PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design?



Noodles
05-10-2005, 09:30 PM
Anyone buying this?

Should this sort of thing really be considered science?

Let's all pray for Kansas.

Little_Miss_1565
05-10-2005, 09:32 PM
I think it's time for the United States of Canada/Jesusland split.

Endymion
05-10-2005, 10:14 PM
psh, intelligent design has already been shown false by Adami et al at caltech using avida. that is, they showed that irreducibly complex structures can evolve naturally. i can dig up the papers if you'd like.

Noodles
05-10-2005, 10:40 PM
No thanks, Endy. I've seen enough complex life forms grow in my own shower to know that it doesn't take any intelligent design to spur them on. Quite the opposite actually.

Endymion
05-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Quite the opposite actually.

yes yes YES! there's a revolution slowly going on in sciences all across the board, and it's been creeping up for a couple decades now. people are finally figuring out that even the simplest of systems can be as complex as anything in the universe (ie s=2 r=1 1d cellular automata can be turing complete! rule 110). oh, i could go on into the works of chaitin, wolfram, cahill, and so on... but i'm going out to dinner now.

Rye
05-10-2005, 11:24 PM
Could you enlighten me a bit more of what you're talking about? I'm afraid I don't hear much news in the science/math world.

Little_Miss_1565
05-11-2005, 12:01 AM
Endy, you give me the brain pains. I do not understand this science of which you speak. I could do up a nice psychoanalytic criticism of anything the pro-intelligent design people publish, though...

Noodles, invite Kansas to your shower. If that doesn't convince them, hey, maybe you can use other methods of persuasion.

RXP
05-11-2005, 12:11 AM
To quote a new show "it's as likely for a tornado travelling thru a junk yard to create buckenham palace as it is for life to emerge from the big bang"

Endymion
05-11-2005, 12:24 AM
why is that? which particular step is so improbable that it must be seen as impossible?

RXP
05-11-2005, 02:09 AM
Impossible? It wasn't implying that. Merely improbable.

Besdies probability is a funny game. I'm a determinlist not sure how this effects probability cause I don't know jack shit about maths but whatever happens: happens.

Also post a link to those papers please.

RonWelty
05-11-2005, 10:54 AM
Could you enlighten me a bit more of what you're talking about? I'm afraid I don't hear much news in the science/math world.
lool ..u have to accuse FOX ...they destroy us ...no more time to see other things .....all our knowledge go away .... but that peter griffin is damn hot :D

"canīt touch me " LOLOL

noodleet
05-11-2005, 11:04 AM
ive fully got no idea what intelligent design is.. is that because im english? and buckingham palace is just a junk yard.. nobody in england likes the queen like you yanks think =D she just steals hard working peoples' money and doesnt even put it back into the economy by buying stuff.. she sucks man

Endymion
05-11-2005, 12:22 PM
i've always hated a monarchy...

intelligent design is the belief that biological complexity can not evolve naturally, and as such was designed by a higher being (typically god).

here's a writeup about a discover article i didn't know existed about the subject: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html . i'll dig through arxiv.org for the actual scientific papers. unfortunately i don't remember the title to it since i originally found out about it when i had the pleasure of attending a private talk by adami.

Mota Boy
05-11-2005, 12:35 PM
Let's all pray for Kansas.
Yes yes, let's all prey on Kansas.

noodleet
05-11-2005, 01:20 PM
well, thanks for enlightening me. i think there's a god, but ive got no idea, to be honest i dont think a human mind is capable of thinking so deeply to see the real aspect of having a god or afterlife. We always think we're the best and what we think is right as we're the smartest race on the planet, but i reckon the rest of life in other places, this life or some other kind of life are much smarter than us

Skate Rat 19
05-11-2005, 03:52 PM
well heres the only way that would work without "God". Robots happened to asemble themselves and create DNA and what not and sent it to Earth and it grew into everything that is today.

Endymion
05-11-2005, 07:55 PM
well heres the only way that would work without "God". Robots happened to asemble themselves and create DNA and what not and sent it to Earth and it grew into everything that is today.

chemicals can't form naturally?

also, the point of this stuff isn't to say there is no god, or to say that god didn't create mankind and all other life, it's just to say that there are explanations other than creationism.

Homer
05-11-2005, 08:03 PM
Well.... I don't know what to think. With all these religions and science and everything, it's hard to know what's right about stuff like this.

(if that doesn't make sense.... it's because I'm tired)

RXP
05-12-2005, 12:32 AM
Who knows what to think? physics gets to the point where it sounds ridiclolous as god.

Just live life and use life's big questions for your entertainment.

Mota Boy
05-12-2005, 07:35 AM
Who knows what to think? physics gets to the point where it sounds ridiclolous as god.
What the hell are you saying - that because you can't understand advanced physics it must require as large a leap of faith as believing in Divine creation?

That's one of the more idiotic things I've heard come out of your... fingers?

Also, the tornado analogy is god-awful. Comparing the slow, steady, self-checking progress of evolution with a minute-long rearranging of garbage? How the could you ever buy into that?

T-6005
05-13-2005, 06:54 AM
Intelligent design is crap.

Should I be supporting my belief?

Well, it IS.

Anywho, the evolution of a chemical or lifeform of any complexity could be a purely random process brought about by the passage of time.

Each of the world's events is predictably set from the first random event which created the universe.

leo3375
05-13-2005, 10:04 PM
There really is no scientific evidence backing Intelligent Design. Evolution has scientific evidence, and it's still happening as I write this.

Take bacteria for example. We discover antibiotics that kill the vast majority of bacteria. However, that species of bacteria will go extinct if it did not develop a resistance to the antibiotic. The result is that more and more bacteria evolve a resistance to common household cleaners and medicines, prompting us to develop more powerful antibiotics.

Another example is the domestic dog. We know that it is decended from the wolf, ergo it evolved from the wolf. Over thousands of years humans have bred these creatures to achieve "desirable" behaviors, looks, and senses. If one creature could take on so many different appearances and traits in the course of 10,000 years, think of what could happen over the course of millions of years.

Endymion
05-13-2005, 11:49 PM
Anywho, the evolution of a chemical or lifeform of any complexity could be a purely random process brought about by the passage of time.

Each of the world's events is predictably set from the first random event which created the universe.

bullshit on both counts.

first, the very essence of evolution is the whole "survival of the fittest" thing. what is survival of the fittest? it's a selection process; that is, it's a form of maxwell's demon. it's a filter that only allows those with a fitness equal to or higher than those around to continue.

the second, as quantum mechanics and bell inequalities have clearly shown, is wrong because there is, at least at a limit, randomness in our world. at best, we have a world such as that of zuse, wolfram, and others, which say that our world is *deterministic*, but that does not mean predictable. there are limits to compressibility, so who's to say you can always predict the outcome of a system? maybe the only way to know is to actually run it, there's no faster way.

as for bacteria, the best research of bacterial evolution is being done (for the past twentyish years) by dr. lenski at msu.

ermdevi@tion
05-14-2005, 04:41 AM
first, the very essence of evolution is the whole "survival of the fittest" thing. what is survival of the fittest? it's a selection process; that is, it's a form of maxwell's demon. it's a filter that only allows those with a fitness equal to or higher than those around to continue.

"Survival of the fittest" is a pretty poor term to use when describing darwinist evolutionary theory. Mainly because it is a subjectice phrase. "Fittest" could mean biggest, strongest or with most stamina. In effect it has nothing to do with fitness - simply ability to adapt to a situation.

The phrase is essentially a metaphor and is often felt to be unhelpful: it is very close to a tautology, since if "fitness" is measured in the obvious objective terms - survival - the phrase becomes "survival of the survivors".

Also, evolution is now generally accepted to have a measure of not necessarily chance in it, but certainly trial and error.

Finally, and interestingly, in my recent english paper I sat, it was an extract about the impact of comets and asteroids on evolution. Basically it said that over the history of our planet, cosmic impacts have been the main driving force behind evolution. Think I'll have to get a copy of the book it was from.

Little_Miss_1565
05-14-2005, 08:53 AM
bullshit on both counts.

first, the very essence of evolution is the whole "survival of the fittest" thing. what is survival of the fittest? it's a selection process; that is, it's a form of maxwell's demon. it's a filter that only allows those with a fitness equal to or higher than those around to continue.

Whoa now, Endy. Darwin's evolutionary theory had nothing at all to do with "survival of the fittest." That phrase was a corruption of the theory by all the rich white people trying to say that Darwin's theory 'proved' that the honky was the superior species on the planet.

Endymion
05-14-2005, 10:20 AM
i'm not treating fitness as some abstract and arbitrary thing here, i'm using it as a scientific term: the fitness of an organism is defined as the number of viable offspring it produces per unit time in it's environment, normalized against some ancestor if you'd like. the 'in it's environment' part includes resource collection abilities and predator aversion. those whose fitness is the highest dominate an environment. note clearly that fitness is dependent on the environment, so does change over time, even if the genome of the organism does not.


survival of the fittest is at the heart of neodarwinistic evolution, and it is a maxwellian demon.

noodleet
05-14-2005, 05:21 PM
sorry, to ruin the whole "technical talk" going on here, but i find it quite strange how you guys are offspring fans =) i would expect you to be, well, what about some national band or something boring. i dont mean to sound like a cock, sorry if i do..

Telekinesis
05-14-2005, 06:24 PM
All your base are belong to us

Little_Miss_1565
05-14-2005, 06:32 PM
sorry, to ruin the whole "technical talk" going on here, but i find it quite strange how you guys are offspring fans =) i would expect you to be, well, what about some national band or something boring. i dont mean to sound like a cock, sorry if i do..

Then how do you explain your presence here?

Endymion
05-15-2005, 01:48 AM
sorry, to ruin the whole "technical talk" going on here, but i find it quite strange how you guys are offspring fans =) i would expect you to be, well, what about some national band or something boring. i dont mean to sound like a cock, sorry if i do..

i'm no offspring fan, i mostly listen to the norcal hardcore scene.

NOAMR
05-16-2005, 01:06 PM
I think it's stupid to say you can't be an offspring fan if you're intelligent/ got knowledge about a subject. But back to topic: life just seems inprobable to exist trou evolution, cuz you only see the good results. There are really a lot of opportunity's to have an evolution happen, and so it happens one. Even if the chance is just 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000, the world exist allready a long time, so it happens. I've read a book where it was compared to playing a game you don't even know the rules from and tho win: if you get a hundred of bords and each set you do, only the best remains X 100, the champion can't win from you.

Endymion
05-16-2005, 02:18 PM
first off, the universe isn't all that old, only about 13.5 billion years. the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. that makes it about 1/3 the age of the universe. there are currently about 7x10^22 stars in the universe, it is unknown how many support planets, but with the quickly growing number of observed extrasolar stars, the number could be rather high. of those that exist, it is unknown how many can or do support life.

there is no way to say one way or the other if life is common in the universe. all that can be said is that there are at best very few forms of extrasolar life capable of very long range communication for extended periods of time, or of faster-than-light travel, for if either of those were common it is highly likely we would have found out by now.

ermdevi@tion
05-16-2005, 02:46 PM
Theories like expanding/collapsing universe, multiple universe etc all boost the chances of life too. If the universe we live in has destroyed and recreated itself a possible infinite number of times, and there are an infinite number of other possible universes, it makes life seem highly probable.

Moose
05-17-2005, 12:46 PM
i've always hated a monarchy...

intelligent design is the belief that biological complexity can not evolve naturally, and as such was designed by a higher being (typically god).

here's a writeup about a discover article i didn't know existed about the subject: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html . i'll dig through arxiv.org for the actual scientific papers. unfortunately i don't remember the title to it since i originally found out about it when i had the pleasure of attending a private talk by adami.

on that notion, couldnt one just say God allows evolution to occur? its useless to debate, it involves faith, the reason it is so high is because it is impossible to calculate, it is out of our reach or grasp, we can only believe in it, we cant possibly show it, it is above us. even science has trouble showing their beliefs and ideas...some things are just based on belief or faith because they are to above us.

NOAMR
05-18-2005, 08:01 AM
there is no way to say one way or the other if life is common in the universe. all that can be said is that there are at best very few forms of extrasolar life capable of very long range communication for extended periods of time, or of faster-than-light travel, for if either of those were common it is highly likely we would have found out by now.

Do you mean there is no other life possible in the universe than ours? Or do you mean if communication between to lifeforms on a different place would be possible, it would allready happen, and so it isn't possible? If you mean the first thing, we haven't discovered a lot of the universe yet, with spaceships only our own sun and the planets around it exally, and their there is no live possible, cuz it's too hot/too cold. We can't know yet from the planets where it would be possible(ie flying around a star with +- the same distance as us) if there is life upon there.
If you mean no communication possible, you sayed yourself that the universe isn't that old yet, so the evolution can still go far. Yup, maybe, very probable even if you look to the many chances for it, there is allready life that is much more evoluated, and maybe it would be forever impossible to travel to that distance, but it is probable that there comes life to a really shorter distance than us, and so we could travel to there than.

Endymion
05-18-2005, 10:15 AM
what i said is that all we can be sure of is that intelligent life capable of long-range communication or travel can't be too common in the current, recent, or not so recent (depending on distance from the earth) universe, or we'd have noticed it by now. it's entirely possible that there are plenty of aliens out there, but they don't want to make themselves noticeable via their communications (as we seem to be doing).

lost_nvrfound
05-21-2005, 02:04 PM
well, i personally don't have the attention span to read all of the posts but from what i've gathered, ur talking about the relgion connected belief that God created the universe and all its small components...
i am an anti-religion person myself, so i find the whole notion of one greater being creating everything around it to be a load of bs... evolution on the other hand makes a lot of sense to me so... you get the point

Endymion
05-21-2005, 05:13 PM
what makes sense to you? the fact that magically being change over time, some grow crazy beaks, some have fur? just how much about it do you know, and how much do you take on faith, because all those fancy text books and dudes in white lab coats say "that's the way of science"?

don't blindly follow.

lost_nvrfound
05-23-2005, 07:17 PM
don't blindly follow.
clearly i don't blindly follow anything seeing as how i don't partake in organized religion...which is the basis of religion...how can one base their entire life and belief structure around a book that was written 2,000 years ago and has been through many hands that believed that they should make certain changes to better benefit their goals...i've looked a lot farther into the evolution theories than you may realize...

lousyskater
05-25-2005, 01:53 PM
what makes sense to you? the fact that magically being change over time, some grow crazy beaks, some have fur? just how much about it do you know, and how much do you take on faith, because all those fancy text books and dudes in white lab coats say "that's the way of science"?

don't blindly follow.

lol, that got me laughing. the changes aren't "magical" as you put it. most(if not all) of the changes in animals were brought on by genetic mutations. some minor, some major. i'll use bacterial and viral immunity to medicine asd an example. bacteria and viruses don't just "magically" become immune to a medicine, most of them will actually be killed by it. but occasionally, there is 1 or 2 bacteria or virus that mutate during the reproduction process and the outcome of this mutation made it immune to this medicine. since they are immune to the medicine, there is now nothing to stop the spred of this bacteria or virus. Influenza(commonly known as the Flu) is a perfect example of this. for some reason, influenze viruses mutate a lot more then the average virus or bacteria. within a year, the current vaccine for the virus is now useless for getting rid of the virus. this brings us back to the whole survival o the fitest thing. the virus that mutates survives, and the virus that doesn't mutate is wiped out. the same happens plants and animals. some devolope mutations that make it more likely for the mutated animal to survive and spread the genetic mutation. of course, mutations that aid animals rather than harm them arte quite rare, but they do happen.

lost_nvrfound
05-25-2005, 06:34 PM
lol, that got me laughing. the changes aren't "magical" as you put it. most(if not all) of the changes in animals were brought on by genetic mutations. some minor, some major. i'll use bacterial and viral immunity to medicine asd an example. bacteria and viruses don't just "magically" become immune to a medicine, most of them will actually be killed by it. but occasionally, there is 1 or 2 bacteria or virus that mutate during the reproduction process and the outcome of this mutation made it immune to this medicine. since they are immune to the medicine, there is now nothing to stop the spred of this bacteria or virus. Influenza(commonly known as the Flu) is a perfect example of this. for some reason, influenze viruses mutate a lot more then the average virus or bacteria. within a year, the current vaccine for the virus is now useless for getting rid of the virus. this brings us back to the whole survival o the fitest thing. the virus that mutates survives, and the virus that doesn't mutate is wiped out. the same happens plants and animals. some devolope mutations that make it more likely for the mutated animal to survive and spread the genetic mutation. of course, mutations that aid animals rather than harm them arte quite rare, but they do happen.
you put into words what i wanted to explain but found myself too lazy to do so... the whole evolution thing is basically all i took in in biology... i have a very short attention span in class... but some how this ^ stuck... :D

Endymion
05-26-2005, 01:59 PM
that's a very crude and highly imprecise representation of how neodarwinistic evolution works. if you hadn't bothered reading the rest of the thread, i do research in evolutionary biology using artifical life. the post you were replying to was me trying to express that people who believe in biological evolution just because scientists and 'educated' society say you should are just as bad as those who believe some bearded dude in the sky snapped us all into existence.

lost_nvrfound
05-27-2005, 06:28 AM
that's a very crude and highly imprecise representation of how neodarwinistic evolution works. if you hadn't bothered reading the rest of the thread, i do research in evolutionary biology using artifical life. the post you were replying to was me trying to express that people who believe in biological evolution just because scientists and 'educated' society say you should are just as bad as those who believe some bearded dude in the sky snapped us all into existence.
i wasn't replying to any post in particular... jsut to the topic in general

Strider
05-27-2005, 12:14 PM
Dude...I'm not sure if I got the main idea of this thread, but...aww, science and relgion are like parallel lines cut by a fascis of perpendicular lines. They run the same direction, and the perpend. lines represent their similar aspects, but they don't ever cross. So, it is a given that there will always be people who believe only in one thing and people who bleive the other thing. Our discussion won't lead us far.

Endymion
05-27-2005, 12:19 PM
i wasn't replying to any post in particular... jsut to the topic in general

and i was replying to lousyskater.

NOAMR
05-27-2005, 12:25 PM
Well, I think you might be right for a lot off people, but science is basicly about questionize everything, while religion is just about belief. A good scientist always asks questions about it and try to proove whatever he thinks, and another scientist can maybe find a fault..., so that it makes the result something else(well, not very good explained, but I hope you understand). There is an evolution in science, while religion stays the same. Well, of couse, in class, they teach it like it is the truth, but there is no absolute truth. That's also what Endymion means(well, I guess off course) with don't blindly follow.

Strider
05-27-2005, 12:37 PM
Which reminds me...
Do you accept what you're told without even thinking?
Oh dude all this discussion on science stuff could become a song

Endymion
05-27-2005, 02:27 PM
i think noamr caught on to what i was saying--that the vast majority of people take "scientific fact" on pure faith. they have no legitimate reason to believe that the there are completely logical and natural reasons that, say, the computer they use every day works rather than it being some sort of magic voodoo. to most people, all the technology around them is just some sort black box oracle. even moreso when it comes to those crazy physics theories. why in the world would any normal person believe that space curves, that light bends, that time is relative? that the quantum world is just probabilities?

lost_nvrfound
05-27-2005, 03:09 PM
and i was replying to lousyskater.
i apologize

lost_nvrfound
05-27-2005, 03:10 PM
Oh dude all this discussion on science stuff could become a song
sounds like a good idea...now i must write a song about it...

RXP
05-27-2005, 03:16 PM
d would any normal person believe that space curves, that light bends, that time is relative? that the quantum world is just probabilities?

Ha to me theortical physicsists make up a load of bull shit sometimes. Take the M theory. Dimensions 5 thru 10 haven't ever been proven, yet somehow they had a magical 11 dimension so they're equations fit. It's retarded and supported by nothing but mathmatical conjecture. I've read quite a few serious experimental scientists who are pissed off with string theory dominating the unifying theory debate.

Further it's not really hard to understand why space curves, light bends etc. even without the maths. You can get it. BUt sure you coudln't give the mathmatical proof of it. I understand quantum effects quite well for a lay person but I coudln't do the math, obviously.

ermdevi@tion
05-28-2005, 10:01 AM
Dimensions 5 thru 10 haven't ever been proven, yet somehow they had a magical 11 dimension so they're equations fit.

Isn't the maths the proof? Unless you think that mathematical laws change in these other dimensions?


Further it's not really hard to understand why space curves, light bends etc. even without the maths. You can get it.

That's when everyone gets their bedsheet, bowling ball, golf ball explanation ready. :D

Endymion
05-28-2005, 11:57 AM
Isn't the maths the proof? Unless you think that mathematical laws change in these other dimensions?
no, simplely because the math works out isn't a proof. they need to be detected.
i don't think they ever will be, because i don't think there are 11 or anything crazy like that.... but i digress.



That's when everyone gets their bedsheet, bowling ball, golf ball explanation ready. :D
which is highly misleading. in GR, spacetime doesn't exist without matter.

RXP
05-29-2005, 04:34 AM
I highly doubt those who aren't brilliant, I mean absolutely brilliant think in math in their head. When they (i.e. most physics students not pioneers) think of light, quantum effects etc. I'm pretty sure they have an image analogy in their minds.

String theory won't ever be proved, that's why it's so brilliant for the physcists who work on it - they keep their employment writing rubbish. An analogy I heard was if an atom was the size of the universe a string would be the size of a tree on Earth.

ermdevi@tion
05-30-2005, 04:28 AM
But then quantum mechanics changes everything. By quantum mechanics, every force is governed by particles, even gravity itself (by gravitons, no less :D).

RXP
05-30-2005, 05:18 AM
Apparantly string thoery has it that everything is governed by oscillations of tiny strings or collosal braines. It's ALL bull shit.

Endymion
05-30-2005, 12:01 PM
But then quantum mechanics changes everything. By quantum mechanics, every force is governed by particles, even gravity itself (by gravitons, no less :D).

it's nice, and feynman's lectures on gravitation starts from that assumption (a spin 2 massless particle) and gauge invariance and derives all of GR from it. rather beautiful. but we've yet to detect them, or gravity waves. it's also not all that commonly accepted that we will. gravity is (oddly enough) one of those places where "new" physics is considered most likely to occure in the nearish future.

oh, and RXP: i recently read that someone actually developed an experiment that would manifest some elements of string theory (something about spinning a BEC really fast and it'd create a brane or something). i think it was in an AIP update, i'll try to dig it up.

RXP
05-30-2005, 02:51 PM
Isn't the idea of creating a universe in the lab to test string theory?

Endymion
05-30-2005, 03:34 PM
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/14/2055215&tid=14

anyway, i side a lot closer to process or digital physics than to any of this string theory stuff.

RXP
05-30-2005, 03:47 PM
According to the theory of Digital Physics, information is more fundamental than matter and energy; time and space are discrete, and laws of physics are deterministic. The solution of the problem itself lies somewhere within a class of abstract mathematical models for computation known as "cellular automata"...

Well so am I. That's determinlist theory. There's been plenty of discussion about the computer program that can simluate the universe too.

Endymion
05-30-2005, 03:50 PM
the key thing is, as shown by chaitin and wolfram, among others, is that although if the universe may have definite rules and the like such as with cellular automata, that does not mean that behavior can not be to all statistical purposes random and there may be no 'short cuts', there may be no way to calculate the behavior of the system faster than the system itself runs, so you can't 'simulate' the current universe any faster than it takes to actually run, so you can't tell the future. has to do with what wolfram calls computational irreducibility.

RXP
05-30-2005, 03:57 PM
Still it doesn't effect free will, just cause you can't accelerate the process to predict the future? i.e. there is no free will and as far as I'm concerned that the core of determinism's controversy and biggest impact to us.

Awesome, some more summer reading! Gonna read "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert and the 'Elegant Universe' by Greene for superstring prolly the net for this digital stuff cause I doubt any lay books been written on it.

Endymion
05-30-2005, 04:00 PM
if you get a chance, i think Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science is a wonderful read. it goes into the question of free will and stuff too.

basically i think it comes down to you have none, but that doesn't mean what you're gunna do can be known, because there's now way to emulate the system any faster than it's already running at.

RXP
05-30-2005, 04:14 PM
Yeah I got rec that by my house mate. Well expensive tho. But the uni library has a copy so I'll get it out when I can. It's 1200 pages tho, any chapters you remember particularly good?

Endymion
05-30-2005, 04:18 PM
if you want the really important philosophical sort of stuff, the last three chapters. the rest of the stuff is just building up to that, mostly get you use to how simple systems behave. the randomness, the computability, etc. examples in art and nature too. so.. like, read the last three and page through the rest. lots of pretty pictures.