Fascinating!

[cladking]

The fact that we do not have a model to describe the evolution of consciousness, does not mean it did not evolve.

We don't even have a working definition of "consciousness" or understand what it is. I am suggesting it is the basis of all life and by extension the basis of change in life and we can't even directly observe it without a working definition. You are simply ignoring my points.

It sounds like you are hybridizing a misunderstood version of evolution and the evidence with a philosophical world view and coming up with something that is simply a belief system.

The irony is sublime. The we think our thoughts and thinks about what we thought and then compare that to what we see to create our belief systems. We see what we expect. We see what we believe to be true but at the exact same time we are blind to what we don't believe. Our consciousness selects what we see and since we adopt our beliefs and models through intent, we see exactly what we choose to see and nothing else. Most people don't even realize they are doing it all the time.

It's because of selectivity that experiment forms the basis of science. It was the basis by intent and not because God invented science and we discovered it. Religious people dreamed up the ideas many centuries ago to exclude belief from out understanding of nature but 19th century scientists started adding it back and we've gotten farther and farther from reality. Many scientists don't even believe reality exists because they can't seem to find it anywhere.

 

[cladking]

What does "take a bad perspective anything can be invisible" even mean. How does that relate to evolution and speciation?

It means (in this case) that if you can't define and know something about the mechanism that cause change in species then you won't understand change in species.

It you look at something from the edge it is almost invisable

It has been established through observation that intermediates between species exist. There is no question about that. Only denial.

Nonsense!

What would you expect to have been found over the last 200 years of fossil digging if there were fifteen different species that comprise what we call the "horse"? You are assuming a continuity that all experiment and observation can be interpreted to mean does not exist. If we had a few individual of each of these species they could not interbreed in most cases because none of them are actually "horses". Indeed, it's quite possible that some are not even ancestors to horses but they look like they fit between two of the actual ancestors.

 

[cladking]

Extinction events are demonstrated to be very rapid environmental changes that exceed the rate of natural selection to drive adaptation to those changes. Traits that are selected include, but are not limited to behaviorally-based traits.

This is one of the faulty assumptions.

Any extinction level event that wipes out random members of a population is very unlikely to cause speciation. The survivors will just mate and restore previous population levels over time.

Another assumption we make is that that survivors are "random" representatives of the species (or fit representatives). A new species arises when the sudden change in environment causes a selection of genes to be preserved which are not representative of most members of that species. Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance. Genes are expressed in behavior because all consciousness has "free will" and the survivors will breed a new species with no missing links (exactly like the fossil record shows).

We make assumptions based on how things seem to us and then we elevate these assumptions to the level of gospel. We see everything in terms of our beliefs and assumptions always lead right back around to that assumption itself. Humans have been a circular argument ever since we started using modern language and now we are introducing our assumptions to "science" without ever realizing that it's not even still science at all after assumptions are introduced.

Darwin led us away from science and that is true whether he was right or wrong.

 

[tas8831]

It means (in this case) that if you can't define and know something about the mechanism that cause change in species then you won't understand change in species.

This is the sort of gibberish one sees when someone has no evidence for their position but does not like the evidence-supported position.

It you look at something from the edge it is almost invisable

not as invisible as thinking consciousness is relevant to biological processes.

You understand that these things occur in amoeba and volvox slime molds, right? Are they conscious as well?

What would you expect to have been found over the last 200 years of fossil digging if there were fifteen different species that comprise what we call the "horse"?

Maybe half of them.

Do you understand how fossils form and how we find them? it seems not.

You are assuming a continuity that all experiment and observation can be interpreted to mean does not exist.

And you are well recognized authority of all this - where can I read your ground-breaking work on this?

If we had a few individual of each of these species they could not interbreed in most cases

Explain using real biology.

Do not hesitate to use field-specific terminology - I have a couple decades of university-level teaching and research experience in cell biology, anatomy and physiology, genetics and evolutionary biology.

because none of them are actually "horses".

It is so cool how confident you are on this subject solely by using a layman's level of argument.

Explain why non-modern horses could not have reproduced with other non-modern horses.

Show me the genetics that dictates this.

Indeed, it's quite possible that some are not even ancestors to horses but they look like they fit between two of the actual ancestors.

Explain in detail how this is.

Also explain in detail what, exactly, you think an intermediate should look like and why - since you mentioned horses, you can start there. Explain the underlying genetics and developmental processes that support you position.

Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

This is one of the faulty assumptions.

Do tell!

Any extinction level event that wipes out random members of a population is very unlikely to cause speciation.

Was it claimed that he extinction causes speciation? No it was not. I sense some... misrepresentation .

The survivors will just mate and restore previous population levels over time.

So no change at all over time.

How does your assertion work for all those extinct critters we see in the fossil record?

A new species arises when the sudden change in environment causes a selection of genes to be preserved which are not representative of most members of that species.

Even during/after an extinction event?

So, a K-T extinction-type event only killed the less fit?

A literal explosion only kills the less fit?

Cool.

Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance. Genes are expressed in behavior because all consciousness has "free will" and the survivors will breed a new species with no missing links (exactly like the fossil record shows).

LOL!

Here we go with the woo - and ZERO actual support will be forthcoming, just constant unyielding reiterations of the same unsupported assertions...

A new species with no missing links... Just like that... Because of "consciousness" and "free will."

Cool fantasy pseudoscience.

We make assumptions based on how things seem to us and then we elevate these assumptions to the level of gospel.

Providing there is evidence in its support.

We see everything in terms of our beliefs and assumptions always lead right back around to that assumption itself. Humans have been a circular argument ever since we started using modern language and now we are introducing our assumptions to "science" without ever realizing that it's not even still science at all after assumptions are introduced.

You are so wise, how can you possibly be expected to provide any real evidence???

Darwin led us away from science and that is true whether he was right or wrong.

Nothing you have written indicates to me that you know much of anything about science in general, so forgive me if I lump your claims in with those of the YECs and fundies and science denialists...

 

[cladking]

not as invisible as thinking consciousness is relevant to biological processes.

Consciousness is what keeps things alive[/quote]

Do not hesitate to use field-specific terminology - I have a couple decades of university-level teaching and research experience in cell biology, anatomy and physiology, genetics and evolutionary biology.
It is so cool how confident you are on this subject solely by using a layman's level of argument.

Thank you.

But you are mistaking a way to communicate with confidence. I merely speak in tautologies so it's easier to see my premises. I don't claim to know anything.

I've believed most of these things for many years but I've been trying to redevelop ancient science and it has tweaked how I see this. It's hard for us to even imagine another way to express consciousness than we modern people have but then we modern people are the odd man out. All animals and ancient man have a different consciousness driven by different language and a different way to think. Animals don't see what they believe, they see what they understand. A bee might have a better feel for evolution than a biologist.

Explain why non-modern horses could not have reproduced with other non-modern horses.

I would assume (of course I can't know) that when a species is much different than its parents that they couldn't interbreed or they couldn't interbreed to create fertile offspring. This goes many times over when there are more iterations of the species between them.

Show me the genetics that dictates this.

I have no great depth of knowledge on this subject as you apparently do. But even you don't know if the various ancestors of horses could interbreed.

I chose 'horses" because a previous poster did. I believe this applies to all those things we call "species" or "ancestors".

 

[cladking]

So no change at all over time.

I never said nor tried to imply that there is no change in species over time. There are MANY causes of species change. One of the bigger ones is localized bottlenecks. These primarily merely serve to introduce a more diverse array of genes to a species which leads to more diverse behavior and a greater probability of surviving any sort of extinction level event but they can also introduce new adaptations from the off spring.

Here we go with the woo - and ZERO actual support will be forthcoming, just constant unyielding reiterations of the same unsupported assertions...

To my knowledge there is no contradicting experiment. If you know of any I'm very interested.

A new species with no missing links... Just like that... Because of "consciousness" and "free will."

Nature is remarkable isn't it?

You are so wise, how can you possibly be expected to provide any real evidence???

Everything is perspective.

I'm looking at experimental results and modern knowledge (to the degree I understand it) from a perspective relatively devoid of beliefs and founded on definitions that reflect that reality.

It sure was hard not to use the word "ancient science" in that last sentence.

Nothing you have written indicates to me that you know much of anything about science in general, so forgive me if I lump your claims in with those of the YECs and fundies and science denialists...

I really don't know too much about science. I am a metaphysician. Science is losing its ties to its own metaphysics and as such is no longer science at all in many many cases. This is why we get newspapers full of soup of the day science generated by Look and See Science. This isn't to say Biology is full of crackpots and wannabees or that all of its work is suspect. But EVERY area not founded on experiment is subject to being founded on its assumptions. Most of the assumptions of Darwin are founded in language and belief and biology has failed to root them all out.

 

[ecco]

To label her as "anti-science" could cause enmity.
To deal with errors & other differences as they occur
is more peaceful.

But futile.

 

[ecco]

The biggest one is that Darwin assumed populations were stable over the long term.

Cockroaches would agree.

 

[cladking]

Cockroaches would agree.

I had to move out of a house once because I couldn't eradicate these things.

But I tried so hard it constituted a local population bottleneck.

By the time I moved out there weren't many of them but they were the fastest and smartest ones I ever saw. Some of them (I didn't actually name them) could make a fool out of me.

 

[Revoltingest]

But futile.

Name calling is even more futile.
Isn't discussion better than labeling someone?

 

[tas8831]

To label her as "anti-science" could cause enmity.
To deal with errors & other differences as they occur
is more peaceful.

And when corrected errors are ignored or expounded upon?

 

[tas8831]

There is no way of knowing what is wrong by definition in a contrived phrase that has no meaning outside of what you, as an individual, may conceive it to be. Neither knowing your definition of that phrase nor what you mean by it, one cannot agree with you here.

Isn't it cool and convincing that people that do nit understand how little they understand think that writing something and then writing "FACT" after it makes it so?

 

[tas8831]

Consciousness is life and all life is consciousness. All individuals are alive and only individuals are alive..

It is SO COOL how some think that argument via repeated slogan works!

 

[ecco]

I never said "all of science amounts to just guesswork, and questionable evidence" though, did I?
...
I am not, and never have been anti-science.

That's correct. You are not anti-science. You are a believer in science up to the point that it contradicts your religious views. In that regard, you are just like everyone else. No person can support two contradictory beliefs.

However, even you must admit that may God-believing Christians do believe in evolution. The difference between people like that and people like you is that they recognize that Genesis is allegory; you take Genesis literally.

You can try to make all kinds of evolution-is-wrong-because-the-science-is-wrong arguments you want to. But we all know your objections are not science-based, they are biblically based.

Have you ever asked yourself why it is only the scientists who study evolution-related fields that are wrong? How can it be that most scientists get educated and do research and come up with "good" science but the ones who get educated and do research in evolution-related fields are guilty of producing "bad" science?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your empty responses, but for the sake of argument....



Seriously....this guy in the video is the best you've got? I have a feeling that he was "naturally selected"...

You think that this fellow somehow represents all who believe in creation? Says a lot about you actually.

If we all have one designer, then similarities are to be expected.
An artist is identified by his brush strokes and use of color you know.

I have explained what "kinds" entail. No need to rehash. Just show us any creature morphing outside of its "family" and it will be enough. No guesswork permitted though.



Thank you for confirming what I have said many times....there is no evidence provided for your side of this argument...all I ever get is a tirade of insults and put-downs. Where is your evidence? If science is so sure that macro-evolution is a fact, then why not produce the goods that show that it's true? Why the need for "might have's" and "could have's" in the literature? Why behave as if I have insulted your mother?

The truth is, in macro-evolution, science is taking a 'best guess' based entirely on what they want to be true....not on what the real evidence is saying...which isn't much. Fossils can't say anything without a scientist's hand up their bony anatomy.



Which would be fine if there was actual experiments that backed up what they claim. The experiments used to proffer "macro-evolution" are based on adaptation. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that any creature can morph itself into a whole new taxonomy. If there is then please share it.

What did Darwin see on the Galapagos? He saw adaptation....nothing more. Calling it "micro-evolution" is a dishonest means to "suggest" that it can go much further, when there is no experiment known to man that can back it up. Science cannot provide any solid evidence for their scenario of 'amoebas to dinosaurs' and I think you know it. Provide the evidence for this and I will have nothing more to say.



LOL...was that a tantrum?

If you'd really like the answers to those questions, I can provide them straight from the Bible....but I have a hunch that it would somehow be a waste of time.



Now, what is embarrassing is the fact that the Peppered Moth is given by science to students as an example of evolution. Its a prime example of adaptation. You can't use adaptation to invent a process that is not demonstrated in nature.

Let's take another example...Horse evolution...note the years between these specimens.

Here is an image depicting the size of the original horse 'ancestor' and today's version...

Now can you provide any substantive evidence that the small creature that is said to be the beginning of the horse family (what were they before this I wonder?) is even related to the rest of the animals in the graph in some kind of continuous line of evolution as science suggests?

Since there is nothing in between these creatures millions of years apart to suggest a gradual change, wasn't Darwin also a bit worried that if the links between creatures were missing, then it would topple the whole theory...? They have never been found.

Do we have a range of sizes in the horse family even today?

Are they all equines? Have they ever been anything but equines?
Science doesn't know, but assumes a lot because the theory demands it.



I never said "all of science amounts to just guesswork, and questionable evidence" though, did I?
The only questionable science is related to that which science cannot prove and offers guesses based on biased thinking and a questionable interpretation of "evidence". Provable science has no need to do that.
I am not, and never have been anti-science. The Creator to me is the greatest scientist in existence.

Small changes over time would not take any creature outside of it taxonomic family.....science has never seen that happen. It assumes that it did. Big difference to being able to back it up with something other than suggestions. Have you ever heard a complaint in court where the witness was being led by the opposition?
You are all being led IMO....like bulls with a ring in your nose...but hey, you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am....just don't call evolution a "fact" when you don't really have any facts.



I am blaming men of science for taking their knowledge to places where it could create enormous harm to the earth and to all the creatures that share our planet. Critical thinking and self-criticism are not the strongest attributes of science either. (in case you hadn't noticed)

Who is responsible for the all the plastic and other non-biodegradable waste polluting this earth? The smog choking our air? The poisonous chemicals in our waterways? Who gave humans the ability to bring all life to the brink of extinction? I know who gave them that ability....don't you?

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your empty responses, but for the sake of argument....

You bother because of ego, and as you claimed, you are on a self-righteous religious mission to convince the undecided that "God did it all" and that "scientific explanations" are for the gullible. Those that are interested in understanding the underlying science that explains natural phenomena, will just ignore your rants. Those that don't have a clue, will certainly follow you. Unfortunately, that over 50% of Americans.

Can you tell me one thing in nature, that has the ability to "MORPH" into something else? Does a caterpillar "morph" into a butterfly/moth? Or, a protozoa "morph" into a dinosaur? Biological organisms evolve, grow, or emerge, from the simple to the more complex organisms. But, they never "morph". This a lie, an appeal to pathos, and an argument from incredulity. Just more dishonesty for the cause(like the Crusades, and the Salem trials). So please, stop saying "morph". It is deliberately misleading and false. Morph: "change smoothly from one image to another by small gradual steps using computer animation techniques".

I have explained what "kinds" entail. No need to rehash. Just show us any creature morphing outside of its "family" and it will be enough. No guesswork permitted though.

In other words, once you have parroted more debunked creationist talking points, then there is no need for you to repeat them again. Since you don't have a clue what the phylogenetic challenge is, let me do a better job than our friend on the video. Oh, and he IS the product of nature's natural selection process, and certainly shares as many religious beliefs as you do. You both believe in "kinds", and you both believe in the creation myth. So, here is the challenge. I know what a "clade" is, so which groups of organisms have descended from a single organism that was present at the time of Creation? In other words, at what point in the species ancestry did their characteristics become exclusive, and not inclusive? At what point did the species have no common ancestor based on its shared genetic and morphological characteristics? In other words, when did they become a "kind" unto themselves? So, can you name me just one organism that represents a "kind" and not a "Clade"? In case you still don't understand, when did any species, stop having a common ancestor? All mammals(horses) evolved from a group of reptiles called the "synapsids"(300M years ago). Specifically, from a branch of synapsids called the "therapsids"(250M years ago). This video might further assist you in your challenge. Or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLqqZQ2DF7E




​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to your empty responses, but for the sake of argument....



Seriously....this guy in the video is the best you've got? I have a feeling that he was "naturally selected"...

You think that this fellow somehow represents all who believe in creation? Says a lot about you actually.

If we all have one designer, then similarities are to be expected.
An artist is identified by his brush strokes and use of color you know.

I have explained what "kinds" entail. No need to rehash. Just show us any creature morphing outside of its "family" and it will be enough. No guesswork permitted though.



Thank you for confirming what I have said many times....there is no evidence provided for your side of this argument...all I ever get is a tirade of insults and put-downs. Where is your evidence? If science is so sure that macro-evolution is a fact, then why not produce the goods that show that it's true? Why the need for "might have's" and "could have's" in the literature? Why behave as if I have insulted your mother?

The truth is, in macro-evolution, science is taking a 'best guess' based entirely on what they want to be true....not on what the real evidence is saying...which isn't much. Fossils can't say anything without a scientist's hand up their bony anatomy.



Which would be fine if there was actual experiments that backed up what they claim. The experiments used to proffer "macro-evolution" are based on adaptation. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that any creature can morph itself into a whole new taxonomy. If there is then please share it.

What did Darwin see on the Galapagos? He saw adaptation....nothing more. Calling it "micro-evolution" is a dishonest means to "suggest" that it can go much further, when there is no experiment known to man that can back it up. Science cannot provide any solid evidence for their scenario of 'amoebas to dinosaurs' and I think you know it. Provide the evidence for this and I will have nothing more to say.



LOL...was that a tantrum?

If you'd really like the answers to those questions, I can provide them straight from the Bible....but I have a hunch that it would somehow be a waste of time.



Now, what is embarrassing is the fact that the Peppered Moth is given by science to students as an example of evolution. Its a prime example of adaptation. You can't use adaptation to invent a process that is not demonstrated in nature.

Let's take another example...Horse evolution...note the years between these specimens.

Here is an image depicting the size of the original horse 'ancestor' and today's version...

Now can you provide any substantive evidence that the small creature that is said to be the beginning of the horse family (what were they before this I wonder?) is even related to the rest of the animals in the graph in some kind of continuous line of evolution as science suggests?

Since there is nothing in between these creatures millions of years apart to suggest a gradual change, wasn't Darwin also a bit worried that if the links between creatures were missing, then it would topple the whole theory...? They have never been found.

Do we have a range of sizes in the horse family even today?

Are they all equines? Have they ever been anything but equines?
Science doesn't know, but assumes a lot because the theory demands it.



I never said "all of science amounts to just guesswork, and questionable evidence" though, did I?
The only questionable science is related to that which science cannot prove and offers guesses based on biased thinking and a questionable interpretation of "evidence". Provable science has no need to do that.
I am not, and never have been anti-science. The Creator to me is the greatest scientist in existence.

Small changes over time would not take any creature outside of it taxonomic family.....science has never seen that happen. It assumes that it did. Big difference to being able to back it up with something other than suggestions. Have you ever heard a complaint in court where the witness was being led by the opposition?
You are all being led IMO....like bulls with a ring in your nose...but hey, you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am....just don't call evolution a "fact" when you don't really have any facts.



I am blaming men of science for taking their knowledge to places where it could create enormous harm to the earth and to all the creatures that share our planet. Critical thinking and self-criticism are not the strongest attributes of science either. (in case you hadn't noticed)

Who is responsible for the all the plastic and other non-biodegradable waste polluting this earth? The smog choking our air? The poisonous chemicals in our waterways? Who gave humans the ability to bring all life to the brink of extinction? I know who gave them that ability....don't you?

Continuing;

Obviously "biblical kinds" is just another myth that believers need to cling to, to give their superstitions the appearance of credibility, complexity, and integrity. Of course "kinds" as species-exclusive cannot exist, since we are all the descendant from prokaryotes and eukaryotes(trees, moss, mammals, insects, birds, etc.). Since all life share the same DNA and RNA paradigm, and use the same 20 Amino Acids in the synthesis of proteins, all species can't be mutually exclusive. All species derive their special and natural characteristics from their ancestors, therefore it is impossible for "kinds" to be genetically exclusive. So, what is your example of a "kind" that is not a "clade"? Never mind, I'm sure "smoke and mirrors", reification, begging the question, and appeals to ignorance and Heaven, will be more than enough fallacies for me to endure. But I will keep reminding you about this questions, when you go off on another irrelevant cut copy and paste tirade. Answer me this, if an intelligent Designer designed all life that has ever lived on this planet, then why is 99.999% of His designs now EXTINCT? Or, are you going to dismiss this claim, unless I can name all of them? Finally, how do you KNOW that there is only ONE Designer? Because the Bible tells you so?

Maybe this evolutionary timeline, based on the fossil records, genetics, chemical markers, observations, anatomical and morphological features, might be helpful in developing a more objective perspective on Evolution. Although, objective understanding and knowledge are not exactly rational priorities for you, are they?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17453-timeline-the-evolution-of-life/

The moths are studied because their evolutionary timeframe, reproductive cycle, size, and theiradaptation rate is shorter than larger mammals. Studying their ability to adapt to changes in their environment, is only one aspect of Evolution. There are many other aspects of Evolution that are being studied as well. Adaptation is NOT speciation. So we don't expect to see fruit flies evolve into humans in a few years. But we would expect to see some visual or behavioral adaptation to changes in their environment. This is exactly what we do see. But then you're not really interested in evidence are you?

You remind me of the child that keeps asking his/her parents, "why?", to every answer they give. It is annoying, but it does get attention. In your case, you just keep asking for more and more evidence, no matter how much you are given. You simply dismiss the evidence, and repeat there is no evidence, without addressing the evidence you have been given. Of course this ploy only distracts from presenting your own evidence, that supports your own claims. We are not here to defend the tenets of science. Those tenets are continually being scrutinized, vetted, tested, and revised. This process is always ongoing. If there is anything from your unique perspective and expertise, that you think is wrong or falsifiable, please submit your research and findings, and go collect your prize. It is only a curtesy that we try an improve your ignorance of science. If you believe that our physical reality is controlled by an amorphous super interdimensional sky daddy, because a man-made 2000 year old Arabic/Greek book of stories tells you so, then that is your right. I choose to give it a miss. Life is far too short.

But in case I'm wrong, what is your evidence supporting a God(s)? What facts can you bring to the table about an Intelligent Designer? What is the trademark of this design? Maybe you can demonstrate anything that can violate the laws of physics? Even one miracle, or the power of prayer under lab conditions would do. Maybe just present a fallacy-free argument. I won't hold my breath.

Regardless of your misplaced blame-game, and vitriol towards scientists, it will still take scientists to find solutions to the problems of pollution and climate change. Certainly not you.



​

 

[ecco]

Who is responsible for the all the plastic and other non-biodegradable waste polluting this earth? The smog choking our air? The poisonous chemicals in our waterways? Who gave humans the ability to bring all life to the brink of extinction? I know who gave them that ability....don't you?

When you say you "know who gave them that ability", you mean your God don't you?

 

[ecco]

Denying creation if one identifies as a Christian, flies in the face of everything Jesus taught. Without the Bible, what would any of us know about Christ? Who is free to dispense with the word of God for the sake of saving face by supporting popular opinion? Is a perfect God ever wrong? Are flawed humans always right?

Was it perfect humans that compiled the books of the New Testament? No. It has "flawed" humans just like you and me. There was great discussion back then about which books should be included and which should not. If a Bishop, and strong Jesus supporter, named Marcion prevailed, we would not be having any discussions today about the validity of evolution. As it turned out, the majority wanted to keep close ties with the Jews. They labelled Marcion a heretic and tried to eliminate him from history.

 

[cladking]

It is SO COOL how some think that argument via repeated slogan works!

I don't "believe" that "consciousness" is the root of all life nor do I believe that repeating something turns it into a FACT.

I am telling you that when seen from this perspective observation and experiment fits a different paradigm.

I am telling you that most of what we believe to be true is really a product of language because it is not supported by experiment. Most things not supported by experiment are only partially true. The understanding of reality that leads to progress (new experimental evidence) is a product of understanding and our understanding is off center in many areas. No, not so much Biology as things like Anthropology and Archaeology. Some fields (like Egyptology as it applies to the great pyramid building era) are barely reflective of any reality at all.

I believe that our understanding of "macro-evolution" is highly flawed and this is caused by taking a poor perspective and our existing beliefs.