More evolution evidence... I think (Earth, experience, advent, deformities)

[JerryL]

Does our opposable thumb count?

If it does than I can offer you an observed example: Salmon that have developed a less tall body to get up more shallow streams.

I always crack a smile when the discussion mysteriously switches from 'did it happen?' to 'could it have happened?' Your question seems to flow from the assumption that mutation can cause any possible change.

You mean from "did a mutation which added a 'new function'" occur to "can a mutation which causes a 'new function'" occur?

Your question seemd more related to the former than the latter. The latter is established through both the fossil record and modern biodiversity. Creatures with common ancestors have different "functions", therefore these "new functions" have developed.

I would balance that assumption against the known fact that all lifeforms are extremely complex and possessing many highly interdependant systems, even those way back in prehistory.

What constitutes the simplest form of life depends on how we define "alive". It's far easier to think that there's a bright line between "alive" and "not alive", or between "new function" and "modified old function"; but reality occurs in shades of grey.

I don't consider virui to be particularly complex. There are other self-replicating things that are more simple still.

But here's the important part of what you just said: you argued that it can't happen because you consider the required mutations unlikely.

You are being dishonest when you assert that you are arguing whether it did happen and not whether it can... the basis of your "it didn't happen" argument is "it's impossible": which is a "it can't happen" statement

I've listened patiently while others have tried to convince me from experiments which simply reassign existing genes, but not repurpose them, so that is insufficient.

Genes don't have "purposes". They are chains of molecules that interact with other molecules as described by the laws of chemestry.

The evolutionary family tree as it is commonly presented would have required accidents of the most sophisticated kind, regardless of whether changes were gradual or punctuated.

All things are "accidents" sans purpose, and evolution lacks purpose; only result.

Given that mutation is meant to be the key source it is not unreasonable for a person to inquire if such sophisticated emergences have been observed. If they have not been observed then they remain inferred. You may have faith that mutation provided what was required for selection, but in these larger-scale areas of evolution I respectfully do not share your faith.

I don't believe you are making an honest argument.

Let's start with looking at the claim: Modern biodiversity evolved from earlier life.

Where have you drawn your "line in the sand"? With the following challenge "show 'large scale' changes to have occured under observation".

Why this is not a good standard:
1) "large scale" is functionally arbitrary.
2) It really doesn't address that past changes resulted in modenr biodiversity.

In other words, asking if it's been observed *is* asking the "is it possible" question. If you really wanted to know if evolution was the cause of modern biodiversity: you would be asking about the proofs for common ancestory.

Ergo, you actually asked about the ability of mutation to be responsable for evolution; you did not ask a question which asked if evolution was the actual cause. That's established with an entirely seperate line of evidence centered around common ancestory.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by JerryL

If it does than I can offer you an observed example: Salmon that have developed a less tall body to get up more shallow streams.

If you check the edit time on my last post you'll see that I pulled this line before you got your reply in. I did so because it occured to me that it might encourage you to throw out an example that relies on the natural selection of existing genes, which is what you've done. Guess I wasn't quick enough. I have no argument with variation. If you are referring to the Hendry paper you might be interested in reading all of this:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...291/5510/1853a

If you read the whole thing carefully you will see that no new function is directly attributed to a mutated gene[s]. I have no problem with evolution like this, adaptive variation if you will, but it doesn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Your question seemd more related to the former than the latter.

Yes, my original question was. But I then went on to address the other angle after you.

Originally Posted by JerryL

I don't consider virui to be particularly complex. There are other self-replicating things that are more simple still.

Any lifeform is complex enough that if you mutate genes that code for critical function you reduce it's function or kill it, unless you know of an example.. And mutating non-core functions won't turn a salmon into a whale.

Originally Posted by JerryL

But here's the important part of what you just said: you argued that it can't happen because you consider the required mutations unlikely.

Not so fast Jerry. I never said it can't happen, I said I don't share your faith that it did happen. And I never used the word unlikely. I'm not seeking probability but rather possibility. I said that the necessary accidents would have to be very sophisticated, and I'm asking if that's possible. The whole proposal to me sounds suspicously like asking me to believe that a wine glass has fallen from a table and smashed into pieces with at least 26 of them shaped like each of the letters of the alphabet. How sophisticated can an accident be? What is more sophisticated than life? So these accidents, whether cumulative or sudden, are very interesting events. In the absence of observation of such sophisticated accidents I remain unfaithful to your beliefs.

Originally Posted by JerryL

You are being dishonest when you assert that you are arguing whether it did happen and not whether it can...

Why are you saying I'm dishonest? I'm allowed to be amused when the discussion shifts, doesn't mean I didn't then go on to address your new angle, does it? I'm happy to debate both aspects.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Genes don't have "purposes". They are chains of molecules that interact with other molecules as described by the laws of chemestry.

I wasn't able to think of a better term than repurpose. Is refunctioned a word? You're an engineer, right? Haven't you ever heard anyone say something like 'what purpose does that part serve?' It's a figure of speech. Either way, surely you know what I was trying to say.

Originally Posted by JerryL

All things are "accidents" sans purpose, and evolution lacks purpose; only result.

Sure, but are all accidents possible? I'm skeptical.

Originally Posted by JerryL

In other words, asking if it's been observed *is* asking the "is it possible" question.

Yes, that's true. But the reverse is not. Thus, asking 'is it possible' will not necessarily answer the question 'has it been observed'. When you switched over to the 'is it possible' angle I addressed that and summed up by refering to both lines of thought. Nothing dishonest about that. But enough of that, I'm happy to look at both angles.

Originally Posted by JerryL

If you really wanted to know if evolution was the cause of modern biodiversity: you would be asking about the proofs for common ancestory.

A common ancestry that some attribute to common design. For me the theory of evolution hangs more so on the central mechanism of mutation/selection than it does on anything else. So, because I am skeptical of the mechanism, I therefore remain skeptical of the theory. That doesn't mean that I don't accept natural selection and minor speciation like your salmon or anything else that has been observed. But I become a skeptic when we cross over the line to that which has been inferred, which is a far larger body of 'evidence'.

Thank you.

[JerryL]

If you check the edit time on my last post you'll see that I pulled this line before you got your reply in. I did so because it occured to me that it might encourage you to throw out an example that relies on the natural selection of existing genes, which is what you've done. Guess I wasn't quick enough. I have no argument with variation. If you are referring to the Hendry paper you might be interested in reading all of this:

It's more than a selection. This group of salmon has less draf than their observed ancestors. That requires an actual change in morphology.

If you read the whole thing carefully you will see that no new function is directly attributed to a mutated gene[s]. I have no problem with evolution like this, adaptive variation if you will, but it doesn't answer my question.

You seem to have flipped topics. Is your interest in "new function" or "new genes" or "mutated old genes"?

Any lifeform is complex enough that if you mutate genes that code for critical function you reduce it's function or kill it, unless you know of an example.. And mutating non-core functions won't turn a salmon into a whale.

and I suspect your definition of "core function" is "anything that you die if it's tampered with". Nice and tautological.

How about the gene that controls the formation of cells that move oxygen through the body? Is that a "critical function"? Because there's a common mutation of that which does not generally result in death; in fact it's occasionally benificial.

Not so fast Jerry. I never said it can't happen, I said I don't share your faith that it did happen. And I never used the word unlikely. I'm not seeking probability but rather possibility. I said that the necessary accidents would have to be very sophisticated, and I'm asking if that's possible.

First we ask what seems to have happend. Based on the fossil record, and a look at modern diverity, it seems that morphologies evolved from common ancestors. Then we look for a mechanism for that to happen (and we find mutation and selection). Then we make a test "well, if mutation is the cause of variance, then we would expect the variance in non-morphological DNA in non-sexual organisms to vary in direct proportion to their seperation on the evolutionary tree". We test for that and it re-enforces or disproves out hypothesis.

The whole proposal to me sounds suspicously like asking me to believe that a wine glass has fallen from a table and smashed into pieces with at least 26 of them shaped like each of the letters of the alphabet. How sophisticated can an accident be? What is more sophisticated than life? So these accidents, whether cumulative or sudden, are very interesting events. In the absence of observation of such sophisticated accidents I remain unfaithful to your beliefs.

A good analogy if you think that human DNA just emerged fully-formed one day.

Ever noticed that snowflakes make complex patterns. Does that seem suspicious to you?

Have you ever seen software that follows the evolutionary model? I can't easily recall where it is, but I remember a piece of software where computers learned to animate their own figures. In the first example, they made a pair of legs with a couple simple joints and a center of gravity. The program made 100 variants (mutuations) and tested all 100 pairs. The 10 that did best were replicated and each mutated 10 different ways (again, a total of 100 pairs), and the process was repeated over and over with mutation and selection.

Within about 30 generations they had a decent walk. Within 40 it was fluid and efficent and very lifelike.

Why are you saying I'm dishonest? I'm allowed to be amused when the discussion shifts, doesn't mean I didn't then go on to address your new angle, does it? I'm happy to debate both aspects.

Because you posited a question which was clearly intended to call morphological change through mutation an impossability while at the same time claiming that you were not discussing whether it [realistically] could have occured.

Sure, but are all accidents possible? I'm skeptical.

Things have statisctial likelyhoods. Some are so remote as to be essentially impossible.

A common ancestry that some attribute to common design. For me the theory of evolution hangs more so on the central mechanism of mutation/selection than it does on anything else. So, because I am skeptical of the mechanism, I therefore remain skeptical of the theory. That doesn't mean that I don't accept natural selection and minor speciation like your salmon or anything else that has been observed. But I become a skeptic when we cross over the line to that which has been inferred, which is a far larger body of 'evidence'.

A common design does not explain the fossil record, nor the drift in midocondrial DNA. It has a slew of basic historical problems.

More than 99% of the species that ever lived are dead. Essentially all of the modern species appeared at some point in the past. Where did they come from. Have you ever seen a new species appear fully formed out of the blue? Has it ever been observed? Then it fails your standard.

To hope to have this discussion, you are going to need to specifically define quite a few of the words that you are tossing around in non-cylical manners. "new" "function" "alive" "critical" etc.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by JerryL

It's more than a selection. This group of salmon has less draf than their observed ancestors. That requires an actual change in morphology.

I think you mean to say that one group has less draft than the other divergent group. Nowhere in the study can I find hard evidence that the gene for this trait did not exist in the original common ancestor group. The study demonstrates adaptive population divergence, and is a good example of natural selection. A change in morphology does not automatically require a mutation. The gene could be resident in the population and not show up widely until natural selection does it's thing. That's usually what drives adaptive population divergence. The hidden variation within a species' genome is no small thing.

Originally Posted by JerryL

You seem to have flipped topics. Is your interest in "new function" or "new genes" or "mutated old genes"?

I thought you presented the salmon example in response to my original [modified] question, which asked for an example of a mutation [mutated gene, same thing] which was observed to be new in an organism and was benficial and was germ-line [passed on], and of-course, offering a new function. That is why you presented the salmon example didn't you? To answer your question, I would accept a mutated old gene as being a new gene, especially if it encodes for a new function. What say you?

Originally Posted by JerryL

and I suspect your definition of "core function" is "anything that you die if it's tampered with". Nice and tautological.

Well, it's true isn't it?! What am I supposed to say for crying out loud? I asked you if you knew of an example and you give me sickle-cell again, complete with disclaimer. If the core functions are difficult to change, and I believe they are in all life-forms, then that leaves the non-core functions, which seems to me to be a bad place to be introducing functional changes that might lead to a new kind of animal.

Originally Posted by JerryL

How about the gene that controls the formation of cells that move oxygen through the body? Is that a "critical function"? Because there's a common mutation of that which does not generally result in death; in fact it's occasionally benificial.

If I were generous [and to prove to you that I'm not here to win debates but to learn] I would grant you that it's possible this good/bad sickle-cell mutation could be a 'stepping stone' if another mutation pops up that removes the 'bad' part. However, this kind of species building would be even harder for me to accept than the usual type. Sickle-cell is not a good example in my opinion, and does not answer my original query.

Originally Posted by JerryL

First we ask what seems to have happend. Based on the fossil record, and a look at modern diverity, it seems that morphologies evolved from common ancestors. Then we look for a mechanism for that to happen (and we find mutation and selection). Then we make a test "well, if mutation is the cause of variance, then we would expect the variance in non-morphological DNA in non-sexual organisms to vary in direct proportion to their seperation on the evolutionary tree". We test for that and it re-enforces or disproves out hypothesis.

A well explained answer, thank you. It's the bit in brackets that I'm troubled by. At this point some would argue that the gaps in the fossil record do not square with what we would expect to see, but that's a whole other debate on it's own. This thread, and my question, revolve around mutations providing selection with what is needed to get from point A to point B, but even so, if I jump to your test for a second do you realise that the results also confirm many claims about common design? This is why the mystery of mutation/selection is a big deal to me.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Ever noticed that snowflakes make complex patterns. Does that seem suspicious to you?

No. Snowflake patterns are simple additions. New functions in a lifeform seem to be a much more sophisticated type of accident. Single letter changes on their own are simple enough, but the correct interdependant cross-functional changes showing up at the right time without damaging core-functions is a lot to swallow. In fact, if I might revise my wine glass analogy it's like asking me to believe that a wine glass broke with at least 26 pieces resembling the alphabet and 5 of them lining up to say 'no way'. [lol] That last bit was toungue in cheek, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but boy oh boy Jerry you are asking a lot from a skeptical minded person like myself! I doubt that such sophisticated accidents are possible.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Have you ever seen software that follows the evolutionary model? I can't easily recall where it is, but I remember a piece of software where computers learned to animate their own figures. In the first example, they made a pair of legs with a couple simple joints and a center of gravity. The program made 100 variants (mutuations) and tested all 100 pairs. The 10 that did best were replicated and each mutated 10 different ways (again, a total of 100 pairs), and the process was repeated over and over with mutation and selection... Within about 30 generations they had a decent walk. Within 40 it was fluid and efficent and very lifelike.

Pretty generous per-generation mutation amount you got there. Were the mutations random? There's no such thing as random you say? So somebody had to decide the variable parameters then? How did they decide? Hmm, interesting program. Yes, I know how selection/mutaton works in theory. Now show me a complex interdependant model, I want to see how many mutations are required to get a new function without dismantling the complexity. The model only needs to be as simple as the simplest lifeform. And I'd be shocked if the selection subroutine they are using doesn't have very specific parameters: who decided them? Someone must have. Mutating geometry and mutating the protein encoding process are different in complexity by orders of magnitude. The theoretical underlying principle of mutation/selection may be the same, but the more complex the thing we are trying to change, the more sophisticated the accidents required - and don't confuse simple geometry of digital chap with the multitude of genes that go into making the walk cycle work on a real biped. And one more [obvious] question: just how selectable were the earlier intermediate stages again?

Originally Posted by JerryL

Because you posited a question which was clearly intended to call morphological change through mutation an impossability while at the same time claiming that you were not discussing whether it [realistically] could have occured.

No, no, no. Please read it all again. It's there for all to see. I didn't mind at all that we moved to another angle, nor do I mind that we are now talking about both aspects, I was simply amused by the shift! By the way, I never used the word 'morphological', I said 'new function', and I never said anything was impossible, still don't, just saying it's hard for me to believe what you believe. Go back and read it again. And stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by JerryL

A common design does not explain the fossil record, nor the drift in midocondrial DNA. It has a slew of basic historical problems.

Unless the timeframe involved was a lot shorter than we think it is. You will not be surpirsed to know that I have problems with the timeframe also, which is a whole other thread, which has been debated ad-nauseum. I know you are defending the standard model by refering to other elements and that's cool, but as I said it's the mutation thing that has me more skeptical than any other aspect. I could imagine there may be other explanatory possibilities for all the elements of the theory, except for mutation; there has to be a raw supply of variation for it all to work. It's the linchpin in my eyes. I only entered into this thread when I saw this line from you: "Let's not talk about "evolution" as a whole for a moment, and talk about mutation: the mechanism which introduces diversity into the evolutionary process." By all means use parallel elements but I'd like an answer to my original question.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Have you ever seen a new species appear fully formed out of the blue? Has it ever been observed? Then it fails your standard.

Say what? [Is this the mysterious strawman? And I thought he was as rare as the yeti on your side of this debate.] I never said anything like asking for a fully-formed species to appear out of the blue and you know it. I'm asking if we have observed one of the smallest units of change, not the largest.

Originally Posted by JerryL

To hope to have this discussion, you are going to need to specifically define quite a few of the words that you are tossing around in non-cylical manners. "new" "function" "alive" "critical" etc.

Strange, hasn't stopped you from replying so far, or using the some of the words yourself. What gives? Oh well, if you insist. NEW: of recent origin. FUNCTION: a specific/special purpose/working use, in this case I mean it to refer to a special feature that is both new and wholly beneficial, which has resulted from a mutation. ALIVE: at a minimun, self-replicating. CRITICAL: of serious or decisive importance. Maybe now is a good time to repeat my original question. Do you know of any genuinely new germ-line mutations that are wholly beneficial and provide new function which have been observed in the modern age? That's all I am asking Jerry.

[JerryL]

I think you mean to say that one group has less draft than the other divergent group. Nowhere in the study can I find hard evidence that the gene for this trait did not exist in the original common ancestor group. The study demonstrates adaptive population divergence, and is a good example of natural selection. A change in morphology does not automatically require a mutation. The gene could be resident in the population and not show up widely until natural selection does it's thing. That's usually what drives adaptive population divergence. The hidden variation within a species' genome is no small thing.

The formation of the new species was discussed in an article from Amhurst some years ago; but they don't appear to still have a link to it on their website.

You wanted a "new feature", and I gave you one. Now you speculate that it must have been some recessive gene or something. Mind you, you've not looked at the species in question and have no actual knowledge. You are simply assuming your conclusion and then putting an apologetic to explain it.

You never told me if this was a "critical function".

I thought you presented the salmon example in response to my original [modified] question, which asked for an example of a mutation [mutated gene, same thing] which was observed to be new in an organism and was benficial and was germ-line [passed on], and of-course, offering a new function. That is why you presented the salmon example didn't you? To answer your question, I would accept a mutated old gene as being a new gene, especially if it encodes for a new function. What say you?

No. I presented the salmon example to show a "new function" as defined-by-inference with your "opposeable thumb" example.

That's why I said it in direct response to your example.

Well, it's true isn't it?! What am I supposed to say for crying out loud? I asked you if you knew of an example and you give me sickle-cell again, complete with disclaimer. If the core functions are difficult to change, and I believe they are in all life-forms, then that leaves the non-core functions, which seems to me to be a bad place to be introducing functional changes that might lead to a new kind of animal.

So your statement is: You can't change anything you can't change.

OK. Cool. Now prove that there is anything you can't change.

If I were generous [and to prove to you that I'm not here to win debates but to learn] I would grant you that it's possible this good/bad sickle-cell mutation could be a 'stepping stone' if another mutation pops up that removes the 'bad' part. However, this kind of species building would be even harder for me to accept than the usual type. Sickle-cell is not a good example in my opinion, and does not answer my original query.

Your *original* query was answered with SIV-HIV.

Your *next* query (about "ned function" like "opposeably thumb") was answered with "salmon".

Your *next* query about "genes for critical function" is likely answered here with the sickle-cell gene.

You have an awful lot of different queries.

A well explained answer, thank you. It's the bit in brackets that I'm troubled by. At this point some would argue that the gaps in the fossil record do not square with what we would expect to see, but that's a whole other debate on it's own. This thread, and my question, revolve around mutations providing selection with what is needed to get from point A to point B, but even so, if I jump to your test for a second do you realise that the results also confirm many claims about common design? This is why the mystery of mutation/selection is a big deal to me.

They really don't.

Tell me why the junk DNA in the midocondria of the cells of a Gorllia is more similar to the Junk DNA in the midocondria of a human than it is to the junk DNA in the midocondria of dog.

Tell me how this points to design. Then we can talk about how essentially nothing alive today shows up at the beginning of the fossil record (in fact, most of it shows up quite recently), and of course we can discuss all those annying things like Neanderthals.

ID is not unly unproven as an hypothesis, it's actually contra-indicated.

No. Snowflake patterns are simple additions.

So a snowflake does not form a complex pattern? You wonder why I doubt teh veracity of your claims?

New functions in a lifeform seem to be a much more sophisticated type of accident.

This would be the "opposable thumb / shallw-draft salmon" functions that we've observed to occur in the wild?

Single letter changes on their own are simple enough, but the correct interdependant cross-functional changes showing up at the right time without damaging core-functions is a lot to swallow. In fact, if I might revise my wine glass analogy it's like asking me to believe that a wine glass broke with at least 26 pieces resembling the alphabet and 5 of them lining up to say 'no way'. [lol] That last bit was toungue in cheek, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but boy oh boy Jerry you are asking a lot from a skeptical minded person like myself! I doubt that such sophisticated accidents are possible.

No you are not. No skeptic would expouse ID.

See if you can manage to find this one reasonable. The analogy is bad! You are making it because of fundamental flaws in your understanding of biology... ones I have already commented on when I mentioned your desire for discreet, bright-line steps when those don't generally exist.

Pretty generous per-generation mutation amount you got there. Were the mutations random? There's no such thing as random you say? So somebody had to decide the variable parameters then?

The computer generated "random" mutations in the parameters. I could sit and describe how random numbers are generated by a computer (and no, they are not truely random, nothing is); but if you really don't understand the RND function, try wikipedia.

I want to see how many mutations are required to get a new function without dismantling the complexity.

Define your words first.

By the way, I never used the word 'morphological', I said 'new function', and I never said anything was impossible, still don't, just saying it's hard for me to believe what you believe. Go back and read it again. And stop putting words in my mouth.

And you offered a morphological change (opposeable thumb). What is "new function".

Say what? [Is this the mysterious strawman? And I thought he was as rare as the yeti on your side of this debate.] I never said anything like asking for a fully-formed species to appear out of the blue and you know it. I'm asking if we have observed one of the smallest units of change, not the largest.

You've also repeatedly expoused intelligent design. Given the fossil record (species appearing) this would require, millions of times over, the spontanious appearance of another designed species.

Homosapiens have only been around a milllion years or so. Where did they come from? Did one just appear one day?

Strange, hasn't stopped you from replying so far, or using the some of the words yourself. What gives?

Where you've given examples, I've attempted to respond to the examples.

Oh well, if you insist. NEW: of recent origin. FUNCTION: a specific/special purpose/working use, in this case I mean it to refer to a special feature that is both new and wholly beneficial, which has resulted from a mutation. ALIVE: at a minimun, self-replicating. CRITICAL: of serious or decisive importance.

In two cases you have not defined, just changed your words.

NEW = RECENT
CRITICAL = IMPORTANT

I don't think you will like your definition of "Alive" as it has fire as "alive", as well as any number of self-replicating molecules.

"FUNCTION" is probably your most clearly defined, though it's not consistant with your original example (an opposeably thumb is not wholey benificial). In fact, there is nothing which is entirely benificial.

Under that definition, I concede that there are no functions anywhere in nature; ergo no new functions have arisen.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by JerryL

You wanted a "new feature", and I gave you one. Now you speculate that it must have been some recessive gene or something. Mind you, you've not looked at the species in question and have no actual knowledge. You are simply assuming your conclusion and then putting an apologetic to explain it.

I see. The first opposable thumbs on homo-erectus would have definitely required new mutations. Where in the salmon study do they identify and isolate the gene for draft?

Originally Posted by JerryL

So your statement is: You can't change anything you can't change.

No, my question is are such sophisticated accidents possible?

Originally Posted by JerryL

ID is not unly unproven as an hypothesis, it's actually contra-indicated.

If you think I'm a fan of ID you're way off track.

Originally Posted by JerryL

So a snowflake does not form a complex pattern? You wonder why I doubt teh veracity of your claims?

I was refering to the type of accident that builds them, the simple addition or stacking method which does not have much effect on what is already layed down, unlike complex genome modifications.

Originally Posted by JerryL

No you are not. No skeptic would expouse ID.

Including this one. I guess you don't fully understand the differences between ID and creationism.

Originally Posted by JerryL

In two cases you have not defined, just changed your words....
NEW = RECENT ... CRITICAL = IMPORTANT

And here I am thinking that dictionary definitions would allow us to have a common standard. I guess you know better somehow.

Originally Posted by JerryL

"FUNCTION" is probably your most clearly defined, though it's not consistant with your original example (an opposeably thumb is not wholey benificial). In fact, there is nothing which is entirely benificial.

You can prove that?

Originally Posted by JerryL

Under that definition, I concede that there are no functions anywhere in nature; ergo no new functions have arisen.

This is going nowhere. Thanks for 'answering' my question.