Who was Adam

[grmorton]

I have just written a review of Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross' Who was Adam? book. I have posted it to my web page, but it is not entirely knitted in with everything right now. I will take criticisms now and when I get back to Beijing next week will consider and incorporate the most important ones.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/whowasadam.htm

[Seasanctuary]

I loved the bit about the thousands of miles per hour wind earlier on because the earth was spinning a few times faster. Everyone knows that's where wind comes from!

[oxmixmudd]

I have just written a review of Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross' Who was Adam? book. I have posted it to my web page, but it is not entirely knitted in with everything right now. I will take criticisms now and when I get back to Beijing next week will consider and incorporate the most important ones.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/whowasadam.htm

typo:

But of course this totally ignores the work of Joanna Mountain and here colleagues

Do you need a comma or other parenthetical here?:

Secondly, one must realize that on Jupiter>?<which has a rotation rate much faster than earth, the fastest winds are in the order of 350 mph. These are in the outer atmosphere.

It was a good read. I didn't realize the use of tools and religion went back so far. One question: the guy shown to bring in the red ochre - is this by accident? If not, how does one know the entire find is not a hoax?


Thanks again for the work you do Glenn.

Jim

[grmorton]

typo:

But of course this totally ignores the work of Joanna Mountain and here colleagues

Do you need a comma or other parenthetical here?:

Secondly, one must realize that on Jupiter>?<which has a rotation rate much faster than earth, the fastest winds are in the order of 350 mph. These are in the outer atmosphere.

It was a good read. I didn't realize the use of tools and religion went back so far. One question: the guy shown to bring in the red ochre - is this by accident? If not, how does one know the entire find is not a hoax?


Thanks again for the work you do Glenn.

Jim

I fixed the typos and re-uploaded. I leave for the airport in 30 minutes to go back to the States yet again(boy I am tired of this). Anyway, it is mineralogy which allows one to know where the ochre comes from. If it is not found naturally in the cave, then it has to be brought in from outside. Where becomes a matter of comparing the chemical composition of the ochre with natural sources in the area.

[Assyrian]

Hi Glenn

They make things worse when they apparently claim that fishing is equivalent to the image of God.

You may be pushing it a bit here. What they say is that fishing required sophisticated cognitive capacity, it is the cognative ability they see as being in the image of God, not fishing.

To illustrate how ad hoc, if mankind were created 100,000 years ago and as they claim, Abraham lived 4,000 years there are 20 people in 96,000 years, or one person every 4800 years or so.

Is there an 'ago' missing? Or are they talking extreme longevity?

Thanks for the info on early human altars. Cool.

Assyrian

[grmorton]

Hi Glenn

You may be pushing it a bit here. What they say is that fishing required sophisticated cognitive capacity, it is the cognative ability they see as being in the image of God, not fishing.

No. Sorry for not seeing this earlier. I have been traveling from China to the US like crazy lately and have been missing much.

Is there an 'ago' missing? Or are they talking extreme longevity?

Thanks for the info on early human altars. Cool.

Assyrian

there is an 'ago' missing.

[grmorton]

I am adding this to my web page, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/whowasadam.htm

But this will stir up my out-of-Africa friends. In my mind if we humans have any significant evidence of ancient events in our genomes, we can't be purely the result of total replacement, but that is going to clearly be controversial and challenge cherished beliefs. I would ask my friends on the ooa side, how do you deal with a P which is 10^-17 ?

Out- of- Africa--a dead theory

Rana and Ross depend upon the Out-of-Africa/Recent Replacement theory to be correct. If that theory is falsified, then their views also are falsified. Alan Templeton recently published "Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins" in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 2005, (48:33-59). This article examines 25 different locations in human nuclear DNA instead of mtDNA. The paper then combines the results of all these locales and proves that the Out-of-Africa theory is false. It takes multiple sites across the human genome and statistically analyses them for population expansions. Unlike mtDNA, nuclear DNA is capable of detecting population events (expansions) several million years ago. Templeton detected three major population expansions.

The first population expansion dates 1.9 million years ago (Templeton, 2005, p. 48). This event did not happen 100 kyr ago as the Out-of-Africa model would require as would the RTB Rana/Ross model. The 95% confidence limits on this expansion are .99 million years to 3.1 million years ago. In other words, there is a 95% chance that it happened prior to 1 million years ago. Three genetic systems showed this pattern (CYP1A2, Lactase and Fut2). If all humans arose only 100,000 years ago, we should not have evidence of earlier expansions in our genes. This expansion corresponds archaeologically with the expansion of H. erectus into Eurasia. If we are unrelated to them, our genes should not show this expansion.

The second population expansion dates at 0.65 million years ago (95% confidence of it happening between 390,000 and 970,000 years ago). Seven genetic regions showed this expansion. This expansion also should not be seen in human genomes if we arose from a tiny population 100,000 years ago, yet it is there. This expansion correlates to the spread of the Acheulean hand-ax culture, which originated in Africa but spread to the rest of the world (Templeton, 2005, p. 48).

The final expansion seen in our genes is the one the mtDNA illuminates. The nuclear genome dates this event at 130,000 years ago (95% confidence interval of 96,000 to 169,000 years ago). Five nuclear genomic regions showed this expansion. This is the expansion of anatomically modern man through the world (Templeton, 2005, p. 48).

Templeton then tested whether or not all the detected population expansions were simultaneous. The data indicated that there was only one chance in 1015 that the expansions happened at the same time (Templeton, 2005, p. 48). In other words, probabilities rule out that the nuclear genome of humans arose in one expansion whether that expansion happened 130,000 years ago or earlier. This is practical proof of interbreeding between all humans over the past 2 million years. If humans have NO genetic input from any of the archaic hominids, we should not see this kind of statistical pattern in the DNA.

Templeton concludes with this damning statement of the Out-of-Africa theory.

"One hypothesis about recent human evolution was the out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis, in which anatomically modern humans arose first in Africa, then expanded out-of-Africa as a new type (or even species) of humans, and drove the older 'type' of humans found on the Eurasian continent to total genetic extinction. The early work on mtDNA haplotype trees was often presented as proof of this hypothesis, but there was no effort to test the replacement hypothesis vs. alternatives with the mtDNA (Templeton, 1994). With multilocus data sets, the hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P< 10-17). Thus, the hypothesis of total replacement can no longer be regarded as tenable." (Templeton, 2005, p. 56)

If this theory is no longer tenable, then neither is the RTB model, as Rana and Ross proclaim.

[dtyler]

I am adding this to my web page, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/whowasadam.htm

But this will stir up my out-of-Africa friends. In my mind if we humans have any significant evidence of ancient events in our genomes, we can't be purely the result of total replacement, but that is going to clearly be controversial and challenge cherished beliefs.

Hi Glenn. I was just catching up with TWeb and this thread, and thinking you would enjoy reading Templeton's challenge to the OOA research, when I read this! I've now read your review and congratulate you on putting some solid thoughts together. I was amazed to read about the Precambrian wind argument: where did they get this from?

One of the topics you might discuss is "why did it take so long for human culture to mature?". Rana and Ross can, at least, say that a large proportion of time attributed to human evolution was prior to man being a spiritual being and an image-bearer. (They still have problems, though, with anything longer than a few thousand years). But you have a much bigger problem here, for you want to trace true humans back over several million years. Why so little cultural change? In the Bible, we have cultural change appearing very rapidly as Adam's family grew in size and spread around. Does this not suggest the need to look again at the chronologies attributed to cultural evolution?

[grmorton]

Hi Glenn. I was just catching up with TWeb and this thread, and thinking you would enjoy reading Templeton's challenge to the OOA research, when I read this! I've now read your review and congratulate you on putting some solid thoughts together. I was amazed to read about the Precambrian wind argument: where did they get this from?

Hi David, it is good to have you visit here again. Thanks for the kind words. Hugh and company simply do what YECs and other antievolutionists do--twist the world so that it fits into their preconception. While I can't help but like you, in spite of our disagreements, I do find it odd that you find their argument so weird when you do similar things in twisting the world to your view.

One of the topics you might discuss is "why did it take so long for human culture to mature?".

This one is easy. Mankind is NOT inherently inventive. Inventiveness requires lots of people, lots of mental stimulation when a child and lots of education. Prior to agriculture, mankind lived in groups of 20-100 people and there simply wasn't enough intellectual stimulation to create inventive people. Look what happened to the Tasmanians when the sea levels rose and cut them off from the huge population in Australia. They lost technology after technology. 4000 people is simply not enough to even maintain technology, much less invent new ones. So, until the population density was high enough, culture couldn't grow.

Rana and Ross can, at least, say that a large proportion of time attributed to human evolution was prior to man being a spiritual being and an image-bearer. (They still have problems, though, with anything longer than a few thousand years). But you have a much bigger problem here, for you want to trace true humans back over several million years. Why so little cultural change? In the Bible, we have cultural change appearing very rapidly as Adam's family grew in size and spread around. Does this not suggest the need to look again at the chronologies attributed to cultural evolution?

See above for why humanity didn't create rocket ships 500,000 years ago. I would also like to ask how many things you have invented? How many patents do you have? I didn't have any until I was well past 50 years of age and supposedly I am a modern inventive human. But maybe I was slow and didn't invent anything, but then, I know that the vast majority of humans don't invent anything. And without invention, culture can't advance.

[dtyler]

Hi David, it is good to have you visit here again. Thanks for the kind words.

Credit where credit is due!

Hugh and company simply do what YECs and other antievolutionists do--twist the world so that it fits into their preconception. While I can't help but like you, in spite of our disagreements, I do find it odd that you find their argument so weird when you do similar things in twisting the world to your view.

We all strive for consistency, I think. I am sure you would say that about your Messinian Flood model, whereas others might say that is you twisting the world to your view.

Regarding innovation in human culture, you write:

This one is easy. Mankind is NOT inherently inventive.

Hold it there! My view is the opposite: mankind IS inherently inventive. If it is not technological, then it is aesthetic (art, literature, etc). My grounds for thinking this are based on the biblical teaching that man is made in the image of God. We are creative because God is creative.

Inventiveness requires lots of people, lots of mental stimulation when a child and lots of education. Prior to agriculture, mankind lived in groups of 20-100 people and there simply wasn't enough intellectual stimulation to create inventive people. Look what happened to the Tasmanians when the sea levels rose and cut them off from the huge population in Australia. They lost technology after technology. 4000 people is simply not enough to even maintain technology, much less invent new ones. So, until the population density was high enough, culture couldn't grow.

I have no problems with the thought that culture can be lost. Your examples of cultural decline are good, but what are the grounds for thinking that "inventiveness requires lots of people"? Are you turning a correlation into a causal explanation?

See above for why humanity didn't create rocket ships 500,000 years ago.

Note that I am not even hinting at this. I am pointing out that the widely accepted chronologies of cultural evolution have thousands of years of stasis, which certainly clashes with my own expectation that although human creativity can be depressed for numerous reasons, it cannot be held under for such long periods.

I would also like to ask how many things you have invented? How many patents do you have? I didn't have any until I was well past 50 years of age and supposedly I am a modern inventive human. But maybe I was slow and didn't invent anything, but then, I know that the vast majority of humans don't invent anything. And without invention, culture can't advance.

Patents are not a good measure of being inventive. (I did invent some test equipment, and it was commercialised. But the company concerned decided against patenting the IP.) My view is that people invent things all the time. People make things for their personal use and to give to others; People experiment with different ways of doing things until they find the optimum for themselves; children do the same and are bursting with creativity. It is a sad indictment on our culture if we go around thinking that the vast majority of humans don't invent anything.

[JCA]

If I may, I wanted to make a comment about 'inventiveness'.. and BTW, HI Glenn. Glad to see you still around, and alive and kicking. They going to let you have a rest any time soon? Seems that work is trying to wring as much out of you as possible before you become and old man

Anyway, onward..

I think there is a big difference between individual inventiveness, and cultural inventiveness. Individually, I think that we are quite inventive.. but most of what we invent is 'individual' to us and maybe our immediate surroundings. This doesn't always become an invention that would become mainstream.. in fact, maybe rarely.. but it does speak for us as being 'inventive' naturally.

Inventions that change us culturally, it seems to me, are ones that people have worked on FOR their culture, race, or 'others' in general. The sharing of the invention is how we generally get to see it as a culture, and maybe decide it is 'good'.. but individual inventions rarely get shared amoungst a large populace, UNLESS they have obvious and immediate cultural aspects which get seen and enhance the sharing.

So in essence, I am saying that I can see both Glenn and dtylers pov, as neither is quite correct, or wrong; IMHO. It is just that I see this difference in 'inventiveness', and can see how up until the last 100 or so years, it would have been difficult to have come up with large cultural inventions.. not just because of the increase in scientific knowledge, but also on the ability to share such knowledge with a large enough populace being an issue.

We take a lot of things for granted today, thinking it couldn't have been that hard 'back then'.. It was a whole different world.. in fact, inventors have been played as being 'crackpots' for years in movies etc., and when you look at the amount of people in the world compared to how many invent 'major' inventions, I wouldn't put us as the most culturally inventive people - in the past.


Just MHO, of course.


IN Love and Peace

JCA

[grmorton]

[QUOTE=JCA]If I may, I wanted to make a comment about 'inventiveness'.. and BTW, HI Glenn. Glad to see you still around, and alive and kicking. They going to let you have a rest any time soon? Seems that work is trying to wring as much out of you as possible before you become and old man [/qoute]

What do you mean by 'before' I become an old man. I think I am past that now. I am the oldest person in my office in Beijing and I still get no respect.

Anyway, onward..

I think there is a big difference between individual inventiveness, and cultural inventiveness. Individually, I think that we are quite inventive.. but most of what we invent is 'individual' to us and maybe our immediate surroundings. This doesn't always become an invention that would become mainstream.. in fact, maybe rarely.. but it does speak for us as being 'inventive' naturally.

I would agree IF and only if one is placed in a society with lots of people and lots of intellectual stimulation as a child. Psychological studies on children deprived of early intellectual stimulation are stunted intellectually for life. There is even a difference on average between those who live and grow up in tiny towns vs, those who grow up in big cities where there are cultural and scientific opportunities. I think one of the reasons I bloomed a bit late (like in my mid 40's on, is that I grew up in small towns where the educational opportunities and the cultural opportunities were lacking.

Inventions that change us culturally, it seems to me, are ones that people have worked on FOR their culture, race, or 'others' in general. The sharing of the invention is how we generally get to see it as a culture, and maybe decide it is 'good'.. but individual inventions rarely get shared amoungst a large populace, UNLESS they have obvious and immediate cultural aspects which get seen and enhance the sharing.

I would disagree that one works on an invention for one's culture. Having now lived in 3 cultures, I am finding that each experience changes me and makes me much more than I was before. Living here in China and being now, semi-fluent (as long as both parties speak slowly) I know how much this opportunity has changed me. I like this quote from John Lienhard,

John Lienhard, The Engins of Our Ingenuity, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 4

“At first, the notion that technology drives our minds may be surprising. Shouldn't it be the other way around? After all, we teach people tobe technologists. We train their minds so they can dictate the course of technology. Yet who on this planet would be clever enough to invent, say, a microcomputer? Who did invent the microcomputer? The answer is that nobody did. It invented itselfl At each point in its evolution the machine revealed more of its potential. In each stage it exposed one more step that this or that person recognized and leaped to complete.”
“One Christmas my wife and I gave a primitive Vic20 home computer to our then-fifteen-year-old son. He vanished into his room for two weeks and emerged about Epiphanytide (appropriately enough), able to program in Basic. Who taught him? The computer did. It
expanded his mind and made him more than he was. He came out of his room changed. Like all of us, he was being shaped by his technology. Technology, the lore of making and using implements, is a primary element in our cultural heritage. The tools, implements, and machines around us enfold and instruct us from birth to death.”

© source where applicable

So in essence, I am saying that I can see both Glenn and dtylers pov, as neither is quite correct, or wrong; IMHO. It is just that I see this difference in 'inventiveness', and can see how up until the last 100 or so years, it would have been difficult to have come up with large cultural inventions.. not just because of the increase in scientific knowledge, but also on the ability to share such knowledge with a large enough populace being an issue.

No one is inventive unless they have lived in a stimulating environment and that is lacking in many primitive tribes with merely 5000 words in their languages.

For your consideration.

[dtyler]

I would agree IF and only if one is placed in a society with lots of people and lots of intellectual stimulation as a child. Psychological studies on children deprived of early intellectual stimulation are stunted intellectually for life. There is even a difference on average between those who live and grow up in tiny towns vs, those who grow up in big cities where there are cultural and scientific opportunities. I think one of the reasons I bloomed a bit late (like in my mid 40's on, is that I grew up in small towns where the educational opportunities and the cultural opportunities were lacking.

Deprivation in early life is the sad experience of some children, but most get stimulation from parents and family and from friends. Growing up in a cultural backwater is not a form of psychological deprivation! Cultural backwaters leave their mark, however, in the values, expectations and aspirations of children. These cultures can inhibit creativity and innovation, but I am not convinced they always do this. Cosmopolitan and media-rich cultures may support creativity and innovation, but some may have a destructive effect on the people they influence. People have often discussed the question of why science did not flower among the ancient Greeks, or the Medieval Chinese or Arabs, yet it did in 17th Century Europe. All of these cultures had the potential to stimulate and to be a catalyst for science to develop, but history shows that, in 3 cases out of 4, the seeds did not become plants.

The point I am making is that there are more issues relevant to this theme than we have yet identified.

I would disagree that one works on an invention for one's culture. Having now lived in 3 cultures, I am finding that each experience changes me and makes me much more than I was before. Living here in China and being now, semi-fluent (as long as both parties speak slowly) I know how much this opportunity has changed me.

I'll second this! Travel plus engagement with people from other cultures is generally very enriching.

I like this quote from John Lienhard,

John Lienhard, The Engins of Our Ingenuity, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 4

“(snip) Who did invent the microcomputer? The answer is that nobody did. It invented itself.” (snip)

© source where applicable

I can't say I like it. It's very misleading. He might have made the point that some inventions today are so complex that they are beyond the capabilities of individuals, and a team of inventive people are needed.

No one is inventive unless they have lived in a stimulating environment and that is lacking in many primitive tribes with merely 5000 words in their languages.

I am not wanting to underplay the importance of a stimulating environment, but I do not think we are going very deep here. "Primitive" tribes are complex structures, with all sorts of taboos, customs and mechanisms for enforcing conformity with social norms. (For that matter, we find such things in our own societies also!)

My interest is in rooting this exchange of views in a biblical understanding of mankind. This takes us back to Genesis 1-5. Our first parents were not primitive savages. Their first work was caring for the Garden of Eden. Their sons were farmers. After some years we read of a city being built, of people being innovative with musical instruments and working with metal. Innovation and creativity were there at the beginning of human history. At very least, this suggests that we start with the view that man is innately creative and ask questions about what stifles this creativity. I would go further and argue that man is innately creative because he was made in God's image, and because God is creative, so are we.

So, man can lose creativity for all sorts of reasons. A cultural backwater is one possible factor. The point I made earlier is that human social structures are not going to be stable over tens of thousands of years. Things change! People change! I continue to find it remarkable that the cultures of Old Stone Age man are assigned such long chronologies. For the reasons above, "the lack of a stimulating environment" is not convincing to account for these long timescales. The claim that "Mankind is NOT inherently inventive" is IMO not supported biblically. So I think it is both rational and sensible to question the commonly attributed chronologies.

[grmorton]

Deprivation in early life is the sad experience of some children, but most get stimulation from parents and family and from friends. Growing up in a cultural backwater is not a form of psychological deprivation! Cultural backwaters leave their mark, however, in the values, expectations and aspirations of children. These cultures can inhibit creativity and innovation, but I am not convinced they always do this. Cosmopolitan and media-rich cultures may support creativity and innovation, but some may have a destructive effect on the people they influence. People have often discussed the question of why science did not flower among the ancient Greeks, or the Medieval Chinese or Arabs, yet it did in 17th Century Europe. All of these cultures had the potential to stimulate and to be a catalyst for science to develop, but history shows that, in 3 cases out of 4, the seeds did not become plants.

Sorry, David, I don't agree with the above. When I finally moved to the big city I found myself behind them in knowledge, and I found myself at a bit of a disadvantage in competitive ability. If what you say is true, why then don't primitive Amazon tribes lead the way in inventing things?

The point I am making is that there are more issues relevant to this theme than we have yet identified.

David, in almost every post you make you say there is something more, but then that something remains nebulous and undefined.

I'll second this! Travel plus engagement with people from other cultures is generally very enriching.

This is inconsistent with what you say below


I can't say I like it. It's very misleading. He might have made the point that some inventions today are so complex that they are beyond the capabilities of individuals, and a team of inventive people are needed.


I am not wanting to underplay the importance of a stimulating environment, but I do not think we are going very deep here. "Primitive" tribes are complex structures, with all sorts of taboos, customs and mechanisms for enforcing conformity with social norms. (For that matter, we find such things in our own societies also!)

My interest is in rooting this exchange of views in a biblical understanding of mankind. This takes us back to Genesis 1-5. Our first parents were not primitive savages. Their first work was caring for the Garden of Eden. Their sons were farmers. After some years we read of a city being built, of people being innovative with musical instruments and working with metal. Innovation and creativity were there at the beginning of human history. At very least, this suggests that we start with the view that man is innately creative and ask questions about what stifles this creativity. I would go further and argue that man is innately creative because he was made in God's image, and because God is creative, so are we.

So, man can lose creativity for all sorts of reasons. A cultural backwater is one possible factor. The point I made earlier is that human social structures are not going to be stable over tens of thousands of years. Things change! People change! I continue to find it remarkable that the cultures of Old Stone Age man are assigned such long chronologies. For the reasons above, "the lack of a stimulating environment" is not convincing to account for these long timescales. The claim that "Mankind is NOT inherently inventive" is IMO not supported biblically. So I think it is both rational and sensible to question the commonly attributed chronologies.[/QUOTE]

Yes, cultural backwaters do indeed suppress invention. The cost of trying something new in a small technologically primitive tribe is that the entire tribe dies. And I would disagree that such societies are not stable. If you look around at primitive tribes around the world, they have many of the same features inspite of having different religions and different languages. Many of them have places of refuge just like defined in the Bible.

Mankind is inventive only when there is a proper environment and a proper need.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, David, I don't agree with the above. When I finally moved to the big city I found myself behind them in knowledge, and I found myself at a bit of a disadvantage in competitive ability. If what you say is true, why then don't primitive Amazon tribes lead the way in inventing things?



David, in almost every post you make you say there is something more, but then that something remains nebulous and undefined.




This is inconsistent with what you say below


I can't say I like it. It's very misleading. He might have made the point that some inventions today are so complex that they are beyond the capabilities of individuals, and a team of inventive people are needed.


I am not wanting to underplay the importance of a stimulating environment, but I do not think we are going very deep here. "Primitive" tribes are complex structures, with all sorts of taboos, customs and mechanisms for enforcing conformity with social norms. (For that matter, we find such things in our own societies also!)

My interest is in rooting this exchange of views in a biblical understanding of mankind. This takes us back to Genesis 1-5. Our first parents were not primitive savages. Their first work was caring for the Garden of Eden. Their sons were farmers. After some years we read of a city being built, of people being innovative with musical instruments and working with metal. Innovation and creativity were there at the beginning of human history. At very least, this suggests that we start with the view that man is innately creative and ask questions about what stifles this creativity. I would go further and argue that man is innately creative because he was made in God's image, and because God is creative, so are we.

So, man can lose creativity for all sorts of reasons. A cultural backwater is one possible factor. The point I made earlier is that human social structures are not going to be stable over tens of thousands of years. Things change! People change! I continue to find it remarkable that the cultures of Old Stone Age man are assigned such long chronologies. For the reasons above, "the lack of a stimulating environment" is not convincing to account for these long timescales. The claim that "Mankind is NOT inherently inventive" is IMO not supported biblically. So I think it is both rational and sensible to question the commonly attributed chronologies.

Yes, cultural backwaters do indeed suppress invention. The cost of trying something new in a small technologically primitive tribe is that the entire tribe dies. And I would disagree that such societies are not stable. If you look around at primitive tribes around the world, they have many of the same features inspite of having different religions and different languages. Many of them have places of refuge just like defined in the Bible.

Mankind is inventive only when there is a proper environment and a proper need.

The cost of inventiveness may always be survival: re the Atom bomb, biologcial warfare etc. etc.

I have speculated that one of the meanings of 'Salvation' for mankind is a change in character that will reduce or eliminate the possibility of self destruction.

Jim