It's so strange. I mean I hear it and then just hear the name Darwin ad nauseum. So despite the fact this guy did exceptionally poorly he is far superior to many, even most people with questions on the subject. He did this just by getting past Darwin and asking questions no matter how bad that are at least modern in their applicability.
What does he mean we've never seen one species evolve instantly into another. We observe it everyday in the US. Everyday humans give birth to unsightly creatures. They look like humans at birth, but as they grow their mutations become obvious, and they're easily identifiable as MAGA's. Clearly not human, barely even ape.
It's also the smug racist superiority complex the religious are ingrained with. Because to them, calling someone an ape is an insult, so the word has a derogatory connotation. And God-created humans are way better than anything they define as an ape, even other humans that have a different skin color or ideaology.
Speaking as a geneticist myself, Erika is SUCH a treat to watch. Infectiously enthusiastic, genuinely kind and of course full of brilliant examples, illustrations and reasoning. Keep up the good work, Gutsick!
It’s such a boring take too , I don’t know how to explain it , but just for them to keep slapping a sticker on “god did it” on everything they can’t understand instead of being curious and wanting to actually learn into it and think.
Love how creationists demand only the most hardline, rigorous data from Evolutionary theory, but Creation can be based on faith and the "either/or" fallacy and that's enough for them.
Here is it summed up Scientist” here’s the evidence” Creationist: “nuh uh. I’m right you’re wrong.” Scientist” ok, well here how it works ____” Creationist:”Didn’t listen. I know more than you and instead I’m just going to horribly argue in a circle nonesense about the subject I know nothing of.”
Those are great examples of "Creationist / Intelligent Design Proponent" apologetics, but there was a better one: When he was demanding evidence that one "kind" could evolve into a completely different "kind". But not through many incremental changes at the macroscopic level (aka species level) over hundreds of thousands of years - which is how evolution by natural selection works. Instead he was demanding evidence that any given "kind" could produce offspring of a completely different "kind" - at the individual level. For example, one particular specimen giving birth to offspring specimen(s) of a different "kind". Which is absolutely not how evolution works, and nobody with any degree of scientific competence has ever claimed that evolution can do or has ever done this. Using the terms "kind" and/or "evolutionist" indicate that he gets much of his "information" from deliberate bullshit merchants at "Answers in Genesis" or the obvious contradiction-in-terms which is the "Discovery Institute". But arguing that evolution should include one individual producing offspring of a different "kind" is far more telling: This is classic Kent Hovind - just about every video that clown has ever made on the subject of evolution includes this utterly idiotic claim. Which in "red flag" terms would be a gigantic flag the size of a football pitch, if not bigger.
Oh this is hilarious. Basically : "I accept all the evidence that proves the scientific theory of evolution is true, but I don't know any evidence for the thing my pastor told me evolution was supposed to be but no scientist has ever proposed. Can you give me the best evidence for the thing I made up to pretend I reject evolution?" 😂😂😂😂😂
The biggest problem I have with these people is that they want evidence for science, but god can just be magic. If at the very least god was Q from the Q Continuum there would be "something" to work with as Q had "limits", but "well, god just existed forever and has infinite power" is just bizarre. You can't do ANYTHING with that. You can answer any question with "well its just magic".
@MrWillheim There’s some interesting data about the nature (and by inference limits) of Q in the Voyager episode “Death Wish” and the second season of Picard.
@@Conan_the_rastafarian NOT incorrect. Studies have shown that children between the ages of 3 and 14 are suseptable to being indoctrinated in religeon very easily. They are instructed, week in and week out to NOT QUESTION their parents and church leaders. Isolated from other viewpoints in society, they carry on into adulthood.
This argument is basically "Ok, you might have the fingerprints on the gun, and the gun shot a bullet that was found inside the victim's body, and there is a recording of the person having those fingerprints walking inside and then outside the crime's scene, the diary of that person stating they were going to kill the victim, but you haven't SEEN the crime happen so that's just your interpretation" Brother, we have figured out what happened, it's a skill issue on your part you still haven't connected the dots
Great comment. I would just like to add that your scenario is not an example of proof, but rather of very strong evidence... And that is how both Science and the law work.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Doesn’t have the same requirement for god though. Never heard a theist ask for god to create the world in real time before believing he created the world, hell never met a theist that saw Jesus irl before believing in him. And I am not talking about Jesus the latino landscaper.
@@pansepot1490 Yeah, it's the standard "I'm just going to assume it was god unless you can give me step-by-step instructions for creating everything" argument. Which like... OK, but don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.
Sweet baby Bajebus, how much evidence does this guy need? Seriously, he has to ignore literal mountains of evidence just to protect his belief in his favorite mystical wizard. But there are plenty of people that accept evolution and keep their beliefs, so what's this guy's damage?
For me it depends on how much emotional investment someone has in a particular belief system. Given the multiple variants of Christianity this will mean different theists will have varying reactions to aspects of science.
Funny how the evolutionists are anti science…the science of archeology which supports the Bible as being at least historically accurate, therefore is trustworthy. By the way, evolutionists have a magical wizard as well. Time plus mutations turn pond scum into people.
Tons of scientific evidence for evolution & not one scrap of scientific evidence for creationism. That why science is taught in schools/colleges & universities. You get education diplomas for science subjects but have not heard of one main stream educational diploma for creationism.
And frankly a bit hypocritical. They are coming off as arrogant, egotistical, and narcissistic displaying a "look at me aren't I special" attitude. Doesn't Jesus talk about being meek, humble, loving, gentle, etcetera? Then again when you think about it, the bottom line of Christianity is all about saving yourself - keeping your own behind out of a place of eternal fiery torment.
@@discontinuedmodel232 Everyone likes to feel special. But these folks think they are so special, that they imagine the most powerful being and then think they're best buddies with it.
@@joeyssymank1035 dark matter 2525 has a video explaining how incredibly vast the universe is, and how insignificant our planet is among all the countless galaxy clusters full of countless galaxies full of countless stars with planets & moons orbiting them. Now factor in how insignificant one human is to planet Earth. But somehow whoever created the universe is interested in either welcoming you to eternal heaven, or sending you to eternal torture. What am I missing here? 🤔
"I disagree" Said the layman to the specialist. There has to be a large degree of arrogance to say you disagree with someone who spend years studying a subject, when one hasn't done so. "I find that hard to believe"..."I need to think about that"..."I'm not sure about that"...would show a degree of humility and intellectual honesty that I can respect as a fellow layman. Sure Anthony may know more about evolution than I do, but he's not a peer of Erika and Jackson. IMHO it would be more honest for him to say, "I don't want to accept your argument."
Absolute smugness in their racist superiority. "I'm not an ape! I'm way better than an ape! An ape is what I call people who are beneath me by having a different skin color or who is not a Christian!"
It won’t matter what evidence is presented, and there was a mountain of it during this conversation, he won’t accept it. At every turn, when he asked for an example it was given and he still didn’t accept it.
His main argument seems to be, “Mommy I keep telling these mean biologists Jesus did it and they won’t believe me!” Every one of his arguments is instantly eviscerated by the biologists. Then he goes to well that a judgement call. Let’s see whose judgement are we going with here. The biologists are the guy that says god could fake evolution.
Damnit. I love how Anthony did try to solve the issue by holding the phone away. But he didn't realize he was raising his voice trying to accommodate for the distance lol.
Oh that's him!!! OMG I cannot understand what goes on in an indoctrinated mind when something is explained to them and they continue down their rabbit hole
It's hard not to be when he failed so fantastically yesterday. I had to see how today went. Also always good to hear from smart people about things I don't know.
@@andymccracken4046 But in the smooth brained & delusional interpretations of all the theists who watched the calls with Matt & Erika, Anthony CRUSHED everybody! 🤩Anthony had all the highfalutin atheists whimpering in the fetal position BEGGING Anthony to stop his overwhelming onslaught of HOLY GHOST IRON AGE LOGIC! 😇
People like Anthony really do drive me crazy. His entire argument can basically be summed up as, “I don’t understand evolution, therefore it must not be true.“ And then, as soon as he gets the evidence that he asks for, he immediately discounts it.
Jackson did an excellent job of flipping the script on the caller. The way he lead him step by step towards the unarguable conclusion that his creationist beliefs make absolutely no sense. I'm trying to imagine what Kent Hovind would say to all of that, he'd probably say, "well dogs only make dogs, and a dog will never make an elephant. Therefore, Jeebus"
I am an athiest and I 100% agree with the caller's main point. If an invisible all-powerful wizard with the power to create anything by mere force of will exists, it can create anything in any form. Okay. Great. Now... Demonstrate that this wizatd exists.
I wouldn't give that much credit. You can make assumptions about the creator otherwise under theism where's your evidence that God wouldn't deceive you and just create you 10 seconds ago with memories of the past? Why give special credence to any specific theological standpoint?
@JustADudeGamer Hold on, he didn't say "if the wizard has the power, then he did this.", he said, "if the wizard has the power, than he could have done this." It's very different. The first is an absolute statement about the world as it is, the other is an absolute statement of what could be. If space daddy were real, he also could have created a matrix and we are experiencing a simulation of his creation, doesn't mean we are.
@@NoodleKeeper My point is theism isn't the scapegoat the caller wants it to be. Either God can do anything, and that undermines religion and trust of reality, or he's constrained by some rules that make him good/truthful/consistent. In which case you can't just say God made things look old or evolved or give special pleading against the evidence.
His point about the dogs and wolves is the greatest illustration of Anthony’s myopic view. To him, wolves are “fitter” to exist because they can exist outside of human cohabitation. This, amongst other things, reveals his pro-human bias in thinking that we aren’t a natural influence on the planet, when we certainly are. Grey wolves are less fit than dogs to live on the planet right now, because their mode of living conflicts with the superior (that is to say, more profoundly affecting) environmental effects of human encroachment. Dogs instead engaged in a symbiotic relationship with humans, and thus have no need for the skills or features wolves need to survive, and on top of that, flourish all the more than wolves can. The dog is fitter, because its mode of survival enables it to proliferate better in the environment in which it finds itself. Wolves do not do this quite as well. Without human introspection, wolves might have gone the same way as all the other larger macro organisms that found themselves in proximity to humans.
Everything the caller accuses "evolutionists" of doing is exactly what Creationists do, whether that be making judgements based in inference, intuition, or interpretation. If the caller distrusts evolutionary theory based on these criteria, then he should just stop believing in god by his own standard.
The hilarious thing though is that... you still don't need to use evolutionary science as evidence to showcase that evolution is infinitely more likely than it not being real. We can and have to look at literally everything manmade in the last 2000 years and we have if not evidence strong indications of evolution, which is why Darwin wrote down his thoughts. He wasn't the first ones to have 'em and we have since then learned so much more than what Darwin could even imagine but... what made Darwin special is simply that he wrote down what folks already knew to be the case, but hadn't thought of it from a scientific sense since before the Enlightenment period ... there was no science, only natural philosophy which whilst similar still had significant philosophical differences, especially in regards to consensus and record keeping. We don't need evidence to know that evolution is more logical and likely to be true, simply because this has been an accepted reality for literally thousands of years. Prior to Darwin though, we just didn't have a name or established record keeping of it.
"Who's more fit to survive, a chihuahua or a grey wolf" In a city? In the house of an old lady? Animal control is gonna kill that wolf in minutes. Chihuahua are perfectly fit for their environment XD
Also recent research is revealing that dogs/cats are becoming even more fit for surviving & thriving in a human dominated environment by figuring out how to better manipulate/integrate with humans - like playing off our emotions for more food & better treatment - and adjusting their behavior accordingly.
Erika is a treasure as an educator. I once tried to be one but my forte is a different one. Though I do get to deal with the best of the best in labs I also get to deal with students and that has been a treat for me as well since they only get as far as my labs by actually being the best of the best. I did try teaching as a professor for a while, that was a disaster. Raising two kids from age 1 and 2 you'd think I'd have a lot of patience but it turned out that I only have patience for people willing to learn and some of those students were not in that category but more like in the category of "reality is irrelevant, this is my "truth" and you should be ashamed for not accepting that everyone gets to have their own truth as an opinion". Oh and I'll never, ever work with Americans again, highly educated and great at what they do they are no different than those students. Not willing to learn at all they have their "truth" and what the experiments show is something that they will try to reinterpret to fit their "truth" or discredit in any way they can. It's a damn shame but the US academia is not one we should ever collaborate with until that is fixed. That's why every discovery is done elsewhere these days and the US helps with production, like the mRNA vaccine. In the US politics rule academia. Right now apparently Israeli lab results should be thrown out and studies discarded only because of where, and by whom they are conducted. We're supposed to be above this but in the US, you are not and it's a DAMN shame.
What's really frustrating is that Anthony isn't even on the proper level to have this conversation. His issue with the inference really is just "sure all of this data objectively proves that evolution is at least FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES true, but hey a trickster god could have just made it so to PRETEND evolution is real, and you can't disprove that idea so nanananana I wiiinn" It's the ultimate cop-out position, and the quip about "how do you know the universe wasn't created five minutes ago" exposes it perfectly. Because that's the same level of falsifiability, and it is objectively useless to argue on those terms, because nothing we could possibly arrive at means anything. Sure if we assume any old shit can happen, then any old shit can happen. Where are we going? Nowhere. It's just pathetic that anyone believes god is even worth believing in when this is the best he has going for him.
"one hundred years of research makes no sense to me" but a magical being snapping their fingers and making an entire universe appear out of basically nowhere makes perfect sense?
Meanwhile the standard secular school text book: an entire universe appears out of literally nothing. Why do you deny the basic consensus? There is no mention of fingers, snapping, or entire universe appearing out of nowhere in the Genesis. I don't speak for creationists. Bible describes God creating things by speaking. It all exists because of the Word, and you lot are going to disprove that by using words? Genius.
@@tulisotilas Finger snapping is metaphorical for taking a single action. There's no practical difference in a snap or a word, so moot point. Also you're a liar. You've never seen a modern textbook that says the universe came from nothing.
Creationists must love this caller because he speaks almost authoritatively and uses words and phrases such as "geologic column", "stratified", "complexity", etc. I'm stunned that he thinks the science of evolution is defective, illusory, deceptive... but his god belief is well founded and clearly established.
The first question you must ask of any science-denier: "What specific evidence would you need to see in order to change your mind?" If the answer is not very good, there is a high probability that the conversation will go nowhere. Creationists make the fundamental mistake of thinking that "God did it" is an explanation in competition with actual scientific findings. If one does not accept common descent, where does one suppose new animal forms come from? Is the alternative "explanation" to evolution theory that, rather than forming gradually, from already-existent components, via natural forces - some forms of life appear suddenly, from nothingness, via magic?
I wonder why these science deniers don't debate Scientist on evolution instead of phoning in an atheist talk show. A lot of scientists are religious themselves. Trying to debunk evolution won't debunk atheism.
I’m not very familiar with Jackson, but Erika IS a scientist. She’s a paleoanthropologist and current PHD candidate. He DID “debate” a scientist on evolution, that’s what makes his entire persona so arrogant and off putting cuz he has no idea how ignorant he sounds. I don’t know how Erika keeps her cool w callers like this tbh. It’d be like me, a woman who knows nothing about auto mechanics, arguing with a mechanic about what’s actually wrong w my car… “just because YOU think it’s the transmission doesn’t mean you’re right, this one other mechanic told me it could be gremlins inside the engine, and I like that possibility better”…it’s incredibly arrogant and pretty moronic to be completely honest.
@@sarahchristine2345the analogy needs some work. It's not "this one other mechanic" it's more like "this dude who's really wants to sell snake oil says there's gremlins in my car, and to buy his snake oil and pour it into the gas tank to flush them out" or smth like that
45:23 caller: “is a chihuahua as fit to provide as a grey wolf” Yet another classic misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. The phrase “survival of the fittest” has truly done a disservice to people’s intuitive understanding of evolution. Natural selection is only about the degree to which a population can perpetuate its genetic pattern through reproduction, given the constraints of its particular environment. So if the chihuahua’s cuteness pleases its human masters, then it lives in luxury and may get to produce offspring. Contrasted with the grey wolf pup which has to struggle daily just for survival. It’s a nonsense straw man to consider pitting grey wolf vs. chihuahua in the grey wolf’s natural environment. I’m willing to bet he didn’t consider how poorly the grey wolf is likely to fare in the chihuahua’s “natural” environment.
well Anthony doesn’t think evolution is real! You know what that means! We have to throw the whole theory out🙄 Seriously why do these people think they can debunk evolution? If they really could, why not submit their findings to the Nobel committee, collect their prize and money, and become the most famous person in the world
As a Christian, he is happy to accept ANY science that does not conflict with his myths, but is REQUIRED to reject any science that disproves his Book - and Evolution flat out DISPROVES his Book.
Dude's whole shtick was "if I first make the unwarranted assumption that a deity exists, then these facts can be seen like this". Such ridiculous dishonesty.
It's funny cause all these examples of evolution were also predicted by the model. Where with theism, they have to shoehorn in some explanation to explain those examples away, or say that god could have done it just like that cause god can do anything... The nested hierarchies is such a good example of this, if evolution is true, this is the only thing we would expect to see, and that all dna and phylogenetics will corelate with the hierarchy. it also predicted the existence of unknown animals that have very specific features because of that hierarchy and we find them where they would have had to have lived in the right geological time with the exact traits they would have needed to have to be a transitional species. but, ya know, if god is real, there is no 1 thing we could expect, because it's an unfixed goalpost, it makes no actual predictions that enable it to be falsified, and it can just change its story to fit the evidence. Quit denying reality, Anthony.
"I will only accept evolution if I see with my own eyes things that are impossible according to evolution" Ok, baby theist, go back in the corner sniffing glue XD
Kind is fine to talk about as long as (as explained in this video) you accept humans and chimps as one kind. There’s no way around it, and once that is understood the whole “humans are not animals” myth is already dead, so there’s nothing left for creationists to stand for.
As a geologist, geology degree & 20 yrs in industry etc, listening to YECs is extremely painful. They’re taught to pretend science doesn’t exist & ppl are making stuff up without much evidence - they’re ignoring there’s enough data to spend several lifetimes learning. It’s awful whats been done to them to make them think like this - & you can bet the ppl that did it were making quite a bit of money.
Eh, that was probably the thing I agreed with Anthony most on (which isn't saying much). Hosts on these shows have a tendency to give long verbose answers, and both hosts have their own points often leading in different directions. This is useful for getting ahead of callers that are just here to preach, but IMO hampers conversation with those actually willing to talk. I thought Anthony was engaging with the points and questions of the hosts pretty well, if not accepting the logic, and he was also good at passing the conversation back to the hosts. There are _definitely_ callers that are just waiting for their turn to talk, or even take interruptions as evidence of censorship, and the hosts do have to be prepared for those callers, but I think this call was pretty good all around.
"I won't believe it unless I see it." So you better open the jails and let all the prisoners free. A huge number of crimes don't have witnesses. If this "I need to see it" standard reigns, then unless you can see the murderer do it, you are saying it is impossible to determine who did and we shouldn't charge anybody. You don't get to have it both ways.
Evolution does not have an agent. This analogy thus fails. We are able to trace crimes to specific agents, which have a corporal body. Therefore we can jail criminals without direct line of sight when the criminal act happened. Challenging the base reality of "how the world is" is not as simple as observing it. Surely evolution is a simpler solution. We can stop at that. We are letting shop looters just be not chargeable with anything even with direct evidence and witnesses. We have worse than "I need to see it" standard, and it is called "I don't want to see it". He asks not to see evidence as we understand, but a point of view of God, which in his theology he dies at the very moment he gets to see the evidence that he could accept.
Anthony is a perfect example of what my grandma used to say: “he knows enough to be dangerous.” I appreciate a lay person trying to educate themselves themselves and it seems Anthony has two problems here: 1) he has investigated with a conclusion already formed. In other words, he is not truly open to being wrong and the implications of being wrong. 2). While he can talk a big game he doesn’t actually know much. He doesn’t know enough to be able to work through the problems (which is likely exacerbated by number 1).
One thing i really appreciated was when the caller misspoke and said common descent when they clearly meant common design and GG went with the flow and assumed they meant design. It's like she is honestly engaging in the discussion and trying to work towards a common understanding rather than just scoring debate points. Great host and guest host!
If he's "researched" evolution but not found anything that convinces him, I wonder what his sources were. I'm assuming he's not a scientist. His incredulity about things that don't convince him, when speaking with legit scientists, is laughable.
@neothepenguin1257 - most definitely. He keeps repeating that he's not an expert. So shut up dude. These 2 are literally experts in this area. So lame!
@AXKfUN9m even AiG is smart enough to not have their apologists speak on subjects they're experts in. Whenever they talk about genetics, Georgia somehow always has that day off
We already know about his sources. He basically said, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but this non-creationist source says...", followed by "Yes, you are wrong and I was just reading that creationist garbage the other day."
This guy is so close minded that he doesn’t recognize that he was wrong from the start to finish. Why don’t you PROVE that there is a dude who “created” everything without saying the phrase “there has to be….”
Basically his whole argument is even though our genetic makeup proves that we are all related doesn't mean God didn't just make everything with similar makeup. His argument literally dies from the start because to even start with that hypothesis, you have to prove a God exists first and that God is capable of designing it that way
It’s clear to me now, that the single biggest hurdle for theists (in understanding evolution) is the nagging belief that humans are special creations that are separate from non-human animals.
"I'm not an Ape because then I'm not going to heaven. No amount of evidence will ever change my mind." Ignorance is not just what you don't know, it's also what you won't know (Aron Ra)
“Correct me if I’m wrong” In creationist speak - I cannot be wrong and I will never accept that I could be wrong. The arrogance, the ignorance, the hubris and the poison of religious belief.
I LOVE Erika's smile at 1:30 ish!!! She KNOWS that she's gonna knock this one outa the park!! She KNOWS that she's going to present him with undeniable evidence and she KNOWS that he's going to be wilfully ignorant and deny that evidence anyway. And yet, she's grinning anyway, because she knows that this display will show how vapidly unreasonable these creatards really are!!
Despite how difficult it was getting through to the caller, I can at least appreciate how respectful everyone was. Both sides allowed the other to speak, even when things were getting a little frustrating. No yelling, no expletives or name-calling, just a back and forth. Honestly, quite refreshing.
Another pet peeve of mine, only slightly touched on in this conversation, is the presence of consciousness. Humans nearly always assert that only humans are conscious. And I ask, "How do you know that?" I assert that every living creature on Earth is as conscious as they need to be to reproduce successfully in their current environment. In other words, consciousness is an adaptive phenome just like any physical phenome.
Erika and Jackson are so kind. I’m so impressed with your patience and ability to explain advanced scientific topics clearly and concisely. I would have given up with Anthony and honestly hope he never calls again because he doesn’t WANT to be convinced of anything.
DNA by itself shows common descent. We wouldn't share DNA with anything else if we didn't have a common ancestor somewhere. That said his opening statement and question was essentially, " Show me your species evolving into amother species right or I won't believe it." He wants it in "real-time." That's just not healthy work. We see the little changes, but we won't live long enough to see the big changes. We can see the results of the big changes which we have. Esit: wow....Erika's explanation of this blew me away.
Way back in the day I knew a dude who didn't believe in evolution because there was a gorilla at the Atlanta Zoo who had been there for several years, but he never did evolve into a human. 🤨 BTW this was a fellow NCO in the military and a couple of pay grades above me, which made me feel dead inside. 😮💨
@@elguapo2831False equivalence. Evolution *can* be seen through the fossil record and genetics. Scientists have been able to use knowledge of evolution to make tangible predictions as well: ie where to set up oil rigs or where to find transitional fossils, etc. What the OP was mocking about Anthony does not give credence to the idea that evolution requires faith, it just shows the extent of Anthony's, and by extension your, ignorance on the subject.
@@relic5752 I've looked extensively into the fossil record and have found all species have missing links that are more like missing chains. How can there be Anthropods at the very bottom in the Cambrian Explosion if they supposedly weren't evolved yet? An entire ecosystem, just poof.
@@elguapo2831 ummm, genetics IS evidence....as is the fossil record, Bioanthropology, archeology, botany, ecology, PHYSICS, Geology, direct observation, Embryology, virology, medicine, agriculture, and every other line of evidence from every branch of science that even remotely touches life.
If he lies like a creationist, shifts goalposts like a creationist, rejects reality like a creationist, and spouts pseudoscientific garbage like a creationist -- does it REALLY matter whether he's a young earth creationist specifically? =D
If nothing else, this video SHOULD demonstrate to the vast majority of us that we aren't anywhere close to being experts in evolutionary biology. Go study it in college if you like, but don't come in and attempt to shit all over something that you clearly have nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of.