Appearing next in Springfield?

| 79 Comments

Well, not quite. I’ve been catching up on my Science reading after a lot of travel, and found this very cool little article. (“Cultivating the Third Eye,” Science, Vol 308, Issue 5724, 948, 13 May 2005)

Zoologist Om Prakash Jangir and colleagues found that if they removed tadpoles’ eyes and raised them in a Vitamin A-rich media, a new eye developed within 10 days over the site of the pineal gland. They then transplanted tadpole pineal glands between the eyes of month-old frogs. Again with a supply of Vitamin A, most of the amphibians developed third eyes within 15 days.

From what I understand, in “lower” vertebrates, the pineal gland has an eye-like structure and functions as a light receptor. It is also responsible for the production of the hormone melatonin. And quoth Science:

“In lower vertebrates, the pineal organ had a visual role which got lost during evolution. Our experiments show that this vestigial organ can be activated in vertebrates,” says Jangir. Both the eyes and the pineal organ depend on similar developmental signals in the embryo and express the same homeobox gene, he says.

Almost makes me wish I taught undergrad developmental biology labs. Almost. :) Ain’t it grand to see what a little tweaking of natural processes can yield?

79 Comments

What a strange and wonderfully complex world we live in! How exciting it is when people use their minds to understand this world instead of obfuscating it behind claims of ignorance and theological hocus-pocus.

Maybe the ID crowd should be challenged with discoveries such as this again and again. It may be time for ‘science’ to set the agenda in a proactive effort. (I know it’s done and has been done exceptionally well by people from Loren Eiseley to Stephan Jay Gould to Cal Zimmer.)

How does the ID crowd explain arboreal traits in humans? Why does a habitual biped (Homo sap) display evidence of brachiation adaptation? Oh, the fun we could have . …!

How does the ID crowd explain arboreal traits in humans? Why does a habitual biped (Homo sap) display evidence of brachiation adaptation? Oh, the fun we could have . …!

To be fair, there are those within the ID group that accept common descent.

That is the weirdest thing I’ve seen today, and that is saying something.

Tara, These are the things that scientists do that makes my blood boil.

There is absolutely no empirical support for the statement “In lower vertebrates, the pineal organ had a visual role which got lost during evolution.” It is nothing more than audacious speculation. As Richard Feynman said: “if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”

They should just report their results or offer other possible explanations (of which I can think of several) instead of just letting the prevailing paradigm guide them. For shame!

Gee, Charlie, would it be too much to expect you to google the key terms of a statement before you jump in with your “audacious speculation” judgments?

The statement that the pineal gland had a photoreceptor role in lower vertebrates isn’t even remotely controversial. Many studies going back to the early ’80s (and probably much earlier) support this photoreceptor role for the pineal.

Even in “higher” vertebrates the pineal gland likely has a related and conserved role, serving to intergrate the light and sleep cycles.

They should just report their results or offer other possible explanations (of which I can think of several) instead of just letting the prevailing paradigm guide them. For shame!

Other explanations, let’s hear um.

These are the things that scientists do that makes my blood boil.

Nobody cares what you think, Charlie. (shrug)

Stevie Wrote:

The statement that the pineal gland had a photoreceptor role in lower vertebrates isn’t even remotely controversial.

That wasn’t what I was objecting to. It was the conclusion that this “got lost due to evolution”.

Thrifty Gene Wrote:

Other explanations, let’s hear um.

There can be no doubt that the function of the pineal body in lower vertebrates is related to the function of the pineal body in higher vertebrates. The same genes are involved in both cases. In nature, the same genes are used over and over in many different applications across a wide range of species. This in no way supports the notion that a particular function in one form “evolved from” a similar function in a lower form or that the pineal body had a “function” in lower vertebrates that was “lost” through the process of evolution and that the pineal body is a vestigial eye.

a maine yankee Wrote:

How does the ID crowd explain arboreal traits in humans? Why does a habitual biped (Homo sap) display evidence of brachiation adaptation? Oh, the fun we could have . …!

I think a very easy explanation is at hand: in cells where phenotypic eye expression is normally suppressed, that suppression is now removed. But all the genetic “information” is present chromosomally in all the cells. Very simple, I think. How does the Darwinist crowd explain this?

Nobody cares what you think, Charlie. (shrug)

Actually, I do want to ask Charlie something–Charlie, you write:

There is absolutely no empirical support for the statement “In lower vertebrates, the pineal organ had a visual role which got lost during evolution.” It is nothing more than audacious speculation.

Charlie, you totally reject the idea of phylogenesis, am I correct? So it must follow that you reject abstractions such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and possibly species, as well as all their super- and sub-divisions, right? If not, then what do you base those abstract classifications on?

I asked DaveScot the same thing once, but to my disappointment, he never responded. I am sincerely curious how one can accept abstractions, but not the principles on which they rest, or, conversely, how one can reject such abstractions in the face of the evidence.

So am I correct that your objection to the quote must be to the term “vertebrates” every bit as much as to “evolution” for that reason?

Now I personally object to the term “lower vertebrates”, but for a different reason–the implied valuation. They’re not any less well-fitted to their niche than we are to ours–I would suck at being a lamprey (so to speak).

Blast Wrote:

I think a very easy explanation is at hand: in cells where phenotypic eye expression is normally suppressed, that suppression is now removed. But all the genetic “information” is present chromosomally in all the cells. Very simple, I think.

I agree. You are 100% correct. Evolution is all about turning genes on and turning them off. Genetic “switches” are crucial components. Genes must turn on and off in specific combinations, in a specific sequence and at specific times. The question is, who programs the switches?

There can be no doubt that the function of the pineal body in lower vertebrates is related to the function of the pineal body in higher vertebrates. The same genes are involved in both cases. In nature, the same genes are used over and over in many different applications across a wide range of species. This in no way supports the notion that a particular function in one form “evolved from” a similar function in a lower form or that the pineal body had a “function” in lower vertebrates that was “lost” through the process of evolution and that the pineal body is a vestigial eye.

So what are your “other possible explainations”?

I agree. You are 100% correct. Evolution is all about turning genes on and turning them off. Genetic “switches” are crucial components. Genes must turn on and off in specific combinations, in a specific sequence and at specific times. The question is, who programs the switches?

Can we guess your answer?

Raven Wrote:

Charlie, you totally reject the idea of phylogenesis, am I correct? So it must follow that you reject abstractions such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and possibly species, as well as all their super- and sub-divisions, right? If not, then what do you base those abstract classifications on?

That depends on what you mean by phylogeny. It is clear that all living forms are closely related and probably had a common origin. It is clear that the same genes are used over and over in a wide variety of applications across a broad range of forms. What this means, I just don’t know. It may mean that some forms “evolved” from others, but we shouldn’t be too quick to make that claim based solely on the relatedness of the forms on a morphological and/or molecular level. My main issue is not that evolution has not occurred, it has. Changes have occurred in the frequencies of alleles in populations due to selection pressure. That’s one definition of evolution. In addition, the forms we see today are different from those of the past, so change has occurred over time. This is another definition of evolution. What I question is the mechanism. I don’t believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms. I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level. As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity. I have no objection to the term “vertebrates” since they all share a distinct morphological similarity, which has a basis in reality. I think the classification is valid.

Arden Wrote:

Can we guess your answer?

You can guess, but it won’t do any good. I have no answer.

I don’t know if I’m pleased or disappointed that Charlie W didn’t invoke God in his discussion.

Playing God with frogs. Yes? Doesn’t that niggle anybody?

How about this. It’s all chemistry. OK, biochemistry, but chemistry nevertheless. And physics.

Yes, we, and I use the term “we” to mean humans, especially those humans who are engaged in science, are learning how to manipulate the chemistry of which we are made.

How remarkable is that! And, although I can detect Charlie’s blood boiling because he has this great fear of his Lord, while I have a great raport with mine, I’m pleased with “our” progress. Should we learn to actually control the process of evolution imagine what we could become!

Suppose we could engineer our species to live on Mars in a thin, cold carbon dioxide atmosphere. Suppose we could engineer our species to be photosynthetic and immune to vacuum of space. If that could be my legacy, what a legacy it could be. We could move into the universe.

Of course, while I’m cruising the stars old Charlie would be stuck on earth fighting school boards. Your choice, bro. My God kicks your god’s ass.

Charlie Wagner wrote:

“I don’t believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms.”

Really? What has led you not to believe this? What piece of evidence? Can you give me some examples? Or do you simply look at organisms and get the gut feeling that they are so complicated and (apparently) finely-tuned that mutation and selection couldn’t possibly have created them. If that is the case then I say your understanding of the power of evolution is what is limited as opposed to evolution itself.

“As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity.”

Taxonomy and its categories are (I think) a human creation. Species concepts might work well in simpler temperate northern hemisphere ecosystems where the distinction between species is typically clear cut. However when you start working in areas like south Western Australia, where I am from, the species concept starts to have trouble. South Western Australia has not experienced any mass extinctions from glaciers and marine inundation for hundreds of millions of years. As a result we have mega-biodiversity (a hundred ‘species’ per hundred square meters and a 60% turnover in species per kilometer) and very complicated evolutionary histories. For example, I am working on a group of plants spread over an area of land the size of England. The populations vary morphologically and are thought to represent different variants but these variants can be hard to tell apart. They are all considered to be one species. I have completed a molecular study that shows the genetic variation between groups of populations is higher than between different species in other parts of the world! So is it one species or several, or are they just subspecies? We see the same thing in many plant groups from Western Australia. We have a tangled mass of variants, subspecies, species, related species complexes and so forth. Are we seeing examples of populations within species genetically diversifying into variants, then into subspecies, and then into species in their own right? I think we are.

If your interested check out:

http://www.worldwidewattle.com/info[…]/saligna.php

Charlie Wagner wrote:

“I don’t believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms.”

Really? What has led you not to believe this? What piece of evidence? Can you give me some examples? Or do you simply look at organisms and get the gut feeling that they are so complicated and (apparently) finely-tuned that mutation and selection couldn’t possibly have created them. If that is the case then I say your understanding of the power of evolution is what is limited as opposed to evolution itself.

“As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity.”

Taxonomy and its categories are (I think) a human creation. Species concepts might work well in simpler temperate northern hemisphere ecosystems where the distinction between species is typically clear cut. However when you start working in areas like south Western Australia, where I am from, the species concept starts to have trouble. South Western Australia has not experienced any mass extinctions from glaciers and marine inundation for hundreds of millions of years. As a result we have mega-biodiversity (a hundred ‘species’ per hundred square meters and a 60% turnover in species per kilometer) and very complicated evolutionary histories. For example, I am working on a group of plants spread over an area of land the size of England. The populations vary morphologically and are thought to represent different variants but these variants can be hard to tell apart. They are all considered to be one species. I have completed a molecular study that shows the genetic variation between groups of populations is higher than between different species in other parts of the world! So is it one species or several, or are they just subspecies? We see the same thing in many plant groups from Western Australia. We have a tangled mass of variants, subspecies, species, related species complexes and so forth. Are we seeing examples of populations within species genetically diversifying into variants, then into subspecies, and then into species in their own right? I think we are.

If you are interested in what I am talking about check out:

http://www.worldwidewattle.com/info[…]/saligna.php

Ah crud! I apologize for the multi post.

Charlie Wagner wrote, “The question is, who programs the switches?”

Why in the f*&k do people who invoke (or suggest) an “intelligent designer” not realize that this only begs the question, “Where did the goddam designer come from?”? Crap, that’s irritating! (Did you ever notice that all curse words are related to either sex/women, religion, or bodily functions? For fun, I used one of each category in this post.)

But all the genetic “information” is present chromosomally in all the cells. Very simple, I think. How does the Darwinist crowd explain this?

If you are arguing that the ur-cell contained all the information then you are mistaken. How does evolutionary theory explain this? Evolution my dear friend.

CW Wrote:

I don’t believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms. I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level.

Personal disbelief is no argument Charlie…

C’mon, folks, get with the times! It’s “Divine Design (DD)” now. The term “Intelligent Design” is so last year.

Thrifty Gene asks: “So (Charlie) what are your “other possible explanations”?”

Since Charlie has not replied with specifics, maybe I can be of some assistance. I can think of another plausible explanation;

We know A. Vitamin A is found in face cream to remove wrinkles B. With advancing age, there is an increase in age related eye diseases making it increasing difficult to focus on reflections in mirrors to apply vitamin A face cream. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/[…]8?cm_ven=YPI C. The development of an additional eye would counteract visual problems in the original eyes and make it easier to focus on the reflection in the mirror to apply more vitamin A face cream.

The experimental transformation of the amphibian pineal gland into an eye did not happen immediately, it took 15 days of exposure. In humans, this would require years of exposure to vitamin A face cream. The development of the third eye would occur with increasing age and become functional at the stage when it would be most useful.

This is a genetically programmed gift from the designer to cater to our desire to appear young and vibrant, to allow humanity a little vanity. It is only now, at our present level of scientific understanding where we have a. vitamin A face cream, b. frogs with 3 eyes and c. the theory of intelligent design that we are able to appreciate this gift.

Thank you, Charlie, for once again re-affirming that IDers have nothing beyond an argument from incredulity. I know you just can’t put your finger on where or at what point evolution becomes “impossible,” but dag nabbit, you just can’t fathom how it could operate in toto.

As others have pointed out, your personal lack of imagination is not a flaw of the theory itself.

“Who programs the switches?”

The Tralfamadorians. (As in “Greetings from Tralfamadore” in Sirens .….etc etc.)

Next question.

Evolution is all about turning genes on and turning them off. Genetic “switches” are crucial components. Genes must turn on and off in specific combinations, in a specific sequence and at specific times. The question is, who programs the switches?

Rain is all about water precipitating. Clouds are crucial components. Areas of high humidity must form in specific places, in a specific manner, at specific temperatures, and at specific times. The question is, who operates the thunder machine?

Charlie writes:”That wasn’t what I was objecting to. It was the conclusion that this “got lost due to evolution”.

Ahhh yess… The designer giveth and the designer taketh away.

CW: “These are the things that scientists do that makes my blood boil.”

I couldn’t avoid reading this, but it’s so stupid, even for CW, that I’ll deign to toss out a hope: maybe he’ll explode and leave us free of his utterly unfunny idiocy.

I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level.

At what level? Why not at other levels? What do you mean by “level” here? What is your evidence for your answer? Do you have anything to offer beyond the belief that “evolution must be false because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible but because species evolution has definitely been demonstrated on numerous occasions I need to shift the goalposts to some undefined “level” to preserve my faith” ? What evidence would convince you that your

I think…

is false?

Charlie Wagner wrote:

That depends on what you mean by phylogeny. It is clear that all living forms are closely related and probably had a common origin. It is clear that the same genes are used over and over in a wide variety of applications across a broad range of forms. What this means, I just don’t know. It may mean that some forms “evolved” from others, but we shouldn’t be too quick to make that claim based solely on the relatedness of the forms on a morphological and/or molecular level. My main issue is not that evolution has not occurred, it has. Changes have occurred in the frequencies of alleles in populations due to selection pressure. That’s one definition of evolution. In addition, the forms we see today are different from those of the past, so change has occurred over time. This is another definition of evolution. What I question is the mechanism. I don’t believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms. I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level. As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity. I have no objection to the term “vertebrates” since they all share a distinct morphological similarity, which has a basis in reality. I think the classification is valid.

I think you all are too hard on poor Charlie. After all he’s further along in his acceptance of evolutionary theory than many. I.e. the gaps he sqeezes God into are quite small compared to a lot of “anti-darwinists”. Your problem Charlie is that you fall back on supernatural causes to explain what you can’t understand (whether due to an actual or percieved lack of evidence). But where does this sort of thinking leave us? Imagine if after Behe’s proclamation of irreducible complexity a decade ago scientists had simply thrown up their arms in a collective “oh, God… er uh an intelligent designer, did it”. We never would have figured out the pathways leading to blood-clotting, immune responses, or flagellar motion.

By appealing to supernatural causes that make no specific predictions contrary to the prevailing paradigm and that cannot be falsified you bring nothing to the table. Furthermore, you are implicitly asking scientists to do something that they never will; give up.

Bob Wrote:

How much of what is now commonplace scientific knowledge was absolutely unknown 100, 50, 10 years ago? The Intelligent Design argument depends entirely on pointing to missing pieces in the current body of Scientific knowledge. That body of knowledge grows with every passing day.

I agree. That’s why I wrote the following on my website:

If you mean by that, do I believe in a supernatural explanation for life, the answer is no, although I do not rule it out. Gods are invented to explain those things that we do not understand. As we learn more about the world and how it works, there are fewer mysteries to explain, and therefore less of a need for gods. I think that as time goes on, we will learn more and more about the universe and the life in it. Whether we will ever be able to completely understand it is not known at this time. For now, I will accept that there is a natural, knowable explanation for the universe and for the existence of life.

Thanks for the good wishes…

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 8, column 2, byte 195 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Paul Wrote:

But if this is just a matter of every cell being able to turn into an eye, why did only the pineal gland do so and not the whole frog? Is it just coincidence that the the pineal gland did?

Now *that* is a very interesting question. Any thoughts?

Charlie,

You said, “If you mean by that, do I believe in a supernatural explanation for life, the answer is no, although I do not rule it out.”

Fair enough - I don’t rule it out either. But, having said that, where to go with the insistence on intelligent input? As I’ve said to you in at least one earlier post, I’d personally be quite happy to find out that I was the result of extra-terrestrial tinkering, but that doesn’t do anything to define the root cause. It just delays the search, which starts all over again with “who designed the extra-terrestrial Tinkerer”? Remember the Blish short story, “Surface Tension”?

So, if not BibleGod, or some other god - who, or what? It seems to me there can be no other candidate. That’s the downside of postulating an Intelligent agent/input.

Guess I’m going to have to spend some more time on your website. Check mine out - www.bobmaurusdotcom Sorry about that - I was getting a wierd error message.

Bob Wrote:

But, having said that, where to go with the insistence on intelligent input?

Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means “an intelligence greater than human.” I don’t see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism. There’s the old tale about the mayfly larvae living on the bottom of the pond, whose only frame of reference is the environment in which it lives. It cannot possibly envision the world that lies beyond, or the human intelligence that inhabits that world. But when it rises to the surface and metamorphoses into a fly and enters that new world, it can never go back and tell the others what it has seen. There is absolutely no reason why there cannot be a world that is unseen to us that contains intelligences as far above humans as we are above the mayfly. I’ve visited your website and found it very interesting.

Charlie:

Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means “an intelligence greater than human.” I don’t see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism.

I don’t see any compelling reason why this intelligence need be greater than human. Greater knowledge maybe, or more advanced technology, but I can’t rule out the possibility that people can fully understand biology.

This raises an interesting image: What if future humans invent a time machine capable of moving into the past only in 4-billion-year quanta. They could easily get the ball rolling by making some sort of proto-bacterium capable only of reproducing and evolving and turning it loose in the canonical primordial soup. And we would finally know where we came from, and why.

Charlie said:

Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means “an intelligence greater than human.” I don’t see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism.

Except you’ve already told us that evolution cannot happen without intelligent input, which immediately begs the question of how did those intelligent inputers evolve in the first place.

We keep going in circles, Charlie. Part of the problem, of course, is that you don’t have any evidence to stand on, or a theory, or even a reasonable hypothesis to what is, in the end, just your hope or wish of what has happened.

I find particularly fascinating your claim that there is no evolution going on today. Pray tell, when did it stop? Or is it like the intelligent input, which you cannot even start to answer when it happened (never mind how or why)?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Charlie,

Glad you enjoyed my website.

You said, “Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means “an intelligence greater than human.” I don’t see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism.”

But that still doesn’t address, “I’d personally be quite happy to find out that I was the result of extra-terrestrial tinkering, but that…just delays the search, which starts all over again with “who designed the extra-terrestrial Tinkerer”?…So, if not BibleGod, or some other god - who, or what? It seems to me there can be no other candidate. That’s the downside of postulating an Intelligent agent/input.”

An endless pushing back of root cause avoids the issue.

Bob

But hey, I suggested a solution to this problem. All we need is a simple time machine.

Flint,

The I’mMyOwnGrandpa Theory of Evolution? Track down “Surface Tension.” It’s a decent Golden Age read, as I recall.

Bob,

Yep, that’s a classic. Blish wrote some interesting stuff. But it’s not a time machine story, only a story of how some dying spacefolk re-engineered their offspring to survive in a new environment. But no doubt they were intelligently designed.

Bob Maurus Wrote:

But that still doesn’t address, “I’d personally be quite happy to find out that I was the result of extra-terrestrial tinkering, but that … just delays the search, which starts all over again with “who designed the extra-terrestrial Tinkerer”?

An endless pushing back of root cause avoids the issue.

It’s designers … all the way down.

Probably an old essay, but one to cherish and forward.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e[…]article.html

We keep going in circles, Charlie

Um, you’ll quickly discover that this isn’t unusual.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 14, column 2, byte 2381 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Charlie wrote

I see no new structures, processes, systems or organisms emerging in the future.

I see a minimum of two new pathogens myself. EHEC and UHEC, which in 10-20 years time will be utterly unalike from the original Escherichia coli they evolved from. They will, for all intents and purposes, be entirely new organisms with a different lifestyle than the original organism and won’t even have anywhere near the same DNA (not that they do now, as many genes are being lost and they have numerous non-E. coli pathogenicity factors).

As for new processes, evolution has beat you to that already by producing a novel metabolic pathway for the degradation of DDE and for the degradation of nylon.

Most of your assertions don’t hold a lot of weight, depending of course on how you want to shift the goalposts around with such flimsy undefined terms that you’ve used.

Joe, here’s what they’re going to say about Avida: An intelligent human wrote the program, an intelligent human built the computer, therefore intelligent design was required to get these interesting, novel ‘evolutions’.

Is that not the biggest misunderstanding you’ve ever seen?

They’ll also say that Avida has nothing in common with biological evolution, but that’s a less shocking misunderstanding.

Yeah, I’m well aware of how they disregard those results entirely, but what I’m speaking about in my post has already happened in real nature, with real bugs and is continuing to happen :)

Re “what I’m speaking about in my post has already happened in real nature, with real bugs and is continuing to happen”

Wonder if that’s what “bugs” them?

:)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Tara Smith published on June 14, 2005 2:58 PM.

Evolution in Alaska was the previous entry in this blog.

Spinning the truth the DI way 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 4.361

Site Meter