Intelligence

I would personally love to have an extra arm as long as it's functional or even two though wings would be better.

There can be remains of the "crappy mutation" in fossils since most species of bigger animals have fossilized remains.



-Belial

yes, but since only about, say, 1% (or whatever) of actual fossils have been found, what are the chances that a genetic mutation fossil (lets say genetic mutations occur on a .001% basis) the chances of finding one are very slim.

but yes im fairly sure there are some out there.

some other gene disorders: dwarfism, being a midget, etc.
these sorts of things happen when a size hormone is disfunctional, if in the future food became scarce it would be possible that midgets would dominate because they (possibly) require less food but still are as smart as regular people. (this is just an example of how a mutation can be good in some scenarios but bad in others.)

there is no trans state because it wasn't a process like that. Raptors got feather for the cold, once other animals started dieing out they move to plants, beaks are better for seed etc so beaks were made. Thus Raptor to ostrich occurred, and the proof is that we can put protein in the embryo to turn a baby ostrich into a protoraptor.

diaster wrote:

there is no trans state because it wasn't a process like that. Raptors got feather for the cold, once other animals started dieing out they move to plants, beaks are better for seed etc so beaks were made. Thus Raptor to ostrich occurred, and the proof is that we can put protein in the embryo to turn a baby ostrich into a protoraptor.

jurrasic park, anyone?




okay so if ostrich+protein=raptor

chicken+protein=?

alligator+protein=?

cat+protein=?

then human+protein=?

wouldn't this be considered a scientific breakthrough where we could make creatures devolve into their neandratholic ancestors? sounds a bit too good to be true.

well for 1 we can't ethnically do it to humans, and we really can't ethnically recreate the dinosaurs, and yes the discovery special did talk a lot about Jurassic park, and it is also a little more difficult to find out what protein unlocks what trait since the way cells really communicate is still more or less a mystery to us. And it also has to be done while the create is developing like in the egg. But basically what we found out is that proteins during certain stage of development are what turn your DNA on or off for some cells.

Quote :

It most likely happened over billions of years it certainly didn't happen in 10 minutes... "*POOF* And suddenly Belial grew wings" Or maybe it did...

If it happened over billions and millions of years- DURING - the transition they would be SEVERELY handicapped, and because of that should die. Let's pretend that having feathers and no scales but no wings, or something was beneficial - then over billions of years there would be AT LEAST one fossil to their existence.

Quote :

Some examples on the crappy mutations?
Well yea with that dark throwing example i guess it possible to hit your friend in the eye with a dart. But as far as i can tell evolution helps species survive so it can't be totally random.

No because if it's mutations - there is no goal in mind. Any "Bad" mutation just means it doesn't help the animal survive and they can't pass on the gene widespread because they're handicapped. "Good" mutations would be spread because it makes the animal more dominant in some way - so they can produce more.

Quote :

also on the topic of the ostrich its early ancestor was actually a gigantic bird-raptor with razor sharp claws (on its feet) that would catch prey by running after it and then gorge its eyes/face out for the kill. (discovery channel ftw? )

A LOT of speculation. They don't have any transitions before and after towards the ostrich. This would also be an example of "bad" mutation. They go from predators to cowards who hide their heads under the sand.

Quote :

yes, but since only about, say, 1% (or whatever) of actual fossils have been found, what are the chances that a genetic mutation fossil (lets say genetic mutations occur on a .001% basis) the chances of finding one are very slim.

Source? Where do you get that statistic from? Even 1% over billions of years - statistically there should be at least one transition stage of animals.

Quote :

here is no trans state because it wasn't a process like that. Raptors got feather for the cold, once other animals started dieing out they move to plants, beaks are better for seed etc so beaks were made. Thus Raptor to ostrich occurred, and the proof is that we can put protein in the embryo to turn a baby ostrich into a protoraptor.

I hope you don't take offense but very stupid. Either you didn't word this properly or think this through.
a) Either it happened over time or it happened instantly
- If over time, then there should be proof of that
- If instantly then there's no proof - and is WORSE than "God did it" Because it's claimed as a scientific theory.
b) How do they grow feathers? Just because it's cold - you don't grow feathers. If that was true you could take lizards and do an experiment where in colder areas they would produce offspring with feathers.
c) No, just because food runs out your DNA doesn't go "Hmm I need something better to be a vegetarian". How does it happen? What causes this. No source.
d) Umm - bad logic. Just because you can make an ostrich a lizard doesn't mean lizards came from ostriches. Any type of mutation provided large enough would be able to make any animal into any other animal with the right mutations to certain DNA and protein sequences.

Evolution is barely even a scientific theory. It's barely even a hypothesis. There is so little proof behind it. And any proof they do have is little compared to things that say it doesn't exist. I have no idea why it's seriously taught in school. It's worse than teaching God in school because people actually think it's a scientific theory and they can back it up. Atleast with God they admit it's a leap of faith. Evolution is a much larger leap of faith - since it has no supernatural cause, can be tested and doesn't provide the evidence needed to back it up and it's a theory developed when technology was poor - far before DNA/Protein sequence were remotely understood. A little bit of similarity between animals jumps to the conclusion they were once the same.

Sorry if that last is somewhat aggressive - but so much isn't fully though out or backed up at all.

Jay.J wrote:

If it happened over billions and millions of years- DURING - the transition they would be SEVERELY handicapped, and because of that should die. Let's pretend that having feathers and no scales but no wings, or something was beneficial - then over billions of years there would be AT LEAST one fossil to their existence.

Actually i meant to say it happened sometime between 10 minutes and a billion years.
If the changes didn't effect their lives in the beginning why would they be handicapped and how do you know there aren't any fossils left of them.

Jay.J wrote:

I hope you don't take offense but very stupid. Either you didn't word this properly or think this through.
a) Either it happened over time or it happened instantly
- If over time, then there should be proof of that
- If instantly then there's no proof - and is WORSE than "God did it" Because it's claimed as a scientific theory.
b) How do they grow feathers? Just because it's cold - you don't grow feathers. If that was true you could take lizards and do an experiment where in colder areas they would produce offspring with feathers.
c) No, just because food runs out your DNA doesn't go "Hmm I need something better to be a vegetarian". How does it happen? What causes this. No source.
d) Umm - bad logic. Just because you can make an ostrich a lizard doesn't mean lizards came from ostriches. Any type of mutation provided large enough would be able to make any animal into any other animal with the right mutations to certain DNA and protein sequences.

If evolution would be triggered by the need to survive then all of that would make sense and noone said it isn't triggered by that.

Jay.J wrote:

Evolution is barely even a scientific theory. It's barely even a hypothesis. There is so little proof behind it. And any proof they do have is little compared to things that say it doesn't exist. I have no idea why it's seriously taught in school. It's worse than teaching God in school because people actually think it's a scientific theory and they can back it up. Atleast with God they admit it's a leap of faith. Evolution is a much larger leap of faith - since it has no supernatural cause, can be tested and doesn't provide the evidence needed to back it up and it's a theory developed when technology was poor - far before DNA/Protein sequence were remotely understood. A little bit of similarity between animals jumps to the conclusion they were once the same.

Evolution is the only plausible theory that doesn't involve fairy dust, magic rainbows or unicorns. If there would be a better theory someone would have figured it out already. And it has been observed that organisms change but there is no proof that god even exists so evolution of all the theories has the most proof.


-Belial

I did word it wrong, my bad Jay, what I meant was as other animals died out they had to find a new food source, which when your starving a plant can seem as good as any. Those whom were able to survive eating minimal meat with some plant would survive to breed, and those who continued to be more efficient in eating plants would survive. One of the things I'm sure that causes evolution to take so long is that conditions have to drastically change for evolution to be needed then on top of that, it takes a few generations to get it right.

Quote :

If the changes didn't effect their lives in the beginning why would they be handicapped and how do you know there aren't any fossils left of them.

I don't KNOW there aren't any fossils - but they haven't discovered any yet - for ANY evolutionary chain. That seems FAR too unlikely - like you KEEP on saying "They would have found them by now."

Quote :

If evolution would be triggered by the need to survive then all of that would make sense and noone said it isn't triggered by that.

No it does't. Either you're forgetting or ignoring my argument that animals of the same species are STILL around in the same ENVIRONMENT. Something needs to trigger it for ALL of the species - and they all change which we can observe does NOT happen. Or RANDOMLY a few change and it turns out beneficial - which has no evidence either, and is even less likely.

Quote :

Evolution is the only plausible theory that doesn't involve fairy dust, magic rainbows or unicorns. If there would be a better theory someone would have figured it out already. And it has been observed that organisms change but there is no proof that god even exists so evolution of all the theories has the most proof.

Logical Fallacy. "The only game in town fallacy". Just because there is no better explanation doesn't mean I have to believe in the one given. If we hear a noise and I say it's gremlins. and you say that can't be right and i ask you "SO WHAT IS IT THAN???" And you don't have an answer - doesn't mean I'm right. All science is abduction logically - it's inference to the best explanation. Evolution is barely the best explanation.

Also, God by definition doesn't have proof and can't be observed. That's why you take a leap of faith. Evolution and science on the other hand are PURELY based on observations. Evolution, as a science doesn't have any solid observations that back it up. It's NOT science. So it's ALSO a leap of faith - except that it unlike God - can be tested and refuted.

Here's my problem with not believing in the chance of God. We're humans. We have 5 senses. Our technology can only enhance those senses. To think that there isn't something out there that we just CAN'T understand. Or can't observe is fool hardy. It's like explaining color to someone who is color blind. You just can't explain "Blue" to them. However they can still believe blue is real.

Quote :

If there would be a better theory someone would have figured it out already.

Complete and udder bullshit. You keep saying this - but how is that true??? It's not. Why should anyone have figured it out by now? Why should anyone be able to EVER figure it out? By just believing in what we have and not what could be is what makes us not progress as a society. Especially when we believe in things that are poorly founded and claim they're good science.

Quote :

I did word it wrong, my bad Jay, what I meant was as other animals died out they had to find a new food source, which when your starving a plant can seem as good as any. Those whom were able to survive eating minimal meat with some plant would survive to breed, and those who continued to be more efficient in eating plants would survive. One of the things I'm sure that causes evolution to take so long is that conditions have to drastically change for evolution to be needed then on top of that, it takes a few generations to get it right.

Fail. You never addressed any of my points. You observe Pandas and stuff being nearly extinct yet you don't see any changes in them. There are millions of animals that are endangered and don't change at all. Also if that WAS true - you STILL SEE animals of that type that evolved. And for that plant comment...That's not how it works. That's speculation that goes against science. If you're a carnivore you DON'T have the stomach to digest most plants. You can't just start and digest it properly. If that were true, you could do experiments, starve a tiger and put a bunch of salad in front of him. He won't eat it. Nor could he digest it if he tried.

Evolution has already been observed on fruit flies. I'm not sure what are the details but i think some of them grew different wings or limbs and some grew more wings or limbs.



-Belial

That's not evolution - that's adaptation. I've already given my definition of both.

Actually it's considered evolution, atleast that's what i read in wiki.
Evolution as theory and fact.


-Belial

Jay.J wrote:

Quote :

also on the topic of the ostrich its early ancestor was actually a gigantic bird-raptor with razor sharp claws (on its feet) that would catch prey by running after it and then gorge its eyes/face out for the kill. (discovery channel ftw? )

A LOT of speculation. They don't have any transitions before and after towards the ostrich. This would also be an example of "bad" mutation. They go from predators to cowards who hide their heads under the sand.

Quote :

yes, but since only about, say, 1% (or whatever) of actual fossils have been found, what are the chances that a genetic mutation fossil (lets say genetic mutations occur on a .001% basis) the chances of finding one are very slim.

Source? Where do you get that statistic from? Even 1% over billions of years - statistically there should be at least one transition stage of animals.

1- im just stating a random fact about ostriches. and its not a bad mutation if it helped them survive. does the fact that we got physically weaker than chimpanzees (chimps are x4 stronger) make us a bad mutation?

2-i didnt say there werent any transition stages of fossils, i just said there was a lot a fossils not found. read carefully. this is what i said: 'what are the chances of finding a genetic mutation fossil?' and by that i meant that it would be hard to find a fossil of a 'monkey with a third arm'. i said nothing of finding a fossil of something like an early human being impossible.

LOL two posts right before mine.... hm....

i consider evolution and adaption the same thing, different branches of evolution as a whole.

the evolution evolution: genetic mutations that occur at birth and, if they help in survival, are passed down to offspring.
the adaption evolution: things a creature does, learns, or adapts to during life- like michael jordan's son being good at basketball, or lance armstrong's daughter being athletic.

Ahh - That's the problem though. They have experiments which are designed to show evolution. But it doesn't mean they are indeed showing evolution. The experiments aren't necessarily showing evolution. They might be reliable, but not necessarily valid. I don't really want to push that point as I haven't actually looked into this particular case however. Regardless one test, compared to the very many questions and lack of answers doesn't make evolution even close to believable.

Gravity is considered a theory as well. We don't know what causes gravity. We do observe it though. It's a lot easier to accept, especially since it admits it's faults. Evolution is more "This way or the highway" Which I said before - is the logical fallacy of the "Only game in town". The whole concept of science is being able to disprove it. It's been proven many times - and that's actually a strength. It means it's getting stronger. However Evolution is a poor theory. It's not a very good hypothesis, and is backed up even more poorly.

Quote :

1- im just stating a random fact about ostriches. and its not a bad mutation if it helped them survive. does the fact that we got physically weaker than chimpanzees (chimps are x4 stronger) make us a bad mutation?

That, if anything - proves it's more random. We lose strength at what gain? None. We could very well be stronger and smarter than chimps. It has to be random. Ostriches lose predator abilities for what gain? None. They could have just as easily been faster and omnivores. From wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy)

Quote :

Misconceptions about evolution

Species evolve because they need to in order to adapt to environmental changes.
Biologists refer to this misconception as teleology, the idea of intrinsic finality that things are "supposed" to be and behave a certain way, and naturally tend to act that way to pursue their own good. As the fossil record demonstrates that more than ninety nine percent of all species that ever lived are now extinct it is clear that most species do not evolve despite radical environmental changes. From a biological viewpoint, when species evolve it is not a reaction to necessity, but rather that the population contains variations with traits that favour their natural selection.
Evolution means progress to more advanced organisms.
This presumes that there is somehow a preferred hierarchy of structure and function, for example that "feet are better than hooves" or "lungs are better than gills", and can lead to the idea that change to "less advanced" structure can be called "devolution". To biologists this is an aspect of teleology, the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature. A biologist sees all such changes as evolution, since for the organisms possessing the changed structures, each is a useful adaptation to their circumstances. For example, hooves have advantages for running quickly on plains as horses do, and feet have advantages in climbing trees as the ancestors of humans did.
Humans are the ultimate product or goal of evolution.
This belief is related to anthropocentrism, the idea that human existence is the point of all universal existence, and is a variation on the idea of "progress". To a biologist, describing the biological evolutionary process as goal-oriented would seem as ludicrous as a physicist claiming that the ultimate goal of gravity is to keep the Earth in its present orbit.
Increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution.
Biologists studying the evolution of complexity find evidence of many examples of decreasing complexity in the record of evolution. The lower jaw in fish, reptiles and mammals has seen a decrease in complexity, if measured by the number of bones. Ancestors of modern horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single hoofed toe. Modern humans may be evolving towards never having wisdom teeth, and already have lost the tail found in many other mammals - not to mention other vestigial structures, such as the vermiform appendix or the nictitating membrane.

Quote :

2-i didnt say there werent any transition stages of fossils, i just said there was a lot a fossils not found. read carefully. this is what i said: 'what are the chances of finding a genetic mutation fossil?' and by that i meant that it would be hard to find a fossil of a 'monkey with a third arm'. i said nothing of finding a fossil of something like an early human being impossible.

...Evolution states everything comes from a common ancestor gene pool. That means there should be clear evidence of going from one species to another. It's more like...a lizard that had feathers. Or a Bird that had scales. Or am armadillo that had skin. Absolutely anything that takes one species from another. A horse that has 2 legs. Something, absolutely anything. Yet we see nothing, at all in the record. Where's the evidence of going from one species to another?

Quote :

the evolution evolution: genetic mutations that occur at birth and, if they help in survival, are passed down to offspring.
the adaption evolution: things a creature does, learns, or adapts to during life- like michael jordan's son being good at basketball, or lance armstrong's daughter being athletic.

Both misconceptions of evolution. That's just passing on your genes. If anything - if I came from a monkey which came from say a mouse etc. I would still have mouse DNA, since I don't lose DNA - it just wouldn't be expressed because of the protein sequence. This, in time should be found once the human genome project is finished. Underlying genes which have ancestors genes that are no longer expressed of earlier animals.

Jay.J wrote:

That, if anything - proves it's more random. We lose strength at what gain? None. We could very well be stronger and smarter than chimps. It has to be random. Ostriches lose predator abilities for what gain? None. They could have just as easily been faster and omnivores.

i would like you to give an example of a good mutation. we could have evolved to be 30-foot tall ape monsters for all i care. if you go back far enough a 1-cell organism evolved to be us, and every other species. meaning that it had a series of good mutations.

Quote :

[color=orange]...Evolution states everything comes from a common ancestor gene pool. That means there should be clear evidence of going from one species to another. It's more like...a lizard that had feathers. Or a Bird that had scales. Or am armadillo that had skin. Absolutely anything that takes one species from another. A horse that has 2 legs. Something, absolutely anything. Yet we see nothing, at all in the record. Where's the evidence of going from one species to another?

i'll show you evidence of a raptor evolving into an ostrich when you show me all the evidence leading from the evolution of a one celled organism into every single creature today.

and i was just stating a random fact about the ostrich since we were on the topic of dinosaurs into birds... and about discovery channel...

Quote :

Both misconceptions of evolution. That's just passing on your genes. If anything - if I came from a monkey which came from say a mouse etc. I would still have mouse DNA, since I don't lose DNA - it just wouldn't be expressed because of the protein sequence. This, in time should be found once the human genome project is finished. Underlying genes which have ancestors genes that are no longer expressed of earlier animals.

yes, yes it is passing down your genes... getting something during life and passing it on to another's life, no?

and like i have said before it all leads back to the one celled organism.

Honestly Kuro - you haven't addressed any of my points at all. You added nothing to the conversation.

prolly don't wanna read the 3 page essay...I know I don't which mainly why I'm pretty much outta this >_>

5 paragraphs and one wiki quote...

its not just that post really...the worst of it is on the pages prior.

Jay.J wrote:

Honestly Kuro - you haven't addressed any of my points at all. You added nothing to the conversation.

because you didn't have valid points in my opinion.

i stated different ways of evolution and ways genes are passed down, you stated the fact that its the same as parent-to-child gene passing. which is true, and your post is not differenciating from my statement enough for me to create an argument against it.

its the same thing really. i cant argue against myself, or my own statement.

another thing: you created an argument against a random fact i said about an ostrich which is from discovery channel and isnt even mine; i thought id just put it there because learning that an iguanas grandpa could have been a t-rex was mildly entertaining when i was a kid. you didn't even find the possiblity of the ostrich's ancestor being a bird-raptor-thing fun at all, instead you go on about the flaw in my statement and this and that...

Jay.J wrote:

Both misconceptions of evolution. That's just passing on your genes. If anything - if I came from a monkey which came from say a mouse etc. I would still have mouse DNA, since I don't lose DNA - it just wouldn't be expressed because of the protein sequence. This, in time should be found once the human genome project is finished. Underlying genes which have ancestors genes that are no longer expressed of earlier animals.

You still have mouse DNA, I'm not going to go look up the percentages for you, but I'm relatively certain that you're over 90% mouse.

The assumption most evolution believers seem to make is that mutations, or changes, whether extreme or mild, that are passed on and somehow become highly evident sometime in the future, through some sexual or survival advantage at the time the mutation occurred. Many ecosystems change and what may have been "good" at the time as far as mutations go has become obsolete, thus the "ostrich" effect. Mutations are as random as a causation can allow them to be, but the ones that get passed on are usually significant in the above ways, or happened to tag along with a different evolutionary change's "rise to power" if you will.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me: once every couple of tens of thousand years theres some awful mutated horrific beast of an offspring that somehow has an advantage in that environment, then finds some way to reproduce, perhaps through hybridization with the parent species.

(I'm not sure if most people just find it challenging to comprehend the sheer magnitude of that period of time compared to the duration of living things, but a lot of things were born in the last 10000 years, not all of them were pretty.)

Honestly, believing what I do about God, this seems much more logical than Him reaching His divine hand into our universe to spontaneously create dinosaurs and then kill them all and then create mammals and birds and then create humans and all the rest of the direct intervention that would be required if mutations and natural selection didnt explain it.

There's really no reason to say "evolution is incorrect" if you have no better explanation.

It's not saying evolution is correct or incorrect. I assume you take philosophy to some extent Pyth. As you know science is logically abduction, for those of you who don't know what that is - it means "Inference to the best explanation". Nothing is ever 100% in science - which like I said before is a strength - because it allows it to develop and eventually become as close to the actual laws of nature as possible. For example Newtons laws of gravity, compared to Einsteins. Evolution in it's current state causes much more questions than it answers. So far you've at least answered one of my questions - which would be why other animals are still around.

Quote :

Many ecosystems change and what may have been "good" at the time as far as mutations go has become obsolete, thus the "ostrich" effect.

But that to me still doesn't explain why they changed. Random mutations of genes to make scales into feathers or something similar is far too improbable in my eyes to even be the reason for one type of animal - let alone every single species in the whole entire world. Not only that - but they not only lived and were not outcast by their parents, which MANY animals do and is clearly observed - but they lived long enough to reproduce...and were ABLE to reproduce and this mutated gene was DOMINANT and able to create a whole new species.

That's chance in having a beneficial mutation to the environment. That's a chance in not being abandoned. That's a chance in being ABLE to reproduce with the "Mother animal" (The other species). That's a chance that those mutations are dominant genes and are carried out. That's a chance that those offspring produce enough offspring to create an entirely new species. That's ALL chance. Now that's not for one animal, but for EVERY animal species in the whole entire world that exists currently.

Not only that but the amount of actual fossil evidence that doesn't show chains of evolution - compared to ones that do are far outnumbered. Assuming that these animals did indeed exist but just didn't have enough fossils that have been discovered or were in areas that were fossilized etc. is also very low in chance.

Now - like I said earlier - abduction is the inference to the best explanation. Just because it is the best explanation doesn't mean you have to believe in it. That like I said before is the "Only game in town" fallacy. I can just as well critique the theory, and choose not to believe in it. The example I gave earlier was we hear a noise upstairs. You say it's gremlins that are making the noise. I say that's flawed, and you ask if I have a better explanation. I don't. Just because I don't have a better theory doesn't mean I have to believe in yours - even though it's the only theory. I can choose to critique it and not believe in any theory that has been given.

Actually when someone would suggest gremlins i will probably smack them on the head.

And there are fossils from most if not all steps from the human evolution, atleast according to wiki.



-Belial

Quote :

Actually when someone would suggest gremlins i will probably smack them on the head.

That's the problem when they're serious though. You can't just hit them on the head. Maybe they do have reason to believe it's gremlins - but it's not very strong. It's atleast not strong enough evidence for me to believe in it. I'd rather choose to say "I don't know what it is" than saying "Ya, it must be Gremlins".

Quote :

And there are fossils from most if not all steps from the human evolution, atleast according to wiki.

No there are undoubtedly "Missing links" in the human chain and people are willing to admit that. One thing that also makes it hard to believe is when people who are considered scientists have FAKED findings to help prove their theory. That just boggles my mind. It's happened on more than one occasion as well. Of course that's not justifiable reason to not deny the theory - you can't judge the words based on the person saying it - but it does give reason to doubt it.

It's not just human evolution either - it's going from single celled organisms, to creatures in water, to (for no reason) going on land (while some did not), etc. The "ostrich effect" that Pyth was talking about earlier still doesn't work that well - since they were perfectly fine in their environment. Even then we see and observe many animals going extinct rather than evolving. "Survival of the fittest" means being FIT for your ENVIRONMENT. It doesn't mean better. It means being able to do well in your surroundings. So if some are fit enough to stay in the water - why do others go on land (which isn't observed) while others become extinct (which we do observe and explain by them no longer FITTING their environment).

I'm not saying evolution is the "only game in town". It's just the "best game in town", so until someone can point and say "Hey, look, over there, that theory makes as much or more sense than evolution", then I'm going to stick with evoultion. There isnt a false dilemma here.

I really hope you CAN come up with some sort of rational explanation for a noise coming from upstairs, because if you can't, then you should be very concerned every time you hear a noise. Most people would arbitrarily think: "Hey, it's nothing important, I don't know the specifics of what it is, but it is most likely some sort of creaking, or the wind, or objects falling over", etc. If you didn't think something along those lines, you would be lost and just as easily assume it is something that will cause you mortal harm. You MUST have a better explanation, because if you don't then you're either sticking with their explanation (because it is the best you know of) or sticking to being completely oblivious. (Assuming you use logic, there isnt a false dilemma here either, if gremlins is the best solution because you can't concieve a better solution, then at that point in time you either accept gremlins or denounce everything and concede to the unknown)