As shown repeatedly, “Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense. Period.” Not natural selection, gradualism, human evolution, UCD, tree of life, etc. And just to confirm, let’s look at another one of the nonsensical concepts of “evolution”.
- ‘Divergence of character’ (character displacement or sympatric speciation) postulates: “during the incessant struggle of all species to increase in numbers, the more diversified these descendants become, the better will be their chance of succeeding in the battle of life. Thus the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera” (Darwin 1859). Sympatric speciation is hypothesized as “the evolution of a new species from a surviving ancestral species while both continue to inhabit the same geographic region”.
- ‘Regression to the mean’ is the biological law that overrules passive ‘Divergence of Character’. Any homogeneous population can be sorted statistically on various biologic metrics, usually resulting in a Gaussian (normal) distribution that is conserved over time in the absence of major environmental changes (as Mendel first showed; Fig 1&2). ‘Regression to the mean’ is thus the rule that causes the progeny of extreme individuals to be less extreme than their parents. Two outstanding tall parents will have statistically shorter children, and the progeny of the most and least intelligent/strong/aggressive/attractive/etc. will be more average than the parent. Many of the extremes have no descendants at all due to their limitations, and thus their “contribution” to the next generation is simply the average individual.
- In stable environments, population variability is extremely well conserved from generation to generation (Fig 3) as documented by the fossil and many other records. ‘Regression to the mean’ is thus a mathematical necessity without which a passive ‘divergence of character’ would be observed in very few generations (Fig 4). ‘Regression to the mean’ mechanism is incredibly accurate and allows for conservation of traits over thousands upon thousands of generations as observed. Scientists were rightfully surprised that ancient bacteria and many other fossils as well as mummified organisms including cats and monkeys are indistinguishable from their contemporary descendants. At a minimum, the number of organisms that show remarkable stability over long periods (living fossils) invalidate the ‘General Divergence’ theory. Does a limited, ‘Special Divergence’ hypothesis still make sense?
- Observed long term regression is highly unexpected and contrary to ‘divergence of character’ and ‘drift’ hypotheses. ‘Regression to the mean’ operates in the longest term observed, whenever environmental conditions are restored following significant changes that led to adaptive mutations. Most – if not all – organisms are endowed with a limited ‘plasticity’ trait that allows them to retain adaptive characteristics for generations. And yet, when the stimulus that caused the adaptation disappears, these organisms regress rather than maintaining those adaptive traits or accumulating even more diverging ones. Darwin’s finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistant bacteria and the domesticated plants & animals – all these and more have been observed to regress to the old mean when the adaptive stressor is removed, thus disproving even the limited, ‘Special Divergence’ hypothesis. These are not coincidences! The regression can happen over a few generations as in most epigenetic changes, many generations, and even the indefinite future if the adaptive stimulus is maintained (such as in domestication). Biologic variability can be compared to a loaded spring – the more it stretches, the harder the pull back (regression to the mean) and the more fragile is the extreme variant population. Domesticated plants and animals show that crossbreeds are resilient, while pure breeds are fragile showing that extinction of the extremes is the default outcome that promotes the ‘regression to the mean’ of the extended population.
- Adaptation neither demands not implies divergence in any way. What about the ‘adaptive radiation’ seen in Darwin’s finches, the cichlids of the African Great Lakes, and others? Is this not ‘divergence of character’? No. The driving force in all these and more is adaptation, not divergence even if “evolution” were true. Organisms just seek survival and, if their built-in yet limited plasticity matches the environmental challenges, these populations survive as variants. Otherwise, they simply go extinct like many others before. The new traits are not ‘divergent’ as shown by all known cases of reversals (as discussed) and none of further divergence when the adaptive stressor is removed. If ‘divergence of character’ were true, adaptive plasticity traits would be cumulative and sticky even after the adaptive stressor was removed, and the more extreme variants would be at least as resilient as the mean. Furthermore, experiments would show increasing variability over time in all research organisms and even more so in the short lived ones like bacteria. There would not be any distinct “species” and organisms would freely undergo metamorphosis (transmutation) into one another. Differential survival and randomness would eliminate all but the “best adapted” allele, therefore the Mendelian conservation of alleles would not be observed. Yet none of these are happening, thus falsifying the ‘divergence of character’ hypothesis.
- Adaptation is “fast and done”, “do or die” by necessity, unlike the supposed “slow and ongoing” ‘divergence of character’. If adaptation is not fast enough, the population simply goes extinct as many others did. The cichlids of Lake Victoria had less than 15,000 years to adapt and are as diverse if not more so than the cichlids in the other, much older African Great Lakes. But they do not need even that much time as the newer aquarium varieties obtained in a few generations show. Most likely, cichlids variants have come and gone throughout the history of all African Great Lakes in short cycles of adaptation. And that is why the cichlid biodiversity difference between a few years (Lake Victoria) and millions of years (other African Great Lakes) is unremarkable. The only remarkable fact is that cichlids have a predominantly Gondwanan distribution showing that in 180+ mil years, they did not adapt to ocean living despite their otherwise high adaptability. This clearly shows the limitations of adaptability and makes it an unlikely substitute to ‘divergence of character’. Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, bacteria, and many other also adapt fast or die as observed. And when the stimulus disappears, they revert just as quickly, and later readapt to whatever new stimulus they face or simply die out trying as confirmed. It is a very good thing ‘divergence of character’ is false, or else antibiotic resistant bacteria and other superbugs would have killed mankind by now as “evolution” falsely predicted.
- Statistical evidence refutes ‘divergence of character’. According to the theory, “when organisms compete for scarce resources, natural selection should favor those individuals that are least like their competitors”. And since organisms always “compete for scarce resources”, the least average members of a homogenous population should always be favored by “natural selection”. If so, the well known normal distribution of any organism dimension (length, height, weight, etc.) should always be under pressure to change. We should see groups of “least like” the average form second, third, and so on normal distributions of their own, thus reshaping the original normal distribution into a composite distribution with several peaks and valleys as in Fig 5. And even that should not be adequate, as any concentration of similar individuals would be disadvantaged according to the ‘Divergence of character’ hypothesis, thus leading to uniform distributions as in Fig 4. However, neither Fig 5 nor uniform distributions are seen in homogeneous populations. Instead, we always see normal distributions. And since we see the normal distribution maintained over arbitrary number of generations and no hint of transitioning to a uniform distribution, the ‘Divergence of character’ hypothesis must be discarded. A trend not supported by several period observations must be discarded as noise artifact. This is the case for all examples considered including Darwin’s finches, the peppered moth, antibiotic resistant bacteria, cichlids, etc. All seem somewhat supportive of the divergence hypothesis over carefully chosen periods, yet the divergence is clearly illusory over longer periods.
- Are the bear of North America not like Fig 5? Yes, but they occupy different geographic regions. They are not homogenous. Indeed, we do encounter subfamilies of organisms, that have normally distributed metrics within the subgroup yet clearly distinct from those of other subgroups. However, where these subgroups overlap, the blend is always geographic and never biologic, meaning we see fewer of one kind and more of the other when moving from one’s territory to the others’ instead of blended characteristics as ‘divergence of character’ would predict. Humans are not different “species” although various subgroups are exclusively vegan/carnivorous, white/black, extra small/large. And domesticated organisms including canids are even more diverse than humans. Are the wild cichlids, finches, mice, and others qualitatively different than humans and canids? No. Then why the different “species”, many of which, ironically, are threatened by hybridization? The unwarranted inflation of “species” that do not even meet the loosest definition of reproductive isolation has the sole purpose of perpetuating the myth of ‘divergence of character’.
- Multimodal distributions in homogenous populations are not due to ‘divergence of character’. Indeed, bimodal distributions (Fig 2) and multimodal distributions are not uncommon in homogenous populations. However, these are due to the discreteness of physics in general and biology in particular, not due to ‘divergence of character’. Male and female populations are not diverging from one another and various alleles are in long term cyclical equilibrium as shown (spring model). ‘Drift’ is often invoked as a mechanism of ‘divergence of character’. This is wrong because ‘drift’ explains nothing as it is either aimless noise or due to adaptation and environmental change. Yet, as shown, adaptation is in no way ‘divergence of character’. In addition, the stable coexistence of several distinct variants within a homogenous population shows “gradualism”, “survival of the fittest”, and “natural selection” to be false because the alleles responsible are themselves distinct (no “gradualism”), they all “survive”, and neither is “selected” for or against.
- Darwin worried about regression to the mean for the wrong reasons. Namely, if blending inheritance (Darwin laid an egg) was true, then natural selection could not be true. Darwin puzzled over this a lot, but ended up with nothing satisfactory. Then Mendel showed that inheritance is discrete, not blended. Mendelian Inheritance Tables (see Punnett squares / Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium) show “probabilistic traits conservation” and thus disproving ‘divergence of character’ (at least as byproduct of reproduction) as well as dismissing “gradualism” (another one of Darwin’s unsupported claims).
- When entire populations split, do subgroups diverge from one another? This is not how ‘divergence of character’ is supposed to work.Descendants are supposed to diversify within the homogenous population. Furthermore, populations split by environmental conditions simply adapt to the new environment and for as long as those conditions allow. Adaptation is the driving force with no ‘divergence of character’ anywhere in sight. Island biology is the most diverse because islands are isolated and have many microenvironments. However, island variants are close descendants of their original colonists, showing that no divergence ever happened. Their risk of hybridization is high, disproving the “speciation” claim. They are also fragile examples of the extreme stretched biological spring model discussed, and will likely go extinct if at all stressed and when interacting with mainland.
Summary:
1. ‘Regression to the mean’ is the biological law that overrules passive ‘Divergence of Character’
2. In stable environments, population variability is extremely well conserved from generation to generation
3. Observed long term regression is highly unexpected and contrary to ‘divergence of character’ and ‘drift’ hypotheses
4. Adaptation neither demands not implies ‘divergence of character’ in any way
5. Adaptation is “fast and done”, “do or die” by necessity, unlike the supposed “slow and ongoing” ‘divergence of character’
6. Adaptation has limited powers and is thus not a substitute for ‘divergence of character’
7. ‘Divergence of character’ hypothesis would lead to uniform rather than normal (Gaussian) distributions as observed in homogenous populations
8. A trend not supported by several period observations must be discarded as noise artifact
9. The unwarranted inflation of “species” that do not even meet the loosest definition of reproductive isolation has the sole purpose of perpetuating the myth of ‘divergence of character’
10. Multimodal distributions in homogenous populations are not due to ‘divergence of character’
11. Mendelian tables show “probabilistic traits conservation”, disproving ‘divergence of character’ (at least as byproduct of reproduction), as well as dismissing ‘gradualism’
12. Island biology proves adaptation and the biologic spring model while disproving ‘divergence of character’
13. What’s in, what’s out? IN: ‘regression to the mean’, ‘adaptation’, coexisting variants, long term stability, spring model, normal distributions. OUT: ‘divergence of character’, gradualism, drift, speciation, uniform distributions, “natural selection”, “survival of the fittest”, “evolution”.
Links:
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191018112136.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3285564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352989/
http://www.galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1886-jaigi-regression-stature.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_displacement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation
https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Character_displacement.html
https://biologydictionary.net/divergent-evolution/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cichlid
https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/41982/regression-to-the-mean-and-evolution
You have so many weird misconceptions it’s hard to even know where to begin. You need to learn genetics first, since evolutionary biology has moved on to encompass genetics since Darwin first wrote The Origin of Species.
Just one small point that will collapse your entire post(and it is remarkable this fact has not dawned on you, considering how much you mention variation in your post): Variation exists, despite your insistence that “regression to the mean” should somehow “overrule” divergence of characters.
What is variation? Well it’s diverged characters. Where did that come from? Evolution. How so? Mutations create new alleles.
So evolution, the mechanisms by which we get divergence of characters, is the very explanation for why variation exists in the first place. It evolves. The fact that not any and all variation is allowed by population mechanics and natural selection isn’t somehow evidence against evolution.
So we can re-state your first claim made: We can only make sense of what we observe with evolution.
The claims you make in this section are all so egregiously wrong, ill-conceived, and misleading, it boggles the mind:
For anyone interested in the real science of speciation, and related to island biology, I recommend watching this lecture on the topic by Jerry Coyne:
Speciation: Problems and Prospects, Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne.
I agree.
I think people like Behe and others could largely agree too…
So, why is there a disagreement between people supporting evolution and ID?
I’d say it would be about what the variation means, or by what exact mechanism the divergence of characters is achieved…
Can the variations say, within the selectively bred fox species of the arctic and red foxes, lead to new, clearly identifiable kind just by the continuation of gene breaking?
How on earth do you “move on” to something completely NEW & UNRELATED and not find all the faults of the old, obsolete narrative? A miracle of “evolution” no doubt.
Patently FALSE.
The failed claim was: “the small differences distinguishing varieties of the same species, will steadily tend to increase till they come to equal the greater differences between species of the same genus, or even of distinct genera”. Even Darwin knew the difference. But of course he was very wrong on “tend to increase”.
Demonstrably true. People are different because they have different alleles, we are not clones of each other. The more similar people’s genes are, the more similar they are. Look at one-egged twins. Case closed, your entire post is a failure.
OK-ish (that and other things you don’t know). Regardless, there’s no connection to “divergence of character”?
Most certainly ‘variation’ is not ‘divergence’ as you ridiculously claim.
Variation is differences between individuals, differences in their characters. The reason variation exists, the reason why we aren’t clones, is because characters have diverged. You take a clonal population, let it evolve, they will mutate and diverge in character, giving you variation.
So the explanation for why there even is variation in any population, is that evolution has occurred.
I.A. York
But you already knew that, right, nonlin?
non-lin appears to be attempting a reincarnation of Fleeming Jenkin. Things have moved on a bit since the 1860s, non-lin.
Alleles cause different phenotypes because their DNA sequence is different. Mutations are responsible for the difference in DNA sequence. Mutations cause divergence. Selection causes some alleles to become more common and other alleles less common. It’s not that hard to figure out.
Total nonsense. Consult a dictionary.
Also, learn how sexual reproduction works and that it cannot produce clones even theoretically.
Are you sick? It’s the season…
You’re way off the mark. Read again.
Absolutely FALSE. As shown.
This is not about “blended inheritance”, although that particular Darwin Fail was mentioned in passing.
I discussed all this if you care to read for comprehension. Regression to the mean does not mean “regression to identical clones”. Variability is maintained either in bi-multi-modal or Gaussian distribution. Only that’s not divergence.
Total truth, consult reality.
Sure it can, if there is no variation, if everyone have the same exact genes with zero variation, the offspring will not be inheriting an allele from one of their parents the other parent didn’t already have. Hence getting half their genes from one parent, and half from the other, ends up with the exact same set of genes. Hence: clones.
False again. Not even identical twins are clones. First of many links: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-twins-and-clones/
That’s because mutations occur, so I’m right.
Example for those (many) that confuse ‘variability’ with ‘divergence’: Factory A makes gizmo B of target length C. When they measure X units, they see a normal distribution with a mean of C and standard deviation of Y. Since gizmo B is a precision device, they would like to lower deviation Y to reduce scrap.
Nonetheless, their best process cannot make perfect clones so they are stuck with a VARIABILITY around the mean C.
It is a good thing they’s process is tight as various batches do not DIVERGE (drift) from mean C which would result in higher and higher scrap rates.
Rumraket: Hence getting half their genes from one parent, and half from the other, ends up with the exact same set of genes. Hence: clones.
Insane, yes. Right, no.
I’m completely factually correct. Still am. Get over it.
Rumraket,
Naah, it’s worse than that.
nonlin does not read (well, does not understand, at even the most basic level) the articles that he cites. So to support his taunt that we should “learn how sexual reproduction works and that it cannot produce clones even theoretically.” he cites an article that notes that monozygotic twins are, genetically, the same as clones.
My quoting I.A. York at him was also a test. I wanted to see if he would recognize one of HIS citations — the penultimate one in this OP.
Nope.
That’s a whole new level of cluelessness.
Finally, regarding the production of genetically identical offspring via sexual reproduction, he should check out what nematodes do in the absence of males; what Brenner termed the “drive to homozygosity”
Hint: it still involves sex.
That’s cute but organisms aren’t produced in a factory, they come essentially from cell-division and the copying of DNA. And mutations occur when DNA is being copied, and in sexual reproduction different genes(which are different because they have become different through mutations) are combined together in a new individual. So characters will unavoidably diverge even in a population of clones.
nonlin, if you think that your factory analogy has any bearing on biology at all, you cannot have thought about reproduction.
I’m wondering who the intended audience is. What need to address this straw-filled mish-mash when not even other creationists are taking any notice.
@ non-lin:
Has anyone, anywhere, ever responded favorably to what you write?
Alan Fox,
It’s also pretty much a rerun of a previous post, extensively critiqued by Corneel, myself and others. Nonlin’ s principal weapon is obtuseness. Obtuseness and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Two! His two main weapons are …
Sorry. Caveat: yes if you are an inbreed rat controlled by a superior intelligence that needs your kind (twin-sister-sexual) for lab experiments. Then again, they only care about certain traits, so even then you are unlikely to be a true clone of your inbred parents throughout the whole genome (to only consider the genome!). On the plus side, you’re an expensive rat. Outside of select labs, this ain’t happening. Anyway, what has this to do with this essay?
Yet they state: “Twins and clones are often misidentified with each other because they both look physically the same on the outside.” Go figure.
Any relevance to the essay?
FALSE… and pathetic. That’s not a “citation” but a link. That means something (not everything) from there is somehow relevant to the OP.
Anyway, I notice you’re not disputing any of the findings in this essay. Interesting.
Seriously? It’s only an analogy to help those challenged understand the difference between ‘variability’ and ‘divergence’. I feel I’m losing neurons having to do this but you’re not gaining any, so a net loss.
FALSE. You continue to misunderstand the difference as well as most of the essay and diagrams.
Intelligent people of all stripes.
Yes. Unfavorable responses are also welcome as long as they are intelligent which happens occasionally. Sadly not this time and so far. Does everyone still have a hungover after New Year?
Yes, yours (and others’) unsuccessful attempted critique in a previous post is the inspiration for this coherent and concise essay. However, note the crystallized and new claims with strong supporting evidence. If you have anything intelligent to say about the essay, feel free to do so.
Should I be flattered or worried that no one so far is disputing ANY of the 13 claims?
No it’s still true, you continue to fail to understand why your irrelevant figures don’t refute what I’ve stated.
Variation exists because the characters of organisms have diverged by accumulating mutations and genetic recombination of those characters.
Look, your ability to just brainlessly insist this is false does not actually make it false. You understand this concept? Do you in fact not understand that you do not SHOW what is true simply by just declaring how you see things?
Worried that you have missed something. The whole basis for your post has been fundamentally undermined when it was pointed out that:
1) Inheritance isn’t actually blending, it’s quantized.
2) Variation in any population is due to characters having diverged.
Hence the entire OP has collapsed as based on both a falsehood and a misunderstanding. There’s no reason to go through your 13 points when it’s all built on a faulty assumption.
While you continue to fail to understand basic genetics, there would be no point.
And that obtuseness … I mean, you’re the guy who thinks that the repeatable observation of the Linnaean hierarchy in random BLAST searches might be an ‘illusion’, a preferable explanation to common descent. And that was your best shot out of the ‘thousand’ alternative explanations you had up your sleeve. 🤣
@Nonlin
I am really interested in learning what is going on in Figure 4. What model did you use to simulate this?
Well, there’s a few regulars here with professional expertise and background in biology. There are a few ID proponents and YEC advocates that sometimes post here.
I must have missed that. Have you a link to any comment here? I see your own blog is a wasteland. I’ve seen you post at Uncommon Descent but you seem to be largely ignored there. Anywhere else? (I must say the response to my question – your one word “yes” – is subject to the complaint you get for most of your responses to criticism. The fact that they are curt assertions that make interaction with you rather pointless)
The point of my question was to establish whether you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness or you are persuading people with your posts. I see no evidence that you are persuading anyone of anything other than your obtuseness when challenged. So I wonder why anyone should bother to continue responding to you.
I had a vague recollection nonlin put in an appearance at Peaceful Science. I see he fared equally well there with a similar MO.
ETA I see nonlin didn’t exactly bowl folks over at BioLogos, either.
Alan Fox,
That’s a pretty revealing, if unsurprising, interaction.
I was surprised to see nonlin claim at PS that
I wonder where nonlin got the idea that “non-overlapping generations” is an assumption behind Hardy-Weinberg.
[Naah. I already know the answer: he copied and pasted out of WIkipedia. Ooops.]
I was also saddened that nonlin failed to understand this comment:
as he subsequently wrote
Err, no. It happens all the time.
In the absence of males, nematodes will self, producing only hermaphrodites, who will self. Driving individual lines to homozygosity. That’s one of the reasons why Sydney chose them.
I thought so too. And disappointing to see a lack of evolution. 😉
FALSE again.
Look, I presented my scientific argument. You must either find flaws in my logic, present your scientific argument supporting your statement, or shut up.
Also, look again at the topic. It is not “why do variations exist?”
I am not arguing that. Darwin did.
You made some unsupported assertions. Scientific claims are normally supported with evidence, not just assertions.
Keep walking, bullshit.
Unless you have intelligent questions, counterarguments, comments about this OP, you should also keep walking.
The fact that the only recourse against logical arguments they have is censorship, tells you everything about their pathetic pseudo-science. Did you check Coyne and Panda? Oh right, they don’t even accept any challenge to the Darwinist nonsense.
I’ve answered my question about where else on the internet you have tried to present your disdain for evolutionary theory and how persuasive you have been.
So are you banned at BioLogos? At Peaceful Science?
Finally, someone’s asking an intelligent question. Thank you, Corneel.
1. Start with a normal distribution of individuals in First gen.
2. Assume descendants are also normally distributed as in Fig 3, EXCEPT.
3. All descendants are centered around their parent, not just those whose parents are closer to the mean. IOW, if Fig 3 had all the little curves centered, and not just the middle one.
4. This is because in the absence of regression to the mean, there wouldn’t be a privileged parent position on the initial distribution.
Makes sense?
Nonlin.org,
Hahaha! “Keep walking, bullshit”. I’m amazed you don’t get more engagement, you being such a charmer and all. Learn some genetics, chum. Your entire schtick is an embarrassment – yet another internet pipsqueak who thinks he’s spotted something that 100 years’ worth of academics have missed.
And what has this to do with anything in this OP?
Such as?
No, right again. Variation is due to charaters having diverged. Quantized genetic characters. Mutations have occurred in genes in the genomes of the organisms that make up the population of a species, and as they have accumulated their phenotypic characters encoded by those genes, have diverged over time.
No, Darwin worried that if inheritance blended it would be a problem, but we know that it doesn’t, hence there is no problem for evolution.
So? Communism has been around since the same time and was actually implemented for 75 years in USSR (unlike “evolution” that is 100% paper bullshit). And now newborn cretins want to revive that because “a sucker is born every minute”.
Anyway, enough chit-chat. Do you have anything intelligent to say or not? It seems not.
Not at PS, but It was going that way: http://nonlin.org/letter-to-a-theistic-evolutionist/
Turns out it’s really easy to argue in the way nonlin does, just keep mindlessly asserting you’re right over and over again. Throw in a bit of invective against the Darwinists and that’s about it, that’s all he ever does.
I hear you, but don’t see your proof.
Meanwhile I proved mathematically that without regression to the mean, we would not have even TEN generations of resembling distributions on any metric, let alone the thousands and millions of unchanged generations in “living fossils” which we all are (and even in the extinct ones like trilobites).
The problem I perceive is that your supposed revolution is shot through with a failure to understand the subject you critique. I can see exactly where you are going wrong, but with your hackles up, you won’t listen. When people try to explain the subject, you engage Asshole Mode, much like a large percentage of your co-cranks. How you expect to get anywhere, I don’t know.
But hey, you’re a genius in your own head, so bluster away.
Actually, a lot of people see insurmountable problems with “evolution”. Even atheists like Hoyle and Fodor.
Quit playing imbecile & ineffective mind games and actually say: “exactly where you are going wrong” if indeed you have something intelligent to say as claimed.