Darwin's Appendix

[M.D. Rawlings]

By Rabbi Yonason Goldson
July 20, 2011
Jewish World Review


Knowledge and understanding have caught up with yet another aspect of Creation

Virtually unique to human beings, serving no physiological purpose, and subject to fatal inflammation, the human appendix provided Charles Darwin with what he believed to be compelling evidence to support his theory of evolution. An organ contributing no benefits and potential harm could surely be nothing more than a remnant from distant ancestors in whom it served a function no longer relevant to man's evolved form.

LINK

 

[rightwinger]

I think God gave us an appendix just to fuck with us

He is like that sometimes

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think God gave us an appendix just to fuck with us

He is like that sometimes

Uhh . . . you didn't read the article.

Contemporary biologists have identified the appendix as a storehouse for good bacteria and white blood cells that replenish the body's immune system more quickly whenever it becomes depleted by fighting disease. Consequently, relatively recent developments in hygiene and medicine have left the appendix with too little to do, so that the underutilized production potential of the organ creates the conditions of stress that lead to appendicitis. It is not our bodies that have evolved; it is our environment.

 

[Marie888]

Poor Darwin.

A bird is still a type of bird, a cow is still a type of cow, a fish is still a type a fish, a plant is still a type of plant. And us humans are still human and different from the beasts of the earth. Science is great. But with full integrity, we can conclude that nothing in research has proven otherwise. Evolution of man is still a theory.


Amazing is God's Word. Written long ago....It is written:

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 7:14
They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

We see variations in species, but we don't see a crossover from one to the other. I don't care if we are the person in the world with the lowest IQ, or the most intelligent person on the planet. That hasn't changed.





.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Poor Darwin.

A bird is still a type of bird, a cow is still a type of cow, a fish is still a type a fish, a plant is still a type of plant. And us humans are still human and different from the beasts of the earth. Science is great. But with full integrity, we can conclude that nothing in research has proven otherwise. Evolution of man is still a theory.


Amazing is God's Word. Written long ago....It is written:

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 7:14
They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

We see variations in species, but we don't see a crossover from one to the other. I don't care if we are the person in the world with the lowest IQ, or the most intelligent person on the planet. That hasn't changed.





.

So you believe man walked the earth with dinosaurs? Or did he create all the species at different times?


Why do I have a tailbone? Did God start to give us a tail then think better of it and chop it off when he was creating us?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Get the point?

Oh, I get the point alright. You think you're talking to an idiot.

Yes, the appendix serves some purpose! It produces white blood cells and stores some "good" bacteria! But so do many many other organs of the human body. The usefulness of the human appendix is marginal, at best. Also,the human appendix can become infected with other bacteria and recently "evolved" invasive viruses, rendering it's usefulness nil!

Yeah. And both the author of this piece and I are aware of that.

Contemporary biologists have identified the appendix as a storehouse for good bacteria and white blood cells that replenish the body's immune system more quickly whenever it becomes depleted by fighting disease. Consequently, relatively recent developments in hygiene and medicine have left the appendix with too little to do, so that the underutilized production potential of the organ creates the conditions of stress that lead to appendicitis. It is not our bodies that have evolved; it is our environment. —Goldson​

It is still what is called in anatomical terms, a "vestigial" organ. It serves no major useful purpose, it is a relic of previous metamorphoses of the human animal, no longer of significant use in the body of human man or woman. Other organs within the body have superseded the efficiency and usefulness of the human appendix.

Indeed. But a vestigial organ in what sense? As I have written elsewhere:

The choice is between a majority opinion within the scientific community, driven by an absolute methodological naturalism/ontological naturalism, which gratuitously extrapolates the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable processes of a common ancestry from those of microspeciation, or the countervailing opinion, which allows for the potentialities of the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism and posits a biological history of abruptions, a series of creative events and episodic extinctions, wherein the number of species has not grown over time in terms of a series of branching transmutations, but dwindled. In my opinion, the latter scenario provides the best explanation for the abundance and variety of life, and anticipates that all forms of terrestrial life would necessarily share certain genetic and morphological characteristics, including the inherent ability to affect adaptive variations within species.

The evidence would look the same either way. Hence, the claim that there is no evidence for the latter is false, and the opening salvo of the Pasteurian law of biogenesis, its ramifications with respect to the development of life on Earth, portends a powerful counterargument.

The fact of the matter is that beyond the micro level of speciation, evolutionary theory does not and cannot predict anything at all. Ultimately, its so-called predictions are historical in nature. What survives, survives. What is, is, and what was, was . . . in accordance with a supposed, incremental process of fortuitous accidents. Environmental changes are random. Mutations are random. Natural selection is random. The product of any two random variables is a random variable. The conservation of transformational mutations, and the viability and number of transitory forms are not quantifiable in any falsifiable sense. —Rawlings​

Any first year college pre-med student would know all this and know it as the bunk of creationists, know the statistical insignificance of the appendix, and know why modern surgical plans try to avoid appendectomies, NOT to preserve that vestigial organ, but to lessen risk of other infections which hover about in any operation

No. Any number of first-year-college, pre-med students would know that creationism has nothing to do with your guff and, at the very least, would know about "the statistical insignificance of the appendix" today due to "recent developments in hygiene and medicine", microspeciation or a combination thereof. In other words, the current status of the human appendix does not directly attest to an evolutionary common ancestry at all.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Uhh . . . you didn't read the article.

Contemporary biologists have identified the appendix as a storehouse for good bacteria and white blood cells that replenish the body's immune system more quickly whenever it becomes depleted by fighting disease. Consequently, relatively recent developments in hygiene and medicine have left the appendix with too little to do, so that the underutilized production potential of the organ creates the conditions of stress that lead to appendicitis. It is not our bodies that have evolved; it is our environment.

Well, we have about six organs in our bodies that store immune system white blood cells, and "good" bacteria! The intestine, somach, throat and even the nose and mouth store "good" bacteria. White blood cells are manufactured in several regions of the body, PREDOMINENTLY in the bone marrow. We have about 300 times the white blood cell producing capacity in the bone marrow of our legs, arms, even in our ribs and fingers, hands, toes and feet, than in our appendix.

Maybe I'm not making my point clearly enough, let me try again. If you have fifteen greenhouses all growing flowers, and have a house plant of the same variety in the house next to the greenhouses, yes, you have a production facility in your house, but I'd hardly call that a commercial grade producer of flowering plants.

Get the point? Yes, the appendix serves some purpose! It produces white blood cells and stores some "good" bacteria! But so do many many other organs of the human body. The usefulness of the human appendix is marginal, at best. Also,the human appendix can become infected with other bacteria and recently "evolved" invasive viruses, rendering it's usefulness nil! It is still what is called in anatomical terms, a "vestigial" organ. It serves no major useful purpose, it is a relic of previous metamorphoses of the human animal, no longer of significant use in the body of human man or woman. Other organs within the body have superseded the efficiency and usefulness of the human appendix.

Any first year college pre-med student would know all this and know it as the bunk of creationists, know the statistical insignificance of the appendix, and know why modern surgical plans try to avoid appendectomies, NOT to preserve that vestigial organ, but to lessen risk of other infections which hover about in any operation

Let's look at the NON-Physicians who wrote that article of pseudo-science and medicine, and the publisher of such distraction material..

FIRST: The author..admittedly NOT a physician, nor even a research scientist, indeed, admittedly a graduate of a college with a degree in English.

Bio « Torah Ideals

"Graduating from the University of California at Davis with a degree in English, I took the only practical course open to me and began hitchhiking across the United States. "

Ladies and gentlemen who post threads like this here, by authors like this guy, PLEASE do your research, the same research we ask freshmen in college to do these days!!!!

PLEASE, original poster here, do NOT EMBARRASS yourself further here, byt opening up a thread without having done the scientific, (let alone basic verification) research!

It is like pulling your pants down in front of the teacher in a seventh grade science class, exposing your brainpower as the seventh grader would expose his tiny penis for us all to see. Do your research, study, read, investigate, stop posting your agenda like a petulant child would publicly expose his penis. YOU, Mr or Ms Rawlings... you have a brain, for your own sake USE IT !!! Do some honest investigative research before jumping off your cliffs!

And, YES, even some Jewish theologians are nutty enough to want to reject Darwinian theories of evolution, and want THEIR OWN brand of Jewish creationist illogical pseudo-science to prevail over calls for rational thought, which rejects male dominance over women. Some Jewish guys still want their wives to be obedient, and follow their Jewish "god's law"!!! What a surprise!! Yes, Jewish people, and I love many of them, are just as prone to screw up science to make their stupid points, and cash in on it!!!

Someone with a degree in English trying to debunk the view of doctors.


"Since I know the best ways to use there, their and they're, that gives me qualification to debunk doctors in the medical field."

 

[konradv]

Poor Darwin.

A bird is still a type of bird, a cow is still a type of cow, a fish is still a type a fish, a plant is still a type of plant. And us humans are still human and different from the beasts of the earth. Science is great. But with full integrity, we can conclude that nothing in research has proven otherwise. Evolution of man is still a theory.

But what were they before they were cows, fish and plants? Why can't fossils of modern animals be found in the Cambrian strata? If we were created, not evolved, where were they?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Poor Darwin.

A bird is still a type of bird, a cow is still a type of cow, a fish is still a type a fish, a plant is still a type of plant. And us humans are still human and different from the beasts of the earth. Science is great. But with full integrity, we can conclude that nothing in research has proven otherwise. Evolution of man is still a theory.

But what were they before they were cows, fish and plants? Why can't fossils of modern animals be found in the Cambrian strata? If we were created, not evolved, where were they?

The waves from the Great Flood were so strong they moved the Earth around and shifted where fossils were, and all the fossils from certain times being in certain layers of ground is a coincidental miracle of God.


I know that because I have a degree in psychology from Phoenix, geologists and other scientists with doctorates don't know their ass from their elbow.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Someone with a degree in English trying to debunk the view of doctors.

"Since I know the best ways to use there, their and they're, that gives me qualification to debunk doctors in the medical field."

Uh-huh. The opinion of a rather substantial number of doctors in biology and the medical field, and the demonstrations that the many supposed vestigial organs do in fact have or have had important functions do not count, eh?

For example:

In fact, the coccyx [tailbone] has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum. —Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., Biology and Biomedicine​

The fact of the matter is that "vestigial organ arguments" for an evolutionary common ancestry are weak and silly—syllogistically, analogously and scientifically, as many philosophers of science, physicians and biologists, both evolutionist thinkers and skeptics, know. Only rabid acolytes of Darwinism, regardless of their credentials, think otherwise. The biggest problems for these kind of arguments—which do not require any degree to recognize, just a bit of common sense—is that they are obviously predicated on an apriority that is not subject to any objective standard of falsification, and their objects can be readily accounted for by other criteria.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Poor Darwin.

A bird is still a type of bird, a cow is still a type of cow, a fish is still a type a fish, a plant is still a type of plant. And us humans are still human and different from the beasts of the earth. Science is great. But with full integrity, we can conclude that nothing in research has proven otherwise. Evolution of man is still a theory.

But what were they before they were cows, fish and plants? Why can't fossils of modern animals be found in the Cambrian strata? If we were created, not evolved, where were they?

Ah, konradv, just making it up as you go along again, eh? What do you mean "fossils of modern animals [can't] be found in the Cambrian strata?" That's a weak and most foolish question to ask from your perspective. The fossils of the Cambrian strata do not show any evolutionary common ancestry whatsoever. In fact, they evince extant species, fully formed as they are today, sans those that have gone extinct. Are you mad? The very last place an evolutionist would want to go is the Cambrian strata.

You don’t know very much about paleontology, do you?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Someone with a degree in English trying to debunk the view of doctors.

"Since I know the best ways to use there, their and they're, that gives me qualification to debunk doctors in the medical field."

Uh-huh. The opinion of a rather substantial number of doctors in biology and the medical field, and the demonstrations that the many supposed vestigial organs do in fact have or have had important functions do not count, eh?

For example:

In fact, the coccyx [tailbone] has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum. —Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., Biology and Biomedicine​

The fact of the matter is that "vestigial organ arguments" for an evolutionary common ancestry are weak and silly—syllogistically, analogously and scientifically, as many philosophers of science, physicians and biologists, both evolutionist thinkers and skeptics, know. Only rabid acolytes of Darwinism, regardless of their credentials, think otherwise. The biggest problems for these kind of arguments—which do not require any degree to recognize, just a bit of common sense—is that they are obviously predicated on an apriority that is not subject to any objective standard of falsification, and their objects can be readily accounted for by other criteria.

People have a tailbone because we all used to have tails, at about a month into our mother's pregnancy when we were fetuses we had tails.

http://oolon.awardspace.com/vestigial.htm

Coccyx summary

The coccyx does have some functionality. But nothing about what it does requires it to be made of fused, vertebrae-like bones; to have a muscle to move it, since the fused parts cannot move; nor to be made by the particular genes that it is. In short, nothing about what it does requires it to have the form of a tiny tail.

Its structure does not match with its claimed function. It is therefore overdesigned, containing features that are irrelevant.

Thus we can reject the made-as-it-is hypothesis as an adequate explanation. Even if we have no other to offer.

As it happens, we do. Descent with modification explains how one structure can, over the course of generations, become enlarged, reduced, added to or subtracted from, and even change function or lose function. And intriguingly, other creatures have coccyxes. It is just that they are often longer, unfused, and made of more bones. But when we encounter such longer, unfused coccyxes, we call them tails.

Evolution predicts that a tail-less creature whose ancestors had a tail might have a thing just like a coccyx, just as it predicts that a lineage that lost its hind limbs on returning to the sea might still have bits of bone shaped like parts of a pelvis and femur inside it. As many whales do.

Evolution is therefore a satisfactory explanation, while creation can be rejected as inadequate.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Poor Darwin.

A bird is still a type of bird, a cow is still a type of cow, a fish is still a type a fish, a plant is still a type of plant. And us humans are still human and different from the beasts of the earth. Science is great. But with full integrity, we can conclude that nothing in research has proven otherwise. Evolution of man is still a theory.

But what were they before they were cows, fish and plants? Why can't fossils of modern animals be found in the Cambrian strata? If we were created, not evolved, where were they?

The waves from the Great Flood were so strong they moved the Earth around and shifted where fossils were, and all the fossils from certain times being in certain layers of ground is a coincidental miracle of God.


I know that because I have a degree in psychology from Phoenix, geologists and other scientists with doctorates don't know their ass from their elbow.

LOL! Well since the premise is wrong, i.e., since konradv doesn't know what he's talking about, your bit of sarcasm is moot, isn't it? even if you properly understood the nature of the biblical flood, which you don't. The flood was regional and is well documented archeologically.

 

[Dr.Drock]

But what were they before they were cows, fish and plants? Why can't fossils of modern animals be found in the Cambrian strata? If we were created, not evolved, where were they?

The waves from the Great Flood were so strong they moved the Earth around and shifted where fossils were, and all the fossils from certain times being in certain layers of ground is a coincidental miracle of God.


I know that because I have a degree in psychology from Phoenix, geologists and other scientists with doctorates don't know their ass from their elbow.

LOL! Well since the premise is wrong, i.e., since konradv doesn't know what he's talking about, your bit of sarcasm is moot, isn't it? even if you properly understood the nature of the biblical flood, which you don't. The flood was regional and is well documented archeologically.

I'm just relieved to know you don't think what I typed, you wouldn't be the first on this site to believe the crazy stuff I typed with regards to the Great Flood.

If you aren't the type to be dumb enough to think 2 of every animal including dinosaurs quietly sat down next to man, lions next to antelopes, T-Rex next to triceratops all casually fitting on a 450 long boat, you're an upgrade intellectually to the type I've been discussing with on here the last few days.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I'm just relieved to know you don't think what I typed, you wouldn't be the first on this site to believe the crazy stuff I typed with regards to the Great Flood.

If you aren't the type to be dumb enough to think 2 of every animal including dinosaurs quietly sat down next to man, lions next to antelopes, T-Rex next to triceratops all casually fitting on a 450 long boat, you're an upgrade intellectually to the type I've been discussing with on here the last few days.

Well, I'm not a young-earth creationist, and it seems pretty clear to me that dinosaurs were extinct long before extant mammals showed up. On the other hand, challenging the idea that God led the pertinent creatures of the region to board Noah's Ark actually begins by challenging the existence of the biblical God. If God exists and can create the Cosmos, putting some animals in an Ark for safekeeping is chump change. I believe he did just that, and my belief in that begins with my belief that the Father raised the Son from the dead, perhaps an even more impressive miracle. By definition God exists eternally and commands the laws of nature. He is not subject to them. The whole point of miracles is to demonstrate His existence and authority.

In any event, you may know my thinking from a previous exchange: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-11.html#post3773009, http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-12.html#post3775892

 

[konradv]

I'm just relieved to know you don't think what I typed, you wouldn't be the first on this site to believe the crazy stuff I typed with regards to the Great Flood.

If you aren't the type to be dumb enough to think 2 of every animal including dinosaurs quietly sat down next to man, lions next to antelopes, T-Rex next to triceratops all casually fitting on a 450 long boat, you're an upgrade intellectually to the type I've been discussing with on here the last few days.

Well, I'm not a young-earth creationist, and it seems pretty clear to me that dinosaurs were extinct long before extant mammals showed up. On the other hand, challenging the idea that God led the pertinent creatures of the region to board Noah's Ark actually begins by challenging the existence of the biblical God. If God exists and can create the Cosmos, putting some animals in an Ark for safekeeping is chump change. I believe he did just that, and my belief in that begins with my belief that the Father raised the Son from the dead, perhaps an even more impressive miracle. By definition God exists eternally and commands the laws of nature. He is not subject to them. The whole point of miracles is to demonstrate His existence and authority.

In any event, you may know my thinking from a previous exchange: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-11.html#post3773009, http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-12.html#post3775892

The problem with the ark story is that there's never been a worldwide flood during the time humans have been on earth. I don't challenge the existence of God, just that Grenesis is literal. If it isn't then, no problem, the Bible should be read as a guide for our lives not a history or science text. If it is true, then God plays with our minds, because no evidence of such a thing occuring has ever been shown to be true. I prefer the former interpretation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem with the ark story is that there's never been a worldwide flood during the time humans have been on earth. I don't challenge the existence of God, just that Grenesis is literal. If it isn't then, no problem, the Bible should be read as a guide for our lives not a history or science text. If it is true, then God plays with our minds, because no evidence of such a thing occuring has ever been shown to be true. I prefer the former interpretation.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Didn't you read the information at the end of the links I provided?

The Bible does describe a literal historical event, a literal worldwide flood, albeit, relative to the limited, pre-scientific perspective of the ancient Hebrews who were not aware of the fact that the world was round or extended beyond known regions of human habitation all those many years ago. God doesn't play with your mind; He expects you to use your mind and rightly understand the matter. The fact of the Noahic Flood has been well-established by science, geologically and archeologically. It most certainly did happen. What's wrong with you? It's a simple, straightforward matter. We know it to have been merely a regional flood post-scientifically.

Hello! Anybody home? It's not the biblical account that has been falsified; its the pre-scientific cosmology and hermeneutics of the ancients that has been falsified, their limited perspective. The Bible is not a scientific treatise; it's a theological treatise. God expects you to grasp that and adjust your understanding of it accordingly, in the light of new information. The only one playing with your mind is you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The problem with the ark story is that there's never been a worldwide flood during the time humans have been on earth. I don't challenge the existence of God, just that Grenesis is literal. If it isn't then, no problem, the Bible should be read as a guide for our lives not a history or science text. If it is true, then God plays with our minds, because no evidence of such a thing occuring has ever been shown to be true. I prefer the former interpretation.

I hear that most Young Earth Creationists believe that there actually WAS a Noah's Ark, and that there was a worldwide flood. Some have gone so far as to (mistakenly) claim that the flood "created" the Grand Canyon!!

Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: The Grand Canyon and Young Earth Creationism

Hello! There's no reason not to believe in a literal Ark. I believe there was a literal Ark. There's certainly no reason whatsoever that it couldn't have been built just as described.

A literal worldwide flood in the post-scientific sense is an entirely different matter.

 

[Toronado3800]

By Rabbi Yonason Goldson
July 20, 2011
Jewish World Review


Knowledge and understanding have caught up with yet another aspect of Creation

Virtually unique to human beings, serving no physiological purpose, and subject to fatal inflammation, the human appendix provided Charles Darwin with what he believed to be compelling evidence to support his theory of evolution. An organ contributing no benefits and potential harm could surely be nothing more than a remnant from distant ancestors in whom it served a function no longer relevant to man's evolved form.

LINK

Evolution happens so fast on a geologic scale I can not believe folks do not believe in it. Look at your dogs and what a few hundred years of selective breeding have done.

Should this shake your faith in God? Only if you must take the bible literally which is pretty dangerous if you consider how many men are involved in translating and printing the book. I see no problem with a supreme being creating the universe and setting the mechanics of evolution in place.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The problem with the ark story is that there's never been a worldwide flood during the time humans have been on earth. I don't challenge the existence of God, just that Grenesis is literal. If it isn't then, no problem, the Bible should be read as a guide for our lives not a history or science text. If it is true, then God plays with our minds, because no evidence of such a thing occuring has ever been shown to be true. I prefer the former interpretation.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Didn't you read the information at the end of the links I provided?

The Bible does describe a literal historical event, a literal worldwide flood, albeit, relative to the limited, pre-scientific perspective of the ancient Hebrews who were not aware of the fact that the world was round or extended beyond known regions of human habitation all those many years ago. God doesn't play with your mind; He expects you to use your mind and rightly understand the matter. The fact of the Noahic Flood has been well-established by science, geologically and archeologically. It most certainly did happen. What's wrong with you? It's a simple, straightforward matter. We know it to have been merely a regional flood post-scientifically.

Hello! Anybody home? It's not the biblical account that has been falsified; its the pre-scientific cosmology and hermeneutics of the ancients that has been falsified, their limited perspective. The Bible is not a scientific treatise; it's a theological treatise. God expects you to grasp that and adjust your understanding of it accordingly, in the light of new information. The only one playing with your mind is you.

The Bible also gives specifics on the size of the ship though, which is an impossibility based on everything the Bible claims the ship was carrying.

Saying it was a magical ship that could carry more than what's physically possible would make more sense than saying a 450 foot boat could carry 2 of every animal with all the food and water to keep them alive and ample space to keep them separate from killing each other.