The eminent Tom Foss, who used to interact with me but has moved on to greener pastures (and bully for him, I say!) said this:
Gosh, maybe it's just the years of calculus, but it seems to me that trying to apply probabilistic reasoning to a process that isn't random, isn't common enough to have its frequency even hypothesized about, and has never been observed by anyone, is just mathematical wankery.
That's pretty interesting.
1) I have been corrected by evolutionists that ToE is not random. (So I don't say it's random anymore; rather, I say "unguided natural selection acting on random mutations".)
2) Macroevolution isn't very common; else it would be really really easy to put forward numerous examples to satisfy the evolutionary skeptic like me.
3) Macroevolution via unguided natural selection acting on random mutations has not, as far as I know, been observed.
Evolutionists, Tom Foss is not your ally. Just FYI. No more mathematical...well, you know... please.
29 comments:
Before making any reasonable comment about points 2 and 3 can you explain what you mean by 'macroevolution'.
This is not a facetious question, remember macroevolution isn' a term biologists use. Also I have seen some IDers or creationists using it to refer to something that has nothing to do with ToE. That being that microevolution is the adaptive changes frequently observed but macroevolution is some kind of big change such as a monkey giving birth to a human type nonsense.
P.S Did you see my response to the BEAR2 post replying to your question about erv's?
Tom Foss:
Gosh, maybe it's just the years of calculus, but it seems to me that trying to apply probabilistic reasoning to a process that isn't random ...
All process are random to some extent. A deterministic process exists only in mathematical theory, not in the real world. There may be some mathematical ... well, you know ... going on, but Mr. Foss is apparently not qualified to determine that.
/Should have googled the title.
1) I have been corrected by evolutionists that ToE is not random. (So I don't say it's random anymore; rather, I say "unguided natural selection acting on random mutations".)
That's actually wonderful to hear. The fact that you are willing to correct yourself shows that you are more intellectually honest than your detractors have given you credit.
2) Macroevolution isn't very common; else it would be really really easy to put forward numerous examples to satisfy the evolutionary skeptic like me.
"Macroevolution" is common enough to account for the full range of organisms that you see today.
3) Macroevolution via unguided natural selection acting on random mutations has not, as far as I know, been observed.
It really depends upon what you mean by "observed" and "macroevolution." If by observed, you mean we haven't seen lobe finned fish evolve into tetrapods before our eyes, you're right, but that misses the point. Electrons haven't been observed. No one saw the the rock that created the Barringer Meteor Crater. Yet I have a feeling, since the existence of meteors and electrons don't threaten your worldview, you don't question their existence, despite their never being "observed." We know that tetrapods evolved from fish 375 million years ago for the identical reason we can be assured of the existence of electrons and that meteor: because of the evidence left behind.
And I also would like to know what you mean by "macroevolution." If you mean speciation, yeah, we have seen that, but you I have a feeling that you wouldn't be satisfied with the changes, because they would be too "minor" for you.
I do want to point out one thing. You know that feeling of pity and irritation you get when someone asks: "WELL WHO CREATED GOD THEN?" I get that same exact feeling when someone says"WELL, ITS STILL A LIZARD/ INSECT/ E COLI/ FLOWER" or whatever, when talking about evolution. It lets me know that the person I'm talking to doesn't understand, and isn't really interested in understanding why we know that evolution is true.
Yep. Macroplatetectonics has also never been observed- no one has ever seen one continent split into two. Microplatetectonics has been observed, but the continents only move in tiny increments, and stay within their kind: no one ever saw the creation of, say, South America from Africa.
I know I haven't given you time to respond but I'm bored so I thought I'd add some more.
Think of a giant sequoia, nearly 300ft tall.
Is it reasonable to say it grew from a single sequoia seed? No one has ever observed it happen, it takes hundreds if not thousands (baseing that on tree ring ages) of years.
So why are we so sure, well we have observed seed grow into small trees, small trees grow into moderate trees, moderate trees grow into big trees etc we also have a clearly defined mechanism of growth.
If somebody objected to my theory of 300foot sequoias growing from seeds on the grounds that only microgrowth had been observed not macrogrowth, how would you view that objecting?
The central point is that there is only growth, the micro/macro distinction is artificial. Macro growth is just lots of repeated microgrowth.
So it is with macroevolution, it is not about big leaps, (seed turning into giant trees in one leap in my analogy), it is about repeated microevolution. this is why biologists just talk about evolution.
There are two possible objections that could be revlevent.
1) Some kind of barrier that prevents the accumulation of changes, no such barrier has ever been found.
2) Insufficent time, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old then there has not been enough time for ToE to explain the variety of life. The evidence however is very clear that the earth is old.
Of course the notion that macroevolution is just lots of microevolution accumulating over time is also confirmed by both the fossil evidence we have and all the genetic evidence.
So back to your original posting.
" 2) Macroevolution isn't very common; else it would be really really easy to put forward numerous examples to satisfy the evolutionary skeptic like me."
For the false, big leap idea of macroevolution then no it isn't very common, infact it never happens.
For the ToE version, then every single living thing is an example of macroevolution (the accumulation of microevolutionary change over time).
"3) Macroevolution via unguided natural selection acting on random mutations has not, as far as I know, been observed."
Once again for the false version, no it has never been observed as it doesn't happen.
For the ToE version no it has not been directly observed for the same reason no one has directly observed a 300ft sequoia growing from a seed. There is however lots of observation we can make fossils, genomes etc.
Incase you are still thinking that ToE must need big macroleaps to work then think on this.
Individuals don't evolve, no organism will have offspring very different from itself, there is no first member of any species (*). It is populations that evolve, slowly and gradually. This is even true of speciation, it isn't really an event but a shifting in character of the population.
* Okay plants do some weird stuff involving polyploidy and hybridisation but I didn't want to confuse matters.
neil,
You know what macroevol means.
And I've been swamped in life as well as blogging. I hope to get to BEAR2 and the other comboxes sometime soon. Sorry. Believe me, I wish I had some blog teammates.
jft,
1) Well, thanks for that. I am generally right ;-) but when corrected I try to stand consistent with the correction. And I hope, of course, that if you have a beef with my current definition of ToE, you'll correct me again.
2) So is ID. So is the magical fairy godmother that likes to change animals into others. Prove that macroevol occurs, that's what I'm getting at.
3) You said:
If by observed, you mean we haven't seen lobe finned fish evolve into tetrapods before our eyes, you're right, but that misses the point.
No, it doesn't miss the point. You haven't observed it. Thank you.
Electrons haven't been observed.
nobody's disputing the existence of electrons here.
If there were an alternative hyp that explained atomic physics just as well as the electron hyp, there'd be sthg worth talking about. And that's the case with ID/ToE.
We know that tetrapods evolved from fish 375 million years ago for the identical reason we can be assured of the existence of electrons and that meteor: because of the evidence left behind.
You can't observe that at all. You don't know whether those fossils are evidence of ToE or not. You don't know whether even one of those fossils was a direct ancestor or descendant of another. How many fossils are there? Thousands? How many organisms allegedly lived on the Earth for its 3 billion years of producing life? Trillions?
You don't have a time machine. You have guesswork, that you conveniently fit into your pet hyp. But I don't grant that the fossils are evidence.
And I also would like to know what you mean by "macroevolution."
Dog turning into dog doesn't qualify.
Sthg more along the lines of banana becoming fish.
I get that same exact feeling when someone says"WELL, ITS STILL A LIZARD/ INSECT/ E COLI/ FLOWER" or whatever, when talking about evolution.
Fine, but "Who created God?" is a ridiculous question. Mine is not. Why precisely is it a bad question? The very point in question is whether we've ever observed something become something else.
zilch said:
Macroplatetectonics has also never been observed- no one has ever seen one continent split into two.
Look, I know how hard it is to make good analogies. I often want to insert one but can't think of anythg good, so I have to go with less evocative language.
But I don't grant macroplatetectonics (my 1st time to hear that term), so it's a bad analogy.
neil said:
Is it reasonable to say it grew from a single sequoia seed?
Yes. Do you see anyone questioning that?
No one has ever observed it happen,
So if there were objections, it wouldn't be very honest to say that the seed -> sequoia is a scientific CONCLUSION, would it? And to ostracise the objector (like what happens with ToE skeptics)?
the micro/macro distinction is artificial.
We've seen plenty of trees grow from seed to tree. I just want to see ONE example of banana -> fish.
it is not about big leaps
You're apparently unfamiliar with the Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium.
There are two possible objections that could be revlevent.
No, I wouldn't necessarily hold either of those, in this argument. I may not know why bananas don't become fish, but I do know that it's never been observed. It's not an important question to me, since it's never happened, though it might interest someone else.
is also confirmed by both the fossil evidence we have and all the genetic evidence.
Another throwaway assumption. Sorry, this is crap.
See above about the fossils.
And as I've already told you several times, IDH accts for these genetic similarities and diffs just as well and better than ToE. ERV herself even admitted that to me in person, in public, on Thursday evening.
Oh dear it seems you are using the false version of macroevolution. So I shall too, in that case you are correct macroevolution does not happen and has not happened.
"it is not about big leaps
You're apparently unfamiliar with the Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium."
What a comment to make, do you really think I would be unfamiliar with them or was it an attempt to be cute? The problem for you is that I am too familiar with them, not with the soundbite strawman versions so popular with many creationist types but with what they actually refer to.
The Cambrian explosion referes to a period of some several million years, increasing numbers of transitonals have been found from that period and we now have more precambrian fossils/trace fossils. So no, not big leaps, rapid diversification, maybe, big leaps no, still a gradual process.
What do you think punctuated eq' is? It is still based on gradual accumilation of changes, it just added to ToE the ideas that rates of evolution can varied depending on pressures and that speciation occurs in smaller, isolated populations (not a new idea). The sorts of populations that are less likely to leave a good fossil record. It is still based on gradual shifts in populations, not big leaps in individuals.
"And as I've already told you several times, IDH accts for these genetic similarities and diffs just as well and better than ToE."
You have indeed asserted that but never backed it up with specific examples, have you.
As I put in BEAR2
"With ToE only a very specific distribution is possible out of the myriad of possible distributions. Also the distribution has to be consistent with all other pattens of distribution found in genetic sequences.
For ID any distribution is possible and that distribution does not have to be consistent with all other pattens of distribution found in genetic sequences.
So what do we find in reality?
The distribution of ERVs does fit with the specific distribution permitted by ToE.
This distribution is entirely consistent with all other pattens of distribution found in genetic sequences.
Given the vast number of potential patterns of distribution possible if ToE is false then why do we only see the specific distribution that is constant with it being true?"
P.S Bannana to a fish?
Please, atleast try to pretend your interested.
Pff, neil. "Banana to a fish" is a tongue-in-cheek reference to how ridiculous ToE is. You are apparently impervious to irony and facetiousness.
Would it make you feel better if I said "unicellular organism to a rat-like mammal to a man"? Just substitute that for when I say "banana to a fish" and answer the durn question. Sheesh.
"unicellular organism to a rat-like mammal to a man"? Just substitute that for when I say "banana to a fish" and answer the durn question. Sheesh."
Sheesh indeed.
I can't because that never happened.
No organism has ever or will ever turn into another organism.
Now if you want to talk about ToE ask about populations.
You just don't seem to get what the ToE is all about.
Which is what makes so many of your questions unanswerable, they are aimed at a straw man of ToE.
Rho:
Would it make you feel better if I said "unicellular organism to a rat-like mammal to a man"?
This is a straw man argument. No evolutionist ever claimed that.
Sigh.
Trying to waste all my time here?
You know exactly what I mean, but you're just playing stupid games.
Either play ball and answer the question that you know I'm asking, or you can talk amongst yourselves.
Rho:
If by observed, you mean we haven't seen lobe finned fish evolve into tetrapods before our eyes, you're right, but that misses the point.
No, it doesn't miss the point. You haven't observed it. Thank you.
Again, no evolutionist claims that you would observe this. Hence, a straw man argument.
"Either play ball and answer the question that you know I'm asking"
Ask a sincere and relevant question and I'll answer it, or try to at least.
This is not a facetious question, remember macroevolution isn' a term biologists use.
it is - it means evolution at or above the species level (using the commonly used biological species concept), microevolution is beneath the species level
No, it doesn't miss the point. You haven't observed it. Thank you.
here are other things we haven't directly witnessed with our own eyes:
the earth's core's composition
various exoplanets
the resurrection of Jesus
the people who wrote about the resurrection of Jesus
so are none of these things real/true by this criteria?
Pff, neil. "Banana to a fish" is a tongue-in-cheek reference to how ridiculous ToE is.
why is this considered more ridiculous than an invisible magic man blowing in to dust or removing a man's rib and causing fully formed creatures to sprout out of the ground/rib?
Dr F,
Really maybe it's a nationality thing, I never heard the term until hearing it from creationists or in response to creationist arguments, this includes my time at university studying biology.
However I don't think what you describe is how Rho' was using it.
No, it doesn't miss the point. You haven't observed it. Thank you.
It does in fact miss the point. Are you saying that the only way to know if something happens is if you see it occur before your very eyes? Wouldn't that free a lot of murderers who have been convicted through DNA evidence? The entire point of science is to discover the invisible. And if you seriously doubt everything that you can't see, then you would have to apply that logic to the resurrection as well.
nobody's disputing the existence of electrons here.
And the only reason for that is because electrons don't threaten your worldview. Yet, if you were to turn your exact misunderstanding about science that you apply to evolutionary theory to atomic theory, we would hear you say that "no one has even so much seen a single electron." It's selective skepticism.
You don't know whether those fossils are evidence of ToE or not.
We can, through dating techniques and homology.
You have guesswork, that you conveniently fit into your pet hyp. But I don't grant that the fossils are evidence.
Let me give you an idea of how wrong this is. A few years back Neil Shubin and his team wanted to find a transitional fossil between fish and tetrapods. Knowing that this transition happened during the Denovian period, they went up to Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, where rock from this age is exposed. After digging for a while, true to their prediction, they came across the Tiktaalik, a fish with arms, gills, lungs, a neck and a flat head. It was the ideal transitional. This is a prediction that could only be possible if:
1) They were correct that the rock is as old as they say it is.
2) They were correct that fish evolved into tetrapods during that age.
There is no such thing as a false theory that makes accurate predictions. No similar prediction by using "flood geology" has ever been made.
You can read the entire Tiktaalik story in Shubin's "Your Inner Fish." It also teaches about how evolution explains a great deal about why our bodies are the way they are.
Fine, but "Who created God?" is a ridiculous question. Mine is not. Why precisely is it a bad question?
Because no creationist has yet to provide a mechanism that would prevent small changes to add up to large, significant changes. The best they have come up with is "mutations only change the genome, it doesn't add any new information." This has been confirmed false, and we do indeed have examples of new information being added to the genome through a random mutation. So it will remain a senseless question until someone can provide a good reason why small changes can't add up to larger changes. Otherwise it's just saying "Oh, sure evolution happens, it just doesn't happen... a lot for some reason." It's like saying that gravity affects bowling balls, but it doesn't affect the moon because its too far away.
Rho- you say:
nobody's disputing the existence of electrons here.
If there were an alternative hyp that explained atomic physics just as well as the electron hyp, there'd be sthg worth talking about. And that's the case with ID/ToE.
But there is an alt hyp that explains atomic phyics, or at least some of it: Colossians 1:17, "He himself existed before anything else did, and he holds all things together." This, at least according to Jack Chick, explains why protons, which repel one another, stick together in atomic nuclei: because Jesus holds them together.
Do you believe that Jesus holds all those protons together? If not, why not? Colossians 1:17 explains the strong nuclear force as well as ID explains biology. Is your only criterion for accepting some finding of science or not, whether or not it conflicts with someone's interpretation of Scripture? If so (and this certainly seems to be the case), there's no point in talking about science at all, or reading all those books: you will just find some way to force them into your worldview.
Before you retort that we atheists do the same, note that we have no Scripture to fit things into. Science is continually being revised, Scripture not: just the interpretation changes.
Look, I know how hard it is to make good analogies. I often want to insert one but can't think of anythg good, so I have to go with less evocative language.
But I don't grant macroplatetectonics (my 1st time to hear that term), so it's a bad analogy.
I made up the term to parody "macroevolution" in its creationist guise, but I guess it doesn't work, if you don't accept plate tectonics either. Oh well- I guess it's just another coincidence that the outlines of the continental shelves fit just like puzzle pieces, and that all those magnetic deposits in the allegedly formerly joined parts of Africa and South America are aligned in precisely the same directions, and that the fossils also correlate across the oceans.
It's just like the case of evolution: either it happened without God, or God did it in such a way to make it seem that He didn't do it.
This exchange makes your position particularly clear:
neil: Is it reasonable to say it grew from a single sequoia seed?
Rho: Yes. Do you see anyone questioning that?
neil: No one has ever observed it happen,
Rho: So if there were objections, it wouldn't be very honest to say that the seed -> sequoia is a scientific CONCLUSION, would it? And to ostracise the objector (like what happens with ToE skeptics)?
So, Rho, according to you, we should accept descriptions of events (for which we have some kind of evidence, presumably) even if they cannot be observed directly (within one lifetime, presumably), unless someone questions them: if there are objections, then we cannot call such descriptions scientific conclusions. Right so far?
The question that must be asked, of course, is this: what kind of objection counts? If you count ID as an objection that counts, because it is merely consistent with the data, then we might as well forget science and all go fishing, because such hypotheses are unfalsifiable and do no work. You yourself just now invoked "the magical fairy godmother that likes to change animals into others", presumably facetiously, but that's ID in a nutshell: magic which can be made to conform to any data.
As I've said before, if that's what you choose to believe, that's okay. Just keep it out of public school science classes, 'cause it ain't science.
Are you saying that the only way to know if something happens is if you see it occur before your very eyes?
That's what YOU in effect say about the God of the Bible.
I am just taking your standards and using them against a different plank of your position in order to demonstrate your inconsistency.
And the only reason for that is because electrons don't threaten your worldview
Nope. But let the arguments reveal who's right here.
We can, through dating techniques and homology.
How precisely would a dating technique tell you whether Fossil X was the descendant of any other fossil that anyone has ever dug up?
How precisely would the fact that it looks similar tell you that?
No, this is just special pleading on your part. You are suspending your normal skepticism when it suits you.
Tiktaalik...This is a prediction that could only be possible if: 1, 2
Let's say I grant 1) for the sake of argument. 2) does not follow at all. How could you possibly prove that tiktaalik is a descendant or ancestor of what you say it is? Do you have some sort of time machine? Its autobiography? We're talking tens of millions of years here! No, once again you're assuming what you need to prove.
There is no such thing as a false theory that makes accurate predictions.
Sure there is!
You yourself would grant that Christianity is false, but it predicts that most people in the world won't believe it. QED.
Because no creationist has yet to provide a mechanism that would prevent small changes to add up to large, significant changes.
I'd say there'd only be a need to if such a thing had ever been observed. I see no reason to assume it, but you base so much on it that you just can't bear to admit it's nothing more than an assumption. It's kind of sad.
Rho:
How precisely would a dating technique tell you whether Fossil X was the descendant of any other fossil that anyone has ever dug up?
Again, not evolutionist is claiming that, hence, another straw man argument.
Rho:
How precisely would the fact that it looks similar tell you that?
It would be indicative of a transitional form.
Rho:
How could you possibly prove that tiktaalik is a descendant or ancestor of what you say it is?
Another straw man. You want proof, go to a math class.
That's what YOU in effect say about the God of the Bible.
Well as you often say: Show me where I said that. A direct quote would be sufficient, thanks. I did say that I would be willing to believe if Jesus revealed himself to me directly, but I never said that would be the only way I would be willing to believe.
How precisely would a dating technique tell you whether Fossil X was the descendant of any other fossil that anyone has ever dug up?
How precisely would the fact that it looks similar tell you that?
We have seen repeatedly that homology correlates to genetic similarity, and therefore evolutionary ancestry.
Let's say I grant 1) for the sake of argument. 2) does not follow at all. How could you possibly prove that tiktaalik is a descendant or ancestor of what you say it is?
The fossil record shows us the rise of lobe finned fish immedately prior to the Tiktaalik and abundance of tetrapods during and after this period. Given its homology and age, it is clearly a transition between lobe finned fish and tetrapods. This is as close to "proof" as you would ever hope to get in science. I have yet to hear a suitable alternative explaination to the fact that a group of Palentologists said "Assuming that evolution is true, and that fish evolved into tetrapods, if we dig here,we will find some sort of freaky half fish half tetrapod thing," and then they found it. The only reasonable explanation is that evolution, and the mainstream scientific understanding of the history of the Earth, is true.
You yourself would grant that Christianity is false, but it predicts that most people in the world won't believe it. QED.
You really abuse "QED" way too much. We aren't debating whether or not Christianity is true at the moment. I personally don't think the truth of evolution falsifies Christianity, and there are plenty of theistic evolutionists to be found, like Francis Collins (who has equally nasty words for both atheists and ID proponents), Ken Miller, and our last couple of Popes. Hell, even Michael Behe, Mr. "Irreducable Complexity" himself believes in and old earth and that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Secondly, people disbelieving in Christianity is equally compatible with it being false. Honestly, if the opposite was true, and everyone was a Christian, would you consider that strong evidence that Christianity was false?
I'd say there'd only be a need to if such a thing had ever been observed. I see no reason to assume it, but you base so much on it that you just can't bear to admit it's nothing more than an assumption. It's kind of sad.
The history of the Earth is not an "assumption," it's reasonably inferred from biostratiography. But there is indeed one assumption involved in knowing that small changes can add up to large changes: the uniformity of nature.
BUT BUT THE NATURALIST HAS NO BASIS TO ASSUME THAT!
I disagree with that unavoidable attempt to derail the conversation, but since you believe that this is a Christian universe, and a Christian universe possesses natural uniformity according to you, you should have no basis to object to this assumption.
This assumption is important because it is the basis of science. When scientists calculate the gravitational force on the surface of Jupiter, how exactly do they know that? They do it by taking our knowledge of gravity here on Earth, and applying that same knowledge to the mass of Jupiter. I.e. they assume that gravity affects all matter equally.
Similarly, when we observe natural selection acting upon random mutations repeatedly, its reasonable to assume that this happens repeatedly through time. If you deny this, then you deny the uniformity principle, and you unwittingly declare that science itself is a pointless and fruitless endeavor. So unless you can come up with a mechanism which would prevent "microevolution" from turning into "macroevolution," it is reasonable to assume that the mechanism that creates both is one and the same.
This should give everybody an idea of just how strong the theory of evolution is. In a frenzied attempt to deny it, Creationists are forced to deny all of science by denying the uniformity principle.
This is basically the two positions being forwarded:
1) Evolution is true.
or
2) We can learn nothing from science.
Represent yo.
>Would it make you feel better if I said "unicellular organism to a rat-like mammal to a man"?
Because it took only 20 million seconds of natural development for your wife to give birth to one?
"Rat-like" or "human-like"?
But 4 million millenia from the RNA world to us apparently = Just Ridiculous.
neil: I never heard the term until hearing it from creationists or in response to creationist arguments, this includes my time at university studying biology.
In 244 papers on PubMed Central (just the fully accessible part of PubMed.)
"neil: I never heard the term until hearing it from creationists or in response to creationist arguments, this includes my time at university studying biology.
In 244 papers on PubMed Central (just the fully accessible part of PubMed.)"
Well badger me with a barge pole, I do stand (well sit) corrected.
I could have sworn that I had originally come in contact with the term only within the context of creationism or it's rebuttal.
Shows what the old memory is like, I still don't think the micro/macro distinction is what Rho' thinks it is though.
Macroevolution
Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.
You really abuse "QED" way too much. We aren't debating whether or not Christianity is true at the moment. I personally don't think the truth of evolution falsifies Christianity, and there are plenty of theistic evolutionists to be found, like Francis Collins (who has equally nasty words for both atheists and ID proponents), Ken Miller, and our last couple of Popes. Hell, even Michael Behe, Mr. "Irreducable Complexity" himself believes in and old earth and that humans and apes share a common ancestor. Secondly, people disbelieving in Christianity is equally compatible with it being false. Honestly, if the opposite was true, and everyone was a Christian, would you consider that strong evidence that Christianity was false?
The problem I have with the above mentioned scientists views is that their attempts to make evolutionary theory (and science generally) compatible with some variant of Christianity are just either demonstrably false (Behe) or so wishy washy or full of bizarre rationalisations that it makes them come off as more ludicrous than YECs, who at least can be said to employ a consistent standard in terms of where they get their beliefs from.
Post a Comment