Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[cdowis]

My comment on his dribbling vs jackpot analogy:

The problem with the analogy is that some things are all-or-nothing. If your heat stops beating, for example, it will not dribble, it will stop. So if the heart is "evolving", it literally has only a few minutes to work or not work.

If you then tie it to the respiratory system, where BOTH are time critical then evolution in that case only has a few minutes to both systems working together. So if one fails or flawed, the other system will DIE even if it is functional. Thus, we have at least two interdependent systems where both must work in real time, or both systems will fail.

Bottom line - the dribbling analogy fails in interdependent systems which are time critical. Only the jackpot analogy works.

[Alan]

Dawkins is an idiot in my view.

He is also a coward, as he refuses to debate creationists publicly.

He's going to get such a shock when he wakes up dead one of these days.

[cdowis]

Dawkins is an expert on "failure of imagination" -- most of his arguments are based on why he can't figure out why God does certain things. The basic premise is "I can't figure it out, so God does not exist."

[thesometimesaint]

[media=]

My comment on his dribbling vs jackpot analogy:

The problem with the analogy is that some things are all-or-nothing. If your heat stops beating, for example, it will not dribble, it will stop. So if the heart is "evolving", it literally has only a few minutes to work or not work.

If you then tie it to the respiratory system, where BOTH are time critical then evolution in that case only has a few minutes to both systems working together. So if one fails or flawed, the other system will DIE even if it is functional. Thus, we have at least two interdependent systems where both must work in real time, or both systems will fail.

Bottom line - the dribbling analogy fails in interdependent systems which are time critical. Only the jackpot analogy works.

Just more of the clockmaker fallacy.

Evolution works by means of reproduction within the species, not within the individual.

[ERayR]

Just more of the clockmaker fallacy.

Evolution works by means of reproduction within the species, not within the individual.

It has to get down to the individual somewhere. An evolutionary change must happen within the individual before it becomes generalized. In fact it must happen to at least two individuals, of the opposite sex, at the same time to get it fixed in the species.

[cdowis]

Just more of the clockmaker fallacy.

Please tell us about the clockmaker "fallacy". I would enjoy hearing how you refute it.

Evolution works by means of reproduction within the species, not within the individual.

Pleeze.

Changes (mutations) occur in individuals, and then individuals reproduce . (Pretty basic stuff, but ask your parents.)

Reproduction then creates a species. You don't "magically" change an entire species with the wave of the evolutionary wand -- it happens to individuals first.

Edited July 17, 2013 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

[media=]

My comment on his dribbling vs jackpot analogy:

The problem with the analogy is that some things are all-or-nothing. If your heat stops beating, for example, it will not dribble, it will stop. So if the heart is "evolving", it literally has only a few minutes to work or not work.

If you then tie it to the respiratory system, where BOTH are time critical then evolution in that case only has a few minutes to both systems working together. So if one fails or flawed, the other system will DIE even if it is functional. Thus, we have at least two interdependent systems where both must work in real time, or both systems will fail.

Bottom line - the dribbling analogy fails in interdependent systems which are time critical. Only the jackpot analogy works.

I think you are missing the point of the analogy. Some mutations are catastrophic and result in instant death. No mutations are catastrophically good and result in a fully formed four chamber heart. That said a large portion of mutations result in very small changes that are either marginally beneficial or marginally detrimental to the organism. This is where the heart of evolution lies. It proposes that small changes happen. It proposes that those small changes will be inherited by children. It proposes an environment with scarce resources where organisms must compete to survive. Finally it proposes that those most fit will survive.

Edited July 17, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[EllenMaksoud]

[media=]

My comment on his dribbling vs jackpot analogy:

The problem with the analogy is that some things are all-or-nothing. If your heat stops beating, for example, it will not dribble, it will stop. So if the heart is "evolving", it literally has only a few minutes to work or not work.

If you then tie it to the respiratory system, where BOTH are time critical then evolution in that case only has a few minutes to both systems working together. So if one fails or flawed, the other system will DIE even if it is functional. Thus, we have at least two interdependent systems where both must work in real time, or both systems will fail.

Bottom line - the dribbling analogy fails in interdependent systems which are time critical. Only the jackpot analogy works.

Dawkin's is a little boy (literally) with authority issues with his father. You get this in Chapter 5 of his book, "The God Delusion (?)" I used to have a copy because my roomate was quite taken by him, but must have finally discarded it.

In my opinion, those who refuse to yeild to God, have a wall of hurt before them that no amount of psychotherapy can surmount. Some of us are exceedingly blessed in that He drags us kicking and screaming toward healing.

Edited July 17, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[cdowis]

I think you are missing the point of the analogy. Some mutations are catastrophic and result in instant death. No mutations are catastrophically good and result in a fully formed four chamber heart.

And I think you missed my point. A heart has a function that either works or does not work. Due to it very nature it cannot "evolve by stages" especially when it is tied to toehr real time systems. It does not need four chambers, but it does need to work immediately. Eyesight can develop as partial function, increasing acuity, but the circulatory system has no such flexibility in its development.

Evolution has met a falsifiable test, and it has failed that test. The heart is a jackpot event, no dribbling is allowed.

Now, please educate me, and show me the flaw in my reasoning.

[Brian 2.0]

It has to get down to the individual somewhere. An evolutionary change must happen within the individual before it becomes generalized. In fact it must happen to at least two individuals, of the opposite sex, at the same time to get it fixed in the species.

The mutation can only happen to one of the parents and still be passed along to the offspring. I can inherit something from my father without my mother having that same trait.

[Brian 2.0]

Dawkins is an idiot in my view.

He is also a coward, as he refuses to debate creationists publicly.

If that is your criteria for the label of "coward" then it would also seem to apply to most Mormon apologists it seems as there doesn't seem to be a willingness to debate publicly.

[Brian 2.0]

In my opinion, those who refuse to yeild to God, have a wall of hurt before them that no amount of psychotherapy can surmount.

As someone who is basically agnostic/atheist at this point, I sorry to hear that you think of me this way. Are you saying that I currently have a wall of hurt around me, or that I have a wall of hurt heading my way?

[EllenMaksoud]

As someone who is basically agnostic/atheist at this point, I sorry to hear that you think of me this way. Are you saying that I currently have a wall of hurt around me, or that I have a wall of hurt heading my way?

It is to you to devine the contents of your own heart, and you have my prayers in your journey. At the time, I first met Mormon Missionary Sisters, I was basically done with religion, but did not know it yet. Heavenly Father graciously approached me with sisters because he knew I would not be receptive to men. He saw to it that I received no condemnation or upbraiding because he knew my despair came from too much of that. He knew that I was humbled, contrite and repentant. He knew my intentions and wanted to prevent that.

It takes a contrite and humble heart to find Heavenly Father. Are you so?

[Brian 2.0]

Evolution has met a falsifiable test, and it has failed that test. The heart is a jackpot event, no dribbling is allowed.

Now, please educate me, and show me the flaw in my reasoning.

How has it failed that test? Simply google "evolution of the heart" and you'll find plenty of discussion regarding how the heart can evolve... dribbling and all. We see the dribble steps in organisms that are even alive now.

One of the main things you need to think of is that the heart didn't come into existences after a fully closed circulatory system was in place. Take the heart in a homo sapien and it's all-or-nothing... no dribbling... but the dribble process wasn't happening in a homo sapien body! It was happening over time in completely different working organisms than what we are today. That's the problem with a lot of these "how can the eye work in steps" types of anti-evolution arguments.

As for the heart. Here's my try at talking about the dribble process of the evolution of the heart.

A very small organism doesn't need circulation of its nutrients -- it's all just floating around there. As it gets bigger though, things need to get around the "body" more. The first step is a small contracting muscle somewhere that would push out the nutrients around the organism (a simple pulsing object in the nutrient rich goo, no veins, open circulatory system). A larger organism that could do this would have an evolutionary advantage and that trait would be passed along. As it gets bigger the muscle elongates and forms one long porous "vein" and that one long vein contracts sending the nutrient rich fluids out into the organism, then it all seeps back in (still not a closed system). If the organism gets bigger and bigger then the only way for it to survive is for the veins to get bigger and go further through the body... resulting in a full circulatory system... non-porous arteries help the nutrients get all the way to the porous capillaries further away from the heart. Then onto multi chamber hearts.. then eventually to a 4-chamber human heart. (some of these "steps" are seen in organisms and animals that are alive today)

That's obviously over billions and billions of years, but you can see that there are steps along the whole way that are not "all or nothing" but simply "advantageous mutations." The very first step of a pulsing muscle to get the fluids in the organism moving is advantageous to that organism -- nutrients get around faster making the organism more efficient, etc -- but it's not "necessary" for survival, it simply makes the organism "better" at survival.

Say we were at the point in time where that FIRST pulsing muscle mutated in an organism. That little dude would have a survival advantage over the rest, but there would be TONS of his brothers and sisters around that did NOT have the pulsing muscle and were still alive and functioning.

I'm sorry to say that "the evolution of the heart" is NOT a falsifiable test that evolution as failed. In fact, it passes it rather nicely.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[sunstoned]

How has it failed that test? Simply google "evolution of the heart" and you'll find plenty of discussion regarding how the heart can evolve... dribbling and all. We see the dribble steps in organisms that are even alive now.

One of the main things you need to think of is that the heart didn't come into existences after a fully closed circulatory system was in place. Take the heart in a homo sapien and it's all-or-nothing... no dribbling... but the dribble process wasn't happening in a homo sapien body! It was happening over time in completely different working organisms that what we are today. That's the problem with a lot of these "how can the eye work in steps" types of anti-evolution arguments.

As for the heart. Here's my try at talking about the dribble process of the evolution of the heart.

A very small organism doesn't need circulation of its nutrients -- it's all just floating around there. As it gets bigger though, things need to get around the "body" more. The first step is a small contracting muscle somewhere that would push out the nutrients around the organism (a simple pulsing object in the nutrient rich goo, no veins, open circulatory system). A larger organism that could do this would have an evolutionary advantage and that trait would be passed along. As it gets bigger the muscle elongates and forms one long porous "vein" and that one long vein contracts sending the nutrient rich fluids out into the organism, then it all seeps back in (still not a closed system). If the organism gets bigger and bigger then the only way for it to survive is for the veins to get bigger and go further through the body... resulting in a full circulatory system... non-porous arteries help the nutrients get all the way to the porous capillaries further away from the heart. Then onto multi chamber hearts.. then eventually to a 4-chamber human heart. (some of these "steps" are seen in organisms and animals that are alive today)

That's obviously over billions and billions of years, but you can see that there are steps along the whole way that are not "all or nothing" but simply "advantageous mutations." The very first step of a pulsing muscle to get the fluids in the organism moving is advantageous to that organism -- nutrients get around faster making the organism more efficient, etc -- but it's not "necessary" for survival, it simply makes the organism "better" at survival.

Say we were at the point in time where that FIRST pulsing muscle mutated in an organism. That little dude would have a survival advantage over the rest, but there would be TONS of his brothers and sisters around that did NOT have the pulsing muscle and were still alive and functioning.

I'm sorry to say that "the evolution of the heart" is NOT a falsifiable test that evolution as failed. In fact, it passes it rather nicely.

Thank you for taking the time to provide this explanation. It is very good.

[Garden Girl]

The mutation can only happen to one of the parents and still be passed along to the offspring. I can inherit something from my father without my mother having that same trait.

Yes, this is what happens when dog and cat breeders... or any other animal/plant breeder... finds a new characteristic in one animal or plant that they want to perpetuate...

Example: the Scottish Fold cat... one day an owner observed a couple of kittens with the "folded" ears, a trait never seen before but one they thought was cute and desirable... so they started breeding for the trait... And now we have a CFA registered breed of "Scottish Fold" cats...

Same thing happens in plants... traits can be bred into them such as disease resistance against specific diseases attacking a particular variety, etc etc.

Edit to Add: I observed the research and experimentation/results when I worked at UC Riverside for the Director of the Agric Experiment Station.

GG

Edited July 18, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Bikeemikey]

And I think you missed my point. A heart has a function that either works or does not work. Due to it very nature it cannot "evolve by stages" especially when it is tied to toehr real time systems. It does not need four chambers, but it does need to work immediately. Eyesight can develop as partial function, increasing acuity, but the circulatory system has no such flexibility in its development.

Evolution has met a falsifiable test, and it has failed that test. The heart is a jackpot event, no dribbling is allowed.

Now, please educate me, and show me the flaw in my reasoning.

Of course hearts can evolve... It is not that case that they either work or don't work. Some work very well - lance Armstrong for example some work very badly - those with congenital heart defects.

It is the case that a some hearts are predisposed to heart failure, and some to heart health.

Hearts can work partially... You just end up with enormous fatigue and chest pain.

Of course humanity is no longer engaged in the same degree of evolutionary development around many negative physical traits as the health care industry is so capable of helping those with even extremely negative physical conditions survive (and procreate).

Also, as has been noted, evolution is a long long time cycle... Humans with our 80+ year life spans tend to struggle with concepts that do not demonstrate dramatic change in our own life cycles.

I recommend anti-fragile. It's a great book and has some interesting things to say about the value of short life cycles in developing the optimum future iteration of a species? Look how the human condition has improved over the last 500 years... It is highly improbably that if we are able to survive another 10,000 years that we would not be dramatically improved over where we are now.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[cdowis]

How has it failed that test? Simply google "evolution of the heart" and you'll find plenty of discussion regarding how the heart can evolve... dribbling and all. We see the dribble steps in organisms that are even alive now.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Let's see what you got.

One of the main things you need to think of is that the heart didn't come into existences after a fully closed circulatory system was in place. Take the heart in a homo sapien and it's all-or-nothing... no dribbling... but the dribble process wasn't happening in a homo sapien body! It was happening over time in completely different working organisms than what we are today. That's the problem with a lot of these "how can the eye work in steps" types of anti-evolution arguments.

I am very much aware that there are primitive circulatory systems which do not require real-time working of the heart. Let's move on to closed systems which interact with the respiratory system.

As for the heart. Here's my try at talking about the dribble process of the evolution of the heart.

A very small organism doesn't need circulation of its nutrients -- it's all just floating around there. As it gets bigger though, things need to get around the "body" more. The first step is a small contracting muscle somewhere that would push out the nutrients around the organism (a simple pulsing object in the nutrient rich goo, no veins, open circulatory system). A larger organism that could do this would have an evolutionary advantage and that trait would be passed along. As it gets bigger the muscle elongates and forms one long porous "vein" and that one long vein contracts sending the nutrient rich fluids out into the organism, then it all seeps back in (still not a closed system). If the organism gets bigger and bigger then the only way for it to survive is for the veins to get bigger and go further through the body... resulting in a full circulatory system... non-porous arteries help the nutrients get all the way to the porous capillaries further away from the heart. Then onto multi chamber hearts.. then eventually to a 4-chamber human heart. (some of these "steps" are seen in organisms and animals that are alive today)

OK, so you are talking about the " magic wand" of evolution. Magically it evolves from an open system where the heart is so primitive that it can be dysfunctional and the organism survives to a fully closed system where both the heart and the respiratory system must fully function, in real time, to survive.

Got it == it's magic. I have heard that explanation many times, and I guess it takes faith to believe that this actually works. A miracle!

That's obviously over billions and billions of years, but you can see that there are steps along the whole way that are not "all or nothing" but simply "advantageous mutations." The very first step of a pulsing muscle to get the fluids in the organism moving is advantageous to that organism -- nutrients get around faster making the organism more efficient, etc -- but it's not "necessary" for survival, it simply makes the organism "better" at survival.

I've already heard the "billions and trillions of years" and "step by step" by the evolutionists. It is still magic unless you can give us the specific details on how it was able to evolve. This is just smoke and mirrors, a refusal to deal with the question.

Let's do this. It was done by a Intelligent Designer who did it over billions of years, step by step. Does that help? I'm now handing you that magic wand which is ID, not evolution.

Say we were at the point in time where that FIRST pulsing muscle mutated in an organism. That little dude would have a survival advantage over the rest, but there would be TONS of his brothers and sisters around that did NOT have the pulsing muscle and were still alive and functioning.

But when you transition to a closed system, interdependent on the respiratory system, step-by-step does not work. UNLESSS you can show us how it can evolve from an open system to a fully functional system in less than ten minutes. Unlike grenades, "close" is not good enough. It works or you die.

I'm sorry to say that "the evolution of the heart" is NOT a falsifiable test that evolution as failed. In fact, it passes it rather nicely.

OK, if you accept the magic wand premise. It is merely a matter of faith and belief.

Anyone else??

Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Vance]

My comment on his dribbling vs jackpot analogy:

The problem with the analogy is that some things are all-or-nothing. If your heat stops beating, for example, it will not dribble, it will stop. So if the heart is "evolving", it literally has only a few minutes to work or not work.

If you then tie it to the respiratory system, where BOTH are time critical then evolution in that case only has a few minutes to both systems working together. So if one fails or flawed, the other system will DIE even if it is functional. Thus, we have at least two interdependent systems where both must work in real time, or both systems will fail.

Bottom line - the dribbling analogy fails in interdependent systems which are time critical. Only the jackpot analogy works.

I think you have something here. In the supposed evolutionary process, somewhere along the line, sexual reproduction came along. So, two asexual creatures of the same species had to evolve, one to female and one to male, at the same time and location. No dribbling there either. Edited July 18, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

How has it failed that test? Simply google "evolution of the heart" and you'll find plenty of discussion regarding how the heart can evolve... dribbling and all. We see the dribble steps in organisms that are even alive now.

One of the main things you need to think of is that the heart didn't come into existences after a fully closed circulatory system was in place. Take the heart in a homo sapien and it's all-or-nothing... no dribbling... but the dribble process wasn't happening in a homo sapien body! It was happening over time in completely different working organisms than what we are today. That's the problem with a lot of these "how can the eye work in steps" types of anti-evolution arguments.

As for the heart. Here's my try at talking about the dribble process of the evolution of the heart.

A very small organism doesn't need circulation of its nutrients -- it's all just floating around there. As it gets bigger though, things need to get around the "body" more. The first step is a small contracting muscle somewhere that would push out the nutrients around the organism (a simple pulsing object in the nutrient rich goo, no veins, open circulatory system). A larger organism that could do this would have an evolutionary advantage and that trait would be passed along. As it gets bigger the muscle elongates and forms one long porous "vein" and that one long vein contracts sending the nutrient rich fluids out into the organism, then it all seeps back in (still not a closed system). If the organism gets bigger and bigger then the only way for it to survive is for the veins to get bigger and go further through the body... resulting in a full circulatory system... non-porous arteries help the nutrients get all the way to the porous capillaries further away from the heart. Then onto multi chamber hearts.. then eventually to a 4-chamber human heart. (some of these "steps" are seen in organisms and animals that are alive today)

That's obviously over billions and billions of years, but you can see that there are steps along the whole way that are not "all or nothing" but simply "advantageous mutations." The very first step of a pulsing muscle to get the fluids in the organism moving is advantageous to that organism -- nutrients get around faster making the organism more efficient, etc -- but it's not "necessary" for survival, it simply makes the organism "better" at survival.

Say we were at the point in time where that FIRST pulsing muscle mutated in an organism. That little dude would have a survival advantage over the rest, but there would be TONS of his brothers and sisters around that did NOT have the pulsing muscle and were still alive and functioning.

I'm sorry to say that "the evolution of the heart" is NOT a falsifiable test that evolution as failed. In fact, it passes it rather nicely.

All of which can be duplicated in the laboratory, right?

[cdowis]

I think you have something here. In the supposed evolutionary process, somewhere along the line sexual reproduction came along. So, two asexual creatures of the same species had to evolve, one to female and one to male, at the same time and location. No dribbling there either.

I have addressed this elsewhere. The issue is the "first man" and the "first woman" == how did they happen to be at close proximity in time and space since they evolved independently at some point in time.

The typical answer is that there was no "first", but they were unable to elaborate on exactly what that means. Perhaps someone can help with that one.

[cdowis]

I think you have something here. In the supposed evolutionary process, somewhere along the line, sexual reproduction came along. So, two asexual creatures of the same species had to evolve, one to female and one to male, at the same time and location. No dribbling there either.

Well, I have given it some thought. Two hominids could reproduce -- homo sapiens have Neanderthal DNA, so it is not a requirement for the first homo sapiens to have relations with another "pure" homo sapiens. So dribbling is a good model in this particular case.

I suggest that it does not work with time-critical systems such as the closed circulatory system, etc, but may be appropriate with other features such as the elbow.

[Brian 2.0]

All of which can be duplicated in the laboratory, right?

Are you really demanding that evolution of an entire species be able to be duplicated in a lab in order for you to think it's valid?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Anyone else??

Since your call out was initially to my post, I'll make a limited attempt. I do not have a degree in evolutionary biology, though if you are really interested you might sign up for a class here. Part of the problem with these types of debates is that you can't sum up a billion years of evolutionary history in a succinct post. Another problem with trying to fill in the missing links is that it rarely satisfies someone who believes that God created everything (*not saying this represents you*). If I say organism "A" evolved to organism "E" the creationist might ask for the missing link. If I point to fossil evidence of organism "C" which has characteristics somewhere in between A and E, I've just doubled my problem (now I have two missing links instead of one).

I am very much aware that there are primitive circulatory systems which do not require real-time working of the heart. Let's move on to closed systems which interact with the respiratory system.

If you move on to closed systems which interact with the respiratory system, you have already missed the boat. The heart / closed respiratory system must evolve first before you can have an organism that depends on them. One thing that is important to realize is that the closed circulatory system evolved before the need for a respiratory system existed. As Brian points out " As it gets bigger the muscle elongates and forms one long porous "vein" and that one long vein contracts sending the nutrient rich fluids out into the organism, then it all seeps back in (still not a closed system). "

You call this the magic wand of evolution. That's exactly what Dawkins is talking about. Very small changes from one generation to the next. A slightly longer more enclosed system provides an advantage. A shorter one does not. Organisms that have the one long porous vein are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. This one long porous vein carries nutrients (not oxygen) more efficiently and supports larger organisms. Insects for example are slightly more complex (in that they have branching veins), but insects do not have a closed circulatory system. Additionally they have no lungs, and no oxygenation of their "blood". It seems like organisms can do a lot with an open circulatory system as demonstrated in the variety of sea and land creatures with this (all the insects, lobsters, crabs, spiders etc). This type of circulatory system does have limits.

The next evolutionary step was getting to a closed circulatory system. See an earthworm for a very simple example of what this looks like. It is only once you have a fully functioning closed system that you begin to see the emergence of a rudimentary "respiratory system." Imagine a sea creature that has a closed circulatory system. Now imagine a bulge of skin with many capillaries near the surface of the water. These capillaries would enable the sea creature to better exchange O2 and other chemicals with their surrounding environment. A very small change that provides a subtle advantage. Eventually these skin budges become bigger and more robust (gills).

I've already heard the "billions and trillions of years" and "step by step" by the evolutionists. It is still magic unless you can give us the specific details on how it was able to evolve. This is just smoke and mirrors, a refusal to deal with the question.

Here we get to the impossible bar. You want 500 million years of exact coding changes in an organism's DNA? You want "specific" details on how it was able to evolve? How specific? How detailed. You want this information from people on the internet with no background in evolutionary biology? Have you ever taken a course in evolutionary biology yourself?

But when you transition to a closed system, interdependent on the respiratory system, step-by-step does not work. UNLESSS you can show us how it can evolve from an open system to a fully functional system in less than ten minutes. Unlike grenades, "close" is not good enough. It works or you die.

From this statement I infer that you have not spent very much time looking into evolution at all (sorry if this is not the case). Again the closed system developed first. The earthworm is an example of a fully functioning organism with a closed respiratory system and no circulatory system. A closed system provides many incremental advantages to an open system. Small incremental evolutionary advantages at every step of the way. We have organisms around today with no heart, very simple vibrating muscles to help circulation, open circulatory systems, closed circulatory systems, and then on to incorporating respiratory systems from simple to complex. There is no one step jump from an open system to fully functional interdependent closed system obviously.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

All of which can be duplicated in the laboratory, right?

What is amazing about evolutionary biology is that so much is preserved in both the fossil record as well as in living organisms today. Take the circulatory and respiratory systems. We have animals with nothing to simple to complex systems and every step along the way.

Evolution (speaking of micro and not macro) itself is an observable scientific fact. The evidence in our genes for common descent is very overwhelming. After examining the evidence I can come to no other conclusion than either evolution is how God created us, or he created us in a manner that recreates the evidence of evolution for some reason that has not yet been found. (Not saying that you need to come to the same conclusion)