Micro- vis-à-vis Macro-Evolution

[Jorge]

Pluto is doing well on his own. He doesn't need your caveats.

I'm VERY pleased that he is engaging the topic in polite and thoughtful conversation. I.e., he's trying to deal with the topic on a level other than Bible-thumping and insults.

K54

If I'm correct, in the not-too-distant future Pluto will wish he was literally on Pluto.
All it's gonna take is a sufficiently large dose of Beagle Boy and/or Santa Klaus.

That's my prediction ... time will now be the judge ...

Jorge

[seer]

If I'm correct, in the not-too-distant future Pluto will wish he was literally on Pluto.
All it's gonna take is a sufficiently large dose of Beagle Boy and/or Santa Klaus.

That's my prediction ... time will now be the judge ...

Jorge

Well I hope he doesn't leave, I really enjoy his posts...

[klaus54]

If I'm correct, in the not-too-distant future Pluto will wish he was literally on Pluto.
All it's gonna take is a sufficiently large dose of Beagle Boy and/or Santa Klaus.

That's my prediction ... time will now be the judge ...

Jorge

Either support Pluto with his comments or leave him alone.

K54

[Pluto]

I think I can respond to most posts that have occured with only two

@Klaus & Jorge On my motivations and expectations (Muahahaha! How does it feel to be lumped together?)

I am interested in truth, but for me to truly check (and understand) YEC vs. not-YEC would demand an extreme amount of study. I would need to read large amounts of primary literature, consider both their arguments and attempt to construct counter arguments, and then collate the whole thing. I don’t really have time to do this at the moment . Furthermore, other fragments of my epistemology demand that this can only be done by myself, and so this venue is not really appropriate for deep-seated changes. I’m probably willing to engage in refinements and alterations in my understanding of all models in play, but I doubt huge major shifts in my preferred model will occur. Thus I claim that my primary motivator is entertainment, because I find model building/editing entertaining. I also have a secondary goal of being a better communicator. (Not necessarily of YEC, but if I can improve people’s knowledge of YEC, then anything else is probably incredibly easy)

As why people think AIG, etc. are idiots, this is primarily an experimental fact coupled with an understanding that people think YEC is absurd based on various physical data. I don’t have a more specific answer than this. I might, if pressed, be able to produce some specific data that might cause this, but I’m more interested in current topic.

@HMSBeagle & Klaus

On Speciation

Current YEC thought has speciation occurring, as well as probably the occasional new genera and family. (This can be seen in the links if you don’t believe me) Baramins are partly a shorthand way of describing where the ‘splitability’ cutoff is, but involve some additional considerations. I think some OEC might not permit speciation, but I’m not totally sure. Most YEC’s do permit speciation, as we require all variants of a land-dwelling kind to be generated by an extremely small population(potentially just a pair), which demands some fairly extreme speciation. (Horse mentioned previously is an example) As for how, sufficient research has not yet been done, but probably some form of epigenetics is important. I have my own unsupported conjectures, but I’m keeping those to myself at the moment. If I was a biologist, one of the things I would be interested in researching is if there is any controlled fashion for changing chromosome numbers, but I don’t think anybody has research on that, and it would probably require a more complete understanding of epigenetic considerations than we currently have .

I don’t think I ever claimed that new genera occur before new species, I’d assume it goes upwards typically (many speciations implying genera splits), baring special events. Can you point to where you got that idea so that I can avoid that descriptive pitfall in the future?

There are a couple questions/statements that involve the nature of baramins (Are they arbitrary? Important for the ark?) these might come up later as the discussion of fitness surfaces moves forward, so I’m going to delay responding to them unless the answer is strongly desired.

As for the question you keep asking Klaus, hopefully it is at least partly answered in the next post as I discuss fitness landscapes. If it does not, I’ll probably need a bit more information on what sort of answer you are looking for.

[Pluto]

I’m going to use HMSBeagle’s post as a base for the fitness landscape.

A few quick points

1. Your description of the fitness landscape is a lot like the ID position put forth by Dembski. Unfortunately you are making the same mistake he does. You visualize the fitness peak as a 3-D structure with deep valleys between and no way to cross. But in the real world the fitness peaks are n-dimentional with n ranging in the hundreds if not thousands. Most paths may be too difficult for evolution to cross but it only takes 1 out of the n to provide a viable pathway.

2. You also assume the local fitness peaks are stationary. They are not. In a constantly changing environment the peaks are constantly shifting. There may exist a window of opportunity where two peaks converge closely enough to let an otherwise uncrossable gap be crossed.

3. It has been empirically shown that some individuals can sustain deleterious mutations which move them to a lower fitness level. However, at this lower level they now have new upward paths to different peaks that weren't accessible from the old peak. One step back two steps forward works fine in evolution.

1. The n-dimensionality (and thus many possible paths) is definitely important to keep in mind as we move forward to comparisons. It’s quite possible it’s similar to Dembski’s picture (I might have read his book too, but I’m not sure), but it’s really more directly related to me putting everything in terms of chemical energy landscapes, and then going crazy with analogies. Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the actual structure is discrete and not continuous, though the implications of that are probably messy.

Never the less, the high dimensionality does not forbid my characterizations of YEC vs. non-YEC positions, after all, there are n-spheres and the like. It just might make it more difficult for islands to exist.

2. Excellent, a reminder to spell out more stuff! I totally forgot to specify this sort of thing. I implicitly consider the ‘oceans of death’ to be more aggressive than examples such as having no fur out in the cold (Which is subject to the whims of the environs). I would typically consider them more like developmental challenges or infertility, where the organism doesn’t even get out of the starting gate. These sorts of deeper problems would have more fixed positions, as the environment wouldn’t matter quite as much. Within an ‘island’ (which is probably more like an archipelago) transit may be temporarily but not fundamentally prevented by the current situation. I tend to ignore this sort of internal behavior and treat all parts accessible unless there is something special going on, but this is a good reminder in case it matters. This hopefully sheds more light for Klaus on what prevents transits between baramins (And thus stuff like classes and phyla) in YEC. There are large stretches of developmental insta-death or equivalent effects.

Further notes in this area include recognizing that the surface depends not only the outside conditions but also on the population distribution itself. Notable examples include developing organisms (If there are only plants and bacteria, then even if a bacteria magically converts to the first cell of a rabbit, the rabbit will die. It requires either rabbits already present or a rabbit-like predecessor for viability), prey-predator relationships (If predators exists, the viability of prey goes down), and symbiotic relationships (Viability goes up if another organism exists).

3. Indeed this is the case. While there might be some concerns about speed in more extreme example of down and up, it is not actively prevented unless the down kills the organism.

[phank]

I'll do the best that I can to explain this, though it will involve propositions that I doubt you'd buy. I shall assume that the boundary of micro-evolution is the boundary of a YEC baramin for the purposes of this post, since cross-baramin jumping is what is forbidden in YEC biology.(I'll talk about this a little more deeply in a little bit).

Right here is where our tracks diverge, I think. Evolutionary biologists would agree that "jumping" across genus (and above) boundaries is prohibited. The common illustration is that, perhaps in a hundred million years, mammals will have diverged wildly, into multiple examples of species, genus, even family. But despite this, every one of them will STILL be mammals. But even at the level of species, there is no "jumping" permitted from one species to another. Evolution is concerned with life forms begetting new life forms, never with existing life forms morphing into other existing life forms.

Often I've seen creationists, laboring under the tacit but false assumption that all the species we see today are all there ever will be, visualize "evolution" as some existing life form morphing into some other existing life form ("jumping", as it were). Nope, doesn't work that way. Evolution is concerned with NEW species.

[HMS_Beagle]

I’m going to use HMSBeagle’s post as a base for the fitness landscape.

Before you get too enamored with your fitness landscape let me bring you back from the theoretical to the empirical. You say there were created 'kinds" or "baramins" that are not related by common descent. However we have lots of fossil and genetic empirical evidence that says common descent is true. For example, ask any YEC and they'll tell you the cat "kind" and the dog "kind" are two unique groups. But the physical evidence (genetic and fossil) shows that both shared a common carnivore ancestor around 55 million years ago that looked like this

A cross between a panther and a squirrel: 55-million-year-old fossil reveals shared ancestor of cats and dogs

Domestic cats and dogs, along with other carnivorous animals like lions and bears, all share lineage with a tree-dwelling mammal whose origins remain a mystery. Yet paleontologists believe there are even earlier ancestors explaining the evolutionary line of these much loved animals. Now scientists in Belgium have unearthed fossils of one of the earliest of these mammals which roamed through humid forests 55 million years ago

The problem for baraminologists is there are hundreds of examples of species like this at the common divergence point that don't fit into either baramin. Or fit into both depending on your assessment.

That sort of evidence needs an explanation.

I'm still curious as to how all those horse "kinds" managed to acquire such different chromosomal arrangements in such a short time. I also would like to hear you speak more about how not knowing the Flood boundary line isn't a huge problem when interpreting fossils for their "baramin".

Thanks for getting to what you can.

[Pluto]

Right here is where our tracks diverge, I think. Evolutionary biologists would agree that "jumping" across genus (and above) boundaries is prohibited. The common illustration is that, perhaps in a hundred million years, mammals will have diverged wildly, into multiple examples of species, genus, even family. But despite this, every one of them will STILL be mammals. But even at the level of species, there is no "jumping" permitted from one species to another. Evolution is concerned with life forms begetting new life forms, never with existing life forms morphing into other existing life forms.

Often I've seen creationists, laboring under the tacit but false assumption that all the species we see today are all there ever will be, visualize "evolution" as some existing life form morphing into some other existing life form ("jumping", as it were). Nope, doesn't work that way. Evolution is concerned with NEW species.

Hm... what I was going for by jumping is that if there is a species A and species B, there is no sequence of situations that will make the descendants of A and B able to interbreed. While such a situation might be absurdly rare, in the abstract it doesn't seem impossible for evolution if A and B have a common ancestor and partial convergent evolution is possible. Is my assessment incorrect? If so, does that mean that the standard understanding of evolution does not permit large scale backtracking by an organism's descendants? (If circumstances are extreme) I'd need to update my thoughts on jumping if that is the case. Thanks for the info.

[klaus54]

Right here is where our tracks diverge, I think. Evolutionary biologists would agree that "jumping" across genus (and above) boundaries is prohibited. The common illustration is that, perhaps in a hundred million years, mammals will have diverged wildly, into multiple examples of species, genus, even family. But despite this, every one of them will STILL be mammals. But even at the level of species, there is no "jumping" permitted from one species to another. Evolution is concerned with life forms begetting new life forms, never with existing life forms morphing into other existing life forms.

Often I've seen creationists, laboring under the tacit but false assumption that all the species we see today are all there ever will be, visualize "evolution" as some existing life form morphing into some other existing life form ("jumping", as it were). Nope, doesn't work that way. Evolution is concerned with NEW species.

@Pluto:

Phank gives a concise summary here.

1) Speciation occurs when new species diverge from an extant population, either by a geographical reproductive barrier or within the population (sympatric speciation).

There is no jumping "saltation" of genera, sometimes called by the slang term "hopeful monster".

2) Given enough time (and this a key point!), what would prevent descendant species which undergo more and more speciation from separating into genera? And later into orders? Classes? Phyla?

There is no existing genetic boundary that I can see or imagine.

3) "Baramin" is indeed a concept that has no genetic, hard boundary definition. There is the modern concept of "clades" which a nested sets defined by (apparent -- to an anti-evolutonist) ancestral relationships.

It looks like "baramin" is simply a way of attempting to reify the Genesis word translated "kind".

Source: Genesis 1:24-25, AKJV

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

© Copyright Original Source

To ME, the obvious reading of "kind" here is that cows give birth to cow, dogs to dogs, monkeys to monkeys, etc., from one generation to the next. I.e., it obviates the "hopeful monster" notion that anti-evolutionist use occasionally.

If this is indeed what "baramin" or "kind" means, then no evolutionist will have a squawk.

In fact, I can't see any OTHER way to interpret "kind" from the text.

So, now EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR NOTION OF KIND, and how is that notion teased out of the first Genesis story?

4) Expanding on (3), trying to extend "baramin" to a modern notion of taxonomy is TO ME a futile pursuit. Why? Because the Ark story and Ge 1-11 are in fact not detailed in a manner the fits modern taxonomy. It probably made some kind of sense to the ANE, but trying to extrapolate that to the vast body of modern knowledge is (again IMO) "boxing the air."

5) There are wonderful summaries of the findings of geology, biology, genetic, and astronomy available to a broad variety of readers' knowledge. You don't have to go to the primary literature unless you want to fact check. The primary literature on deep time and deep history and biological evolution consist of tens of thousands of publications.

Also a brief divergence -- the evidence for deep time is manifest to anyone who drives through a mountainous region and see complex geology (more than just flat sedimentary layers) or simply looks at the beautiful night sky.

Anyway, I DO appreciate your attempt to address the micro-/macro-evolution boundary issue.

And you're doing it in a thoughtful and unemotional manner. which is rare in this forum.

K54

[HMS_Beagle]

Hm... what I was going for by jumping is that if there is a species A and species B, there is no sequence of situations that will make the descendants of A and B able to interbreed. While such a situation might be absurdly rare, in the abstract it doesn't seem impossible for evolution if A and B have a common ancestor and partial convergent evolution is possible. Is my assessment incorrect? If so, does that mean that the standard understanding of evolution does not permit large scale backtracking by an organism's descendants? (If circumstances are extreme) I'd need to update my thoughts on jumping if that is the case. Thanks for the info.

Not only is it possible it's been empirically observed between Polar bears and Grizzly bears in the Canadian Arctic.

Hybrid grizzly-polar bear a curiosity

[Pluto]

Before you get too enamored with your fitness landscape let me bring you back from the theoretical to the empirical. You say there were created 'kinds" or "baramins" that are not related by common descent. However we have lots of fossil and genetic empirical evidence that says common descent is true. For example, ask any YEC and they'll tell you the cat "kind" and the dog "kind" are two unique groups. But the physical evidence (genetic and fossil) shows that both shared a common carnivore ancestor around 55 million years ago that looked like this





The problem for baraminologists is there are hundreds of examples of species like this at the common divergence point that don't fit into either baramin. Or fit into both depending on your assessment.

That sort of evidence needs an explanation.

I'm still curious as to how all those horse "kinds" managed to acquire such different chromosomal arrangements in such a short time. I also would like to hear you speak more about how not knowing the Flood boundary line isn't a huge problem when interpreting fossils for their "baramin".

Thanks for getting to what you can.

Hi again. Unfortunately it's cases like these that would require massive in-depth study for me to be able to parse YEC/non-YEC preference of them . For reference

Dental and tarsal anatomy of ‘Miacis’ latouri and a phylogenetic analysis of the earliest carnivoraforms (Mammalia, Carnivoramorpha)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...5#.U-wU0mOSlVM

Might be the original source. I don't have enough fossil/other knowledge to properly consider the strength of the claims presented in it, as well as how it fits with the surrounding literature. Other considers that I would have to check is how these sorts of reconstructions pan out as fossil parts increase. All of which I would have to do myself to try and eliminate counting biases (like your reference to hundreds of these. I don't totally trust anyone with these sorts of claims I'm afraid) and enable me to ask questions I don't even have the information to come up with at the moment. My woefully limited knowledge is not impressed by an ankle, jaw, and some teeth though.

As for what they would imply, depending on their characteristics they'll either represent baramin fusions (two baramins that were thought to be separate are really one), members of one or the other, or baramins not currently extant. Probably there is a whole YEC research paper lying in wait analyzing each and every one of the cases to determine their location and significance, just as there is a non-YEC research paper discussing the location of them within evolutionary considerations. YEC just doesn't have the man-power to do this at the moment.

I was probably a bit quick on the 'it doesn't matter' consideration. What I was going for is that baramins are thought to be 'fixed' in a fundamental way, and so no new baramins will arise post flood. This means that accounting for baramins currently extant give a lot of information of baramins previously extant. What someone would do would probably just compare the fossils to known animals/other fossil animals. I think I remember reading about that in one of the initial estimate of baramins papers. Fossils are more messy than living things, because hybridization data isn't present. I'm not sure how the flood boundaries would affect anything about baramins other than maybe making sure are the fossils parts are associated properly.

[HMS_Beagle]

Hi again. Unfortunately it's cases like these that would require massive in-depth study for me to be able to parse YEC/non-YEC preference of them . For reference

That was an awful lot of words to say "YECs can't explain the data and aren't even going to try".

The problem for YECs is that science can explain the consilience of the data in a clear and logically consistent manner.

Still wondering about the YEC mechanism for all those different horse chromosomal counts.

[jordanriver]

I don't think that creationists (such as myself, as a disclosure) .........

welcome, brother.

[Pluto]

@Pluto:

Phank gives a concise summary here.

1) Speciation occurs when new species diverge from an extant population, either by a geographical reproductive barrier or within the population (sympatric speciation).

There is no jumping "saltation" of genera, sometimes called by the slang term "hopeful monster".

2) Given enough time (and this a key point!), what would prevent descendant species which undergo more and more speciation from separating into genera? And later into orders? Classes? Phyla?

There is no existing genetic boundary that I can see or imagine.

3) "Baramin" is indeed a concept that has no genetic, hard boundary definition. There is the modern concept of "clades" which a nested sets defined by (apparent -- to an anti-evolutonist) ancestral relationships.

It looks like "baramin" is simply a way of attempting to reify the Genesis word translated "kind".

Source: Genesis 1:24-25, AKJV

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

© Copyright Original Source

To ME, the obvious reading of "kind" here is that cows give birth to cow, dogs to dogs, monkeys to monkeys, etc., from one generation to the next. I.e., it obviates the "hopeful monster" notion that anti-evolutionist use occasionally.

If this is indeed what "baramin" or "kind" means, then no evolutionist will have a squawk.

In fact, I can't see any OTHER way to interpret "kind" from the text.

So, now EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR NOTION OF KIND, and how is that notion teased out of the first Genesis story?

4) Expanding on (3), trying to extend "baramin" to a modern notion of taxonomy is TO ME a futile pursuit. Why? Because the Ark story and Ge 1-11 are in fact not detailed in a manner the fits modern taxonomy. It probably made some kind of sense to the ANE, but trying to extrapolate that to the vast body of modern knowledge is (again IMO) "boxing the air."

5) There are wonderful summaries of the findings of geology, biology, genetic, and astronomy available to a broad variety of readers' knowledge. You don't have to go to the primary literature unless you want to fact check. The primary literature on deep time and deep history and biological evolution consist of tens of thousands of publications.

Also a brief divergence -- the evidence for deep time is manifest to anyone who drives through a mountainous region and see complex geology (more than just flat sedimentary layers) or simply looks at the beautiful night sky.

Anyway, I DO appreciate your attempt to address the micro-/macro-evolution boundary issue.

And you're doing it in a thoughtful and unemotional manner. which is rare in this forum.

K54

That's a fair amount of topics to deal with . Emotion is tool, and a point of data. I try not let it color arguments, but use it as dowsing rod for things I should check thoroughly.

Number 5 depends heavy on the summaries, and this gets into a huge epistemological hurdle that I alluded to earlier, since that would effectively be letting someone else do the primary legwork, and I don't totally trust anybody for that but me . I may at some point make a separate thread on this very topic, since this is a theoretical point that is within my scope of interest.

On baramins:

That is a fairly accurate initial assessment. What is usually added to this is that nothing can be a member of multiple baramins. Roughly speaking, the two rules are for baramin checking,

1. If X is a child of Y, X and Y are in the same baramin
2. Nothing is in multiple baramins.

You can use these to derive most strong YEC conclusions like if two things hybridize they are in the same baramin. The first rule is derived as you did it, things produce their own kind. Unfortunately, This also implies that universal common descent means there is only one known baramin, rendering it sorta pointless in that case. The second is to eliminate oddities like double-kinds (what?), and the effect of remixing the double kind back into one of the originals until you have a double kind that is effectively identical to one of the originals, which would be silly.

Typically the concept of a baramin is then extended backwards. X and Y are representative of two different kinds, then there must a fundamental difference between them, such as each kind fulfilling certain key properties. Roughly speaking, if you have a cow, and predecessors must have also been cows, and no predecessor could have been a non-cow. Given that YECs must hold to at least two kinds currently in existence, YEC is inconsistent with universal common descent. (obviously...)

As for the boundary of class/phyla/etc. I guess what it comes down to is how specific each catagory is. For example, if enough time passes that there are 40000 variants of cow or something, but all recognizably cows without substantial change except they won't breed together, and for whatever reason cow-ness is now consider the level of a phyla, then ya, a 'new' phyla can be born. The cow phyla, made large enough to properly encompass all the very similar cows. I'd probably recommend that the number of levels be increased instead however, because cow-ness just doesn't seem phyla level...

Looked at that way, the classifications are a bit orthogonal, the Linnean is just marking similarities and differences, while the baramin attempts to claim something fundamental about it's members. Mostly splitting complaints would be trying to 'mix' the concepts, like I try to do in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, and interpret the higher levels as having some fundamental 'over-baramin' type thing. If you've done any object oriented programming, then think of baramins as really big classes(And species and sub-classes to some limited and not totally accurate way) and then try to put the Linnean categories as abstract classes above them. I think this is why I get a negative vibe off of stuff like 'new phyla'.

Good to know that saltation is refused, and I obviously think that the Bible has important information I need to account for. (I think this conveys the intended meaning) But that involves another epistemological discussion. Obviously, if you don't think the Bible is reliable, then A. My card tells me that if I'm consistent and looking for what I perceive as your best interest, I should invite you to change and join the fold and B. That sort of discussion would only be a purely theoretical curiosity to you.

I really need to get to bed now, but since HMSBeagle's post is so short, I'll add the response here. If there anything I missed and you want to ask, post away.

@HMSBeagle

I forgot to add that I am looking forward to what's going to be done with it too. Shockingly, one of the YEC websites sort of talks about this very thing today.(Though the mention is more for zebra-donkey hybrids) Following several links, reportedly, there are a cases of a mules giving birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

Dunno how reliable it is, but if true, there are probably a lot of very interesting things involving chromosome counts that I look forward to reading about, the curiosity would probably apply even if I wasn't YEC. But yes, going by my current sweeps of YEC lit, the why is unknown, but because of various reasons they think chromosome rearrangement serves a purpose. They also look forward to more research too! lol.

All these other comments really make me want to make a global epistemology thread, but I'll hold off for a while.

[HMS_Beagle]

@HMSBeagle

I forgot to add that I am looking forward to what's going to be done with it too. Shockingly, one of the YEC websites sort of talks about this very thing today.(Though the mention is more for zebra-donkey hybrids) Following several links, reportedly, there are a cases of a mules giving birth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2290491.stm

Dunno how reliable it is, but if true, there are probably a lot of very interesting things involving chromosome counts that I look forward to reading about, the curiosity would probably apply even if I wasn't YEC. But yes, going by my current sweeps of YEC lit, the why is unknown, but because of various reasons they think chromosome rearrangement serves a purpose. They also look forward to more research too! lol.

All these other comments really make me want to make a global epistemology thread, but I'll hold off for a while.

Sorry, didn't mean to keep you up too late.

The genetic mechanisms of chromosomal fusion / splitting are pretty well known. The problem is how do you compress all the variation between equine species we have now into only 4500 years. How do you get a fusion / split event to be fixed in the entire population in that short a time. Just one of many basic show-stoppers YEC can't begin to deal with.

To cut to the chase, baraminology is a bunch of unscientific hooey. It's just another lame attempt by literal Genesis believers to mangle science until it fits their preconceived beliefs. Ain't gonna work. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. The fact is I can post scientific papers with evidence of common descent over deep time every day for years and not even scratch the surface of what's available. Transitional fossil sequences and phylogenetic relationships that kill YEC "kinds" deader than dead. Papers and evidence you won't be able to explain with a YEC paradigm no matter how good your Google-fu. Even more than that, evolution has consilience of the evidence - multiple lines of independent research and results that lead to one common conclusion.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers and intelligent writing style but the bottom line is evolution has all the positive evidence, baraminology and YEC have none. Evolution wins. I'm willing to stay and discuss specifics as much as you like if there's anything you're particularly interested in.

Get some rest.