Tokyo Ghoul

Just thought I should share this awesome anime music video(AMV). I started watching Tokyo Ghoul last month and now Im hooked.



There's just something about the pure psychoticness of it.....

On Transitional Fossils & Imperfect Design

Note: I am a novice in many of the established sciences I often advocate for. if one wants a more comprehensive assessment, please visit some of the established sites, such as Understanding Evolution or Talk Origins. I will attempt to give my own view of the information contained in these sciences, while linking interested readers to more.

 When we talk about evolution spanning many millions of years, the sheer number of organisms living and dying, we simply cannot observe these changes in real time. Thats why we need to indirectly infer these changes by studying the fossils themselves to construct a detailed view of its evolutionary history.

This is the first hiccup that creationists will always attack. So we cant observe macro-evolution? Then doesnt it rely on faith to believe in it?

This is heavily mistaken on several levels.

 You see, if we only rely on direct observations (the philosophy known as empiricism), we would miss out on a whole new level of science. As a matter of fact, valence bond theory, molecular orbital theory (something Im much more familiar with) and even Einstein's theory of relativity were vindicated by indirect inferences!

Did you think we could observe gravity actually bending time? Or actually see the electron shells of atoms? Of course not. However, these scientific theories explained a lot of what we could observe. The process of science doesnt rely on empiricism alone, but also rationalism. We make rational inferences and formulate theories based on available evidence, then find further evidence to test them.

Let us turn back to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Nevermind that there have been observed instances of speciation before, or that it was found that bacteria had evolved the capability to digest nylon (note that nylon is a synthetic polymer invented in the 1930s). Nevermind the evolution of antifreeze proteins in Arctic and Antarctic fish. Lets look at transitional fossils.

So, what is a transitional fossil? A transitional fossil is simply a fossil organism which has features intermediate of its ancestor and progeny. Often, paleontologists group fossils with particularly striking intermediate features under the term "transitional fossils". In fact, there are a huge number of them!

It could even be argued that all fossils are transitional (this is not entirely true, rather "intermediate" more accurately describes the situation). Mainly because life, as a whole is in a constant state of flux. Speciation events continuously occur.

No other analogue of common ancestry comes closer when we look at the evolution of languages. Consider the Spanish and Italian languages. Did you know that they actually share common ancestry with Latin? Over time, they were adopted and modified by their respective cultures until they are completely distinct languages from each other. Then look at the Mandarin language:




From http://www.omniglot.com/chinese/evolution.htm

This is going off on a tangent, but note how Chinese characters slowly evolved from simple sketches of the objects they were supposed to represent? (All the characters are arguably transitional forms).

I would now like to address a fellow blogger (and someone I respect) who wrote recently that transitional fossils probably don't exist here. Hopefully I can fairly represent his argument by picking his main points. So he writes:

Logically we have to qualify what a transitional is. I defined it as a species between designs. For example an ape, whether extinct or extant is designed to be arboreal, and thereby dwell in trees, but a human is a bipedal designed to walk uprightly on two legs. So to transition you need to go through many imperfect stages in between the two states of being.

Logically, just now think, given there are millions of species on earth, how many organisms should look anatomically CLUMSY, because they are transitioning, in an 'imperfect stage' between what they were and what they're becoming?
 

This point in particular, was what inspired to write this post. So he asks, if evolution were true shouldn't we expect to see hundreds of awkward, transitioning organisms in the animal kingdom?

Further down, he concludes:

 I expect to see 'transitionals' everywhere, if evolution is so prevailent in nature. I see none. Furthermore I see that every species is a whole design, viable, with all of the tools needed to do it's job, perfect for it's specific job.

I feel that to address his points we need to consider several factors. First of all, a transitional form does not "need" to imperfect. Its unfair to imagine a "real" transitional form to be some awkward, mutated, crocoduckian abomination.  While it is true there are often fitness "trade-offs" when a species is evolving towards a particular trait, this does not accurately portray the situation.
I ll summarize a few points.

1. First, when design proponents argue that "everything is well-designed" one would point out this is not necessarily so.

Look at the flying squirrel. It is not capable of true, powered flight like birds or bats are, and could be considered "inferior" tp them. It has a much cruder design for its "wings" (the patagium) yet it soars gracefully through the trees by gliding.

Its even possible that the flying squirrel is a "transitional" precursor to true winged squirrels in the future. Who knows?

 I will try to illustrate this further by pointing out a very famous transitional fossil of the evolution of birds from flying dinosaurs.

Consider Archaeopteryx.

Image courtesy of Livescience here

(Again slightly off-topic).
I am continuously saddened when creationists constantly accuse scientists of deceiving the masses. It seems their only purpose is to slander evolution and accuse evolutionary biologists of being deceitful, capricious liars.

Even worse is when you realise that creationists cant even agree on whether Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur or a bird. You have one site which implies that fraudulent scientists have claimed Archaeopteryx is a bird (later revising the hoax to a dinosaur).

Then you have Jonathan Sarfati correcting them and claiming that Archaeopteryx is indeed a bird and NOT a hoax. Really.....(at least Sarfati has the integrity to prevent the promulgation of lies though....)

Enough of that, lets ignore the debate entirely and focus on Archaeopteryx itself. If it was a genuine bird, then it wouldnt have been a very good one.

First, Archaeopteryx has asymmetrical flight feathers. Second, it does NOT have a sturdy breastbone. It would have been an inferior flyer compared to modern day birds.

There are also subtle, tell-tale signs that it is distinctly reptilian. First, its "beak" (if it can even be considered a beak) has teeth. It also has a long, bony tail. If we saw Archaeopteryx, it would probably be a freak.

Then consider the giant panda, which feeds on bamboo. As a matter of fact, it seems largely maladapted to its environment. It has a carnivorous digestive system and lacks the ruminant gut most herbivores have to properly digest cellulose. Thats why it has to consumer prodigious amounts of bamboo to survive!

 By the way, there are actually a lot of "freaks" in the animal kingdom even today. (See these freaks and  these giant animals). Oh, check out this fish with transparent blood and  this worm-like amphibian too.

Of course, just because they arent particulary well designed doesnt mean that they are simple. (More on that later).

2. How does one know that modern species aren't transitional forms?

The fish-tetrapod transition occurred in the distant past, during the Devonian, but why not we look at some modern species of amphibious fish that can give us vital clues of how the transition might have occurred?

Consider the mudskipper.

Image courtesy of NatGeo

 

It is truly a fish adapted to live on land. It uses its pectoral fins to walk on land. It can propel itself forward by flexing its muscles.

It breathes air through its skin and pharynx (but only when its wet). It can store water in its gill chambers as extra oxygen supply. Its entirely possible that fish like these are precursors to new species of amphibians in the distant future wouldnt it?


3. Exaptation and Jury-Rigged Design
So what is exaptation? It simply means a shift in function of a trait during the evolution of a particular species. What happens is that a trait originally used for one purpose is eventually adapted for another.

In the aforementioned example, I glossed over briefly, the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs. Why would theropods possess feathers, one might ask? Well, feathers might have originally kept theropods warm. They might also served to increase running speed when hunting prey.

This is a re-constructed skeleton of a "terror bird". Note how similar its anatomy is to dinosaurs. Image is from Wikipedia

These designs, are then in essence, "jury-rigged" and co-opted from prior forms, often with very subtle weaknesses. (See some at Talk Origins here).

I ll lay out some more evidence for imperfect design, particularly in the cellular respiratory and photosynthetic processes. Its very likely they evolved from putative metabolic processes.

The RubisCO enzyme is crucial in the carbon fixation process (for photosynthesis) as it catalyzes the carboxylation of RuBP. But one major problem with this enzyme is that it cannot differentiate between carbon dioxide and oxygen. So if there is a significant amount of oxygen, the activity of this enzyme is severely affected.

Above all, we have even succeeded in creating variants of RubisCO which are more effective than the ones in nature that does not have this weakness!

Even the cellular aerobic respiratory process (in combination of glycolysis, the Kreb's cycle and the electron transport chain) are only about 34.5% efficient. That means they only succeed in metabolizing about 34.5% of the energy from glucose. Would you consider this effective?

4.   Punctuated Equilibrium 

I wont go into too much into this. But first theorized by Stephen Jay Gould, it posits that species are often at an equilibrium, at a local fitness peak (I alluded to this in my previous post). Only when drastic changes in environment or ecology occur, then selective pressures favour rapid evolution of certain traits.

This probably means that many of the organisms we see today are at the top of a local "peak" and hence are optimized to the environment they are in, thanks to millions of years of evolution.

Conclusion

 Nature is very complex, and it would be surprising if it wasnt.  But just because nature trumps human design doesnt then necessitate a better designer for it.

This is simply because of our limited understanding and ingenuity, such that we require to draw inspiration from what we can observe. Consider modern designs as compared to primitive ones. The former is clearly much more complex than the latter. But it doesn't necessarily mean people today are much smarter than people in the past, it just means we have much more information and build upon the successes of our forebears.

 The laws of physics are very complex, does that require a designer too?

I suppose for Christians (and other adherents of monotheistic religions) they would say: yes.

But that is a discussion for another time.

Some stuff

Ah, its been a while since I posted, but just finished exams, so expect posting frequency to rise until sometime in January.

I might delve deeper into philosophical stuff this time round though. There's some stuff I wanna discuss....

Must read posts, 23/9/2014

Its been a while since I last posted, but these are must-reads.

Happy Jason Lisle day! Diogene's  huge smackdown of YEC astrophysicist Jason Lisle's solution to the "distant starlight problem". The anisotropy synchrony convention simply doesnt work anymore.

Smoking Gun evidence of an ancient Earth : GPS data confirms radiometric dating. Naturalis Historia shows how multiple independent methods of dating can form concordance.

By Grace Alone : This is very different from my regular recommendations, but worth a read more than anything else.....

Evaluating ID

   One thing I noticed is that, it is far easier to attack ideas than to defend them. Often its because defending is in response to an attack, which the defender needs time to think through, carefully deduce the opponents argument, point out flaws and do his or her own research to rebut the attacker. So, I will play a little game, if you may, engaging in back-and-forth arguments for and against design, throwing in some specific examples. This is going to be a long post though, composed over several days.

A note though: I am only familiar with general arguments for ID. If anyone knows more refined points, please inform me and I will take them into consideration.

So what is the concept for intelligent design? At the Intelligent Design homepage, it states "

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. 

  In the recent years, the Discovery Institute has come under fire for being religiously motivated, but I ll move past that and take a closer look at their arguments. Coming from a physics/engineering background, I can see how design can be appealing, regularly dealing with concrete, specific answers. And although non-religious, I lean towards the Rare Earth Hypothesis that Earth-like planets are a special and unique occurrence.

One of the key features of DI's theory is that the designer is not identified. In other words, you could replace the designer with anyone (God, aliens, the Matrix etc) and the theory remains just as valid.

The first problem immediately becomes apparent. You see, the Discovery Institute doesnt just insist biological systems are designed, even the Earth was designed to accommodate complex, intelligent life. (Check out their documentary the Privileged Planet for example.) What is the problem with this?

It immediately points to the exclusion of certain designers (sorry Cthulhu, you couldn't have created Earth) and very strongly towards God. Their article rebutting the idea of panspermia (life from other planets) heavily implies this. Do they have a religious agenda? Actually it couldnt be less obvious that they are religiously motivated.

 However, ID lends support to deism, which is a philosophical, not religious position. Fair enough, lets focus on biological systems first, since arguments for/against fine-tuning of the Universe are wandering into the realm of the un-falsifiable.


First, let me offer credit to intelligent design. There exists other scientific fields that do attempt to detect the presence of deliberate tinkering. Richard Deem of godandscience.org, aside from criticising the general push of ID, has an interesting list of points:

1. Archaeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

This is actually quite a good argument. We look for signs, "motifs" if you may, that indicates a particular biological system is designed. However, the first difference one would notice between ID and these other scientific fields is this: we know what features to look for, because we know that natural processes cannot produce certain features, where-else


Take the study of stone tools by archaeologists and anthropologists. How would one know if a stone was designed, or simply occurring in nature? Of course, arrow-heads would be a dead giveaway - shapes like that dont occur naturally, written records and observations of arrow-making further back this up. For more obscure, primitive artifacts, we look for systematic flaking i.e. a stone with numerous flake scars is unlikely to have been the result of natural breakage. Natural rocks may have flake scars, but its unlikely they would have so many. See here for more.

This same principle (to me at least) cannot applied to intelligent design. This is because:
a) We do not know the mechanisms the un-identified designer could have used;
b) Our minds may be too primitive to comprehend design, if life was indeed designed.
(In fact some primitive tribes thought cameras could steal your soul. What if we are tribesmen, gazing upon some vastly incomprehensible design?)

Lets go a little into details and revisit William Paley's famous watchmaker analogy. He says that, if we find a watch in the field, we can easily discern that it had a designer.  This argument, while compelling, does not work upon closer inspection. First of all, we know a watch is designed because watches dont simply appear as random products of nature. We can even observe them being designed and manufactured!

Is this beautfiul snowflake intelligently designed?

 Well, a counter-rebuttal would be you could say we dont see apes evolve into man either, so how can we know evolution occurred either? I will discuss this further detail in the near future, but we will get to the basics by giving an evolutionary counter-example to the "common design, common designer" argument. It means that common designs that function effectively are re-used by the designer because it works.

In evolutionary theory, two similar biological structures (anatomical or genomic) can be homologous or analogous. The former means that two particular organisms inherited the structure from a common ancestor(common descent theory), while the latter implies the process of convergent evolution i.e. two unrelated organisms gaining a very similar biological structure.

What happens is that organisms with homologous  structures slowly attain morphological differences over time, while organisms with analogous structures actually grow more to resemble each other.

One important point is organisms with homologous structures often bear remarkable similarities in genome sequence. In contrast, organisms that arrived at a trait via convergent evolution bear little or no resemblance in genome sequence to each other. A good example would be bats and birds, which diverged all the way back from the age of dinosaurs.

How does this challenge ID? Well I now take "common design, common designer" to its extreme conclusion via reductio ad absurdum. If birds and bats had a common designer implementing a common design for flight into of their wings then wouldnt it follow that they have anatomical and genetic similarities as well? They don't!

You can see from this picture that bats and birds have different anatomical structures for their wings. Notably bats have the mammalian "five finger" structure. Well you could then say "this is an example of the Designer exerting creative power", but how are we even going to test that?


   I ll illustrate this again by a not-completely original example of convergent evolution, first posted at the evolution blog the Panda's Thumb here, by a former YEC.

The Arctic cod and Antarctic nothothenioid are notable in possessing anti-freeze proteins to prevent their blood from coagulating. But the unique thing about them is that their protein structures do not resemble each other. Each evolved their traits independently! If you are interested, please read the original research paper, first published in PNAS here for more information. (Also note that the nothothenioid antifreeze protein is very similar structurally to fibrinogen - a protein involved in blood clotting).


Evolutionary theory produces a unique feature known as a fitness landscape. Taking one particular environmental condition, there are several ways evolution by natural selection can act to produce a population with an average phenotype which is well adapted to its present condition. This is represented by the local "peaks" A, B and C. However if an organism is at the top of a local maxima, say A, it will have to experience a decrease in fitness before being able to climb the highest peak B. (this is a very layman explanation of a complex science, so apologies).



There's more than one way to adapt

Lets look further at more of the points the Discovery Institute makes.


Another fundamental concept of a scientific theory is that it must be:

a) produce testable hypotheses
b) falsifiable


The IDEA center has a good intro to the testability of ID.

The Short Answer: Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!

I will be taking a look at them, from 1 to 4. I have already challenged point 3 and will briefly skim through the others.



1) We will find specified complexity in biology. The problem is specified complexity needs to be defined more specifically so to speak. Proteins, although generally complex and carry out specific tasks, are actually less specific than people like to think. Lets look at enzymes, proteins meant to catalyze chemical reactions. Although hundreds of amino acids long, the only real important parts are at the active site which consists of only several amino acids. THOSE are the complex specified parts. Want proof? Go on wikipedia and look up the range of protein structures. Note how many "protein folds" are re-used for different proteins (particularly the alpha helix and beta pleated sheets).

 Ah, irreducible complexity. This is actually  a very interesting point, because oftentimes evolution that increases complexity proceeds by stepwise transitions until a complex organ/organelle is formed. The logic goes: if an ancestral component protein or anatomical structure is removed, then the whole system would cease functioning, then prior steps would have no function and would be useless according to evolutionary theory.

On the Uncommon Descent blog you can see the icon for ID - the bacterial flagellum. In fact, they should actively testing for its irreducible complexity! Take apart the bacterial flagellum by deleting part by part. See if the flagellum still functions. Experiment on other biological systems too.

A caveat though. Just because a system is irreducibly complex, doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. Do you know why?

  a) Mutations could act upon existing genes, deleting and removing parts of a system. If the parts that have been deleted or pseudogenized only carry out secondary, unimportant functions then the system would still be working. Hence an "irreducibly complex" core - that has lost certain original working parts, but losing more would render the system unusable. A good analogy would be how natural arches form - underlying rocks are eroded until the arch is left. The arch is now irreducibly complex!

b) Exaptation - this is a very important part of evolutionary theory that intelligent design proponents overlook when criticising evolution. What happems is that a prior anatomical structure / gene is co-opted to perform a different function. A cogent example is the fish-tetrapod transition. For a transitional form like Tiktaalik, it is able to use its fins for walking on land as well as swimming in water.


2) Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record This is probably referring to the Cambrian explosion. I lack the credentials to properly analyze it, but remember  The Cambrian explosion shows a trend of increasing complexity, although a relatively rapid one. Please read this very detailed critique of Darwin's Doubt here to understand the nuts and bolts.

One more note about it is that the Cambrian seas were actually very volatile because oxygen levels were constantly fluctuating, resulting in several extinction events that wiped out many genera. Well maybe the Designer didnt mind watching many newly designed species bite the dust after all......


4) Function for biological structures - Well most biological structures already have a function but i think people are jumping to conclusions by proclaiming it intelligently designed. The problem is there are huge swathes of non-coding DNA in the genome. A general trend of biological complexity goes like this - the larger the fraction of non-coding DNA, the more complex the organism. Take the human genome, which appears as mostly junk. Yes, some of these non-coding DNA have important functions but others don't, and may even be harmful. (See retrotransposons - jumping genes that copy their sequences all over the human genome. Really).


 Conclusion

For now ID appears too much to be a philosophical than a scientific one. It needs a greater testability and predictive quality before it can be considered science. Funny enough I don't really mind if they actually do find genuine evidence for design (and its implications) but who knows? Next up I will discuss falsifiability of evolution and intelligent design, as well as more points listed on the IDEA centre.

Dark Souls: Epic Narration

This. By far one of the best lore videos for Dark Souls. The writing and flow is just superb.

Once done be sure to listen to this awesome soundtrack  of Artorias, the Abysswalker.

Prologue

Note: This is merely a first draft, so excuse its potential sloppiness. With that, hopefully I can get this project off to a good start.

She worked in the Old Baths.  The olive green pools were always filled with patrons from all across Semerium during the day; men and women of high blood and birth. The smell of rancid sweat and fragrant oils coalesced to form a sweet, sickly smell. Great flues blew palls of steam from the houses into the cool spring air. It was such a strange scene, an eerie juxtaposition of chaos and peace, rowdy shouts and mirthful laughter and the clatter of glass breaking interspersed with moments of quiet contemplation. The floors were polished marble, fickle and slippery. Flickering candles cast dancing shadows of leering dragons from the walls. Mocking. Judging. You will never be a dragon. Pity you, hatchling. Their brass heads snorted billowing steam from lead conduits, hidden from view, that ran along their length. But cold. Why was it always so cold. The steam that rolled over her body felt like tenebrous wisps of smoke, devoid of the warmth of life. Conniving eyes seemed to pierce her thoughts everywhere she went.

It was always the same. Their names changed, but their purpose was the same. Only men and women of status, noble as they were, could waste their lives on such debauched pleasantries. The rest, all the other good for nothings, starved and died like the dogs on the wharves.

When she was free of her duties in the depths of the night, she would make her way to the top floor and just gaze balefully at the city beyond, spread out like a sprawling canvas. The shingles from a thousand roofs reflected the starlight from above, twinkling with a playful gaze. To the south, the Styrox River fed into the Bay of Many, along with it dozens of ships bound east. In the distance, the silhouette of Mawgar Palace loomed above the surrounding buildings, casting its eternal shadow into the gloom. She remembered how when she first came here, years ago, she gazed in wonder at the bright and gaudy decorations, a riot of colour and senses, exotic dancers from foreign lands.

But it was all a façade now. She had grown up. Places, like people, had a habit of lying to you. She had learnt this, step by painful step.

She missed home. She missed it so much.

                                          ***************************************

Obeying wasn't that hard. So easy to remember. You just have to do what Lady Rishe says. Obey our patrons like a good girl. Serve them tea. Scrub them. Rub their bodies with fragrant oils. Let them touch you. Undress you if they please.

She would slowly get used to it, she told herself. People who were dead inside forget slights against them so easily. The first time she voiced her opinion, grand lady Rishe had struck her till she bled all over.  Back to being a good girl then. Forget their gazes. Turn your heart to lightening our guests.

She approached the East wing, a small pot of scented oil under one arm and creamy silk towels  under the other. The smallest bath-house, reserved for the wealthy among the wealthy. Her guests were in the Warm Bath, and she had to prepare for their massage.

Three highborn men sat in the pool of green water at the centre of the room, sharing a jest amongst themselves. She recognized the lead man, a plump man of forty with a handlebar moustache as Cretar Cromm, cousin of the viceroy. She averted her gaze away from them and glanced upward. A mosaic of armoured figures at war with each other covered the entire ceiling. She set her towels down, next to the pool.

"Come here, girl."

 She looked at him. His clean shaven face bore an enigmatic nature, with slanted brows and a curved jaw. His slit like mouth was twisted in a nearly imperceptible leer. His cheeks were dull grey, as if carved of dying flesh. His  deep-set blue eyes watched her as a lion watches its prey.

"More warm water for you, my lord?"

"Fine lady, what could warm me more than the comfort of your touch? Join me."

"My lord, I would love nothing more than to comfort you for your stay, and what better way than an anointment of the sacred oils to ease you?" she forced a smile, noticing that the other two men had fallen silent. "Please come to the antechamber once you are finished, my lord."

"Oh, no, we wont be needing that." He began smiling in return. "Put the pot down and sit here. I command it, fine woman."

 There was no way she could disobey the command of an honored guest. She couldn't. Lady Rishe would strike her again.

She stepped into the pool and sat beside him, still smiling.

He drew closer to her and began stroking her hair, ever so gently. "What's your name, girl?"

"Ranili, sir," she lied. "My lord, this is not appropriate-"

 "A fitting name," he whispered into her ear, while running his hand under her robe. "Let me show you the grace a lord is capable of bestowing upon good, obedient subjects, especially girls your age.
She stiffened. Don't fight back. Show dis-interest.

His lips began caressing her neck and shoulder. He rubbed his nose on her ear and smelt her "So sweet. Like ambrosia.........that's what I name you. Ambrosia, nectar of the gods."

 She pushed away from him, gently "My lord, please, there are things I must do-"

"Shhhh, child, " he hushed. "You are such a beauty, girl," he moved his other arm against the side of her neck, pushing her back against the pool.

"Exarch Jormen, this is neither the time nor the place," said the third man.

Jormen. That was his name. She made a mental note. You will be the first

Jormen shot his companion a stiffening look "This is a place of pleasure. Tis a shame if the girls are not part of it, are they?"

"As you will, my lord."

 His hand reached below.

Tears were now brimming in her eyes. "Stop it." She was no longer reacting mindfully but began struggling against his advances. But he was strong. Too strong.

"Stop squirming, girl." He breathed. "Be good, and your lord will reward you," he ripped her dress. She screamed.

He grabbed her hair and smashed her head on the side, stunning her. Then he spun her around and wrapped his arm around her neck.

By the gods, no. She fought back as hard as she could, ramming her elbows to his side to no avail. He pushed her face down on the side of the pool and brought his face next to hers. His hot breath felt like that of a demon.
She felt his cold tongue slide up her cheek and bit back a scream. 

"Exarch. Primador Yakov requests your presence immediately." A man stood at the entrance.

Slowly, ever so slowly, his grip released. She coughed and dragged herself out of the pool.

"Would you be so kind as to pass my deferential apologies to the Primador? This house is most uncatering to my tastes, to much misfortune. We will meet in my solar."

She grabbed her flowery robe on her way out and stifled her tears.

This was a place for a proper girl, Lady Rishe always chided. Fight the cold, do as you are told, and you wont be sold.

Good girl, she told herself, good girl and she fell to her knees in great sobs. The pain in her heart twisted, like a knife edge.

 Escape. I must escape. 


Note: The prologue is meant to be a little perturbing and meant to show what kind of world our protagonist lives in. I welcome any criticism you may have as I am new at this. NEEDS MORE EDITING