Marine plankton found in amber

PhysOrg ^ | 11/13/08

[LibWhacker]

(PhysOrg.com) -- Marine microorganisms have been found in amber dating from the middle of the Cretaceous period. The fossils were collected in Charente, in France. This completely unexpected discovery will deepen our understanding of these lost marine species as well as providing precious data about the coastal environment of Western France during the Cretaceous.

This work was carried out by researchers at the Géosciences Rennes laboratory (CNRS/Université de Rennes 1), together with researchers from the Paléobiodiversité et Paléoenvironnement laboratory in Paris (CNRS/Muséum national d'histoire naturelle/Université Pierre et Marie Curie) and the Centre de Géochimie de la Surface in Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg 1). It was published in the 11 November 2008 issue of PNAS.

Amber is a fossil resin with a reputation for preserving even the most minute details of insects and other terrestrial arthropods (spiders, scorpions, mites) that lived in resiniferous trees. The forest-based provenance of amber in theory makes it impossible for marine animals to be trapped in the resin.

Nonetheless, researchers from the Géosciences Rennes laboratory have discovered various inclusions of marine plankton in amber from the Mid-Cretaceous (100 to 98 million years BP). These micro-organisms are found in just a few pieces of amber among the thousands that have been studied, but show a remarkable diversity: unicellular algae, mainly diatoms found in large numbers, traces of animal plankton, such as radiolaria and a foraminifer, spiny skeletons of sponges and of echinoderms.

Carried out together with researchers at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, the study of diatoms pushed back by 10 to 30 million years the known date for the appearance of certain marine forms of this type of algae. This new information, taken together with recent data on molecular phylogeny, marks a huge advance in our understanding of the complex evolutionary history of diatoms.

The presence of these marine organisms in the amber is an ecological paradox. How did these marine species become stuck and then trapped in the conifers' resin? The most likely scenario is that the forest producing the amber was very close to the coast, potentially shrouded by plankton-bearing mist or flooded by sea water during storms.

The preservation of marine organisms in amber is an exceptional asset, allowing us to deepen our understanding of these lost species and to have a clear idea about the coastal environment of Western France during the Cretaceous.

Citation: Evidence for marine microfossils from amber, V. Girard, A. R. Schmidt, S. Saint Martin, S. Struwe, V. Perrichot, J-P. Saint Martin, D. Grosheny, G. Breton and D. Néraudeau, PNAS, 11 November 2008.

[mrjesse]

You're jumping to a whole lot of strange conclusions here. First, why can't evolution and God coexist? Second, what does the concept of right and wrong have to do with believing in God? Are you saying one can't have moral values if they aren't religious?

To save your asking, I'm not drunk either - nor do I consume any intoxicating substance.

But you're not answering Fichori's question.

Is it not true that you believe each of the following:

All life evolved from a single first cell;

Humans are not any different then any other mammal except they are far more advanced;

There is no such thing as universal right and wrong;

You're certain there is no God;

~~~~~~~`

The above questions are really simple enough -- and their answer doesn't need to be another question. A simple "Yes, No," will do nicely. The fact that you're reluctant to simply answer then says a lot about the answers. All the people I've talked to who believe in PNAFN (Purely Naturalistic All From Nothing) and ASBE (All Species By Evolution) take it on faith. Most of them don't even understand the technical specifics of AFN or ASBE, but just take it by faith - a faith in something they've never seen, and in people they've never met. And those who I've talked to who are highly educated on the topic still take it by faith, always hoping that one day some evidence will arise proving AFN and ASBE. But that's exactly what the religious folks do with their faith!

So the answers to the questions that Fichori asked are important when discussing science and evolution with somebody - worldview matters! For example, I've had Soliton telling me that immaterial lies are okay and that our society would collapse if we never lied. I asked him how he knew when a lie was material and immaterial but he wouldn't tell me, but I suspect that the difference is that an immaterial lie is one that the sayer believes that they can ultimately get away with. If someone claims to be an honest person, then maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but at least it's worth investigating. But if they right up front tell you that they lie and that lying is under some circumstances okay, then you know right off the bat that you probably can't trust a thing they say. So if it is true that you believe that all came from nothing and that there is no God and that there is no such thing as universal right and wrong, then you're going to have a hard time arguing that lying is always wrong for everybody.

So what one believes about the issues that Fichori asked is of interest when discussing science.

-Jesse

[Fichori]

“You're jumping to a whole lot of strange conclusions here.” [excerpt]

Actually, I asked a question that was coherent to the Evolutionary Dogma.

“First, why can't evolution and God coexist? ” [excerpt]

Evolution claims that death and suffering have been a part of existence from the beginning.

The bible says that God's Creation was Good, and that through the free will of man, sin and death came into the world.

If Evolution is true and there was no fall, there is nothing to be redeemed from.

The reason they cannot coexist is because the are directly contradictory.

God says one thing, Evolution says the exact opposite.

“Second, what does the concept of right and wrong have to do with believing in God? ” [excerpt]

Well, the Democrats think they are doing whats right.

“Are you saying one can't have moral values if they aren't religious?” [excerpt]

Once again, take a look at the Democrat party.

Abortion isn't wrong to them.


I should point out, religion doesn't cut it.

Christ was actually against religion.

What he wants is a personal relationship.

[ETL]

Is it not true that you believe each of the following:
All life evolved from a single first cell;

Possibly. I can't say for sure.

Humans are not any different than any other mammal except they are far more advanced;

I believe there is something very special and unique about humans. But I can't say that's absolute evidence of a divine creator.

There is no such thing as universal right and wrong;

To me, decency comes from the heart.

You're certain there is no God;

Absolutely not. I believe there is a good possibility that there is something behind it all. But I can't say for sure what it is and neither can you. There are many mysterious workings within the realm of quantum mechanics. Perhaps the 'answer' lies there.

[Fichori]

“To me, decency comes from the heart.” [excerpt]

Uh, think again...

¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Genesis 6:5

¶ And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Genesis 8:20-21

Just face it.

Man is depraved.

[mrjesse]

Possibly. I can't say for sure.
Ahh, so you're not as dogmatic about saying that ASBE (All Species by Evolution) is the proven truth as many others. Good.

There is no such thing as universal right and wrong;

To me, decency comes from the heart.

From who's heart? You see, different people may feel that they can arrive at right and wrong from their heart, but the fact is that they arrive at different and wildly varying conclusions of decency and right and wrong. In some countries, they worship cows, in others they eat them. In some they worship men, and in others they eat them.

There is nothing universal about the decency that comes from people's hearts

Regards,

-Jesse

[bert]

Are you a good Muslim?

Is that the question?

[metmom]

In some countries, they worship cows, in others they eat them. In some they worship men, and in others they eat them.

In the Sawi culture, treachery was the highest ideal. When first presented with the Gospel, the tribespeople though Judas was the hero of the story. (The Peace Child by Don Richardson.)

The heart is a rather unreliable indicator of right and wrong. Morals can't go by feelings because feelings change. If morals changed with feelings, then they are good for nothing. There has to be some set of standard for right and wrong or you might as well have nothing. Situational ethics is no better than nothing.

[metmom]

Variation within species exists but should not be confused with evolution. The only instance of a creature having a change in form was the serpent and that was a result of being cursed. So change of form is actually a curse to an animal. Animals were made to reproduce *after their kind*.

Extrapolating that just because we see variation therefore evolution must be possible is unsubstantiated and somewhat unscientific. It may seem like a reasonable conclusion but for all the experiments done so far, nothing more than variation has occurred.

For those who believe God over man, there are also the statements in Scripture that God created different groups of animals in different acts of creation, as He did with man. He clearly tells us that man was created from the dust of the earth, not though any other means. When He created Eve, He clearly tells us that He used a different means (Adam’s rib). If He had made man from animals, I don’t see why He wouldn’t have simply stated that as He did in the creation of Eve. Not to mention plenty of other references to the creation of man by Jesus Himself.

[bert]

Myth does not serve as evidence

[metmom]

Second, what does the concept of right and wrong have to do with believing in God?

That's where the concepts originated. It provides an unchanging standard by which to measure what is right and what is wrong.

Are you saying one can't have moral values if they aren't religious?

I don't think that he said that. It certainly is possible to have morals but they'll be borrowed morals or they'll be meaningless because they'll be situational.

For all the atheists try to demonstrate that one can be moral without believing in God, the morals they use and compare to originated from the Judeo-Christian teachings. Which I find somewhat ironic; that they should use the teachings of a god who they reject to *prove* that they can be as moral as the next guy.

[ETL]

The heart is a rather unreliable indicator of right and wrong. Morals can't go by feelings because feelings change.

Clarification: it comes from a *combination* of a good heart and sound logic.

[metmom]

And you know that it’s myth how?

What is your criteria for determining that?

How have you demonstrated that Scripture isn’t true? IOW, how did you falsify it?

[metmom]

I think that sound logic can be used to support adherence to a moral code, but I don’t think that it can produce the Judeo-Christian moral code that our culture rests on.

[ETL]

The only instance of a creature having a change in form was the serpent and that was a result of being cursed.

Not at all true. Did you know that the modern whale, a sea creature, retains the remnants of a pelvis? It's a feature left behind from a time when the line were land creatures. There is a whole series of whale family fossils showing the gradual change through time.

So change of form is actually a curse to an animal.

Obama "Change" will no doubt turn out to be a 'curse' to Americans, but biological change is one vital way organisms adapt to changing environments.

Again, I am not an atheist. Atheism, I think, is every bit faith-based as religion. How could anyone say, without question, that there isn't a god? I guess you could say I am an agnostic who leans heavily to the idea that there is 'something', more powerful than we can imagine behind all creation. Further, I believe there IS a special kinship between Man and the physical universe. There are many things about 'nature' that science will probably never be able to explain. One such area which should hold hope for religious folk is in the field of quantum mechanics. Perhaps this is the realm in which God works his magic.

__________________________________________________________

Here's something I put together some time ago. I think you might find it interesting AND inspirational...

"If, as claimed by standard Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, mutations always occur randomly in relation to the direction of evolutionary change, then the same rate of mutation would be expected to be observed in both sets of cells. However, Cairns discovered that after a prolonged period of starvation, mutations that allowed the E. coli to utilise lactose increased in frequency. It appeared that the presence of lactose specifically enhanced mutations that allowed the cells to eat the lactose. The E. coli cell appeared to be able to *direct* its own mutations."[*emphasis* added]
http://www.geneticengineering.org/evolution/ogryzko.html

Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life
by Johnjoe McFadden

Reviews

Amazon.co.uk Review:
Quantum Evolution tackles the hairiest heresy of evolutionary biology, the one most likely to get scientists figuratively burned at the stake: the notion that any force more selective than blind chance could drive mutation. Such "directed evolution" smacks too much of a retreat into creationism for most science-minded readers to be comfortable with, but there's no prior reason to reject the idea. Molecular biologist Johnjoe McFadden risks the Inquisition by suggesting just such a possibility in Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life. Directed at a general but somewhat sophisticated readership, it covers the basics of both standard evolutionary theory and quantum-level physics, then synthesizes them in an interesting theory of made-to-order mutation that explains enough to warrant attention and is, importantly, testable.

McFadden's writing is clear and sharp, and shows a high regard for the reader's intelligence and patience for complex ideas. This is no airplane book--except for those already well-versed in the latest in both evolutionary theory and subatomic physics. The rewards of reading are great, and the author bows just enough to established theory that he might meet the fate of his intellectual predecessors. The ideas underlying Quantum Evolution may be right or wrong, but they challenge received wisdom without plunging into dogmatism--and that's good science. --Rob Lightner

Synopsis:
How did life start? How did something capable of replicating itself emerge from the primordial soup? How did it defy the odds? And how did it carry on seeking out the very mutations that enable survival? Living organisms are controlled by a single molecule - DNA. Yet the study of physics tells us that the behaviour of single molecules is also controlled by the laws of quantum mechanics. The implications of this for biology have not been fully thought through. Until now. In this debut, Johnjoe McFadden puts forward a theory of quantum evolution. He shows how living organisms have the ability to will themselves into action. Indeed, such an ability may be life's most fundamental attribute. This has radical implications. Evolution may not be random at all, as recent evolutionary theories have taught: rather, cells may, in certain circumstances, be able to choose to mutate particular genes that provide an advantage in the environment in which the cell finds itself.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006551289/quantumevolution/202-6775530-9928622

"The form and dynamics of every living organism on this planet is controlled by a single molecule of DNA. Recent experiments suggest that size alone is not a bar to quantum behaviour. A group based in Vienna have recently fired fullerene molecules through the double slit experiment and demonstrated that these particles have no problem in sailing through both slits simultaneously. And fullerene is big - 60 carbon atoms in a cage-like structure, the famous 'buckyball' molecule - with a diameter similar to that of the DNA double helix. If fullerene can enter the quantum multiverse then the microscopic constituents of our own cells, including DNA, are in there as well." --Johnjoe McFadden
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/Biography.htm

Some excerpts from Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life...

Quantum Evolution
The New Science of Life

Chapter 1 – What is Life?
Chapter 2 – The limits of Life
Chapter 3 – Life’s biggest action
Chapter 4 – How did we get here?
Chapter 5 – Life’s actions
Chapter 6 – What makes bodies move?
Chapter 7 – What is quantum mechanics?
Chapter 8 – Measurement and reality
Chapter 9 – What does it all mean?
Chapter 10 – The beginning
Chapter 11 – The quantum cell
Chapter 12 – Quantum evolution
Chapter 13 – Mind and matter

[ETL]

Here's something else which makes an even closer, plausible connection between Man, science and religion.

______________________________________________________

Lothar Schäfer is the author of the book, In Search of Divine Reality - Science as a Source of Inspiration, . The book is, in essence, a brilliant description of the encounter of Science and Religion, wherein Schäfer proposes “that the traditional conflict between the two disciplines is mainly one involving classical, Newtonian Science; and many of its most pressing issues have obtained an entirely different meaning by the change in world view effected by the discovery of Quantum Mechanics.”

Lothar Schäfer is the Edgar Wertheim Distinguished Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. He received his Ph.D. (in Chemistry) from the University of Munich in 1965, and is the recipient of numerous awards for his scientific work. His current research interests include topics in Applied Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Structural Studies by Electron Diffraction.

In a review of Schäfer’s book, Professor Quentin Smith, Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, writes:

“Schäfer’s book is an integrative approach to Modern Science and Religion that aims to show how some traditional religious and philosophical notions can be understood or redefined in terms of modern science. The scientific explanations are reliable and the scientific interpretations of religious ideas are interesting and should be taken seriously and respectfully by even the most sober-minded adherents of the scientific world-view. Rather than science being opposed or subordinated to religion, religious views are refashioned in terms of currently accepted scientific theories. Most of the arguments of the book are based on conclusions drawn from the phenomena of quantum reality and it is one of the clearest introductory explanations of quantum mechanics on the market. Schäfer’s book is written in a lively and accessible style that will appeal to the general reader. I really enjoyed reading this book.”

On the Foundations of Metaphysics in the
Mind-like Background of Physical Reality

by Lothar Schäfer

That the basis of the material world is non-material is a transcription of the fact that the properties of things are determined by quantum waves, - probability amplitudes which carry numerical relations, but are devoid of mass and energy. As a consequence of the wave-like aspects of reality, atoms do not have any shape - a solid outline in space - but the things do, which they form; and the constituents of matter, the elementary particles, are not in the same sense real as the real things that they constitute.

Rather, left to themselves they exist in a world of possibilities, “between the idea of a thing and a real thing”, as Heisenberg wrote, in superpositions of quantum states, in which a definite place in space, for example, is not an intrinsic attribute. That is, when such a particle is not observed it is, in particular, nowhere.

In the quantum phenomena we have discovered that reality is different than we thought. Visible order and permanence are based on chaos and transitory entities. Mental principles - numerical relations, mathematical forms, principles of symmetry - are the foundations of order in the universe, whose mind-like properties are further established by the fact that changes in information can act, without any direct physical intervention, as causal agents in observable changes in quantum states. Prior to the discovery of these phenomena information-driven reactions were a prerogative of mind. “The universe”, Eddington wrote, “is of the nature of a thought. The stuff of the world is mind-stuff”.

Mind-stuff, in a part of reality behind the mechanistic foreground of the world of space-time energy sensibility, as Sherrington called it, is not restricted to Einstein locality. The existence of non-local physical effects - faster than light phenomena - has now been well established by quantum coherence-type experiments like those related to Bell’s Theorem. If the universe is non-local, something that happens at this moment in its depths may have an instantaneous effect a long distance away, for example right here and right now. By every molecule in our body we are tuned to the mind-stuff of the universe.

In this way the quantum phenomena have forced the opening of a universe that Newton’s mechanism once blinded and closed. Unintended by its creator, Newton’s mechanics defined a machine, without any life or room for human values, the Parmenidian One, forever unchanging and predictable, “eternal matter ruled by eternal laws”, as Sheldrake wrote. In contrast, the quantum phenomena have revealed that the world of mechanism is just the cortex of a deeper and wider, transcendent, reality. The future of the universe is open, because it is unpredictable. Its present is open, because it is subject to non-local influences that are beyond our control. Cracks have formed in the solidity of the material world from which emanations of a different type of reality seep in. In the diffraction experiments of material particles, a window has opened to the world of Platonic ideas.

That the universe should be mind-like and not communicate with the human mind - the one organ to which it is akin - is not very likely. In fact, one of the most fascinating faculties of the human mind is its ability to be inspired by unknown sources - as though it were sensitive to signals of a mysterious origin. It is at this point that the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. Ever since the discovery of Hume’s paradox - the principles that we use to establish scientific knowledge cannot establish themselves - science has had an illegitimate basis. Hume was right: in every external event we observe conjunction, but infer connection. Thus, causality is not a principle of nature but a habit of the human mind. At the same time, Hume was not right in postulating that there is no single experience of causality. Because, when the self-conscious mind itself is directly involved in a causal link, for example when its associated body takes part in a collision, or when the mind by its own free will is the cause of some action, then there is a direct experience of, and no doubt that, causal connections exist. When this modification of the paradox is coupled with the quantum base, a large number of pressing problems find their delightful solutions.

Like the nature of reality, the nature of knowledge is counter-intuitive, and not at all like the automatic confidence that we have in sensations of this phenomenon. The basis of knowledge is threefold. The premises are experience of reality, employment of reason, and reliance on certain non-rational, non-empirical principles, such as the Assumptions of identity, factuality, permanence, Causality, and induction. Where do these principles come from? Neither from an experience of external phenomena, nor from a process of reasoning, but from a system program of the self-conscious mind. By being an extension of the mind-like background of nature and partaking of its order, mind gives the epistemic principles - those used in deriving knowledge - certainty. Since they are not anchored in the world of space-time and mass-energy but are valid nevertheless, they seem to derive from a higher order and transcendent part of physical reality. They are, it can be assumed, messengers of the mind-like order of reality.

In the same way, moral principles. Traditional societies based their social order on myths and religious explanations. By assuming a purpose in the world, they told people why things are the way they are, and why they should act the way they were supposed to act. In the “animist ontogenies” values and knowledge derived from a single source, and life had meaning in an “animist covenant” as Monod called it. By destroying the ontological base of the animist explanations, - their astronomy, physics, and chemistry, - science also destroyed the foundations of their values.

In this process Monod saw the origin of the contemporary sickness in culture, das Unbehagen in der Kultur: on the one hand science is the basis for our power and survival; on the other, it has broken the animist covenant, rendered life meaningless in the process, and disconnected the world of values from the world of facts.

The sickness of spirit and the concomitant erosion of moral standards are the great danger for the future of mankind, already apparent in the public adoration of violence and debased behavior. At its roots is the unsolved question, on whose authority are the moral principles to be based now that the authority of the animist myths has been found lacking?

For those who are willing to listen, the answer is: on the authority of mind. In the same way that the self-conscious mind grants certainty to the epistemic principles, it invests authority in the moral principles. Like the former, the moral principles are non-empirical and non-rational, - not derived by a process of logic nor verified by experience - messengers from a higher reality beyond the front of mass-energy sensibility.

Epistemic principles give us a sense of what is true and false; moral principles, of what is right and wrong. The former establish the certainty of identity, permanence, factuality, causality; the latter, of responsibility, morality, honesty. By the same process that allows us to accept, without possible verification, the epistemic principles, we can also accept the authority of the moral principles. Violation of any one of them will put us in contrast to the nature of reality. If the nature of the universe is mind-like, it must be assumed to have a spiritual order as well as a physical order. As the epistemic principles are expressions of physical order, the ethical principles are expressions of the spiritual order of physical reality. By being an extension of the transcendent part of the nature and partaking of its order, mind establishes the authority of the ethical principles.

The challenge of reality and the ability to explore it are wonderful gifts to mankind. Understanding reality requires refinement of thought. That is, it has to do with culture. It requires an effort, is not afforded by automatic, intuitive reflex. Making sense of the world takes the response to a challenge, not the complacency of common sense. It is one and the same as striving for the moral life. An important part of it is the need to become aware of the specific character of human nature, to recognize “the human mystery” as Eccles called it: the mystery of how mind and body interact, how self-conscious human beings with values emerged in an evolutionary process supposedly based on blind chance and brutality. The evidence is growing that there is more to human nature than the laws of physics or chemistry, more to the process of evolution than blind chance and brutality; that evolution is more than, as Monod wrote, “a giant lottery, and human beings live at the boundary of an alien world that is deaf to our music and indifferent to our hopes and suffering and crimes”.

The barbaric view of reality is mechanistic. It is the easy view of classical science and of common sense. In epistemology mechanism is naive realism, the view that all knowledge is based on unquestionable facts, on apodictically verified truths. In physics mechanism is the view that the universe is clockwork, closed, and entirely predictable on the basis of unchanging laws. In biology, mechanism is the view that all aspects of life, its evolution, our feelings and values, are ultimately explicable in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. In our legal system, mechanism is the view that the assumption of precise procedural technicalities constitutes perfect justice. In our political system, mechanism is the view that the assertion of finely formulated personal rights constitutes the ideal democracy. In our public administration, it is the view that responsible service manifests itself by the enforcement of finely split bureaucratic regulations. All of these attitudes are the attitudes of barbarians.

The quantum phenomena have taught us that, without naive realism, knowledge is possible. They have taught us that, without naive animism an ethic of knowledge, as Monod has called it, and a life with values are possible. Principles exist which are valid even though they cannot be verified. The discovery of the quantum phenomena has established a new covenant - between the human mind and the mind-like background of the universe - one that provides a home again to the homeless and meaning to the meaningless life. Whether or not the human mind is separate of the brain, as Sherrington and Eccles thought, I do not know. But I do not doubt that it is human only in some parts, and in others shares in the mind-like background of the universe. It is now possible to believe that the mind is the realization of universal potentia, a manifestation of the essence of the universe. Therefore, the only good life is in harmony with the nature of reality.

[metmom]

Will be out for a bit and give this a good read later.

[tpanther]

Did you know that the modern whale, a sea creature, retains the remnants of a pelvis? It's a feature left behind from a time when the line were land creatures.

Where's the proof for this?

[tpanther]

First, why can't evolution and God coexist?

My first observation is that if this is true, then evolution IS intelligent design.

Secondly, watch 'Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed' by Ben Stein.

[Fichori]

If truth is relative and you define all born again Christians as ‘good Muslims’, then yes.

I’ve seen how alcohol destroys people.

Needless to say, I don’t want to wind up like them.

That, and I don’t have the delusion that I need to be drunk to have a good time.

And then there is always that verse in Ephesians.

[Fichori]

“Clarification: it comes from a *combination* of a good heart and sound logic.”

Sorry, that doesn't agree with scripture.

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

Mark 10:18

¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Genesis 6:5

¶ And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Genesis 8:20-21

Man has, by nature, an evil heart.

And every fool thinks that his logic is sound.