What if creationism is true?

[Vile Atheist]

You continue to demonstrate a very poor grasp of even the term evolution. Have you ever used antibiotics?

I would like to see him actually try to explain to us what he thinks evolution is. I mean, it would clear a lot of things up. If not, it would certainly be a good laugh lol.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This is not the case at all. I only use the "goddidit" response when science is incapable of explaining something. Not only is science incapable of explaining it now, they will forever be incapable of explaining it. So when science doesn't have the means to explain something, I say "goddidit". Science doesn't provide an answer how and why the universe began to exist. So, it becomes naturally, using my common sense, to conclude that if the universe began to exist (universe, meaning all space, time, matter and energy), then whatever gave it its beginning must exist beyond the universe. This is just the logical thing to conclude. SCIENCE CANNOT EXPLAIN ORIGINS. So it becomes necessary to conclude that God did it. Science explains how the natural world works based on natural law. It does not explain the origins of nature and natural law. Apparently you people dont know the difference.

See the part I bolded? That's a pretty bold statement to make. See my post #97 where I showed this way of thinking to be wrong. The part I underlined, my post #97 shows why that is faulty reasoning. Science gets closer and closer everyday to actually getting to that explanation. The part in red? It's never the "logical" choice to explain something by something else that is completely illogical.

I did offer evidence. The complexity of the human cells and DNA. You cant get this kind of complexity from natural means. It just cant happen.

Science has no problem explaining this from an evolutionary standpoint. Whether you accept or reject that explanation is up to you. But just because you believe it doesn't, doesn't make it so. Especially when you haven't done any research on it yourself to see how science explains it.

What I am saying is, the evidence that has been presented doesn't prove evolution. It could mean common designer. But before we even begin to talk about evolution, we have to ask how did life come from nonlife, and science does NOT have an answer for this yet. Theism provides the best explanation for this. Life did not come from life. Life came from life, which is what every single person in here has always observed. No one has ever seen life come from nonlife, nor is there any current evidence of life coming from nonlife. So to believe that life came from nonlife is to rely on the unseen, therefore, using faith. But wait, I thought only theists used faith? No, naturalists use faith as well.

First, your confusing evolution and abiogenesis, again. They are two separate fields of study. Theism is not the best answer for where life came from. Theists have always thought that about things science had yet to explain, and then science always ends up finding a natural answer. Again, see my post #97. And you say no one has ever observed life come from non-life. This doesn't mean it didn't happen. You believe that this is explained by something you have never observed. So you refute your own argument. Naturalists don't use faith. Naturalists know that just because science doesn't have an exact explanation for something yet, that doesn't mean that it won't in the future. History bears this out.

Um, no. We can accept science as explaining how the world operates. We dont accept science as explaining absolute origins. Because that would be illogical. Science cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Nothing can be the orgin of its own domain. Impossible. Now why is this so hard to accept??? There is no getting past this. Science cannot be used to explain why the universe began to exist. So therefore, we have to posit a transcendent cause. From that point, naturalists all of a sudden come to a screetching halt, because they know that they are going to the supernatural realm. Thats what this is all about.

Why do naturalists not accept a supernatural cause? Because, if you'll look at history, science has a better track record. Every time the theists use the "goddidit" excuse, science has found a naturalistic explanation. So, the logical choice would not be to accept a supernatural creator, but science, which has been proven right over the bible every step of the way. I'm not so arrogant to believe that just because science has no explanation now, that it won't in the future. I'm not emotionally tied to a rigid dogmatic belief system that only allows me to think in one way. Here's what I find funny. If you had lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about a flat earth, geocentricity, god's wrath as the explanation for natural disasters and disease, etc. And like science proved the church and bible wrong on those things, it will be vindicated by this as well.

Have you seen evolution take place?? So what part of your senses tells you that animals produced animals other than their own kind in the distant past?? What part of your senses tells you that life came from nonlife. It is you who are being dishonest. Science have not proven anything in regards to evolution or life from nonlife.

If you had actually studied or read anything at all about evolution, you would know that evolution doesn't teach that one type of animal doesn't produce another kind of animal all at once. Science has proven evolution, your beliefs won't allow you to accept it. And science will be able to prove one day exactly how life came from non-life. Take a look at how far science has come, and how they've proven the bible and the church wrong thus far. So it's you who's being dishonest. Your faith has caused blindness to what's really there. Do you honestly think that, given the fact that science has proven the bible wrong on so many occasions before, that it will fail to do so on this? That takes a great amount of faith, which requires a great amount of blindness to reason. I'm just not that arrogant.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I would like to see him actually try to explain to us what he thinks evolution is. I mean, it would clear a lot of things up. If not, it would certainly be a good laugh lol.

He's already shown, like most creationists, he has no idea what evolution teaches, only what he's fed by his anti-evolution creationist preachers, who themselves have no idea what evolution teaches. I don't find it surprising at all. It's the only way the can continue to perpetuate their dogma, by being completely ignorant of the facts.

 

[johnhanks]

Why dont you look at previous posts on the issue i raised about the "gender problem". Go ahead, see if you can provide an adequate answer on how does every single organism that has a gender just happen to have what is needed to reproduce with the opposite sex, and vice versa. Go ahead and explain how this process could have occurred over a course of a million years, while reproducing at the same time. I will wait.

Thanks. I couldn't have wished for a better illustration of my point.

I think I recall explaining this to you once before, but let's see if you can understand it this time. Sexual reproduction started with essentially identical cells exchanging genetic material: neither could sensibly be called male or female. This is called isogamy, and is still seen in many unicells. As the process evolved, the advantages accruing from division of labour led to anisogamy and ultimately heterogamy: one cell does the delivering, becoming a stripped-down motile unit, essentially nothing more than a motor and a package of genes; the other does the receiving, abandoning motility in favour of increased size and storage of resources.

In other words, maleness and femaleness emerged from the very earliest origins of sexual reproduction, and your fantasies about hapless asexual organisms having to conjure matching reproductive systems out of nothing are just that - fantasies, and very misguided ones at that.

Just recently sundry creationists in sundry threads have put up posts declaring, in effect, that their lack of biological knowledge is no impediment to their ability to argue against evolution. Call_of_the_Wild has given us a superb refutation of this position.

 

[Ghazzal]

the relationship of the planets within themselves, the wonders of human birth and death the discovery of new species of living things, simply put, the universe and all within it has remained a complex and stable system for decades. All these and more should make us know there must be an intelligent designer man cannot comprehend. It has always been a case of the more man discovers about his environment, the more he needs to unravel. Our intellect just does not and can npt match that of this designer.
There are reports that the earth has existed long before man and irt is just a small subset of the uuniverse. Histories of blach holes have been recorded and it is predicted that the sun will also become one which means man will seize to exist. At this point, the designer is still expected to be there. With this thought, I ask myself if such intelligent designer is omnipotent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But it would still be an argument for Intelligent Design, so this would still be a problem for atheists.

You don't seem to understand my point. You claimed that you "cannot get evolution without abiogenesis", which is false. It's perfectly possible for a person to believe that God created the initial life forms on this planet, then they evolved from there. And, for the record, "intelligent design" is the belief that God created life as is - i.e: without an evolutionary process - so therefore a belief that God created the first forms of life which then evolved is not "intelligent design". It is theistic evolution.

Im not in to the semantic games.

Fair enough, but when you're attempting to engage in scientific debate, it is helpful to everyone involved if you use and understand the correct scientific terminology. It lends you credibility.

There is no evidence for evolution.

Only someone without any education on the subject would say so.

All of the proposed evidence could easily mean common designer.

By that reasoning, all the proposed evidence could also easily mean that everything was farted out my by next door neighbour Geoffrey last week, purely on the basis that no evidence presented so far specifically contradicts that hypothesis. What you're positing is an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis - and since there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind of designer, there is zero reason to conclude that anything is the result of any designer. The only way you can reach the above conclusion when confronted with the fossils, DNA and physiological evidence of evolution is simply to shrug and say "that's the way it was designed". Well, sorry, but that's not an explanation - that's just a presupposition, and science does not base itself on presuppositions. If you find a smoking gun at the scene of a gun crime, you are not justified in thinking "that's just the way the room looked at the time of the shooting - the two of them aren't necesarilly connected". Come on, be reasonable.

Um yes it does. If there are only two explanations for a cause, and one is negated, then the other wins by default. This is basic logic and reason.

And who says there are "only two explanations for a cause" for anything? Just about anything has any number of possible causes. To claim that there are only two possible causes for a given phenomena is patently absurd.

Well, based on the fact that no man has ever "on the record" reported animals producing different kinds of animals, then we have no reason to believe that evolution occurred.

Then you clearly don't understand evolution. What evolution does predict is that all living species reproduce with variation, and this is exactly what we find. A cat shouldn't have to give birth to a dog in order to demonstrate evolution and, in fact, such a thing occurring would actually contradict evolutionary predictions. All that is required for evolution to occur is for populations of a species to vary over time and diversify - and this is exactly what we have observed. And, based on the DNA and fossil evidence, it has been going on for several billion years.

Evolution is a religion. It is your religious beliefs based on the origins of human life. There is no evidence that man evovled from apes. None. All you can say is "we have similar dna" and all blah blah blah, but this doesnt prove that we evovled.

You clearly haven't look at any of the evidence in any kind of detail. Please, fix that.

This could mean that the Intelligent Designer used the same blueprint for his creation, which makes sense, considering the fact that our DNA acts as a built in instruction manuel on how to make us.

You see, this is the kind of blatant hypocrisy that makes you seem less than honest.

You claim that it is foolish for us to say humans and apes share a common ancestor on the basis that "we have similar DNA". Putting aside the fact that this is a dramatic oversimplification of the evidence, let's just assume that this is the case. You then go on to say that it is "just as reasonable" to conclude that we were designed based on the DNA because "it's kinda like a construction manual". So, it's wrong for us to compare human and ape DNA to conclude common ancestry on the basis of genetic sequencing, retroviral DNA and the like, but it's perfectly sound for you to conclude "goddidit" on the basis that "DNA is kinda sorta almost like a kind of manual, sort of".

Well, guess what? Saying "it's kinda like this" or "it's a bit like that" doesn't mean anything. DNA isn't a "construction manual", and saying that it's "a bit like" one doesn't mean one iota in science. You're making unscientific, baseless assertions of things you don't understand and claiming that they are evidence of design.

Oh, so you observed a man evovling from an ape?? Wow. Do you have video of this?

Strawman. I said evolution has been observed - and it has. It continues to be every day. Look into ring species.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Thanks. I couldn't have wished for a better illustration of my point.

I think I recall explaining this to you once before, but let's see if you can understand it this time. Sexual reproduction started with essentially identical cells exchanging genetic material: neither could sensibly be called male or female. This is called isogamy, and is still seen in many unicells. As the process evolved, the advantages accruing from division of labour led to anisogamy and ultimately heterogamy: one cell does the delivering, becoming a stripped-down motile unit, essentially nothing more than a motor and a package of genes; the other does the receiving, abandoning motility in favour of increased size and storage of resources.

In other words, maleness and femaleness emerged from the very earliest origins of sexual reproduction, and your fantasies about hapless asexual organisms having to conjure matching reproductive systems out of nothing are just that - fantasies, and very misguided ones at that.

Just recently sundry creationists in sundry threads have put up posts declaring, in effect, that their lack of biological knowledge is no impediment to their ability to argue against evolution. Call_of_the_Wild has given us a superb refutation of this position.

Darn tootin', we may be witnessing it today, for the first time under scrutiny

Scientists Watch Hot Spring Microbes Become Two Species | Evolution & New Species | Extremophiles | LiveScience

I've posted that before.

 

[johnhanks]

Darn tootin', we may be witnessing it today, for the first time under scrutiny

Scientists Watch Hot Spring Microbes Become Two Species | Evolution & New Species | Extremophiles | LiveScience

I've posted that before.

Thanks - I'd somehow overlooked that one on previous posting.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

the relationship of the planets within themselves, the wonders of human birth and death the discovery of new species of living things, simply put, the universe and all within it has remained a complex and stable system for decades. All these and more should make us know there must be an intelligent designer man cannot comprehend. It has always been a case of the more man discovers about his environment, the more he needs to unravel. Our intellect just does not and can npt match that of this designer.
There are reports that the earth has existed long before man and irt is just a small subset of the uuniverse. Histories of blach holes have been recorded and it is predicted that the sun will also become one which means man will seize to exist. At this point, the designer is still expected to be there. With this thought, I ask myself if such intelligent designer is omnipotent.

Please explain what you mean by the part of your quote I have made bold.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

'For decades"?

*blink blink*

 

[camanintx]

Have you seen evolution take place?? So what part of your senses tells you that animals produced animals other than their own kind in the distant past?? What part of your senses tells you that life came from nonlife. It is you who are being dishonest. Science have not proven anything in regards to evolution or life from nonlife.

You cannot even explain what makes a dog a dog, other than that's what you call them, so how would you know if evolution has occurred?

 

[McBell]

You cannot even explain what makes a dog a dog, other than that's what you call them, so how would you know if evolution has occurred?

That is one of the problems with relying on the term "kind" when attacking strawmen.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is not the case at all. I only use the "goddidit" response when science is incapable of explaining something. Not only is science incapable of explaining it now, they will forever be incapable of explaining it. So when science doesn't have the means to explain something, I say "goddidit". Science doesn't provide an answer how and why the universe began to exist. So, it becomes naturally, using my common sense, to conclude that if the universe began to exist (universe, meaning all space, time, matter and energy), then whatever gave it its beginning must exist beyond the universe. This is just the logical thing to conclude. SCIENCE CANNOT EXPLAIN ORIGINS. So it becomes necessary to conclude that God did it. Science explains how the natural world works based on natural law. It does not explain the origins of nature and natural law. Apparently you people dont know the difference........

....Science have not proven anything in regards to evolution or life from nonlife.

Now I am confused. Are you a Creationist, or a theistic evolutionist?

(The later being a much more reasonable position)

 

[cablescavenger]

If creationism is true, that would not necessarily tell us who God is, and what his agenda are.

I will accept any truth if it is shown to be the case then so be it.

 

[johnhanks]

thewonders of human birth ... should make us know there must be an intelligent designer man cannot comprehend.

Never mind man, I suspect woman finds it even more difficult to comprehend why this intelligent designer should have made human birth such a difficult, painful and dangerous experience. (Evolution, of course, provides a very straightforward explanation.)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

See the part I bolded? That's a pretty bold statement to make. See my post #97 where I showed this way of thinking to be wrong. The part I underlined, my post #97 shows why that is faulty reasoning. Science gets closer and closer everyday to actually getting to that explanation. The part in red? It's never the "logical" choice to explain something by something else that is completely illogical.

I see you are not paying attention. I wasn't implying that every conceivable thing that science cant explain now wont be explained by science based on future findings. What I am saying is, science will never be able to explain absolute origins. Science will never be able to explain the origin of life from nonlife, and the origin of the universe by natural means. This is not going to happen. So you are waiting for nothing. Science is going beyond its juristiction by trying to explain these things. Thats what I was saying. And second, intelligent design is not "completely illogical". Intelligent design is used when science doesnt have the capability to explain. Third, explain how Intelligent Design is any more illogical than saying "naturedidit". When I see the kind of complexity that we see in the structure of DNA, immediately conclude that there was intelligence behind it. You think the same thing, except when something is driving towards theistic implications.

Science has no problem explaining this from an evolutionary standpoint.

So, explain what is the scientific explanation for the complexity of DNA?? Please provide an answer as to how it is explained from an "evolutionary standpoint".

Whether you accept or reject that explanation is up to you. But just because you believe it doesn't, doesn't make it so.

And just beccause you believe in evolution doesn't make it so. I've never seen space shuttles assemble themselves, so using common sense, anything more complex than a space shuttle could not have gave itself its own complexity and more than the space shuttle could have assembled itself.

Especially when you haven't done any research on it yourself to see how science explains it.

I did enough research and also based on my experience in every day life, I've come to the conclusion that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. The evolutionists wants me to believe that long ago, far and wide, that animals were doing things millions of years ago that they have not been doing since man entered the world. I can't believe this.

First, your confusing evolution and abiogenesis, again. They are two separate fields of study.

Two separte fields of study, but nonetheless, as I keep pointing out, before you get to evolution you have to have life. You have to have dna, you have to have cells. So far no man has been able to build or create anything more complex than a living cell. Why is this? Because the intellectual being that created the cell is vastly more intelligent than his creation, thats why.

Theism is not the best answer for where life came from. Theists have always thought that about things science had yet to explain, and then science always ends up finding a natural answer. Again, see my post #97.

I never implied that every single thing that science cant explain, we should take the "goddidit" approach. What I am saying is, science will never ever be able to explain absolute origins. Science will never be able to explain the origin of life and the origin of the universe. Never. We cannot used science to explain the origin of its own domain. Now, I have said this at least 5 times, and no one has responded to this. But the fact remains, science cant explain the origins of itself. No, i dont believe in evolution because all evidence provided could easily mean common designer. But the fact that we have life to EVOVLE IN THE FIRST PLACE, and the fact that no one has ever seen or been able to show how life can come from nonlife, goes to show that we are not here by an accident, but we are here because we were placed here.

And you say no one has ever observed life come from non-life. This doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No it doesnt mean that it didnt happen per say, but based on the astronomical improbability of it occurring by a blind and unguided process, this makes it highly unlikely, and that is an understatement.

You believe that this is explained by something you have never observed.

But this is a conclusion that a draw based on negating its competitor. Life did not come from nonlife. There is no evidence of this large scale evolution. The evidence that has been provided could mean something else, so that "evidence" cant be passed of as a "fact" that some of you naturalists like to claim.

So you refute your own argument. Naturalists don't use faith. Naturalists know that just because science doesn't have an exact explanation for something yet, that doesn't mean that it won't in the future. History bears this out.

What?? Naturalists dont use faith?? Naturalists base their whole "ideology" on faith. There is no evidence that life came from nonlife as you just admitted, yet, you believe it. That is faith. There is no evidence showing that an intelligent designer DIDNT use evolution as a means to create, yet, you believe it. Theists are not the only onces using faith here.

Why do naturalists not accept a supernatural cause? Because, if you'll look at history, science has a better track record. Every time the theists use the "goddidit" excuse, science has found a naturalistic explanation.

This is irrelevant, because once again, we are talking about absolute origins. Science doesnt have a better track record in that regard, because there is no evidence of life coming from nonlife and there cant be an naturalistic explanation of how or why the universe began to exist. These are two problems for the naturalist.

So, the logical choice would not be to accept a supernatural creator, but science, which has been proven right over the bible every step of the way.

Science has not been proven right on the subjects of the two things i mentioned above, which are life from nonlife, and explaining why the universe began to exist.

I'm not so arrogant to believe that just because science has no explanation now, that it won't in the future. I'm not emotionally tied to a rigid dogmatic belief system that only allows me to think in one way.

Right, so you are a naturalist, meaning you will only believe what can be scientifically proven. There are some things that science will never prove, and i mentioned two.

Here's what I find funny. If you had lived 500 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about a flat earth, geocentricity, god's wrath as the explanation for natural disasters and disease, etc. And like science proved the church and bible wrong on those things, it will be vindicated by this as well.

And here is what i find funny. If you had lived 500 years ago, and you were walking in a vast field in the middle of the night and from a distance, you seen a big object with lights shining from it, and you walked to it....and you see this vast object looks like something you never seen before. You walk inside it, and you see all of this complex machinery and computers and on the screen is a language that you dont understand. These computers have buttons that you can press, and whene you press it, it performs a certain tasks (such as one button, when you pressed it, the door closed) You never seen this before, yet, you would still recognize it as intelligent design. You wont think that it assembled itself, right? Now fast foward 500 years in to the future, we see cells and dna structures that are vastly more complex than the object you walked in (whatever it was you walked in). But for some reason, you dont believe that the more complex item you saw 500 years in the future is not intelligent design, but yet the item you saw 500 years in the past is?? Now why is this? Because the item you see in the future has theistic implications, and the item you saw in the past doesn't.

If you had actually studied or read anything at all about evolution, you would know that evolution doesn't teach that one type of animal doesn't produce another kind of animal all at once. Science has proven evolution, your beliefs won't allow you to accept it.

My beliefs wont allow me to accept it? This is coming from the same person that wont allow him/herself to think beyond science, despite the evidence saying otherwise. So I am not the only one that has a belief system to stick too.

And science will be able to prove one day exactly how life came from non-life. Take a look at how far science has come, and how they've proven the bible and the church wrong thus far. So it's you who's being dishonest. Your faith has caused blindness to what's really there.

The creationist isn't denying using science as a tool to understand how the world operates. The creationist is denying science when science attempts to explain absolute origins. That is the problem. You can learn about the wonders of science without trying to ask the question of "where the universe came from".......or..."how did life originate". Once you start using science to explain absolute origins, then you are adopting a religious belief at which you accept by faith.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You cannot even explain what makes a dog a dog, other than that's what you call them, so how would you know if evolution has occurred?

It doesn't matter. The point is, if a "dog" is given a certain definition that distinguishes it from animals that doesn't fit that same definition, then it is a different kind of animal. If the grey wolf is every dogs common ancestor, then where did the grey wolf come from? If you believe that the grey wolf came from a "nondog", then this is where your evolution religion creeps in.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Now I am confused. Are you a Creationist, or a theistic evolutionist?

(The later being a much more reasonable position)

I am a Creationist. I dont believe in large scale evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The creationist is denying science when science attempts to explain absolute origins. That is the problem. You can learn about the wonders of science without trying to ask the question of "where the universe came from".......or..."how did life originate". Once you start using science to explain absolute origins, then you are adopting a religious belief at which you accept by faith.

So..your problem isn't with biological evolution. It is with abiogenesis and origins of the universe.

Correct?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think I recall explaining this to you once before, but let's see if you can understand it this time. Sexual reproduction started with essentially identical cells exchanging genetic material: neither could sensibly be called male or female.

First of all, in order to "exchange genetic material" you have to have DNA, which is a completely difficult process as it is. And before you have dna, you have to have cells, and before you have cells, you have to have protein molecules, and before you have protein molecules, you have to have amino acids. So even as you started this explanation, you have already bypassed an astronomicaly complex and improbable process (once again, "complex and improbable are understatements).

This is called isogamy, and is still seen in many unicells. As the process evolved

This is a hand trick, "as the process evolved", as what evovled? How and why.

the advantages accruing from division of labour led to anisogamy and ultimately heterogamy: one cell does the delivering, becoming a stripped-down motile unit, essentially nothing more than a motor and a package of genes; the other does the receiving, abandoning motility in favour of increased size and storage of resources.

Nice try, but when you take away the fluff and feathers of what you just said, my question is not answered. My question was, how does the male reproductive system just happen to have what is needed to reproduce with a females reproductive system. How do you wind up with a females ovaries and a males sperm being able to reproduce. AND NOT ONLY THAT. A female just happen to have breast, being able to produce milk to nurse the baby. How did nature know that the baby was going to need milk, and also knowing that the female would need breast to produce the milk?? This is "specified complexity". There is no possible way a blind and unguided process would "know" these things. Why didnt the breast produce water instead of milk? How did it know that milk would be better for the baby instead of water? Now of course the response will be "what are you talking about, it didnt "know" anything", but yet, look how specified this stuff is. A male has a penis, sperm, and testicles FOR REPRODUCTION. A female has a vagina, ovaries and a uterus, FOR REPRODUCTION. This is not some random thing that evovled, this is PURPOSE.

In other words, maleness and femaleness emerged from the very earliest origins of sexual reproduction, and your fantasies about hapless asexual organisms having to conjure matching reproductive systems out of nothing are just that - fantasies, and very misguided ones at that.

No it isnt just fantasies. You explained the earliest origins of sexual reproduction. That doesnt explain how exchanging genetics will get you matches, and how it went from small scale reproduction to this large scale reproduction with a male having a penis and a female a vagina, and they happen to be compatible. You also didnt provide a explanation as to how other organsms do the same thing, from crickets to elephants, as the same question applies to them as well. And as i pointed out, before any male organism had a penis and any female organsm had a vagina, how were they reproducing. And then, as they started to evovle their respective systems, they had to do it at the same time. Me and my wife are two different genders with two different systems, yet, we are compatible. How would we ever get the compatibility if we started from bacteria and algae??

So, you actually didnt provide an adequate answer for this. You started from small scale and then all of a sudden said "as it evovled", which is the biggest and longest fast forwarding concept I've ever seen.