New Book Explores the History of Evolution

| 29 Comments

The Pulitzer Prize winning Edward J. Larson has a new book, Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. He teaches both history and law at the University of Georgia. His background is in the history of science, specifically biology.

”Everyone will agree, whether you like it or not, the theory of evolution is one of the most important concepts of the last 200 years,” Larson said. ”Whether you like it or not, it influences what we think about the world, even for people who don’t accept the theory or all of the theory of evolution. It still influences society, the culture in which they operate and influences a lot of other people, and therefore it impacts our society. And yet, I couldn’t find a book that told the story of its history, full of its controversies, full of the objections, full of the implications as a story that normal people like you and I could read, rather than a technical work of science that is really dry.”

Read the rest at the Athens Banner-Herald newspaper. (Use username ‘tricky’ and password ‘marymary’ if you don’t have an account.)

29 Comments

Creationists are hilarious. Here’s a review of that book from Amazon:

The Flat Earth: A Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, July 11, 2004 Reviewer: R.B. Finch from Medford, Oregon It is probably not an exageration to say that if for every instance in Mr. Larson’s book where he mentioned the word “evolution” you were to substitute “the theory of the flat earth”, you would have a book not one whit less scientific than the one that he has written, although a scattering of the historical facts would probably be pretty much the same. Mr. Larson has proven quite well with his book that sacred cows not only wander peacefully and unthreatened throughout the sub-continent of India, but they still have their place securely enshrined in academia as well, even among Pulitzer Prize recipients. The first clue should have been the subtitle “The Remarkable History of a Scientific Idea”. There is not one smidgen of scientific evidence throughout the entire book to validate Darwin’s “theory”. We have the same tired old yarn repeated in Professor Larson’s extended and somewhat tiresome book that we have read before in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” by Daniel C. Dennett, “What Evolution Is” by Ernst Mayr (as if we didn’t know by now), and a host of other Darwin books written over the past few years as evolutionists have circled their wagons to fend off the assaults of those heathen “creationists”, who by the way, have much more to science on their side than the rather sad revisionism of Mr. Larson in this latest attempt to “set the record straight”. We read again the shibboleth about Darwin the great scientist; Darwin who shocked the world with his novel idea about evolution; how Darwin proved evolution and developed the theory from carefully researched scientific facts, etc. None of this is even close to being historically accurate, much of it is hype to play on the legend of Darwin of the Apes (I would recommend the free online book The Darwin Papers for a much more accurate and factual presentation of Darwin’s development and the history of evolution). Larson repeats the old shibboleth of religion vs. science in his book, and of course equates evolution with science itself, instead of just a shaky theory on the last vestiges of extinction. Larson also mentions, without criticism, Darwin’s comparison of the natives of South America with orangutangs in his early notes, but fails to implicate Darwin in the bloody consequences of this comparison, nor does he go into detail on the history of evolutionary thought in Darwin’s own family tree very well. With such a plethora of really good books exposing Darwinism over the past few years, such as Taylor’s “The Great Evolution Mystery” (Taylor was actually a scientist), we have to resort to this type of pseudo-documentary, poorly written folderol from the pen of Larson, which is really a subtle slap in the face to those of more conservative and Biblical views, as we can plainly see from Larson’s previous career with liberal pundits in politics. This is not a neutral book written by an objective man, he has an agenda, though he attempts to hide it. Read some of his other articles, read some of the links of those who recommend the book, you will find the typical liberal mindset in it’s full blown manifestation of historical hyperventilation. The only reason I am writing this review is the same reason that I would go to the manager of the local supermarket and return some putrified fruit: It’s not worth the money to go out and buy.

Really, these guys never fail to make me laugh. WTF is a “subtle slap in the face”? LOL.

Ed Larson is by far the most objective and intellectually virtuous historian of science to ever tackle the subject of evolution and its cultural impacts. This particular book is absolutely wonderful. Having read many other histories of evolution from guys like Michael Ruse, Peter J. Bowler, Will Provine, and so forth, (who are all excellent sources, especially Bowler) I have no problem declaring that Larson is by far a superior writer and storyteller. But I do not praise him alone for his remarkable style, for his historical research (my field of study) is impeccably sound and fully substantiated. If you have not read his Pulitzer Prize winning “Summer of the Gods” you must pick it up. Particularly those of you interested in the creation/evolution debate (which is most definetly everybody here.) His other works on creation evolution are also very useful. (particularly his work titled “Trial and Error”) His last book ( Evolution’s Workshop: God and Science on the Galápagos Islands) before this one was incredibly entertaining but a bit less poignant for todays debates. But it is still well worth the money and invested time.

The logical consistency of R.B. Finch’s review is only surpassed by the elegance of its prose.

With such a plethora of really good books exposing Darwinism over the past few years, such as Taylor’s “The Great Evolution Mystery” (Taylor was actually a scientist),

Imagine that, an “actual” scientist attempting to oppose evolution, what a novel idea!

Joe, there have been many actual scientists who have opposed evolution. Don’t be stupid.

yeah these creationists are so stupid. RB finch is just like all those IDiots. Finch is like the secret leader of the IDiots and he is like saying the very same thing that dembski is saying. i bet you behe and finch have all the same ideas about science and stuff. next time, i like write a paper on how stupid IDiots are, i am going to include RB finch’s review to show how religious and stupidly obscurantish these young earth creationist are. dembski behe and all those other flat-earthers probably put finch up to writing this review. I’ve shown countless times how ID is false. why don’t these IDiots give up their unfalsyfiable science.

A person of faith,

Casper Milktoast “the evolutionist”

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 111, byte 282 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

T. Russ Wrote:

Joe, there have been many actual scientists who have opposed evolution. Don’t be stupid.

Good Point T Russ. Joe, why don’t you read this to see the facts, then come back here and post a public apology for being stupid.

Note: don’t put gt or lt signs in kwickcode tags, or your posts don’t turn out quite right.

Thanks GT, But that’s a list of “Steves” who support evolution. I only stated the fact that to imply that there are no scientists who doubt evolution is flat wrong to the point of being stupid. Not exactly getting the point are ya?

they still have their place securely enshrined in academia as well, even among Pulitzer Prize recipients

Only when you can simultaneously believe that evolutionists have a worldwide stranglehold on Science, yet it is on the verge of collapse, will you have achieved true enlightenment.

T. Russ Wrote:

Thanks GT, But that’s a list of “Steves” who support evolution. I only stated the fact that to imply that there are no scientists who doubt evolution is flat wrong to the point of being stupid. Not exactly getting the point are ya?

Oh, I perfectly get the point. You are attempting to perpetuate the lie that there is a scientific challenge to evolution. Please provide links to the research showing how ID explains the transition of jawbones to earbones, explains why it fits the theory of evolution, and explains why ID shows us even more predictablity than evolution. E.g. relativity showed why Newtonian physics worked so well + offered further explanation.

btw, it is G3 - George Glenn Grizzard

Oh yeah well I bet the Discovery Institute could put together a list of 435 Ph.D scientists named Steve who oppose evolution. They’re just too busy doing actual research So There.

a subtle slap in the face to those of more conservative and Biblical views, as we can plainly see from Larson’s previous career with liberal pundits in politics.

He does make a good point there, I mean who could refute that only liberals and atheists subscripe to the theory of evolution?

Mr. Lizard, Thanks for asking me to answer some other questions concerning other stuff as if it would distract me from the current argument I was making against your reckless comment. It went like this:

Joe said: “Imagine that, an “actual” scientist attempting to oppose evolution, what a novel idea!”

I said: “Joe, there have been many actual scientists who have opposed evolution. Don’t be stupid.”

(Because it really is a stupid thing to say. There really are many actual scientists who challenge evolutions general validity. That is unless you define anyone who doubts evolution as not a scientist)

Then you said: “Good Point T Russ. Joe, why don’t you read this to see the facts, then come back here and post a public apology for being stupid.”

“this” was a link to NSCE’s “Steve” list. A very large list of scientists named Steve who support Evolution. A fact which in no way answers my argument.

I would work all this out for you but…

T. Russ Wrote:

Mr. Lizard

Good point Tiny Wuss.

Thanks for asking me to answer some other questions concerning other stuff as if it would distract me from the current argument I was making against your reckless comment.

My apologies, I work with educated people, I’ll try to slow down a bit for you.

There really are many actual scientists who challenge evolutions general validity.

Yes, I know, many. The evilutionist conspiracy ensures that they will all lose their jobs if they reveal themselves. But then, I’m confused about how this powerful worldwide conspiracy is on the brink of collapse. Have you achieved true enlightenment?

A very large list of scientists named Steve who support Evolution. A fact which in no way answers my argument.

I would work all this out for you but

I responded to the intent of your post, if you’d like to play the part of the annoyingly dense psuedo-science cheerleader, that’s your perogative.

btw, If you would like to point out predictions that ID makes, and how those predictions have withstood the test of evidence, then you will be more than just an amusing fool to goof on.

Kids, kids! Let’s play nice.

T. Rex says many actual scientists have opposed evolution. I really want to read about them, and I’m sure he’s about to provide a list, but you guys are distracting him.

Also, he was going to reveal the ID arguments in recent scholarly publications that have not been thoroughly rebutted, here and elsewhere. (See comment 4917)

(TRH: Hope you don’t mind my extension of your reptilian wordplay; all in good fun.)

We need to be a bit careful with terminology here. After all Duane Gish, Steve Austin and Michael Behe are all (or were!) “scientists”, and they oppose evolution.

Now lets list all the *biologists* who oppose evolution:

KiethB wrote

Now lets list all the *biologists* who oppose evolution:

I’m more interested in ‘why?’ than ‘who?’.

RBH

(BTW, try punctuating that last sentence yourself, especially just after reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves!)

Well, T. Russ actually missed my point. I wasn’t disputing that someplace, somewhere there lurks a scientist who opposes evolution. What I *was* poking fun at was that antievolutionists woudl actually attempt to find such a scientist–someone who has professional qualifications on the subject in question–rather than a lawyer, theologian or philospher, as is usually done.

But now we’re on the subject, I too await to be educated. Can we get a list of biolgists, biochemists, or anyone else who works in the biological sciences, that oppose evilution and a reference to at least one article where they detail their objections to evolution? I don’t care if they have the first name of Steve, but they can’t have the last name of Behe (I’m familiar with him), and can’t be mathematicican/theologians (Ph.D does not equal “science.”). I reject the Discovery Institute “100” as that is not a list of scientists and the criteria for inclusion on the list is not “opposition to evolution.” I’ll settle for seven names.

Joe,

The Magnificent Seven - I like it.

I haven’t the time to put together a definitive “Magnificent Seven” but I will here cut and paste the names of a few possible candidates and some bio sketches which give some evidence as to their being actual scientist. I don’t know much about many of these guys, but they come from Fellow Lists of places like ISCID, ARN, the DI, etc. I will try to include mainly guys who have advanced degrees in the biological sciences. Apparently I’m not allowed to include Behe because of some tricky logical rule provided by … which I don’t quite understand. But anyways, I will here at least devote the next fifteen minutes of my precious time to searching out a few doubters of evolutionary naturalism. Please excuse any errors which I might make. I’m timing myself …

Stanley N. Salthe Ph.D. Zoology, 1963, Columbia University. Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, From his homepage … “Biology theory, focusing on development and evolution, and their relationship. I use operational definitions for development (predictable directional change) and evolution (the irreversible accumulation of historical information = individuation), which allows these concepts to be generalized. I am a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory – which was my own erstwhile field of specialization in biology. My opposition is fundamentally to its sole reliance on competition as an explanatory principle (in a background of chance). Aside from being a bit thin in the face of complex systems, it has the disadvantage, in the mythological context of explaining where we come from, of reducing all evolution to the effects of competition. I see this as morally vicious, if understandable in the genealogical sense that it serves as a myth congenial to capitalism. Motivated thus, I have found that upon close examination there are many limitations on the power of Darwinian explanations. For example, it would appear that population genetics theory has been (for over 60 years) limited, IN GENERAL, to modeling changes only in single traits (see “Analysis and Critique of the Concept of Natural Selection” [here]). This limitation is no conceptual problem if we place Darwinian explanation in the context of developmentalism (see below), but then natural selection can no longer be the sole factor in evolution, but must function as a handmaiden to self-organizing processes, as suggested by Depew and Weber in Darwinism Evolving. I note further that the idea of natural selection must be among the fittest of ideas in our social climate. It has spread from evolutionary biology to immunology, developmental biology, psychology, economics, philosophy of science, sociology, information science, etc. It appears to be an idea that can adapt to any material whatever, driving out, in the process, ideas that were native in the various discourses (like instructional models in immunology). Being materially empty, it appears capable of explaining almost anything, and so we need to be cautious about its use. Is it a Borgesian cognitive poison?”

Russell W. Carlson “is Professor of Biochemistry Molecular Biology at the University of Georgia and a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Dr. Carlson is also the Technical Director of the Center for Plant and Microbial Complex Carbohydrates at the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center (CCRC). Russell Carlson’s research group focuses on determining how a bacterium can infect a plant or animal cell. One system under investigation is the beneficial (symbiotic) infection of legumes (pea, bean, alfalfa, clover, etc.) by nitrogen-fixing bacteria called rhizobia. Complex molecules that are part of the cell membrane of these bacteria are required for infection of the plant root cells and the focus of this research is to determine the function of specific changes to these molecules that occur when the bacterium comes into contact with the plant cell. This project has potential practical applications for the improvement of crop yields, understanding plant development, and how the plant defends itself against potential pathogens.Dr. Carlson also has projects directed toward determining the mechanism of virulence of pathogenic bacteria such as those which cause meningitis. This work has potential applications for the development of vaccines, and for the prevention of sepsis (also known as toxic shock). To support this research, Dr. Carlson has received grants in excess of $3.5 million from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. He has published more than 100 articles in various peer-reviewed journals, has three patents, and has given numerous invited lectures at various meetings and Universities throughout the U.S. as well is in Europe and South America. Dr. Carlson received his B.A. in chemistry in 1968 from North Park College (Chicago), and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in biochemistry from the University of Colorado in 1974 and 1976, respectively. In 1996 Dr. Carlson was elected scientific councillor of the International Endotoxin Society, and he is the discoverer on two and co-discoverer on a third patent application. Dr. Carlson has over 93 publications. Roland Hirsch was educated at Oberlin College (B.A. 1961), and the University of Michigan (M.S. 1963, Ph.D. 1965). He was been on the faculty of the Chemistry Department at Seton Hall University, 1965-88, where he was the department chair in 1972-5 and 1979 and Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences during 1981-84. Dr. Hirsch spent a year on leave as Senior Visitor, Oxford University in 1975-6. From 1984 to 1988 he was on leave as program manager of Separations & Analytical Chemistry with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). He was a Health Sciences Administrator with the National Institutes of Health from 1988-91. In 1991 Dr. Hirsch started at his current position as a program manager in the Medical Sciences Division in the Office of Biological and Environmental Research at the DOE, where he is in charge of the structural biology facility program, a manager in the DOE Genomes to Life program, and director of Environmental Management Science Program. Dr. Hirsch was the recipient of the American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry Award for Distinguished Service in the Advancement of Analytical Chemistry. In his award speech, Dr. Hirsch spoke about analytical techniques and their importance in studying the biochemical processes that occur in living cells. He proclaimed it a “great time to be an analytical chemist” and that “the analytical sciences will be at the very center of the biology of the future.” Scott Minnich. “Scott Minnich holds a Ph.D. from Iowa State University. He is currently associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho and is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Previously, Dr. Minnich was an assistant professor at Tulane University. In addition, he did postdoctoral research with Austin Newton at Princeton University and with Arthur Aronson at Purdue University. Dr. Minnich’s research interests are temperature regulation of Y. enterocolitca gene expression and coordinate reciprocal expression of flagellar and virulence genes. Scott Minnich is widely published in technical journals including Journal of Bacteriology, Molecular Microbiology, Journal of Molecular Biology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Microbiological Method, Food Technology, and the Journal of Food Protection.”

Michael Denton. “Michael Denton is Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand. His primary research focus is on the molecular genetics of retinitis pigmentosa. Dr. Denton is well known for his two influential books Evolution: A theory in Crisis and Nature’s Destiny. His most recent work considers whether organic forms (protein, RNA folds, Microtubular forms, tensegrity structures, cells forms, bodyplans) are intrinsic features of nature and essentially the same as chemicals or molecules. He presented this idea most recently in his December 2002 paper, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law” which appeared in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. In this paper he argued that the way matter is arranged into the higher architecture of life is determined by a set of rules or ‘laws of form’ which determine and predict all biological forms like the laws of chemistry predict all chemical forms.

“Martin Poenie Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology University of Texas, Austin. From http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/MCDB/poenie.html “My laboratory endeavors to understand how cell signaling regulates the cytoskeleton. We primarily use mouse cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) as a model system for these studies and we largely focus on the cytoskeletal polarization that takes place when a CTL engages a target cell. Much of our previous work has aimed at developing tools for these studies including fluorescent indicators for calcium (fura-PE3 and FFP18), PKC (fim-1 and rim-1) and a new kind of microscope (MPM) that enables us to visualize components of the cytoskeleton in living CTLs. Using FFP18, a near-membrane calcium indicator we can detect calcium gradients that form in the rear margin of a target-stimulated CTL (see Figure 1). Here calcium levels rise to high levels (red color in figure) very close to the membrane and this increase is always associated with a morphological change in the CTL. Using MPM we can see microtubules and the microtubule organizing center in the CTL (see Figure 2). MPM allows us to follow the movements of the MTOC as it repositions in preparation for target cell killing. We hope to soon combine fluorescence microscopy with MPM and follow cytoskeletal changes in response to specific signaling events.”

“Gordon C. Mills. Dr. Mills received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Michigan and spent 35 years on the medical school teaching and research faculty at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.”

Giuseppe Sermonti Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Rome, Italy (genetics) “Giuseppe Sermonti, 72, born in Rome, is Professor of Genetics (Palermo, Perugia, retired). With his studies on Penicillium and Streptomyces (antibiotic producing) inaugurated Genetics of Industrial Microorganisms, at the International Commission of which he presided from 1979 to 1988 (the first meeting was in Prague, 1975, Z. Vanek, organizer). He was the Vice-President of the XIV International Congress of Genetics (Moscow 1978). From 1979 he has been the editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Perugia). After his Book Beyond Darwin, Criticism to Evolutionism (1980) he was considered (and blamed) for being the leading opponent to neo-Darwinism in Italy. In 1986 he adhered to the “Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structure” (together with Sibatani, Goodwin, Webster, Ho, Lima-de-Faria, Varela, Petterson and many others). Biology Forum became its Newsletter.”

Jonathan Wells, Developmental Biology But his degrees don’t count because he has some ideas on things which you guys disagree with, so I won’t even list em.

Here also are some lowly Biophysicists who may or may not be allowed to count. Neil Broom Biophysics University of Auckland, Cornelius Hunter, Biophysics Seagull Technology. Then there are also not too few chemists which I could list, but what could Chemists possible know about the evolution of life.

Okay My times up. But before I post, let me quickly add that I myself believe that lists and numbers mean absolutely nothing towards the truth or falsity of a scientific theory. I only said much earlier on in this thread that to say there are no scientist who are critics of Evolutionary theory is stupid. For I really think that such a statement illustrates stupidity of a fact. Sorry for the sloppiness of this post.

T.Rex: Here also are some lowly Biophysicists who may or may not be allowed to count.

You can count anyone you want.

But I don’t count them unless they’ve actually published a defensible critique of evolutionary theory.

I personally don’t know anything about Salthe or Sermonti, but the others don’t meet my criteria.

Okay. But if the fellas on the list above don’t meet your criteria then I guess niether do the majority of Pandasthumb people.

Matt Young, John Wilkins,Dave Thomas, Jeffrey Shallit, Timothy Sandefur, Jason Rosenhouse, Steve Reuland, Mark Perakh, Ian Musgrave, Nicholas Matzke, Jack Krebs, Gary S. Hurd, Richard Hoppe, Paul R. Gross, Skip Evans, Wesley R. Elsberry, Mike Dunford, Ed Brayton, Sarah Berel-Harrop,

And I would also like to know whether you meet your criteria?

Why not just give this “no real scientists doubt evolution” junk a rest. I tottally agree with RBH above, im more interested in ‘why?’ than ‘who?’ concerning these evolution wars.

T Rex: I tottally agree with RBH above, im more interested in ‘why?’ than ‘who?’ concerning these evolution wars.

Well, I tottally agree with that, too. Only, in the cases of a lot of these guys the “why” is kind of answered by the “who”, once you find out something about them. (I’m thinking of the fairly upfront religious precommitments of people like Wells and Carlson).

And, grudging as you were with your time with the relatively undemanding task of listing “who’s”, I guess there’s not much chance you’re going to get into the “why’s” with the above list, despite the fact we all agree that’s more interesting.

You’re right, too, that some of the Panda’s regulars do not profess to be scientists. Nothing wrong with that.

But to the extent that the folks you listed write defensible scientific stuff, I count them. Me? You can look me up in PubMed if you like. I haven’t written much directly about evolution, though. I’m just one of the 99.99% or so biologists that find it an extremely useful paradigm for biology in general.

T. Russ writes

But before I post, let me quickly add that I myself believe that lists and numbers mean absolutely nothing towards the truth or falsity of a scientific theory.

Then how do you determine the “truth” or “falsity” of a scientific theory, T. Russ? By “logic”?

As has been stated innumerable times here (sorry for the reference to numbers), scientific theories are judged by their usefulness. Darwin’s “theories” relating to natural selection and inheritence as driving forces for evolution have proven quite useful to scientists, as evidenced by the many many many many scientific papers documenting research and data consistent with Darwin’s theories. Do not forget: Darwin did not know diddly about molecular biology. Yet molecular biological and molecular genetic studies of life on earth have provided reams of evidence which supports Darwin’s theories.

The fact, T. Russ, that you can identify a handful (or two handfuls) of scientists (some of whom are probably nimrods by objective criteria we can agree on later) who *claim* to “oppose” evolution (“why” is the operative question) doesn’t mean that someone who says “No actual scientist opposes evolution” is “stupid.” The statement is no less “stupid” than the statement that “No actual scientist believes that sasquatches are wandering the forests of the Northwest” or “No actual scientist opposes a calculation of the earth’s age as greater than 5000 years.”

Yet molecular biological and molecular genetic studies of life on earth have provided reams of evidence which supports Darwin’s theories.

good point. Today I was reading a new paper about hydrogenosomes, which happened to discuss how mitochondria began as a bacterial symboint. This idea originated about 100 years ago–an idea suggested by evolution. When genetic sequencing was done almost a century later, mtRNA was found to strongly resemble that in certain kinds of bacteria.

Evolution can point to a thousand such instances. ID can hardly get its basic story straight (cf. Behe wholly redefining the testability of evolution and ID)

Well, I appreciate the list offered. I also agree that the “why” is much more important than “who” or “how many.”

For that reason, I wanted to exclude all connected with the Discovery Institute, since I know the “why” there. That’s also why I suggested “7” since that would exhaust all scietists associated with DI. I know Michel Denton, and the “why” there as well. I read Salthe and Carlson and they appear interesting.

I can’t always tell, as a layman, when someone has rejected “evolution.” There are quotes from Steven J. Gould, for example, that appear to reject evolution, but in context are simply arguments for punctuated equilibrium against “classical” evolution not a rejection of evolution itself. Some of the writings of the above scietists appear to be similar.

But thanks for the list, I’ll follow up.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on July 12, 2004 4:15 PM.

Teaching Science in the Schools was the previous entry in this blog.

Expertise and the CSC is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter