The Panda’s Thumb has Evolved … Twice!

| 245 Comments

Recent work has illuminated the evolution of the very anatomical feature that this site is named after.

TheJanuary 10, 2006 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS, vol. 103 | no. 2 | 379-382) includes a paper titled “Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas” by Manuel J.Salesa,Mauricio Antón, Stéphane Peigné and Jorge Morales.

It seems that the Panda’s Thumb has evolved, not once, but twice!

The article says

The “false thumb” of pandas is a carpal bone, the radial sesamoid, which has been enlarged and functions as an opposable thumb. If the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) are not closely related, their sharing of this adaptation implies a remarkable convergence. The discovery of previously unknown postcranial remains of a Miocene red panda relative, Simocyon batalleri, from the Spanish site of Batallones-1 (Madrid), now shows that this animal had a false thumb. The radial sesamoid of S. batalleri shows similarities with that of the red panda, which supports a sister-group relationship and indicates independent evolution in both pandas. The fossils from Batallones-1 reveal S. batalleri as a puma-sized, semiarboreal carnivore with a moderately hypercarnivore diet. These data suggest that the false thumbs of S. batalleri and Ailurus fulgens were probably inherited from a primitive member of the red panda family (Ailuridae), which lacked the red panda’s specializations for herbivory but shared its arboreal adaptations. Thus, it seems that, whereas the false thumb of the giant panda probably evolved for manipulating bamboo, the false thumbs of the red panda and of S. batalleri more likely evolved as an aid for arboreal locomotion, with the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation and thus producing one of the most dramatic cases of convergence among vertebrates.

The PDF version is here (requires a subscription to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Online).

Is it a mere “coincidence” that one of the authors is a Stéphane ?

Friends of Steve Steve, thou mayest now discuss.

245 Comments

Hey, the more thumbs, the merrier.

Though Carl certainly deserves a hearty thumbs-up for his prior post.

Bah! Humbug. Yet another case of int(er)ra-specific microevolution. How are you going to explain the ‘evolution’ of a bear kind into a panda kind?

There are lots of things that supposedly have “evolved” not just twice, but many times. This is called “convergent evolution.”

And you seem to be really hung up on this “Steve” thing.

Steva: Giant pandas are bears and red pandas are raccoons. “Panda” refers to eating bamboo, not to any evolutionary lineage. There is no “panda kind” any more than there is a “horse kind” which includes sea horses as well.

Larry Fafarman said: And you seem to be really hung up on this “Steve” thing.

That’s because we have lots more – hundreds more – Steves than you guys have…

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ar[…]s/meter.html

Thanks for linking to the Loom piece. I’d missed it, as I was on travel in Texas at that time, and my ‘net access was limited to 60 minutes at the Cleburne Library.

Re

And you seem to be really hung up on this “Steve” thing.

Yes, we are Steveomaniacs here at the Thumb, and proud of it!

Cheers, Dave

gaaaak! i HATE this crypto-teleological phraseology:

…the false thumb of the giant panda probably evolved for manipulating bamboo, the false thumbs of the red panda and of S. batalleri more likely evolved as an aid for arboreal locomotion…

(emphasis mine)

using “for” in an evolutionary argument implies some sort of genetic foresight. traits don’t evolve “for” anything.… they evolve as a response to selection on available variation.

my graduate supervisor had me flogged for writing things like this!

it’s the kind of statement that confuses laypeople and fuels the ID movement.

try: …the false thumb of the giant panda probably evolved as a consequence of its utility in manipulating bamboo, the false thumbs of the red panda and of S. batalleri more likely evolved as consequence of its value in arboreal locomotion…

djlactin:

You are quite correct of course. It’s just typing out all that long hand does get a bit wearing after a while.

Scientists, like everybody else, tend to use anthroporphisms to make their work easier, which is why you often see natural selection ‘directing’ or ‘guiding’ or ‘choosing’ when of course it does no such things.

I agree that on this blog in particular everyone should be taking extra care to avoid possible confusion.

The Panda’s Thumb has Evolved … Twice! Dave Thomas posted Entry 1915 on January 16, 2006 07:41 PM (opening comment on this thread)

Is it a mere “coincidence” that one of the authors is a Stéphane ? Friends of Steve Steve, thou mayest now discuss.

How about “enemies” of Steve Steve? Mayest we now discuss too? I hope we get equal time. LOL

You invited comments about Steve Steve, so I presume that he is on-topic.

Why just Steves ? Why not let any scientist sign the “Project Steve” statement?

I can’t believe that “Project Steve” is named for Stephen Jay Gould. He is controversial even among evolutionists. His “punctuated equilibrium” idea is one of the most harebrained ideas that I have ever encountered, and an evolution critic who proposed such an idea would probably be laughed out of town.

“Project Steve” sounds like something from the homophobic slogan, “it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Maybe Steve was the missing link in a menage a trois consisting of Adam, Eve, and Steve.

One reason why there are more pro-evolution “Steves” than anti-evolution “Steves” is that the latter Steves risk their careers by signing the Discover Institute’s anti-evolution statement – particularly if they are biologists.

Considering the great weight that is given to scientists’ – particularly biologists’ – opinions about the evolution v. ID controversy, why aren’t there more scientifically-conducted polls of scientists on this issue ? When I searched the Internet, all I could find was one outdated (2002) poll of scientists on this issue – a poll of 460 Ohio scientists (all scientists, presumably including life and physical scientists). A small but significant percentage – 7 percent – of the scientists in this poll thought that intelligent design was “strongly”or “partly” supported by scientific evidence, 3 percent were not sure, and 90 percent thought that there was no scientific evidence at all for ID. Roughly 3 percent said that they had used the ID concept in their research. In contrast, it seems that the general public is polled several times a year about this issue, even though a lot of people – particularly many of the commenters on this website – do not give a flying fig what the general public thinks about this issue (after all, the general public is mostly just a bunch of nincompoops who can’t understand evolution theory). Conducting frequent polls of scientists would also show trends in what scientists think about this issue. Also, an anonymous poll would show what scientists really think, without any of them feeling under any pressure to conform. Furthermore, poll results showing a significant number of scientists opposing or doubting evolution theory might encourage some pro-evolution scientists to rethink their positions on this issue.

Also, I take issue with the following data concerning the number of scientists who support ID/creationism –

“Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.” — from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

The Gallup poll, taken in 1991, is grossly outdated. Also, how was the 0.15 percent figure arrived at for the percentage of earth and life scientists who supported creation science ? No poll was cited, and many polls are based on small samples – most of the ones I have seen have about 1000 respondents. With a small sample size it would be impossible to arrive at the 0.15 percent figure. And how was the figure of less than one tenth of one percent for foreign countries arrived at ? Completely ridiculous – these numbers have no credibility.

Significantly, in the 2002 Ohio poll cited above, roughly 3 percent said that they had used the ID concept in their research. That is especially significant in view of the fact that many of the respondents presumably had never conducted research related to evolution.

Also, I take issue with the claim that the Discovery Institute’s statement that was signed by 400+ scientists and technologists was misleading –

“The statement which the signatories agreed to is not anti-evolution. It says,

‘We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.’ (Discovery Institute 2004) Since scientists are trained to examine evidence and to be skeptical of everything, even ardent evolutionists could sign such a statement. Indeed, it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too.” (emphasis added) From – http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/[…]CA111_1.html

“Genetic drift” is just a slow random mutation and symbiotic relationships are supposedly created by mutations and chosen by natural selection, so the DI statement did not leave these two mechanisms out. The 400+ people who signed the DI statement knew exactly what they were signing.

Scary Larry

=============================================

Ken Miller (testifying at Dover trial) – “ There is no debate among scientists about evolution.”

Judge Jones – “ So, how much time would you like for giving your side of the story ? “

Ken Miller – “ How about a week ? “

Larry wrote : Roughly 3 percent said that they had used the ID concept in their research.

and yet there was no yields, else the DI would have marketed it very well. How do you propose they used the ID concept? I would have thought “oh geeze, this is too complex, so goddidit.” (funny, the spell checker wanted to change the goddidit to goddammit)

Goddammit Larry, I mean, goddidit Larry!

Larry: the point of Project Steve is to throw into sharp relief the claims of various creationist/IDist “Institutes” to have lotsa scientists on their side. The counterargument is “you’ve got lots of scientists? Hah! We have more scientists called Steve supporting evolution than you have scientists!”

Regards the 7% or so who said they thought ID was strongly supported: how many were actual life scientists? If I recall correctly, the proportion of scientists who support ID gets smaller and smaller the closer you get to actual evolutionary biology - lots of physicists, a fair number of chemists, not so many palaeontologists, only a few zoologists and hardly any evolutionary biologists. Compare this to, say, cold fusion, where (from personal observation) the proportion of scientists who think there might have been something in it seems to rise slightly the closer you get to the relevant fields*.

Basically, scientists are no better than educated laymen outside their field of expertise. Now, if ID had a decent chunk of evolutionary biologists on its side, then I might think there was something interesting in there. Of course, it would have to be a fairly large number to overcome the stigma of having tried to force the subject into schools without peer review.

Good Ken Miller quote by the way. Took me a moment to get the joke.

* Levelling out with my dad, who actually worked for Dr Fleischman at one point and is convinced that something interesting was happening that we have yet to figure out

Oh dear, there Larry goes again.

It’s a good thing I’m not feeling inclined in any way to enumerate his many factual errors. Any takers today?

In a comment (http://www.corante.com/loom/archive[…]mb.php#53693) to the Zimmer post, I asked whether ankle bones mght be coopted toe bones. Can anyone here answer that? Are the same genes expressed in the growth of ankle bones and toe bones, perhaps?

Larry, The steves list is a joke to make a point. So is the FSM. The steves list makes a mockery of the DI list. You obviously don’t get it as you are still using silly lists.

As for censorship, again:

1)Who are the most famous scientists you know? 2)What did they do? 3)How did they make their point? 4)What was the result to their career?

I would submit that the scientists who gained the most fame are those that proved previous scientific thinking wrong. They argued their hypothesis with evidence. When accepted it resulted in fame and prizes.

Hardly evidence of scientific conspiracy to preserve a status quo.

But we have had all these discussions before and you refuse to listen Larry.

Why can’t you see that trying to get a hypothesis accepted by PR, public polls and popular writing is not scientific endeavour?

I challenge you to name one useful scientific theory that became accepted by: Holding press conferences Demanding it be taught in high school Selling T-Shirts etc.

All the while not bothering to do scientific experiments and publishing evidence to other scientists.

Hey Larry why don’t see how many of those 400+ are still on board after Dover ?

And What’s this ? “Maybe Larry was the missing link in a menage a trois consisting of Adam, Eve, and Larry.” and homophobia ? huh ?

Why just Steves ? Why not let any scientist sign the “Project Steve” statement?

I can’t believe that “Project Steve” is named for Stephen Jay Gould. He is controversial even among evolutionists.

Larry you are just too clueless. Why can’t you complete the investigations(I use that word advisedly) you start on the internet. If you wouldn’t just stop when you find something you think you can mouth off about you might learn better than you are now. Remember you already admitted you couldn’t bother to finish reading a simple 300 word summary of Galileo’s work. Show a little more integrity.

Larry, here’s an interesting poll for you: what percentage of federal judges who have heard cases on intelligent design/creationism in the science classroom come to the conclusion that ID/C is, in fact religion?

Corkscrew, while I agree with your assertion that biologists are less likely to entertain ID than chemists or physicists, I disagree with your division of biologists into evolutionary and non-evolutionary disciplenes. All biology is evolutionary. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (TD). ‘Biologists’ who reject the theory of evolution are like chemists who reject molecular theory or physicists who reject gravity, they have placed themselves outside their field.

What are you people doing? Read that comment

Comment #72565

Posted by Larry Fafarman on January 16, 2006 09:16 PM (e) (s)

There are lots of things that supposedly have “evolved” not just twice, but many times. This is called “convergent evolution.”

He’s not a creationist, people. He’s just trying to get attention. Why are you giving it to him?

All biology is evolutionary.

Yeah, but some biology is more evolutionary than others. Depending on the field, it can be easier or harder for a biologist to maintain cognitive dissonance.

maybe we need a ‘project larry’.

a list of uninformed people who spout off about things they don’t realize that they don’t understand, and who don’t have the attention span to even notice th…

(you gonna eat the rest of that hot dog?)

Larry Fafarman on January 17, 2006 06:27 AM (e) (s)

From your quotation

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997).

My emphasis will be on the “engineers” part. From my experience (I do have an engineering background) engineers are pretty good within their respective disciplines, but can fall woefully short when going outside of their respective disiplines.

Actually, so can scientists. I’ll merely bring up the example of William Shockley, who was one of the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics for the descovery and description of the transistor effect. I actually met him at a science fair when I was in high school in the mid 1960s. In his later life, he expounded various racist views on intelligence. He was wrong, of course, and it was embarrassing.

On a more serious note:

there are a couple of statements in the abstract that should be examined more closely.

If the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) are not closely related, their sharing of this adaptation implies a remarkable convergence.

(my emphasis)

IIRC, the taxonomic position of the greater panda is a matter of some debate: Procyonid or Ursid?

IMO, the most parsimonious interpretation of this result is that the lesser and greater pandas share a common ancestor which had the false thumb (or at least a precursor). Prediction of my hypothesis: homologous genetic programs control development of the pseudo-thumb in both species… [note to IDists: does your ‘hypothesis’ generate falsifiable predictions?]

…with the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation and thus producing one of the most dramatic cases of convergence among vertebrates.

Until my prediction is invalidated, this statement should be considered preliminary.

Comment #72725 posted by Corkscrew on January 17, 2006 06:52 AM

Larry: the point of Project Steve is to throw into sharp relief the claims of various creationist/IDist “Institutes” to have lotsa scientists on their side. The counterargument is “you’ve got lots of scientists? Hah! We have more scientists called Steve supporting evolution than you have scientists!”

Sorry, folks, the link to that website on the poll of Ohio scientists did not go through in my Comment #72714 — here it is again – http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ar[…]_15_2002.asp

I am not interested here in seeing nothing but jokes about “Steves” — I want the facts. I want to know the current percentage of scientists – particularly biologists – who support ID. A poll conducted in 2002 is antediluvian so far as intelligent design is concerned. A lot of people have been learning and thinking more about ID lately because it has been so much in the news. I didn’t even hear about intelligent design myself until just a few months ago. Probably most or many of the scientists who were outside areas dealing with evolution had not heard about intelligent design or irreducible complexity in 2002 – and if they had heard about it, they did not give much serious thought to it. The above webpage also reported a 2002 poll of the general public in Ohio, and that poll reported that only 28% of the responding college graduates said that they knew something about ID. The poll of scientists did not even presume that the respondents had even heard of ID, and gave the following definition for them –

“ The concept of ‘Intelligent Design’ is that life and the universe are too complex to have developed without the intervention of a purposeful being or force to guide the development of life. Which of the following do you think best describes ‘Intelligent Design’? “

A lot of definitions of ID leave out the part about “intervention of a purposeful being or force,” and simply say that life is too complex to have evolved. Also, definitions generally leave out the part about the “universe.”

Everything in your comment is sheer conjecture. We could debate your points from now until doomsday, and nothing would be proved. The only way to answer the questions is to conduct a poll now.

By the way, I made an error in reporting the poll results in Comment #72714. I said that 3 percent of the scientists reported using the concept of ID in their research. Actually, the poll results show that 2 percent reported using the concept and 1 percent said that they were not sure.

Also, you made an error in stating the poll results. You said that 7 percent thought that scientific evidence “strongly” supported ID – it was “strongly” or “partly.”

=====================================

“I’m from Missouri. You’ll have to show me.” —- Willard Duncan Vandiver

Dembski blog

It would appear as if DaveScot is the most unpopular person over at uncommon dissent. Ironic, is it not?

I think the problem was that Bill might have tasked dear old Dave to try and split religion from ID (impossible task). In doing so, one major cat fight broke out, leaving all the ID people teaming up against Dave. Go and read it, it’s REALLY funny.

From the post

Recent work has illuminated the evolution of the very anatomical feature that this site is named after.

This is very interesting, even though I am not a biologist. The most interesting thing I have run across is Kenneth Miller’s description of the evolutions of the eyes of various species. According to his article Life’s Grand Design, there is evidence that the eyes of various species evolved independently traversing at least 65 different evolutionary paths. And that the human eye is not as efficient as the eyes of other species, such as mollusks. If there is to be an ID section in public schools, require them to teach that.

Life’s Grand Design: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/e[…]d/index.html

Larry Wrote:

The only way to answer the questions is to conduct a poll now.

And there is Larry’s ignorance in a nutshell. Science is not about polls and opinions, Larry - it is about facts. You get facts in peer-reviewed journals, tied to theories that explain why the facts are as they are, and tied to predictions about future facts, so they can be looked at and determined whether they fit the theory (if they don’t, the theory must be changed).

You want a poll? What percentage of peer-reviewed articles support ID and do not support the Theory of Evolution? Easy - 0%. Larry, all your hand waving is useless. Until ID has a theory, and peer-reviewed articles, the “opinions” in a poll of “scientists” is utterly useless. And if you continue down this line of “reasoning” you will continue to look ignorant.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Actually, the poll results show that 2 percent reported using the concept

I’d be very curious to know how the concept was used. Considering that Larry’s claims about things I DO know about are uniformly mendacious or uninformed, I can’t take this claim at face value. Details matter.

I can picture a scientist expressing puzzlement at his research results. I simply can’t picture a research scientist saying it must have been magic.

I think we should all realize there’s nothing more to be accomplished by responding to Larry. Calling himself “Scary Larry” pretty clearly implies he’s here to get attention and pretend that means he’s “winning” something. And his latest fallback position – that ID is valid because it supposedly caused so much research and public dialogue – is further proof that his agenda is to hog attention and drag all dialogue down to his level, which is the only “victory” he’ll ever hope to achieve.

The trouble with arguing with a five-year-old is that you begin to sound like one.

djlactin Wrote:

IIRC, the taxonomic position of the greater panda is a matter of some debate: Procyonid or Ursid?

While the red panda is considered a procyonid, the mainstream view now is that the giant panda is indeed a bear, although it diverged from the main ursid line long enough ago to exhibit some striking differences (in addition to the enlarged radial sesamoid), such as chromosome number, skull anatomy, and other traits. “Panda” is a folk taxonomy term derived from a Nepalese language (probably one of the minority languages, rather than Nepali proper), and it was probably functional similarities (eating bamboo with the modified “hand”) that triggered the associations between the two species.

The spectacled bear is thought to be the next split off the main ursid line, and it too has some interesting differences–number of chromosomes and placental structure, just to name a couple. The rest of the bears are much closer to each other, than to either the spectacled bear or the giant panda. But it is widely accepted that the panda is indeed a bear; there is not nearly so much debate on that point since the molecular studies of the early 80s.

I’ll bet you hear that kind of projection all the time. No big surprise there.

As for the reading of your refered scientific literature. I have and still do try to read what is being presented as facts, and quite frankly, it’s the same old tired arguments that have been used for a long time. I’m not the only one who uses old research.

Example; “Please read New Work Documents the Evolution of Irreducibly Complex Structures for a detailed explanation of the possible evolution of one such complex biochemical system.”

I tried to read it with a open mind, but quickly learned that it is just more of the same old, same old. So they induced coral to change color. It still just proves that organisms adapt at thier environments, whether by manipulation or by naturally occuring stimuli. It’s still coral. Now if you can induce the coral to change into a carp, then you have me interested. Michael Jackson has has some success in changing his color. Guess what? He’s still a human. regardless of what he looks like. Maybe using him as an example was not a good idea. How about African Americans as a whole? Are you trying to tell me that because they are a different color that they are starting to mutate into a new species? Come on. These types of examples are not what is being refered to. Irreducibly complex in the terms of life sustaining biochemical processes is what is important. Change these processes slightly and you have killed the organism.

And to Steve the pinhead, maybe our side should have gave the judge more money than your side did. Ha, ha, ha. A trial. What a joke.

I know this will draw more of the same venom from you guys. I’m not even going to attempt to try and persuade you to keep the insults and personal remarks to yourself and have a real discussion, so here’s something for you to think about. Hey Jethro, hold my beer. I got me a great ider. Why don’t we make fun of anyone who disagrees with us? I think that’ll make us sound like honest-to-gosh scientists, don’t you? Ha, ha,ha!! You morons travel in packs.

Posted by Bill Parker on January 26, 2006 07:02 AM (e) … I tried to read it with a open mind, but quickly learned that it is just more of the same old, same old. So they induced coral to change color. It still just proves that organisms adapt at thier environments, whether by manipulation or by naturally occuring stimuli. It’s still coral. Now if you can induce the coral to change into a carp,.…

coral–>carp. Do you think that would be convincing? How about a caterpillar changing into a pupa then a butterfly?

Do you not consider everyday things in the natural world almost beyond belief? Take the acorn analogy. A little nut drops on the soil, then starts rearranging the basic chemicals around it to grow into a massive oak tree. Surely that would seem more unlikely than evolution, if you actually thought about it.

I tried to read it with a open mind

But you just don’t have one.

Obviously not serious about the statement “I’m done”.

I call this the “Columbo Maneuver”. Like Peter Falk, the fundies will drone on and on, make for the door, get your hopes all up, and then turn around and say “Oh, one more thing”. Again and again and again.

But I thank Bill for making it so clear to everyone that ID is just a religious crusade, IDers are just lying to us when they claim otherwise, and Judge Jones was absolutely correct when he so concluded.

In comment 75821, Bill wrote

In Darwin’s day the cell was thought to be just a blob of jelly, with no actual inner workings. The scientific evidence now shows that cells are composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal or change of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Such complexity can not just happen and then slowly evolve. It does not match any logical scientific facts or tests.

Later, in comment 75871, Bill wrote

Example;

Please read New Work Documents the Evolution of Irreducibly Complex Structures for a detailed explanation of the possible evolution of one such complex biochemical system.

I tried to read it with a open mind, but quickly learned that it is just more of the same old, same old. So they induced coral to change color. It still just proves that organisms adapt at thier environments, whether by manipulation or by naturally occuring stimuli. It’s still coral. Now if you can induce the coral to change into a carp, then you have me interested. Michael Jackson has has some success in changing his color. Guess what? He’s still a human.

Thanks, Bill, for demonstrating the “bait and switch” tactic of creationism and Intelligent Design. First, you say that science can’t explain biological systems “wherein the removal or change of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

The coral protein is just such a system. There are three cascading reactions required to produce the red pigment. Take any of these three away, and you lose Red. But, the authors showed how this complex protein indeed evolved from a simple, two-stage, green-pigment variety.

So, now that the claim of “Irreducible Complexity” (that’s the bait) as an argument against evolution has been disproved, you switch to a different argument, “Now if you can induce the coral to change into a carp.”

Sorry - we’ve seen this many times before. You won’t find this swindle will catch many marks here on the Thumb.

Dave

IMPORTANT NOTE The Comment Entry Form is now found just below the initial post, and not at the bottom of the page. Yeah, I was confused at first too. We’ll get used to it.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on January 16, 2006 7:41 PM.

A new Tangled Bank is coming up was the previous entry in this blog.

Happy Birthday Ben 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