Evidence for theistic evolution

[Audie]

You said you have some sort of data, can you be specific?

"Evolutionary" data (appearance of common descent, natural selection, etc) can all be supported within the beliefs I mentioned (Progressive Creation [PC], Theistic Evolution [TE], Naturalistic Evolution [NE]). But, there is "data" that I think better supports PC than say a gradual natural evolution as required by TE/NE.

Simple is often best. So let's look at a simple scenario to illustrate a symbiotic relationship: Bees and flowers.

Bees pollinate flowers, and flowers provide nectar to bees.
Neither can really survive without the other.
Without them bees flowers would die, and without flowers, bees won't get the nectar and pollen they need to survive.
Pollination may happen in other ways -- manually, perhaps a wasp or other insect, but bees are quite efficient.

What seems a more likely scenario --
That the two evolved together, or that they were designed and created together?

Before I provide more complex examples,
I'd like just like a concession on whether this type of evidence (symbiosis) would in your mind point to direct creation of life at the same time, rather than all the life having evolved naturally at the same time? (which would be quite unlikely)

If not, maybe I'm better thinking of other data that you might find more convincing.
What type of data would lend more support to PC over TE/NE or vice-versa?

As it stands, common descent. natural selection, etc... can be sustained by all three.
So these can't be used as evidences to distinguish one really above the other.
What data would help in your eyes? Data that you wouldn't just dismiss out of hand.
I don't want to put in time and effort if that'll be the case.

I think symbiosis is good one, but perhaps you don't?
And the higher the number of life participating in a symbiotic relationship, to me, the more likely things appear designed and created rather than evolved naturally together (especially if random and all by chance, rather than planned out, this perhaps rules out NE but not necessarily TE).
Bees are flowers are just a 2x symbiotic relationship. But, there a symbiotic relationships of four and higher.

You might think about how there are more microbe cells in "you" than there are of "you". Who is really in charge?

There is a species of bacteria that lives at the root of your eyelash hairs. Nowhere else on earth, that its been found. What is it doing there? Do we need it? Benefit? Merely tolerate?

You might think of bacteria and virus "applying for a position" with you. A great many species have found a way to get along with us. Some provide benefits; why not, they host does well, they do well. Same as with nutritious fruit, the healthier the fruit eaters, the more t hey will distribute seeds.

Now, the human body has an immune system. We cant take on every dang freeloader
(notice how easily you could develop host-parasite situation with relatives, and stray cats) and the immune system is there mainly, it seems, to repel boarders.

Im sure you know that the dire results of some diseases has more to do with the panicky reaction of the immune system than with anything the germs are doing directly.

Just askin' for a job, man! Just want a dish of catfood and a soft couch!

But you fire the flamethrowers, grenade launchers and repel stray cat, and sure, its gone but.....

Anyway, i dont see why you feel that interactions among organisms have to be designed. One can, for one thing, see interactions at every sort of level from
casual to obligate.

[Proinsias]

I wrote on this 10 years ago, before Judge Jones had ruled:

• As for Dover, PA board of education introducing ID into the science curriculum... this is not a move by mainstream ID advocates. For example, the Discovery Institute were deeply opposed to what happened there, and even requested the board policy be revoked. They do not want ID introduced into the science education curriculum because it has not matured significantly as a science. They have only been pushing to teach the problems both for and against Darwinian evolution. And they currently only want ID discussed in the higher levels of academia, not within education until it has been more developed.
  
  Yet, it seems obvious you have some trying to use ID as a tool to push their own Creationism motives within Science. Such people are going to do a great deal of damage to ID, and such people are completely outside the mainstream ID movement. Right now ID isn't an alternative to evolution, for as you say no proper scientific theory has been proposed. It is more of a tool, and ID needs to mature first before one ever thinks about it being an option to Darwinian evolution. Creationism is however an alternative, and thus if anyone says ID is an alternative it would seem to me they are confusing ID for Creationism. Clearly Creationism is based more on religious Scripture than Science, and so as such belongs in Theology. ID on the otherhand is not Creationism, and currently cannot be considered an alternative since no scientific models have been put forward.

I'll stand by what I wrote at another time too:

• the judge has no idea of ID if he made a broad ruling on ID in general. Even if one is amiable towards ID for religious reasons, it is a category error to state that ID is therefore religious. It is for this reason the judge presiding over the case was wrong in declaring ID to be religious, despite rightfully detecting the religious motives of those on the board.

Then, I've also responded about Behe's participation (see below).
I'd like to stress that at the end of the day, I really don't care if ID brought the case on -- but they didn't.
If ID wanted it their ideas taught in the classroom also, I really don't care.
I do believe they could positively benefit science, but that's a separate issue here.
While I really don't want to defend ID or everything Behe has done or said, I suppose I just like the facts of the matter being known.

• Behe is likely acting in the case because distorted statements are being made about ID, and as previously mentioned, the ACLU wants to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design. That is, they aren't going to trial to have it stopped from being taught (for indeed, there would be no real ID theory to teach), they are going to court to censor even its mere mention. It additionally wants to censor discussion that critically analyses Darwinian evolution supported by ID proponents. The Discovery Institute (which Behe is apart of and I believe represented) was against the statement introduced by the board, and is against ID being taught in classes. Yet, they are "also strongly [opposed to] the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design." To quote their position further:
  
  • Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively.
    
    Discovery Institute's Position on Dover, PA "Intelligent Design" Case, John G. West

The Dover case was probably ACLU looking for an opportunity to take on ID, and naive YECs putting the cart before the horse via ID.
Creationists should have just left it alone. ACLU would have been mad not to challenge.
And then there's been well meaning attempts by those who clearly do not understand ID since, for example, Ben Stein and his movie Expelled where he clearly (wrongly) conflates in Creation and ID... but now, everyone is just all so confused ID is like a lost cause.

Truly, I believe authentic ID proponents were on leave while Creationists hijacked their ship.
They didn't get very far and ran it into the reef. Again, I don't care any more to defend ID -- it's lost.
I use to care, but I suppose its been deflated even if I do see good ideas and thoughts.
Meyer and Dembski make a lot of philosophical sense. Behe, I liked his book.

In business, there is advice that if you don't clearly define what it is you do as a business, that others (consumers) will define what you do.
With ID, I think they never truly defined themselves. They absolutely refused to draw lines in the sand and create boundaries around what ID is/isn't.
Instead they opened up a big umbrella and said anyone who believes in true design, or who thinks Darwinian evolution can't account for this stuff we're seeing within the cell, well hop aboard. That was stupid on many counts.

Regardless, I am still interested in the information that we see within the cell and all the fascinating stuff that goes on.
Including many related concepts that core IDists have put forward such as specified complexity and the like.

I concur.

Thanks for the background and historic posts. The above puts things in a much better perspective.

[Kurieuo]

What "enormous odds"?

Probability of two species needing each other proliferating into existence at the same time.

Consider the symbiotic mutualism between an ant, a plant and fungus:

• The well-studied, ancient and highly evolved mutualism between fungus-growing ants and their fungi has become a model system in the study of symbiosis1, 5. Although it is thought at present to involve only two symbionts, associated with each other in near isolation from other organisms1, 5, the fungal gardens of attine ants are in fact host to a specialized and virulent parasitic fungus of the genus Escovopsis (Ascomycotina)6. Because the ants and their fungi are mutually dependent, the maintenance of stable fungal monocultures in the presence of weeds or parasites is critical to the survival of both organisms. Here we describe a new, third mutualist in this symbiosis, a filamentous bacterium (actinomycete) of the genus Streptomyces that produces antibiotics specifically targeted to suppress the growth of the specialized garden-parasite Escovopsis. This third mutualist is associated with all species of fungus-growing ants studied, is carried upon regions of the ants' cuticle that are genus specific, is transmitted vertically (from parent to offspring colonies), and has the capacity to promote the growth of the fungal mutualist, indicating that the association of Streptomyces with attine ants is both highly evolved and of ancient origin. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 701a0.html)

Several entomologists explain in detail this relationship, and explain that there are actually five known symbionts:

• The fungus-growing ant symbiosis is a model system for studying the ecology and evolution of symbiotic interactions. The symbiosis currently contains five identified and characterized symbionts:
  
  1) Attine ants,
  2) the fungi that they cultivate for food,
  3) cultivar-attacking microfungi in the genus Escovopsis,
  4) antibiotic-producing bacteria in the genus Pseudonocardia, and
  5) a black yeast parasitizing the ant Pseudonocardia-mutualism.
  
  The diversity of interactions in this model system provides a wealth of opportunity for scientific inquiry, particularly beyond bipartite interactions.
  
  (Insect Symbioses: A Case Study of Past, Present, and Future Fungus-growing Ant Research (numbering mine; highly recommend)

RTB summarises this relationship plainly:

• (1) the ants cut waxy leaves from the plant, chew them into a pulp, and lay down the pulp on a substrate for the mushrooms;
  (2) the mushrooms that grow from the pulp-lined substrate produce structures called gongylidia, which the ants then harvest for food;
  (3) a micro-fungus in the ants’ gut enables the ants to digest the gongylidia.
  
  Neither the ants nor the mushrooms can feed on the leaves directly. The leaves contain biochemical toxins (insecticide) dangerous to the ants and are covered with a waxy coating the mushrooms cannot penetrate. The ants remove the waxy coating for the benefit of the mushrooms. The mushrooms "process" the chemical toxins so that the ants, with crucial assistance from gut micro-fungi, can then digest their food.

Endosymbiosis (where one of the symbiotic organisms lives inside the other) is quite pervasive and foundational in anthropods (i.e., insects).
When you have scientific articles titles like: Extraordinarily widespread and fantastically complex: comparative biology of endosymbiotic bacterial and fungal mutualists of insects... Really... did they really mean extraordinary? I agree.

I cant figure out if God -belief is scientific or not.

Is that a response to my question, "Do you consider belief in God as more unscientific to no belief in God?"

"Belief in God", having "no belief in God" or "believing God doesn't exist" are philosophical positions.
Therefore they are no more or less scientific than the other. However, Naturalism (belief that the physical or natural world exists without any "super" natural being/s) is often equivocated with (what I call "smuggled in") as science. It's not as easy to pick up on as God belief, since science obviously studies the natural order of the world so a trade on "nature/naturalism" is easier to do.

The point I wanted to make is that when performing science, these personal beliefs might help shape the interest of science being down, but these positions are no more or less scientific than each other. The question I asked purposefully commits a category error to try make this point. By category error, it's like my asking, "is blue rounder than red?"

Therefore belief or no belief in God is no more or less scientific. But, if someone believes otherwise, then they are mixing their personal philosophical beliefs in with their science. I feel it is important to understand that.

Because we see some Christians mix in their beliefs in God and call it a science (e.g., ACB's Gappism), but such mistakes often go unnoticed when Atheists mix in their Naturalistic beliefs that exclude God and call it science (e.g., Naturalistic Evolution, not to be confused for natural evolution).

I'm not sure if that's making sense to you. I'm trying my best to explain as I feel it is highly important.
But, "Naturalistic Evolution" would presuppose God does not exist (or any other "super" natural beings for that matter).

This is very different from just "natural evolution", where one might assume natural evolutionary laws and processes are solely responsible for the diversity of life that we see. Theistic Evolution and Naturalistic Evolution are both philosophical positions that support "natural evolution" to these extremes.

So I was trying to get at these points, by asking a question.
The point of my question is that Naturalism is no more scientific than Theism is or vice-versa.
One's beliefs in God and one's beliefs that no God exists are not of a "scientific" category.
Hope I made sense.

Symbiosis, convergent and parallel evolution seem to be to be an obvious and
inevitable aspect of evolution. I wonder what you find odd about it.

What is odd? The improbability.

I mean, with symbiosis, when you have mutualism that requires two a more species to exist along side each other. The odds are greatly stacked against such naturally occurring. It seems more like someone planned the nature and intricacies of how such symbiotic relationships would work, thought it would be good to create such dependencies, and then "created" the symbionts together.

How would this be an inevitable aspect of evolution? You might have some species coming later that draws from a previously evolved species (a parasitic relationship perhaps), but to have them both needing each other for survival at the same time... that's quite an extraordinary feat. And the more symbionts in the relationship that mutually require each other to live, the more extraordinary.

Or convergent evolution the probability of some complex biological structure randomly coming into being once, is well, contingent on a great deal of randomly improbable factors. So to see the same structure "evolving" over and over again -- well now it looks like someone is stacking the deck. Wouldn't you think?

If naturalism is about precluding a god, then Im not that. And as Im obsessive about avoiding a tan at the beach, thats also a sign that Im not a Naturalist.

Yes, hopefully my more detailed explanation above helps to clarify.

I must say that you surprise me here -- not precluding God's existence (or "a god" even).
Maybe you've changed slightly, or maybe I've just not understood you.
I've always considered you to strongly deny that such exists?

Really do think it is an all-so important point to understand the difference between just examining natural laws and Naturalism (a philosophy that presupposes God or "super" natural beings do not exist). Then perhaps the raw science of evolutionary theory, and just bare facts in nature, can be discussed more neutrally and separately from one's philosophy (whether that is Theism or Naturalism).

At the end of the day, I find studies submitted to journals so interesting.
For me, it helps to better understand how God designed the world to work.
For someone else, it might be better understanding what randomly unfolded in nature devoid of any purposeful design.
Both these views of the world still produce that feeling of awe one might get while camping out in nature and looking up at the stars?

These personal beliefs are what help to inspire, leave us in awe and want to learn more.
It is therefore a shame that people often murky physical sciences, strongly asserting what one can/can't believe in regarding their more personal philosophy or beliefs.

[Kenny]

Ken wrote:
We are not talking about miracles. You said (paraphrasing) to list something in the Bible that contradicts science and you will show it does not. I'm waiting.....

We may be talking about a miracle. It depends what in the bible you are talking about.
But let's address your first example, which IMO, is not a miracle.

Your quote and assertion is here:

According to science; many of the claims of the Bible can be proven wrong.

Then you listed 3 examples of "claims" in the bible, that you attempted to show can be proven wrong by science.

I addressed the first one http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=40012

You still haven't responded to my answer. When we're finished with the first one, we can address another one.

I was wondering where my reply went! I was at work and in a hurry so I made the original reply and when I came back later to look for a response I saw it was not there so I assumed I pushed the wrong button and erased everything instead of submitting it; so I started all over and listed it again; only slightly different this time.
Anyway I replied to your response on that other thread.

Ken

[Kenny]

able
,but even if you think micro evolution is change,that is not evolution

Ken
According to you it is not evolution; according to science it is

able
and yet they -scientists are using micro evolution for evidence for macroevolution and yet you accept it.

Ken
I have never heard anyone claiming microevolution is evidence for macroevolution. Where did you hear this?

able
My question is why do you think giving evidence for micro evolution is evidence life evolves because as we can see there is no evolving going on as I pointed out with the evidence you brought up?

Ken
I don’t recall you presenting any evidence that life does not evolve. Perhaps I missed it. Would you mind presenting this evidence again?

able
Do not think of evolution as just change,because evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life over time and this is what the evidence does not show,even though they say it is evidence life evolves.

Ken
No, Evolution has always been about change. It is also about species change.


Ken

[Kenny]

I know science does not claim the earth's surface was leveled off but I'm saying if it was the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land on the earth right now.

I agree! But that's a different subject. Do you have any opinions on the other points I made?

Ken

How is it a different subject?You brought up Noah's flood implying how much water it would take to flood the whole earth,then asked where did the water go? I simply showed that if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.

It is a different subject because your answer involves a hypothetical that never took place.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

I know science does not claim the earth's surface was leveled off but I'm saying if it was the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land on the earth right now.

I agree! But that's a different subject. Do you have any opinions on the other points I made?

Ken

How is it a different subject?You brought up Noah's flood implying how much water it would take to flood the whole earth,then asked where did the water go? I simply showed that if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.

It is a different subject because your answer involves a hypothetical that never took place.

Ken

Flurry

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FoLeC08c5zk

[abelcainsbrother]

able
,but even if you think micro evolution is change,that is not evolution

Ken
According to you it is not evolution; according to science it is

able
and yet they -scientists are using micro evolution for evidence for macroevolution and yet you accept it.

Ken
I have never heard anyone claiming microevolution is evidence for macroevolution. Where did you hear this?

able
My question is why do you think giving evidence for micro evolution is evidence life evolves because as we can see there is no evolving going on as I pointed out with the evidence you brought up?

Ken
I don’t recall you presenting any evidence that life does not evolve. Perhaps I missed it. Would you mind presenting this evidence again?

able
Do not think of evolution as just change,because evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life over time and this is what the evidence does not show,even though they say it is evidence life evolves.

Ken
No, Evolution has always been about change. It is also about species change.


Ken

Sorry but no intellectual honesty.Nothing I said was untrue and yet to keep holding on you must change the meaning of evolution and deny the evidence they show and say and present as evidence life evolves.If evidence will not change your mind?What will? You know viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,frogs,etc is peer reviewed evidence life evolves and yet as I showed it does not show life evolving and yet you ignore this in order to keep believing it.

Also I gave you evidence for global floods and yet you reject evidence to believe life evolves without evidence it does.

[Kenny]

I know science does not claim the earth's surface was leveled off but I'm saying if it was the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land on the earth right now.

I agree! But that's a different subject. Do you have any opinions on the other points I made?

Ken

How is it a different subject?You brought up Noah's flood implying how much water it would take to flood the whole earth,then asked where did the water go? I simply showed that if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.

It is a different subject because your answer involves a hypothetical that never took place.

Ken

Flurry

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FoLeC08c5zk

I don't understand the answer you gave.

K

[bippy123]

I don't care very much about the politics surrounding ID , but ID is science in that it makes one huge prediction . That specified complex information has never been shown to come about from anything other then a mind .

The lesser argument of Macroevolution also influenced me but not as much as SCI .
For me it was like a light bulb suddenly turning on and it's something that Audi and other naturalistically inclined evolutionary believers haven't been able to refute . I tried to refute it when I was an evolutionist 6 years ago . It's actually nostalgic in going back and seeing old posts of mine from another forum where I debate YEC on the side of evolution .

When I go back to those posts I think to myself ""was that really me lol""
It's almost like I was a different person lol.

Darwinism is what we call a historic science and since from our experience we have only seen specified complex information arising from only a mind , the burden is on the Darwinian (notice I said Darwinian Rick, you made a good point ) evolutionists must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that naturalistic causes can create specified complex info. The burden of proof isn't on the anti Darwinists .

[Kenny]

I don't care very much about the politics surrounding ID , but ID is science in that it makes one huge prediction . That specified complex information has never been shown to come about from anything other then a mind .

The lesser argument of Macroevolution also influenced me but not as much as SCI .
For me it was like a light bulb suddenly turning on and it's something that Audi and other naturalistically inclined evolutionary believers haven't been able to refute . I tried to refute it when I was an evolutionist 6 years ago . It's actually nostalgic in going back and seeing old posts of mine from another forum where I debate YEC on the side of evolution .

When I go back to those posts I think to myself ""was that really me lol""
It's almost like I was a different person lol.

Darwinism is what we call a historic science and since from our experience we have only seen specified complex information arising from only a mind , the burden is on the Darwinian (notice I said Darwinian Rick, you made a good point ) evolutionists must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that naturalistic causes can create specified complex info. The burden of proof isn't on the anti Darwinists .

What is SCI? Also is there a difference between Darwinist and Evolutionists?

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I don't care very much about the politics surrounding ID , but ID is science in that it makes one huge prediction . That specified complex information has never been shown to come about from anything other then a mind .

The lesser argument of Macroevolution also influenced me but not as much as SCI .
For me it was like a light bulb suddenly turning on and it's something that Audi and other naturalistically inclined evolutionary believers haven't been able to refute . I tried to refute it when I was an evolutionist 6 years ago . It's actually nostalgic in going back and seeing old posts of mine from another forum where I debate YEC on the side of evolution .

When I go back to those posts I think to myself ""was that really me lol""
It's almost like I was a different person lol.

Darwinism is what we call a historic science and since from our experience we have only seen specified complex information arising from only a mind , the burden is on the Darwinian (notice I said Darwinian Rick, you made a good point ) evolutionists must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that naturalistic causes can create specified complex info. The burden of proof isn't on the anti Darwinists .

What is SCI? Also is there a difference between Darwinist and Evolutionists?

Ken

Evolutionists don't necessarily look like Santa whereas Darwinists do?

[Kenny]

I don't care very much about the politics surrounding ID , but ID is science in that it makes one huge prediction . That specified complex information has never been shown to come about from anything other then a mind .

The lesser argument of Macroevolution also influenced me but not as much as SCI .
For me it was like a light bulb suddenly turning on and it's something that Audi and other naturalistically inclined evolutionary believers haven't been able to refute . I tried to refute it when I was an evolutionist 6 years ago . It's actually nostalgic in going back and seeing old posts of mine from another forum where I debate YEC on the side of evolution .

When I go back to those posts I think to myself ""was that really me lol""
It's almost like I was a different person lol.

Darwinism is what we call a historic science and since from our experience we have only seen specified complex information arising from only a mind , the burden is on the Darwinian (notice I said Darwinian Rick, you made a good point ) evolutionists must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that naturalistic causes can create specified complex info. The burden of proof isn't on the anti Darwinists .

What is SCI? Also is there a difference between Darwinist and Evolutionists?

Ken

Evolutionists don't necessarily look like Santa whereas Darwinists do?

(LOL)

K

[Audie]

I know science does not claim the earth's surface was leveled off but I'm saying if it was the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land on the earth right now.

I agree! But that's a different subject. Do you have any opinions on the other points I made?

Ken

How is it a different subject?You brought up Noah's flood implying how much water it would take to flood the whole earth,then asked where did the water go? I simply showed that if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.

It is a different subject because your answer involves a hypothetical that never took place.

Ken

A Baptist told me that a wind wafted all the extra water to Neptune, where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

[Kenny]

able
,but even if you think micro evolution is change,that is not evolution

Ken
According to you it is not evolution; according to science it is

able
and yet they -scientists are using micro evolution for evidence for macroevolution and yet you accept it.

Ken
I have never heard anyone claiming microevolution is evidence for macroevolution. Where did you hear this?

able
My question is why do you think giving evidence for micro evolution is evidence life evolves because as we can see there is no evolving going on as I pointed out with the evidence you brought up?

Ken
I don’t recall you presenting any evidence that life does not evolve. Perhaps I missed it. Would you mind presenting this evidence again?

able
Do not think of evolution as just change,because evolution has always been about one kind of life evolving and changing into another kind of life over time and this is what the evidence does not show,even though they say it is evidence life evolves.

Ken
No, Evolution has always been about change. It is also about species change.


Ken

Sorry but no intellectual honesty.Nothing I said was untrue and yet to keep holding on you must change the meaning of evolution and deny the evidence they show and say and present as evidence life evolves.If evidence will not change your mind?What will? You know viruses,bacteria,fruit flies,salamanders,frogs,etc is peer reviewed evidence life evolves and yet as I showed it does not show life evolving and yet you ignore this in order to keep believing it.

What evidence did you show? I don't remember you ever presenting evidence. As I asked before, if you have evidence please present it.

Also I gave you evidence for global floods and yet you reject evidence to believe life evolves without evidence it does.

No! You gave an impossible scenario of what would have to take place in order for such a flood to happen. Now if you have any evidence of a global flood; please present it.

Ken

PS I will be going out of town for a few days. Come up with a good answer and I will respond when I get back