evolution refuted simply

OK, to clear any confusion. here is your statement again where you compared the theory of Gravity to have more weight than the theory of common descent.

Ah I thought you ment creationism over abiogenesis. My mistake.
As for this statement, yes I still stand by it, the theory of common descent is not testable as the theory of gravity is. I’m sure the arguments you just posted are suficient to convince you, but not me. And if this is what you base your statement of “lack of knowledge” on, I'll have to disapoint you, you did not tell me anything I did not know already. So the reason that I don’t see common descent as a certainty has lil' to do with these “proofs” but rather with my point of vieuw on them. Allow me to ellaborate.

First of all lets concider the pictures of the cromosones.
We already discussed in other threads that to proove evolution one needs not to look at the fysical characteristics of an animal but to it’s DNA, since the theory claims that the diffrences between creatures arose from mutations in DNA. So I’d say you’r on the wright track comparing chromosones. On the wright track but not completely there. Our genetic information is stored in our DNA, these strings are then wound around cromosones. If you really want to compare human DNA to ape DNA, compare the DNA itself not the chromosones on wich they are wound. Comparing cromosones to proove relativness is just like comparing a human cell to an animal cell, they both show simularitys (both have a double membrane, a nucleidcore containing these cromosones and so on...) but that doesn’t mean their DNA shows simularitys. So what you did was not comparing DNA but comparing chromosones to show simularity’s in DNA. That would be like comparing two panoramic pictures of two diffrent houses to proove that the bricks underneath the paint are in fact the same.

As a second argument against this “proof” one could say your reasoning is flawned, because even if the DNA has simularitys that doesn’t mean one origenated from another. If two houses are simular in desing, build out of the same material, in the same style and shape, that doesn’t mean that one house is the descendant of another. In fact it would seem more logical to assume that both are simply designed by the same architect rather then formulating a theory of how one house had mutaded offsprings. Tell me why do you assume that for creationism to work, a creator created all creatures in totaly difrent ways? If it’s not broken why fix it?

Now lets take a look at these endogenous retroviri
First of all you have two agdmit that you made 2 assumptions. First of all you asume that the proces of proviral integration is random. It could very well be that this integration is only possible at a certain loci, either determined by the structure of the virus or by the structure of the DNA. Do not forget the importance of 3dimensional structures when studying processes at this level. Such an inhibition by a virus in DNA is not likely to be coincedental, but rather a result of it’s characteristics.
Second of all you asume that even though genetic drift is random, it is possible for a whole population to carry the endogenous virus due to a single proviral integration. Not only is this very unlickely to have happened, it is also the only alternative to assuming multiple viri infiltrated the DNA with multiple hosts at the same loci.

Lets take a look at those last phrases again. Basicly we have the factor of “luck” being faveroble for both sides. You could say it’s unlikely for multiple viri to inhibit the same loci, while I can say it’s very unlikely that a whole population inhereted this from a single source. The only diffrence between my unlikely theory and your unlikely theory is that I have arguments to take take the chance factor down (being the inability of the virus to integrate another loci). I think this shows how it’s very biased to dismiss the posibility that both apes and humans to have aquired this endogenous virus in simular ways rather then from heritage.

Also take note that this is somewhat contrading. Evolution tells us that humans and apes did not evolve from one another but evolved from a thirth species. As difrent branches in a tree rather then a strict line, while the added illustration chart of ERV distributions suggest a straigh lineage.

It’s not just a matter of where hot spots are situated as you commmented. When looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this magnitude a simple cis-trans isomere can make a world of diffrence. To claim that there’s an absent of ERV’s that don’t match the phylogenetic tree as an argument against hotspots is again assuming it’s coincedential nature. And also neglecting the fact that we have only mapped human DNA a couple years ago and still haven’t searched all primate DNA with a fine-thooth-comb.

The second problem that it’s strange that some viruses have infected every single primate rather then skipping one is again biased on the 2 assumptions.
1. That it’s likely for a whole population to carry this from a single source.
2. That it’s unlickly to happen more then once on the same loci at different species
If one would assume the opposite, by reasons I mentioned above, you would see that for this ERV to become present in a whole population it must by nature be a virus that was widely spread and that integrates the DNA sequence easily. So then it doesn’t seem far fetched for this virus to have spread interspecial and to have integrated all these species. Also, the absence of a retrovirus that is compatible with all those species at current time, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Our knowledge on ancient viri isn’t that big seeing our only source of information is those ERV, so that argument is completely backwards.

To assume the crippledness of the virus is also a factor against multiple integrations is again overestimating the randomness of the proces. It’s very likely to have happened in a specific way due to specific reasons. These things don’t just happen out of the blue in total randomness, there’s fysical laws, and chemical characteristics to take in account. These so called changes that would have been made to the ERV later on way very well be due to the proces of integration.

Now moving on to your thirth argument, Phylogenetic.
I think I have a pretty good idea why your friend Radical Edward failed to give you much information to go along with this argument. Simply because there is none. As I said before, we haven’d mapped primate DNA, so a heritigal study cannot be made. Secondly this is, as you said unique for a single family rather then a whole population, so it’s merely impossible to study this, even if in fact man evolved from monkey, it would still be hard to find wich human family carries proof of wich ape familly. This being said the information you provided, as interesting as it may be, is of no use in this topic.

I don't expect you to accept all my arguments, but I hope at least in the future you'll be carefull before claiming someone has a lack of knowledge just because they have a diffrent opinion. (And by the way, This response is out of the top of my head as aposed to yours being "inspired" by material lended from a friend, so I'd seriously reconcider this "a lack of knowledge" attitude)

By the way sorry link, guess we'r both of topic in "evolution refuted simply"

I think you've taken my words out of centext. I simply stated that according to evolutiontheory, the changes in DNA need to be concidered rather then thinking in "arms -> wings" or "fins -> toe's". Because it's easy to speculation one is a devertion from the other, but it's a whole diffrent thing explaining just how those specific mutation occured in DNA at a chemical level. This doesn't mean that DNA Mutation is the sole force behind evolutionary change. But since it's the modus opperandi, it is one of the most important things to discuss when questioning the theory. All the other parts (survival of the fitest, adaptation and others...) are more secundairy questions. It's simply stating, if this theory is true, howcome this influenced things into the way it is now.

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Very interesting. Some evolutionists believe that human evolution has stopped, or is at least slowing down, as we progressively face fewer challenges from our environment. I'd be very surprised if we started evolving into rice though...

And rice is a primary ingredient of Cornetto cones, thus further proving my true evolutionary theory expounded a few pages back about humans being highly developed ice-creams.

I second that!

I was also of the impression that human DNA and rat DNA are very similar, so I hope this does not mean that somewhere along the line we descended from them too?

Rat genome completed
After four years, 220 researchers have completed a high-quality draft of 90
percent of the laboratory (Norway) rat DNA sequence.
Human: 2.9 billion base pairs
Rat: 2.75 billion base pairs
Mouse: 2.6 billion base pairs
-- Rats first appeared in lab research in 1828
-- Humans and rodents diverged from a common ancestor 80 million years ago
-- Rats and mice diverged 12-24 million years ago
-- Rodents consume one-fifth of the world's food supply
Source: Nature

Scientists noted that the lab rat strain mistakenly was thought by the British to be a Norwegian immigrant, but actually originated in Asia. It may have landed in Europe in 1727 by swimming the Volga River after an earthquake. A different strain, Rattus rattus or the black rat, was in Europe centuries sooner and is the one whose disease-carrying fleas are implicated in the spread of bubonic plague in medieval Europe.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG325ULAM1.DTL

I was also of the impression that rodents survived the cataclysmic event of the meteorite impact that destroyed the dinasaurs. Changing the evolutionary future of the planet that we see today. The K2 Boundary shows us that the earth was impacted in a cataclysmic event.............

Chromosomes are not like boxes that store goods. The chromosomes are not a separate component from the DNA. The chromosomes are the DNA that is wraped around proteins called histones. The chromosomes just refer to a state that the DNA exists in when it is tightly condensed, in distinct units, and associated with certain proteins.

You'r wright about the chromosones being histrones + chromatide, I got terminology mixed up. But back to the point. I dismissed the picture you provided wich showed simularities between human and apes not because the DNA was inside of it, but rather because it was unrecognisable. DNA strings are only 10 atoms in width and about 700 nucleotides in lenght. This is then wrapped around these histrones. The size of the DNA to the histrone can be compared with the size of a hair that's wrapped around cigaretfilter. I think a picture of the filter would give us lil' information about the hair wraped around it wright? It's presence would perhaps be notecable if the picture is taken strong enough, but thats were it ends.

Each species has a unique karotype that can be used to identify it. The amount of chromosomes and the banding pattern of each chromosome are specific for each species. Comparing chromosomes is a valid tool for identification of a species and determining the relationship between two organisms. Chromosomal comparison is just one of many independent forms conformation that establishes the common descent of life. So in essence, science has a way of cross checking it's data to confirm it's findings.

Yes it's true that each type of species has it's own way of wrapping the DNA around the histron. And this characteristic does make it a recognised tool if identification. But how does it identify the steps of evolution? Does the way DNA is wrapped around the histron effect the code that's it carrying in any way? Does this karotype influence the functions of DNA. Are diffrent enzymes manufatered due to the karotype?

It may not be broken, but why create a common flaw? Endogenous Retroviral Sequences are errors where a virus inserted some of its DNA into a host gamete. I think I would fire a builder who was so careless in his designs.

I did not state that both apes and humans were created with this retrovirus present. I claimed that they both wre created without it, and aquired it in a simular way. The "not broken" part refered to the simularitys in desing (both with DNA, both wrapped around the histrones in a simular way). If it worked for apes, why would our creator come up with a diffrent way, what cause would have been there?

Besides which your reasoning is flawed because the second house is not a reproduced version of the first, only a reproduction of the design! Which is an independant issue since house two does not need house 1 for anything.

Ok, here comes the circles of thoughts again. Alow me to analyse that tree of reasoning:

1. I believe in evolution
2. This means man evolved from ape
3. So without ape, there was no man
4. The argument you presented is false since (3.) shows that man needs ape in order to exist
5. So evolution is the only possible alternative
6. I believe in evolution

Thousands of locations in the humane genome contain Endogenous Retroviral Sequences. It is almost unthinkable to imagine a virus inserting itself into exactly the same spot in an entire population of a species while simultaneously inserting itself into the exact same locale in entire populations of many other species.

Really? More then a 1000. Could you give me the exact number of them? Dare I even ask, a refference for that number? Even if it's a thousand just because a diffrent virus was able to infeltrate a diffrent loci, doesn't mean our common virus would have been able to do so. You'r overlooking threedimensional characteristics of molecules wich is very important when talking about processes that occur with such large molecules. It' not like tetris, were all shapes are made up of squares, and turning them around will eventully make 'm fit somewhere. You have an unimagenable large set of shapes and only some fit into eachother.

You have not thought this argument through. Why do "all" Asians have jet black hair? Why do they "all" have brown eyes? The answer is simple. A small population of individuals separated from the rest of man and made his home in Asia. This group had these traits, either all of the members had these traits or the majority did and the other traits were lost by selection or drift. The event that you are calling "very unlickely" has already occurred many times. A very similar occurrence produced a population that all have the same endogenous retroviral sequences.

That has nothing to do with it. First of al survival of the fitest doesn't fly here since endegous retroviri are junk DNA and serve no benefit. So their’s no adaptation to consider. Secondly you’ll have to admit that this immegration that caused the human races is an extreme situation. To claim that the same happened with the monkeys from wich we supposedly come from, without any indication of such seems far fetched. You’ll also have to concider the way these characteristics work. Dark hair is dominant over blonde. So if a person has in his DNA one gene that says blond from his mother and another that says black from his father he'll have black hair since it's dominant. The domination however is only noticeble in characteristics of the person. The dark-haired child is not the end of the "blond-gene" heretige of this family the chanses of him passing the gene is still 50%. Eventualy the more you mix it up, the more rare a certain characteristic may become. A good example of this is bloodtypes, their you see that although some are very rare, they keep surviving throughout history.

There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.

No there aren’t. First of all“hundreds” is inacurate; and in most of those cases there is an advantage. It’s more a matter of adaptation and survival. Also note that the island is an extreme isolation wich cannot be representive here. According to evolutionists man did not origenated in an isolated island

DNA all has the same handedness.

Well it’s always made out of the same base material, but 3dimensional feateres (such as lenght) need to be taken in account. Also the adenine, thymine, gaunane and citosine is structured differently causing different delta- and delta+ charges

Finding the ERV's does not require searching the DNA with a fine-tooth-comb.

That depends on what you’r looking for. If you’r looking to proove evolution by showing simularitys. Then you just look at the locus where humans are known to have an ERV. If You want to find an ERV that humans don’t have, than you’ll have to do a complete search of the primate’s DNA.

Trying to imagine an ancient virus completely different than today's is a little farfetched.

I didn’t say it’s completely different, it doesn’t have to be that different to fit the bill. It’s not like such a virus is imposseble. The only reason your argument exists is because we do not have an example present. Not because it’s unlikely for a virus to do so. So my response, that our database of ancient DNA is made only through examination of these ERV’s shows quite well how the argument is backwards.

I’ll answer the points raised in your post in an unchronological order if you don’t mind. It seems the essence of it al is lost.

Let’s start with the “chance” argument in my point of vieuw

Steve: I did not state that both apes and humans were created with this retrovirus present. I claimed that they both wre created without it, and aquired it in a simular way.
Root: This is the common objection for Creationists. The claim that although we see a high number of matching ERV's. The insertions are present but not linked, in effect your asking me what I answered in the first post. Since I have a lot of respect for you I will show you the floor in your arguement. First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance!

But I already replyed to that remember, so why did you repeat yourself? You assume here that the insertion is random, whereas I replyed to that these processes aren’t likely to be random, as reactions on this micro level usually follow a strict causality. 3-dimensional structures are very important wwhen looking at chemical reactions with molecules of this big a size

Root: All RNA has the same structual form.
Steve: Well it’s always made out of the same base material, but 3dimensional feateres (such as lenght) need to be taken in account. Also the adenine, thymine, gaunane and citosine is structured differently causing different delta- and delta+ charges.

Those delta charges define the polair characteristic of a molecule, and with it, its probability to “fit” in a certain place. To this you answered:

Root: This has nothing to do with the subject matter.

Euhm... If you say so, I’ll guess we’ll just believe you... or we could qoute the architect from the matrix reloaded: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses...

Then there was the problem with the existance of a virus that has affinety for several species. I do not have a direct example ready, I’m not a virologist, but there is no reason to assume that it couldn’t exist.

Steve: I didn’t say it’s completely different, it doesn’t have to be that different to fit the bill. It’s not like such a virus is imposseble. The only reason your argument exists is because we do not have an example present. Not because it’s unlikely for a virus to do so. So my response, that our database of ancient DNA is made only through examination of these ERV’s shows quite well how the argument is backwards.
Root: We are not talking DNA matching or investigation. Merely insertion points!

Ok if you wanna drop your argument that’s fine by me.

Now lets take a look at your chance factor.
I brought to our attention the unlikelyness of a whole population accuiring a gene from a single source through random drift. This you tackled with the obvious fact of people having evolved different racial features.

Root: I feel you are getting a little desperate here. You are correct that RVA is Junk DNA & serves no benefit. 99% of mutations serve no benefit. This is not disputed. I am not claiming that "Monkeys" underwent the same migration as Humans, remember for Humans to Migrate they need to be human in the first place. The RVA's were already present, you have them I have them and every human on this planet has them at the same points................... Though not uniquely, we have other RVA's that are more localised.

Ok first of all the use of a gene does has a lot to do with the matter here. This means factors like adaptation and survival can’t be taken into account wich make random drift, well more random then with racial features. It’s true that 99% of mutation serve no benefit, but that 99% doesn’t get spread over whole populations.
Also, you DID claim that monkeys, or at least our supposed common ancestor, underwent a simular migration. From your point of vieuw, if an ERV is common between human and monkeys due to evolution. The virus must have infested in the common ancestor before monkeys evolved from it, then that ancestor migrated so the gene could become present in the whole population, and then humans evolved from it. It’s just very far fetched, and our knowledge of ancient populations suggest that this was not the case. You’r on a wild goose chase here.

Root: There are hundreds of examples where an entire small isolated population has DNA sequences that have no conceivable advantage or disadvantage that the rest of the world does not have. It doesn't take a great imagination to see that if this were the only population to survive that all of the members of that species would have that DNA sequence and all of species that evolved from it would to, unless of course it was lost by the same means.
Steve: No there aren’t. First of all“hundreds” is inacurate; and in most of those cases there is an advantage. It’s more a matter of adaptation and survival. Also note that the island is an extreme isolation wich cannot be representive here. According to evolutionists man did not origenated in an isolated island
Root: Hundreds is valid and an accepted scientific fact. Also note that Isolated Islands gave us the "Hobbit". Man originated from Africa, we know this. Do you disagree with this fact. Also, While you answer that I wonder what your answer is to where "Chimps" also originated from!

I told you before if you want to pass something as certain, you’ll have to proof it first. The hobbit (homo floralis) is only 1 example, were are the other 199 (hundreds, multiple of hunderd means at least 200 cases). Also note that these cases are irrelevant, the hobbit case is an isolated evolution of a humanoid species wich has nothing to do with racial developement of human beings. Racial development of human beings did not involve an isolated step. The migrations only worked partially because there was always some interactions between different tribes causing a sort of mix in the gene pool. Not all genes are of the dominant-regressive type, there’s also co-domination were a mixture between both is made.

Root: I actually never knew we shared an ERV with a locust. This does not matter of course as we can assume two things:

Sorry there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. There are no common ERV between human an locust. You got confused by the word “locus” the singular form of “loci” wich is latin for: a place. In terms of DNA it refers to a specific gene place.
Having that cleared up, alow me to rephrase what I was trying to say about monkey DNA needing to be looked up completely.
You used commen ERV as an argument for evolution. However if there would also be ERV that show an inconsitancy with the supposed branch of evolution, that could show how either:
A. Common descent is false
B. Common descent might still work but simular ERV at the same locus did NOT come from a single source, but rather from both human and monkey getting the same virus.

In your original post you stated how the lack of such inconsitancys could be seen as an argument for evolution. By doing so however you completely ignored how ERV’s were researched. Lets compare the human DNA with a 23-part-encyclopedia wich we complete read and mapped. Then lets compare each ape DNA with a diffrent set of encyclopedias wich we haven’t read. Let’s say you want to proove that all encyclopedias are a different copy from the same. So you find something that is quite unique to the human encyclopedia wich you read. This feature is in the 16th book on page 256 in the 3th alinea. You then take the ape-encyclopedia and look at the same numbered book at the same page in the same alinea. Very easy. But to do the opposite, to show inconsistancy’s we need to completely read the ape-encyclopedia. Be it as it may, again even though your argument seems strong it might be defeated by the notion that not both encyclopedias must have been copies from an older version, but more likely they are just both written by the same author!

Ok now lets go back to your first argument, the one about simular chromosones between human and ape

Root: Sorry Steve but you are way off base. This evidence for common ancestory detailed here is not really about common comparisons between apes and humans DNA. Let us simplify what I am trying to explain. As everyone knows cells contain DNA, and cells divide and multiply (we can also call this reproduction), simply creating copies of itself. A virus comes along and inserts a bit of it's own DNA into the hosts DNA. This "Junk DNA" as you reffered to under certain circumstances is then copied and passed onto the next generation. In turn this DNA with the "Junk" inserted becomes passed on so families inherit them. Over time an entire species will carry the retro virus DNA harmlessly. This is sound science and a scientific fact. The other issue we need to clear up, is the insertion point record remains the same. One would expect this since cells are complete copies of themselves. We can see the insertion point by observing the banding pattern of the chromosones wrapped around the DNA, As illustrated in the images. If I have six banded insertion points highlighted, we could go as far back as thousands of years to my ancestors and by comparing the insertion point of the original insertion they will match. Afterall, the insertion occures once, and the gene will carry this for ever more, no matter who is related to me.
Now, as we should accept the above as scientifically credible and a true assessment of retro virus insertions into host DNA. Let us move on.

It is true that trough banding processes relativness can be found. But not thousand of years back. In fact if you were to compare the banding patterns of 2 brothers, although you’d find a lot of simularitys, you’ll find even more diffrences then on the drawing of human and chimp chromosones wich you posted some posts ago. BTW, here's a picture of Chromosones notice how the accuracy is in fact less lower then in your drawing? Thats due to our limitation of microscopes caused by the waveamplitude of light. http://www.ams.ac.ir/AIM/0144/image22.gif
So this is not valid as an argument for common descent. The only real simularity we share are the histones around wich the DNA is waved. But saying that that prooves commen descent is just like saying. We (human and chimps) both have hearths, or we both have blood pumping trough, we both have eye’s, so we most have a common ancestor? That’s incedently what darwin based his theory upon, and obviously not an irrefutable logic.

Steve: Yes it's true that each type of species has it's own way of wrapping the DNA around the histron. And this characteristic does make it a recognised tool if identification. But how does it identify the steps of evolution? Does the way DNA is wrapped around the histron effect the code that's it carrying in any way? Does this karotype influence the functions of DNA. Are diffrent enzymes manufatered due to the karotype?
Root: I am not talking identification of the steps for evolution. I am talking identification of common genetic matching of RVA insertions between species to identify a common link. The RVA Insetion point, is "carried" and always reproduced. How comes the same insertion point is present between 2 or more species unless the source was the same!!!
As for the latter of your above quote, I am not a genetecist nor am I a Biologist.

No it’s not the point does diffrientate. As for my questions, I was not looking for a genetecist nor a biologist’s reply. I was simply showing what’s flawed in your reasoning. For evolution to be proven we need to show simularitys between human and ape DNA, and develop a theory of how both evolved from a third ancestor. What you’r doing here is just comparing the way it’s carryed, it sounds like comparing DNA, it slooks like comparing DNA, but it’s not comparing DNA it’s comparing features of the cell. The argument is as strong as th following would be: Both human and ape cells have mitochondra, nucleus, double mebrane etc... so we must have a common ancestor. The fact that banding is used to test direct lineage (father/son, and not great-grand-grand-father/great-gran-grand-son) has nothing to do with evolution.

The “house” example
At a certain point I made an example of how certain simularitys does not inevetibly proof common descent by comparing it to different houses drawn from the same architect.

Root: Besides which your reasoning is flawed because the second house is not a reproduced version of the first, only a reproduction of the design! Which is an independant issue since house two does not need house 1 for anything.
Steve: Ok, here comes the circles of thoughts again. Alow me to analyse that tree of reasoning:
1. I believe in evolution
2. This means man evolved from ape
3. So without ape, there was no man
4. The argument you presented is false since (3.) shows that man needs ape in order to exist
5. So evolution is the only possible alternative
6. I believe in evolution
Root: Contrary to your reasoning. This is also floored because evolution DOES NOT state we evolved from Apes, we share common ancestory with apes. This does not mean we are directly evolved from an ape.

Ok tell me, how does common ancester rather then straight lineage make ANY difference in my argument? You assumed that one needs another to exist through evolution as an argument for evolution wich is a circle of thouhgts. Commen ancestor or straight lineage, it’s still a circle of thouhgts.

Ok I believe I covered most of your arguments now. I think it’s beginning to be clear that in the end of the day neither party will be able to present any irrefutable “proof”. What we have are diffrences in opinions and personal beliefs that one possibility is more likely then another. I think this sufficiently shows the diffrence between the theory of gravity and the theory of common decent. One can easily be negleted where another seems so certain it’s illogical to claim it being false. Wich inevetibly also means that being a creationist doesn’t mean one has a lack of knowledge in the case. I do not expect you to suddenly see things my way, or to dismiss the theory of evolution, just know that it isn’t as certain as gravity, and that not everyone opposing your ideas is by defenition dead-wrong.

Okay, seriously, what do retroviral insertion points have to do with evolution?

No I don't believe it to be random. And if you respond to this that: it apears to be chaotic to our current knowledge. I would simply reply that such a thing says something about our current knowledge of the proces rather than something about the proces itself. Afteral, is chaos not a word we invented to define an order wich we fail to understand?