Why did none of you science types take my cue and help me with my #1? It was, after all a fact (that I read something) followed by a question (that I would like to know more than superficial explanation found in whatever article that was). Oh well, you must be too good for me... Achebe, I would prefer it if you would leave my testicles out of this discussion (or any other, for that matter). Also, you are naively ego-centric to think I would base my posting negatively or positively upon your presence. I post when I post. I don't post when I don't post. Does that make sense to you and your fake "easy A" degree? B-Bob, That is interesting to know. I have questions, but I will refrain from prying on this public BBS. JV, Just after disagreeing with you I must say that I like your thinking in your last post...more to the point - science, religion - both are too uncertain....we should all just stick to the "concrete" matters of the humanities. Are you with me?
And if I taught at a public school and required students to adopt a belief in creationism before I write a letter of recommendation, you can bet your ass that there would be a suit. Creation v. evolution is a RELIGIOUS belief for MOST people in this country. That makes it...BY DEFINITION an imposition of this professors religious beliefs upon his pupils. The First Amendment runs both ways...or don't you see that?
Isabel: Thanks. I think we have very similar views on this. Achebe Just so. I have no hangups about the terms, but it does seem a little odd to me. Micro and macro evolution are very different ideas, it seems to me, with very different implications, so I can see how using the term “evolution” for both could lead to confusion amongst the more casual participants in the discussion. It’s interesting also how the field of study is divided into the two distinct areas, one with much empirical evidence to support its theories, and the other than seems to based on somewhat shaky theory and even significantly contradicts the findings of the first. (Also interesting was a use I found of the word “antievolutionists.” Lol! A little spin to prop up the argument?) Yes, I think we’re talking about the same thing, but I still haven’t found anything that suggests that any “significantly progressive and transferable” (my terms) mutations have actually been observed. Is this purely theory? Not sure what you’re saying here. I’m fine with all this. I don’t have a problem with fossils and their age determination, with the fact that hominids somewhat similar to us existed and that some seem to have come and disappeared at various points in time. But, how do we get from there to the theory of macroevolution? This is surely a leap of faith at this point, no? What other possible explanations have been considered? This would seem to be fairly suggestive I’ll admit (even though there are still “missing links” and no direct evidence that vertical evolution has actually occurred). But this isn’t the whole story, is it. The other side has some pretty convincing arguments too. You’ll forgive me if my research is less than exhaustive, and please correct my inaccuracies, but this is what I’ve come up with: There seems to be a largish body of hybrid creationist/evolutionists who suggest creation to a point and evolution from there. One group, it seemed, were suggesting the evolution of man occurred from apes, but presumably creation explains existence up to there. Is this an accurate characterisation? (What percentage of the scientists in the field are where on this creationist-evolutionist spectrum, IYO?) I find this a bit odd, but an understandable directional shift. It seems that many now acknowledge that there simply hasn’t been enough time for all life on earth to have evolved from the single cell, (and where did it come from anyway?), and that the probabilities involved in the evolution of such complexity from a single are astronomical, to the point of being wildly unrealistic. So I do understand the urge to shift toward the hybrid explanation. But, we already know that creation in some form exists, right? Given that we know other mechanisms exist, why are we seemingly summarily dismissing the possibility of factors other than evolution to explain the existence of later life forms? Why are we trying to impose an evolutionary model onto the later evidence, especially when empirical evidence from microevolution studies seems to suggest that vertical evolution doesn’t happen? Are any other explanations are being considered? If not, why not? And as a footnote: Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html This kind of argument I find particularly unconvincing. It is a theory claiming to be truth. It demands that something be disproved that has never been empirically proved in the first place. And they claim that every step has been demonstrated, seemingly implying that the steps have never been witnessed to occur together to actually produce vertical evolution, but then claim that it’s occurrence if fact. Very, VERY shaky. Not very scientific at all. More like a statement of faith, it seems to me, flavoured by more than a hint of desperation.
1. A leter of recomendation amounts to an aknowledgement of one's abilities in a particular field, and a suposition of a positive outcome in the future. 2a. The field that this guy is in, Biology, has a fundimental intrest in the subject of evolution vs literal creationism, and as such where he is being asked to provide an endorsement of this individual's potential, any beliefs which are relevent and germane to that endorsement are appropriate material. 2b.Conversely, if the professor was, say, a English Literature professor, it would be inappropriate, as beliefs on the subject of creationism are not central to the dicipline. If you need examples of similar ways in which social, legal, and professional judgements of skill, fault, or guilt have been applied in the past, the clearest excamples occur in the conflict between Christian Scientists' belief in prayer over medical attention, and subsiquent prosicution for poor parenting. You can read about some of them here. Even though these people are being criminaly negligent because of religious beliefs, the courts have considered it perfectly appropriate for juries to pass judgement on these parents that are doing things for 'religious reasons'.
Science is not a religion. No Christians understood evolution, the formation of the universe etc., until it was discovered scientifically. What if science students won't accept the Earth is round (they are out there), or they deny that the sun is the center of the solar system, or claim the earth is only 6000 to 10,000 years old? I guess it is fine to let them continue in scientific studies? If you can't accept SCIENCE because you cling to a myth, then get the hell out of it. You just do not belong. There is your separation.
Grizzled, keep in mind that evolution does encompass both 'macro' and 'micro' evolution... as a guess, these terms seem to have come about long ago to appease our temporal constraints (back before all of the work in genetics). The simple foundation... is that the DNA --> RNA --> Protein path codes for a phenotype (protein) that either confers a benefit or doesn't. Those that do... those alleles that code for that protein, have a correlation to their genotypes that push on into the next generation statistically. I hinted at the 'temporal' point, incoherently, earlier, when I wrote that macroevolutionary events are just the sum of microevolutionary events (this micro-macro thing does seem to be artificial when you just think about tracing some locus that codes for a protein over a long period in time. When you add the numerous genetic mishaps (transversions/transitions/deletions/inversions, etc. etc.) there is plenty of genetic opportunities to test out some combination. Some are beneficial and some aren't. Some deleterious proteins confer some other advantage in some other situation (beta-hemoglobin whatever #)). Add in the mother of all invention... and... I wish I could convey this more clearly, but microevolutionary forces and macroevolutionary forces are the same. All eukaryotes play the DNA --> RNA --> Protein game. Prokaryotes, if memory serves are simply RNA --> Protein. You have your persistence layer (DNA/RNA) and then that persistence layer (transcribes and then) translates a phenotype. On a farm, man takes over from here... and he values or devalues some phenotype. In nature, a statistical process takes over. Oh, no... not at all. I had the chance to peruse the talkorigins site earlier... and they highlight a basic example, that you may have read, concerning polyploidy in plants. Plants are cool for a number of reasons, one of which is that some plants can 'self' (SmeggySmegg does this alot). Keep in mind that nondisjunction events are in the background as a basic meiotic mishap (ie trisomy 21). When a plant experiences nondisjunction and then selfs, that plant can create a zygote with a different chromosomal count than it has. If those offspring happen to become entrenched and take off... a new species can emerge (think of the way in which horses and donkeys have emerged... their offspring are sterile... just like a backcross between a 'normal' chromosomal count plant and one of these new > chromosomal plants would be). This is but one example of the emergence of a new species. When you tie in the underlying statistical process and then observe the emergence of a new species through genetics... we simply use the motto "the present is the key to the past" to infer phylogeny of stratigraphically and genetically similar organisms. ie, the rock record illustrates that we emerged from bipedal chimp-like things called Australopithecines. Its just a few genetic techniques later than one realizes that chimps (who is extant and shares a most recent common ancestor... where 'most recent common ancestor' is analogous to your grandma (hopefully alive in this situation) where the chimp is analogous to your cousin... granted you can inseminate your cousin in this example... but its just an analogy ) are the organisms most genetically related to us. Hopefully I cleared this up earlier... again, a gene codes for a protein... proteins convey a phenotype. A statistical bias for advantageous phenotypes ensures that adaptive characteristics are more likely to get into the next generation than deleterious ones (unfortunately deleterious alleles easily hide in heterozygotes, qhat=sqrt(mu/s)). What other explanations would be considered? Perhaps the Keebler elves came down, vaporized the last guys, and then created new guys that looked mysteriously like the previous guys, but w/ slightly different morphology . Grizzled, I respect your opinions, but if you sink yourself into cell biology/genetics and look at a bit of statistics and population genetics... you'll see that evolution is a fact. When you look at the rock record (and factor in the 1 * 10^9 chance of being preserved) you'll concede that evolution is not only a fact... but its common sense. Study it a bit too much, and it might become mundane. Just as a side bar... this whole 'vertical/progressive' talk is scary. Its true that selection prefers one phenotype over another, but keep in mind that gene flow, genetic drift and mutation are also there as components of evolution. The notion of a "missing link" is somewhat erroneous. I'd hate to see the genetic mishap that would launch me from a knuckle walking ape to a bipedal hominid in a single generation. Again, these things occur slowly. Hell, primates have some of the, if not the slowest life histories of mammals. We're not prokaryotes that can evolve in a matter of days. Or eu- like drosophila/arabidopsis whose fecundity is a boon to molecular biology. Speaking of which, I believe that I didn't drive the point home earlier of losing an allele. If, eg adh-s is lost... what has happened to that population? That population has fixed the adh-f allele. If you have selected for one allele over another... evolution has occurred. This used to be the bar for creationists. They felt that genes were immutable. All of the concerns of creationists have been blown away, but this particular point is conspicuous simply b/c it traces the evolution of their own arguments. but...but... but... but what? But... you're afraid of evolution for some perverse reason? Again, God hasn't told anyone what to believe re: evolution. Man simply is impotent b/c of his awe concerning his God.... and he is prepared to burn any science at the stake that contradicts NOT GOD, yet man's understanding of God. I don't know of anyone that doesn't follow the basic evolutionary model: * the earth forms around 4.5 * 10^9 ya * cyanobacteria, 02 producing bacteria, yield some O2 (observed in the rock record 3.5 * 10^9 ya). * eukaryotic photosynthesizers show up around 2.1 * 10^9 ya (perhaps another 'vertical' thingey that you are referring too) emerge. Essentially a heterotrophic eukaryote engulfs a photosynthetic bacteria and forms a primary endosymbiosis (the same way you have mitochondria in your cells). * precambrian/cambrian 570 mya... chitin? * 410 mya land plants emerge * 300 mya gymnosperms show up * 150 mya angiosperms show up -- keep in mind that dinosaurs are kicking ass through this time period-- * 65 mya... an asteroid hits the earth/or Indian basalts pollute the hell out of the earth. Dinosaurs crash (k/t boundary). * Arabs come. Make money, buy Mercedes'. And then Charles put on Di's dress. I just couldn't believe it. He just put it on and went to town. * little mammals (around since ~200 mya) emerge in the hole left buy the dinosaurs... survive off of seeds... * 40 mya, primates take off from the rat (j/k) ancestor * 15 mya pongid like things are doing pretty well * 8-6 mya the grandma of chimps and humans split (the genetics affirms this) * tons of Australopithecine evidence from 6mya to 2 mya * Homo butcher sites around 2 mya... tools all over the friggin' place * evvvvvvvvvvolve * 100-50 kya moderns radiate all over the Old World * present -- we're talking There's a lot left out here, but this is the basic outline. I assume you have questions about abiogenesis.... but this is just a bunch of organic chemistry. All of the basic organic molecules have been made ad nauseum in labs w/ just the core elements. Thow some carbon and some hydrogen, blah blah blah, energy... *poof* you have a lipid bilayer that forms a membrane (b/c of hydrophobic boundaries). I feel like I've been writing for a while, so I'll wrap this up. Let me gloss over the fact that there is nothing magical about DNA. It's just chemistry. Mutations, repair, all of this stuff is just chemistry. Thank god for protons. 4.5 * 10^9 years. Four and a half billlllion years. Most of that time was built making the eukaryotic machinery. I don't know of a chemist that thinks any of this stuff is wildly unrealistic. Isabel, I don't know if you ever took a basic cell class, but if you know anything of the building blocks of life, do you think of this as 'wildly unrealistic'? This is just chemistry. No. I don't follow you here. There may be someone that wants to pursue the lord of the rings-esque philosophical rant (and I looooove the Lord of the Rings), but science simply has nothing to offer here. We just have empiricism. If you want to pursue any of this further Grizzled, I suggest two books: The Cell by Alberts et. al. Principles of Population Genetics by Hartl and Clark.
Grizzled, somehow I left this blurb out when I was replying: I think that this document is either dated or written poorly. Perhaps I simply don't understand your notion of 'vertical'. Speciation events simply have been observed in the lab. If that's what your vertical, *I'm slapping myself in the head right now... aha*, thingey refers too... then you simply haven't been exposed to the material. Just look up 'speciation events', etc. I gave you an example with plants. Speciation has also been observed in drosophila, and a ton of other model organisms. Furthermore we routinely reverse engineer the genetics to illustrate the phylogenetic speciation that is evident in the rock record. Remember, the present is the key to the past. If we speciate some lab organism, and know the mathematics and genetics underlying speciation... we can extrapolate to our own history. When that genetic history mirrors the history one would derive from the rock record, then we assume that the raelians and creationists would probably get along together. Have a good one. I hope that I have been marginally helpful.
rimbaud, My apologies for not addressing this earlier -- I viewed it as a rhetorical slam-dunk with a modest landing instead of a chest-thumping landing. Yes, what you say is, to the best of my knowledge, very true. If you believe that biology has a decent understanding of how DNA is replicated, then they have shown incredible footprints for the theory of evolution. One reason I didn't hop on this earlier is that I've decided it's pointless. 1) Look what DNA evidence did for one former NFL star's murder trial. Many Americans trust neither molecular biology nor statistics, perhaps because scientists do too poor a job at reaching the masses, and/or because science education is piss poor at most levels in most schools. 2) I feel that we could present unbelievable amounts of evidence, but many people would still say evolution is a religious issue. No single stance has ever made less sense to me, but once I hear it, and accept it, I recognize that religious issues seem to have little room for logical discussions of evidence. I have so many ways I love to waste time, and this format isn't very pleasing. Achebe, I was in Santa Cruz once, but not for long. Doubt we hung out, because I was chained to my work at the time.
Hey BBob... I actually meant South Carolina. A lot of the guys I skated with in college were in the physics department. One of them would later get his PhD at Wake Forest, another would freak out at Montana (and flee to Seattle) and another got his PhD at West Virginia.
Well, yes and no to the helpfulness Achebe. You give a nice overview of the timeline and a helpful introduction to the terminology, but you are leaving all the dissenting points for me to make. There are significant question marks, and even significant dissent from within the evolution establishment, but you’re leaving that part out. Here’s what I’ve found I understand Colin Patterson, a Senior Paleontologist at British Museum of Natural History was one of the first to make a major stir in the community. http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, appears to be an early respected work in this new movement questioning evolution. There also seems currently to be a whole movement around “intelligent design” which would seem to fall into the afore mentioned “hybrid” category. Here’s the one to be sure to read. It’s a pretty good summary page that was a response to an article in Scientific American. It has a somewhat angry tone, (which I do not find helpful), but makes some very good scientific points. (I should note that it also makes a couple of points that I either disagree with or am not understanding properly.) It essentially makes the points that convinced me that the theory of evolution is not nearly as sound as I was taught it was. http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-usnews.htm Re: “admitting that some form of creation has taken place.” This is what I’ve been calling abiogenesis. In one of your above posts you talked about God scattering building blocks which evolved (perhaps not exact wording), while speaking to the issue of where the original building blocks of evolution came from. I thought you were admitting that some form of creation must have occurred to produce at least the first piece of matter that everything has evolved from, but perhaps you weren’t. This seems to be a necessary conclusion at the very least though, wouldn’t you agree? Spontaneous generation of matter is not part of evolutionary theory as far as I’m aware, and if it is I’d sure like to hear the explanation. So a general point I would make is that if this is admitted at the first step, why would it be denied as a possible explanation at later steps? I’m not suggesting the suspension of scientific investigation, (to repeat, I think science and spirituality are part of the same whole and are not ultimately inconsistent), but I am questioning the “normal science,” as Kuhn puts it, that essentially works for the purpose of fitting facts into certain preconstructed boxes. Ironically, this is what many non-scientific creationists do, but it is also the mindset of many “scientists.” I think you statement, “What other explanations would be considered?” when I asked you what other options were being considered suggests this kind of thinking in the evolutionist community. (It was only one statement so I’m not defining you by it. It was just suggestive to me of this mindset.) There is actually a HUGE amount of information on the net on this, so much so that it was difficult to zero in on the quality stuff in a short period of time. There are a number of sites, though, that deal with the issue from a scientific point of view, (no “biblical proof” referenced). It really doesn’t take much reading to understand that, at the very least, what we’ve traditionally been taught about evolution was far far overstated. We’ve been taught as “truth” things that are extremely shaky scientifically. The sometimes self-righteous response of many evolutionists, (the ones I’m reading about, not anybody here), the assumption of infallibility and refusal to address any of the glaring inconsistencies in the theory, is also very interesting. It is as though the cornerstone of their faith has been threatened. When the science of evolution is questioned, some even try to pass it off as a “religious issue.” Curious indeed. My opinion is that Kuhn has a lot to say about the current state of the theory of evolution, and that that which props it up. (I should also point out, for those who have read him, that I do differ with him in on some points.) Heck, because I think it’s so relevant to this discussion I dug up a cheat sheet on it. http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/kuhnsyn.html I should add, in anticipation of the response from the mud slingers, that his points have nothing to do with religion, unless we’re talking about the “religion” associated with various scientific paradigms. I would very much doubt that Kuhn was a Christian, but I really have no ideas if he was or not.
Is it only religious discrimination because the professor refuses to write recommendation letters to students who cling to a belief that is supported by zero scientific evidence as opposed to the theory of evolution that is backed up by a substantial, but still not irrefutable, amount of evidence? Is the Justice Department only jumping in because it's percieved discrimination against protestant christians? That the Justice Department is even sticking their nose into this seems clear proof that separation of church and state is just a convenience that's ignored regularly by the government.
Grizzled, I think you are not reading my posts. I have tried to explain a minutia of cell biology and genetics to you. You're either not interested, or it simply doesn't fit into your preconceived notions about evolution. Frankly put, you don't understand the real arguments that are occuring in the field. Mainstream science dies not take the intelligent design people seriously. To be blunt, they are either liars or fools. The articles they cite to 'prove conflict within the scientific community' is a list detailing their own problems with reading comprehension. That bs works in front of a bunch of laypeople such as yourself, or the Ohio educational establishment... but every single article they cite from refereed journals was written by people that unequivocally believe in evolution... they merely argue over the details (which I alluded to in the neutralist/selectionist debate information; incidentally, one of the leading advocates of intelligent design conceded their tendency to lie on totn a few weeks ago... dig it up off of the npr archives). 'spontaneous generation of matter' LOL. Grizzled, this just in, there was this slight event called 'the Big Bang', ROTFL. Grizzled, you haven't read any of my posts carefully... and more than likely I haven't written them carefully enough. "Building blocks" simply refer to organic molecules. Organic molecules are simply molecules that contain C, H, O, N, etc. (hopefully you're not asserting that scientists have to prove the existence of these elements... "this just in... creationists don't believe in math or chemistry either"... ROTFL). These molecules have attributes in various environments. Lipid molecules, for example, form membranes and enclose themselves. This is one of the key misunderstandings of creationists. All we are are elements in various arrays. Your cells aren't magical.. they're composed of constituents that can be broken down further and further to individual elements. The cell is nothing more than an enclosure of a phospholipid bilayer. Nucleotides exist as polymers whether you want them to or not. You can, and its been done over and over again, synthesize polynucleotides in the lab. This isn't wizardry. It's chemistry. Give a girl a phospholipid bilayer and some nucleotides and what does she need? The ability to reproduce herself. What's a great catalyst? Ummm... maybe... polynucleotides? Whoa!! What is an autocatalytic system similar to... hmmm.... living matter!! That's right!! ps, if you get a chance to learn a bit about chemistry, physics, geology and biology, I think evolution will become a bit more intuitive to you. ps2, I didn't get too far in a few of those links b/c they seemed like little more than "lists of smart people that misunderstand evolution". I got an email from someone in Kuwait today that thinks Bush is an idiot. Maybe it means that a war against Iraq is unjust. Persuasive isn't it? Ummm... no. Facts man, facts. Explain to me how declines in heterozygosity due to selection aren't really evolution. Explain to me how any sane person can look at the rock record in concert with the genetics and come away thinking Keebler Elves did it all. Explain to me how all of the math in population genetics is magically wrong. Explain to me how the homology of whales and land mammals (hippos to be specific) isn't relevant. Explain to me how botanists watch the emergence of polyploidy in plants. Explain to me why the Australopithecines have axially aligned foramen magnum. Explain to me why their pelvi are built for bipedality. Explain to me how abiogenesis in the lab of the building blocks of life is something other than creating the core constituents of life in abiotic conditions..... "first cause" indeed.
A little wrong on both reads - it was a modest attempt at a rhetorical slam dunk that was looking for aid in a smooth landing, to borrow your phrase. What I read was in a science journal soon after the "breakthroughs" and the article was pointing out the one result that nobody had pressed to that point - the validation of evolution. The fact that I had heard nothing either in response or rebuttal in the approximately two years since I had read it left me somewhat uncertain as to current thinking on the matter. The "raising" of my voice in the subsequent post, then, was for personal as well as bbs education. Achebe, They know about science in S.C.?
"There are far more things in heaven and on Earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hey, I'm no creationist, but Jesus, you can be condescending sometimes. This just in...despite his assertions to the contrary, Achebe does not know everything.
What sucks Jeff, is that I always start out meaning well. It's the end game that sometimes plagues me. Jeff, you know a ton about music (I know this b/c sometimes you can be condescending in your posts concerning music ). If someone... say me, that didn't know any of the rules about music, started haphazardly posting on the topic... I think that you would eventually correct my misconceptions. Regardless, I hope that Grizzled or whomever doesn't take my tone negatively. My car is habiscus. This is true. There is no point in arguing about it. Maybe we can break down the visible light spectrum and discern what it means to be habiscus... but I don't think that its a point of debate. It either is or it isn't. Now, Marxists such as JuanValdez or rimbaud will play cute games with the philosophy of knowledge... but I believe that most of us are objectivists. I am somewhat of a Kantian, and much of the board is religious in some way. Relativism is jejune, I think we'd (most of us) agree.
Exactly. Jeff - nice 12000th post! Most science professionals I am acquainted with who are Christians believe in Intelligent Design, which does not necessarily exclude evolution. So we can live with that. On the other hand, no one should be jumping to conclusions, and when personal bias and sarcasm start coming into what ought to be a rational argument, it doesn't look good. And atheism/ scientific humanism <i>is</i> the equivalent of a religion for many people, in terms of what part it plays in their worldview. Seems like one that would offer cold comfort, but... apparently it is that important to some people. I had just meant to say that those who believe in God, etc., should at least be sympathetic to where the creationists were coming from... And Achebe is nothing more than a bunch of chemicals enclosed in phospholipid membranes, that communicate with one another via a bunch of reactions and electrical impulses. This particular bunch of chemicals spent a lot of their free time today working on elaborate posts to cc.net. (and my bunch of chemicals are seriously putting off work right now...)
Most of the most 'cutting edge' physics eschews the Big Bang theory in favor of strings and n-branes. Not that this is a majority opinion, but it does go to show how accepted 'scientific fact' can change to widely believed theory in dozens of years.
Great point Ottomaton, you apparently are the only person interested in the material science. Other people think that it's more fun to launch ad hominem attacks and meaningless Hallmark quotes. On the point of nbranes, rest assured if you get the molecules to the soup... they'll take off (but your point about a truly theoretical field is well taken... thank god for the empiricists in biology & geology ). Isabel, I'm glad that you agree with me. In the long run, I don't care if anyone argues that rimbaud pooped the universe, the simple point is... there's nothing that is occurring in real science (refereed science) that argues for anything other than evolution. If you guys have any points of contention about the material science (cytology/genetics/chemistry/geology/mathematics) I'd be anxious to discuss those points. Until then, I feel as if I am starting to read tersely to those peers that I would otherwise like to get along with (and I was doing so well ).
lol, no Jeff, I missed those exchanges. I'd search for the posts but the search fn is as dead as dimsie's account (double ).
