t think I am qualified to explain to you the differences between these 2 cells of the Domain Prokaryota and Domain Eukaryota to you.

As Kangaroo Feathers tried to explain to you...



Bacteria are prokaryotes, therefore bacteria are not animals since animals don’t have prokaryotic cells. Both bacteria and animals belonged to different domains and kingdoms.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am impressed by your generosity.

I try.

I've been wondering about the value of that part. At least the posts are short, simple and mostly monosyllabic. Not the miles long propaganda with ever changing fonts, colors, excessive use of funny face yellow guys and implied threats of doom.

Some folks are so bored, they'll try and debate just about anyone.....and that's okay.

They failed so hard they've been forced to dress it all up in lab coats. A concession to science that is a confession of the recognition of the power of science.

Honestly, I don't really even seen them doing that anymore. From what I can tell they've been reduced to the sort of lame attempts at debate we see here now and little else.

If they had new arguments, data, insights, etc., they would present them. The fact that they don't indicates that those things just aren't there.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I try.


Some folks are so bored, they'll try and debate just about anyone.....and that's okay.


Honestly, I don't really even seen them doing that anymore. From what I can tell they've been reduced to the sort of lame attempts at debate we see here now and little else.

If they had new arguments, data, insights, etc., they would present them. The fact that they don't indicates that those things just aren't there.

I agree. I think that ID and other pseudoscience was a last gasp and now all we get is not even bothering to try as you point out. It's like they have gone back to the swamp.

 

[Jose Fly]

I agree. I think that ID and other pseudoscience was a last gasp and now all we get is not even bothering to try as you point out. It's like they have gone back to the swamp.

Or back to their Bible study groups....

 

[Deeje]

I have a bunch of it. It's called science
You're about 50 years behind.

To me, evolutionary science is nothing more than 50 million year old guesswork. If guessing is science, then it must be different to the kind of science that requires actual evidence rather than fabricated conclusions based on assumptions and assertions. I can see a clear line of demarcation between actual science and the theoretical kind. Why can’t you?

They've got evidence.

No they don’t....what they have is an “interpretation” of the “evidence”......not the same at all. If you all swallow the same original premise, then all conclusions will fall into line with that premise.
You can argue all you like within the confines of that premise, but no one dares to present anything that falls outside of it. That is called indoctrination.

You've got talking points and preconceived religious beliefs you can never stray from, as you've admitted many times.

The truth never need altering.....it never changes, or it wasn’t true to begin with.
So what science presents is not really factual if it has to change with some new discovery.
Why present something as fact when it clearly isn’t? There is a clear agenda IMO.

Claiming that science does not have to “prove” anything whilst presenting its ‘doctrines’ as facts (especially to young students) means that science “indoctrinates” them even before they even leave High School. By the time they attend science classes at university level, they will not question the first premise that was presented to them as the very foundation of the beliefs that their studies will add to. Compounding an elaborate fabrication that has no real foundation.
How is science different to religion in that aspect? Indoctrination is indoctrination.

I always thinks its absolutely bizarre when religious people try to drag science down to their level by calling it faith, without realizing what they're actually doing when they do that.

It requires the same amount of “belief and faith” in something you cannot prove. What else could you call it? If you have no proof, then you have to “believe” for whatever reason.....people demonstrate every day, that they will believe whatever they want to believe for their own reasons. How do their reasons do anything but justify their chosen belief system?

 

[Deeje]

He's obviously talking about the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Heaven forbid that they should be dependent on one another....
If you cannot determine how life originated, then what is the point in musing about how it changed over time?
If life and the universe has an Intelligent Creator, then evolution falls in a smelly heap. But science seems rather desperate to eliminate all mention of such a Being.....as if science knows that he can’t exist because they have not invented a way to test for him.

We know life exists, because it's here and we can measure and observe it. We don't have to know how life started in order to study the life that exists on this planet.
The same way we can study gravity without knowing where it comes from.

Yep.....these amazing things....life, the universe, gravity..... just happened...like “magic”....it’s just that science can’t identify their magician yet.....but no matter how amazing their discoveries are, they cannot be from an intelligent source.....no, no, no.....that’s not “scientific”. There’s certain kind of “blindness” mentioned in the Bible that explains everything to us believers. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

We have no annoying “blanks” or “gaps” to fill in.
We clearly see the hand of an intelligent designer at work....so intelligent in fact, that humans have to reach a certain level of education to even begin to understand the peripherals of what exists in this world and beyond.cbv

You do realize those are two different things, right?
You can assemble the parts if you have them in front of you quite easily without knowing one single thing about where those parts originated from.

LOL.....but you don’t believe that those parts just came out of nowhere, by some natural process, do you? If you have a computer for example, you know that each component is carefully designed and manufactured by intelligent minds.....they then have to be integrated into one working unit by sequencing and correct placement.....if one part out of place, or malfunctions, then the whole thing is useless.

Then we have to provide a power source....a completely separate external component which itself is a complex network involving power generation and distribution of that power via extensive cabling......or again it won’t work. This too required design, planning and manufacture, then integration so that machines designed to operate by that power can function as they were designed to. No guesswork as to what must have taken place, because all of it requires intelligent direction and implementation.

After that, connection to the internet is needed to communicate with other computers. Again this is a completely separate network that required design and manufacture in order to fulfill its role in our conversation. If none of that happened by natural means, but required intelligent direction, how on earth can science assume that the extraordinary complexity of the universe, nature, and even the working of the human body and it’s supercomputer contained in our cranium can be accidental or the product of unintelligent forces.....how can intelligent people be so blind?

Why do you guys keep trying to drag scientific theories down to the level of your religious beliefs?

Because if it behaves like a religion, then it deserves the label. I find it amusing that you see that as a denigration because you all are as guilty of “faith and belief” in something you cannot prove, as we are...it just that you can’t admit it.

I find your response to be lame and not conducive to discussion.
Is that what you were going for?

I have to wonder what you and your fellow science “believers” are going for....?

We have the same “evidence” as you do....but we have a completely different interpretation. I don’t see your interpretation as any more valid than ours.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Heaven forbid that they should be dependent on one another....
If you cannot determine how life originated, then what is the point in musing about how it changed over time?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Not surprisingly.

If life and the universe has an Intelligent Creator, then evolution falls in a smelly heap. But science seems rather desperate to eliminate all mention of such a Being.....as if science knows that he can’t exist because they have not invented a way to test for him.

The evidence supports evolution and it is not dependent on how life originated. Divine creation would work just as well as natural.

Yep.....these amazing things....life, the universe, gravity..... just happened...like “magic”....it’s just that science can’t identify their magician yet.....but no matter how amazing their discoveries are, they cannot be from an intelligent source.....no, no, no.....that’s not “scientific”. There’s certain kind of “blindness” mentioned in the Bible that explains everything to us believers. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

We have no annoying “blanks” or “gaps” to fill in.
We clearly see the hand of an intelligent designer at work....so intelligent in fact, that humans have to reach a certain level of education to even begin to understand the peripherals of what exists in this world and beyond.cbv


LOL.....but you don’t believe that those parts just came out of nowhere, by some natural process, do you? If you have a computer for example, you know that each component is carefully designed and manufactured by intelligent minds.....they then have to be integrated into one working unit by sequencing and correct placement.....if one part out of place, or malfunctions, then the whole thing is useless.

Then we have to provide a power source....a completely separate external component which itself is a complex network involving power generation and distribution of that power via extensive cabling......or again it won’t work. This too required design, planning and manufacture, then integration so that machines designed to operate by that power can function as they were designed to. No guesswork as to what must have taken place, because all of it requires intelligent direction and implementation.

After that, connection to the internet is needed to communicate with other computers. Again this is a completely separate network that required design and manufacture in order to fulfill its role in our conversation. If none of that happened by natural means, but required intelligent direction, how on earth can science assume that the extraordinary complexity of the universe, nature, and even the working of the human body and it’s supercomputer contained in our cranium can be accidental or the product of unintelligent forces.....how can intelligent people be so blind?


Because if it behaves like a religion, then it deserves the label. I find it amusing that you see that as a denigration because you all are as guilty of “faith and belief” in something you cannot prove, as we are...it just that you can’t admit it.


I have to wonder what you and your fellow science “believers” are going for....?

We have the same “evidence” as you do....but we have a completely different interpretation. I don’t see your interpretation as any more valid than ours.....

I didn't bother to read the rest of this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's his pattern. He puts zero effort or thought into his replies, yet a bunch of folks still line up to engage him. Goes to show just how irrelevant creationism has become....hardly any creationists will bother defending it anymore, and the few who do barely even try.

Hmm, very good point.

I'm going to disengage now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To me, evolutionary science is nothing more than 50 million year old guesswork. If guessing is science, then it must be different to the kind of science that requires actual evidence rather than fabricated conclusions based on assumptions and assertions. I can see a clear line of demarcation between actual science and the theoretical kind. Why can’t you?

That is probably because you are at least 50 years behind on the science. The same science you take for granted in every other part of life, but must deny when it appears it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I know already since I've been reading your posts for years now.

No they don’t....what they have is an “interpretation” of the “evidence”......not the same at all.

They have mountains of evidence from multiple independent groups of scientists from multiple different scientific disciplines collected over the last 150+ years, that all confirms that evolution is a fact of life. That makes it the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence - it's even more well-evidenced than germ theory of disease (which I bet you accept), for example. That sounds pretty robust to me.

This "interpretation of evidence" line of argumentation is just another old and useless creationist talking point.

If you all swallow the same original premise, then all conclusions will fall into line with that premise.

You can argue all you like within the confines of that premise, but no one dares to present anything that falls outside of it. That is called indoctrination.

Yeah, kind of like how creationists have to perform multiple levels of mental gymnastics in attempting to make the evidence fit their preconceived religious beliefs they pulled from ancient texts.

I get it. You guys know all about indoctrination.

But that's not how science works, thankfully. As I've pointed out to you many, many times before, Darwin's work on evolution wasn't accepted right away - his ideas were outside the mainstream, especially when it came to religious beliefs and he got a lot of blowback from people such as yourself. But over time, and as the evidence accumulated from multiple independent sources, it became pretty obvious that all signs point to evolution, which is why it is the only scientific theory in town to this day that best explains the diversity of life on earth. In the science world, EVIDENCE is what wins the day.

Another thing I've pointed out to you multiple times is that evolution is falsifiable, as all good scientific theories are. All someone would have to do is to find and present some evidence (e.g. rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian) that would falsify it. Such a person would instantly become famous and would most likely win a Nobel Prize for turning science on its head. This should be easy, right? If, as you say, evolution is so obviously false and given that there are a good number of religious folks desperately hoping to overturn it and working on doing just that. How come those folks never manage to produce any evidence that would falsify it? Maybe ask yourself that.

The truth never need altering.....it never changes, or it wasn’t true to begin with.

So what science presents is not really factual if it has to change with some new discovery.

Why present something as fact when it clearly isn’t? There is a clear agenda IMO.

Yep, the truth never changes, but our understanding of it based on our observations can, and should change when new information arises that we didn’t have before. That’s the beauty of science and why it works so well.

Relying on ancient texts, written by people who knew only a tiny fraction of what we now do about the world we inhabit isn’t going to get any of us any closer to discovering any truths. Never has and never will.

Claiming that science does not have to “prove” anything whilst presenting its ‘doctrines’ as facts (especially to young students) means that science “indoctrinates” them even before they even leave High School. By the time they attend science classes at university level, they will not question the first premise that was presented to them as the very foundation of the beliefs that their studies will add to. Compounding an elaborate fabrication that has no real foundation.

How is science different to religion in that aspect? Indoctrination is indoctrination.

What “doctrines?”

Science deals in evidence and best available explanations based on the available evidence. As it stands, all evidence points to the fact of evolution, as explained by the theory of evolution.

Education isn’t indoctrination. Every time I see someone say something like this I have to wonder if they’ve ever set foot inside a science classroom before, because it’s so bizarre and off-base. Indoctrination is most definitely NOT what is taking place in science classrooms. And it’s most definitely NOT what is taking place in university science labs. All this looks like to me is another attempt to drag science down to the level of religion, which I think is such a bizarre argument for a creationist to attempt to make, as it diminishes their very own position. In other words, it’s just another outdated creationist canard that isn’t based in any actual reality.

It requires the same amount of “belief and faith” in something you cannot prove.

Not at all. But I’ll definitely take note of yet another attempt on your part to try to drag science down to the level of your religion.

What else could you call it? If you have no proof, then you have to “believe” for whatever reason.....people demonstrate every day, that they will believe whatever they want to believe for their own reasons. How do their reasons do anything but justify their chosen belief system?

Yes, people do demonstrate every day (and even on this very forum!) that they will believe whatever they want to believe for their own reasons. Thanks for helping to demonstrate that again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Heaven forbid that they should be dependent on one another....

They are related, yes. But not the same thing.

If you cannot determine how life originated, then what is the point in musing about how it changed over time?

What a strange question.

If life and the universe has an Intelligent Creator, then evolution falls in a smelly heap.

Actually, it doesn’t. The evidence remains the same and still requires explanation.

An intelligent creator could most certainly have created the process of evolution.

Still waiting for someone to demonstration the existence of this Intelligent Creator though …

But science seems rather desperate to eliminate all mention of such a Being.....as if science knows that he can’t exist because they have not invented a way to test for him.

Another 50+ year old creationist canard with no actual basis in reality. See, this is why I keep telling you that you need some new material.

Science doesn’t deal with things which produce no evidence and it doesn’t inject unnecessary variables into explanations where they aren’t needed.
Science doesn’t posit the existence of a god because there’s no evidence for such a thing and our explanations of the universe work just fine without having to insert any god into them at all.

That’s the thing.

But there are people, as I’ve pointed out to you countless times, like Francis Collins, who identifies very strongly as a Christian, but still contributes to scientific research without injecting any god(s) into it whatsoever. He managed the Human Genome Project and never once felt the need to inject any sort of gods whatsoever into his work. He certainly doesn’t seem very desperate to eliminate any gods from his life and yet he still does good science.

Yep.....these amazing things....life, the universe, gravity..... just happened...like “magic”....it’s just that science can’t identify their magician yet.....but no matter how amazing their discoveries are, they cannot be from an intelligent source.....no, no, no.....that’s not “scientific”. There’s certain kind of “blindness” mentioned in the Bible that explains everything to us believers. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

Let’s be clear here, it’s creationists who posit magic when it comes to the universe and its origins. You are the ones saying it was all poofed into existence with god magic. (Oh and God magic that you can’t even explain in any detail whatsoever). So you are essentially just arguing against your own position here.

And again, please stop trying to drag science down to religion’s level. It detracts from your case rather than bolstering it.

Scientists posit actual explanations based on analysis and investigation of the available evidence. Magic never once comes into play and wouldn’t constitute any kind of explanation at all.

We have no annoying “blanks” or “gaps” to fill in.

Yeah, you just fill them with “God” and no further explanation and that’s it.

I’m sorry to tell you but that’s not actually a useful explanation for anything as it explains nothing.

And I’m sorry it bothers you so much that we don’t know every single thing there is to know, and that there is still much we have to learn about our world, but let’s be clear here, everything we do know about our world comes to us as a result of rigorous scientific investigation, and not from ancient holy texts written thousands of years ago.

We clearly see the hand of an intelligent designer at work....so intelligent in fact, that humans have to reach a certain level of education to even begin to understand the peripherals of what exists in this world and beyond.cbv

Weird how none of you can demonstrate this obviously “hand of an intelligent designer at work.”

Instead, you simply attempt to poke holes into scientific explanations as though that would magically make your position right and true. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way. You have to actually demonstrate that.

LOL.....but you don’t believe that those parts just came out of nowhere, by some natural process, do you? If you have a computer for example, you know that each component is carefully designed and manufactured by intelligent minds.....they then have to be integrated into one working unit by sequencing and correct placement.....if one part out of place, or malfunctions, then the whole thing is useless.

It doesn’t matter where they came from, when we’re talking about explanations as to how they operate. I don’t need to know how gravity originated in order to measure it and attempt understand how it operates. Just like I don’t have to know where the car parts came from in order to use them to assemble a car.

I know that computers were designed by human beings. That is a demonstrable claim. Your claim is not demonstrable, or you would have actually demonstrated it by now.

Then we have to provide a power source....a completely separate external component which itself is a complex network involving power generation and distribution of that power via extensive cabling......or again it won’t work.

That would be a different field of study then. As abiogenesis is a different field of study from evolution.

This too required design, planning and manufacture, then integration so that machines designed to operate by that power can function as they were designed to. No guesswork as to what must have taken place, because all of it requires intelligent direction and implementation.

This is an assertion that needs to be demonstrated.

After that, connection to the internet is needed to communicate with other computers. Again this is a completely separate network that required design and manufacture in order to fulfill its role in our conversation. If none of that happened by natural means, but required intelligent direction, how on earth can science assume that the extraordinary complexity of the universe, nature, and even the working of the human body and it’s supercomputer contained in our cranium can be accidental or the product of unintelligent forces.....how can intelligent people be so blind?

Computers were designed by humans. That is a demonstrable claim.

Your claim that “god did it” has not been demonstrated.

Because if it behaves like a religion, then it deserves the label. I find it amusing that you see that as a denigration because you all are as guilty of “faith and belief” in something you cannot prove, as we are...it just that you can’t admit it.

There’s nothing about science that behaves anything at all like a religion, as you’ve so aptly helped demonstrate in this very post.

The denigration is a result of your position. I’m simply pointing it out. You’re the one making the argument that science is no better than religion, not me.

I have to wonder what you and your fellow science “believers” are going for....?

I want to believe as many true things as possible while not believing as many false things as possible. That’s it.

We have the same “evidence” as you do....but we have a completely different interpretation. I don’t see your interpretation as any more valid than ours.....

You view the evidence through your religious lenses based on your preconceived beliefs taken from ancient holy texts. Your “interpretation” of the evidence is not demonstrable, nor is it scientific.

 

[gnostic]

The truth never need altering.....it never changes, or it wasn’t true to begin with.
So what science presents is not really factual if it has to change with some new discovery.

Science isn’t a dogma doctrine, deeje.

The knowledge acquired through accumulated evidence as well as new discoveries can always challenge existing theories that allow for the following steps:

• modify and update the existing theory with new information (acquired from latest available evidence), eg adding new data, correcting errors, etc;
• or append new information by extending or expanding the theory;
• if necessary, replace the existing theory with better alternative theory.

The 2nd point, expanding theory, have been done with theory of Evolution a number of times, for instance...

1. in the early 1900s, genetic of Gregor Mendel was utilized with Natural Selection;
2. successive newer mechanisms (eg Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Genetic Hitchhiking) were added to the theory;
3. DNA testings help with understanding speciation and the relations of different living species, etc.

I think it is utterly absurd that you believe that sciences shouldn’t improve what we can learn with new discoveries of evidence and data.

New technology have also improved the refinement of data, and data provide information that help better understand the physical or natural world.

What you asking scientists to do, is been stuck with theory that don’t improve our understanding of the world.

Why are you encouraging ignorance in science? Why do you insist on stopping new discoveries, or stop making progress in understanding the world better?

If you want to stop evidence-based facts coming to light, then that’s really your problem, not ours.

If you want to stop facts coming to light, then that’s your problem.
Is “ignorance” just another name for Jehovah’s Witnesses?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

@lostwanderingsoul

You need to understand that every bones, tissues, organs, nerves, and so many more, none of them are made of only one cell.

Even one foot are made of multiple parts, and you can externally only see skin and toenails. Underneath that are bones, muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels and nerves. And every single ones of them, comprise of multiple cells. Even a single drop of blood, would contain more than one red blood cell.

Every cells, often joined together that have specific physiological function.

Bacteria and archea are lifeforms that’s are alive as single cell (unicellular). But these cells are different to cells in animals, plants and fungi. Animals, plants and fungi are multicellular organisms.

So let's say we have a group of those single cell lifeforms. What might cause some of those cells to become bone celss or skin cells etc. so there could be a multi cell animal?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why would a cell grow a foot?

That sort of absurdity is why some "just say that those who do not understand evolution are stupid."

Science says those cells evolved into other animals and those other animals have feet so some cells must have become part of a foot.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

First, rocks and minerals are not classifications in biology or of living organisms, so I don’t know why you would bring them up in the first place..

Second, living organisms are divided into groups known as “kingdom” of which there are 5 main kingdoms, with possibilities of 1 or 2 extra kingdoms. I am no expert in biology, so I am not certain if those extras are officially standard, yet.

The five are:

1. Bacteria
2. Archea
3. Fungi
4. Plantae (plants)
5. Animalia (animals)

One of those extras, is the Protozoa, unicellular eukaryotic microorganisms that are usually seen as parasites. I believed that’s what @Kangaroo Feathers referred to as “single celled animals”, read below, his reply to me:

​

But I am not sure protozoans should fall under the Kingdom Animalia, or that Protozoa should belong in separate “kingdom”.

Those 5 kingdoms (6, if you include Protozoa) are grouped into 2 distinct “domains”:

1. Prokaryota (prokaryotic cells)
2. Eukaryota (eukaryotic cells)

Bacteria and Archea are Prokaryotes.

Animalia, Plantae and Fungi are Eukaryotes, as well as Protozoa.

Third.

As I am not a biologist, I don’t think I am qualified to explain to you the differences between these 2 cells of the Domain Prokaryota and Domain Eukaryota to you.

As Kangaroo Feathers tried to explain to you...



Bacteria are prokaryotes, therefore bacteria are not animals since animals don’t have prokaryotic cells. Both bacteria and animals belonged to different domains and kingdoms.

Why mention rocks? Well evolutionists like to look at the fossil record. At one time in history there were no living things on earth, just rocks. Later there were living things. Can science prove the living things did not evolve from the rocks? That is certainly what the fossil record shows.

 

[metis]

Why mention rocks? Well evolutionists like to look at the fossil record. At one time in history there were no living things on earth, just rocks. Later there were living things. Can science prove the living things did not evolve from the rocks? That is certainly what the fossil record shows.

Hypothetically, you may have skipped somethings in between.

 

[metis]

Science says those cells evolved into other animals and those other animals have feet so some cells must have become part of a foot.

Are you serious?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science says those cells evolved into other animals and those other animals have feet so some cells must have become part of a foot.

There is a difference between cells growing feet and cells making up a foot. That distinction is important.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why mention rocks? Well evolutionists like to look at the fossil record. At one time in history there were no living things on earth, just rocks. Later there were living things. Can science prove the living things did not evolve from the rocks? That is certainly what the fossil record shows.

Once again, for all the people in back, proof is not part of science.

The fossil record shows that life evolved from rocks?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you serious?

It is unfortunate, but I believe so.