Wells vs tiny flies

| 30 Comments | 1 TrackBack

The ID proponents are still smarting from last years resounding defeat in the Kitzmiller case, where ID was publicly shown not to be science. Once again, the ID folks have posted their list of supposedly “peer-reviewed” articles that allegedly support ID. Unfortunately for them, this list is bogus, the articles are either not peer-reviewed by any standard working scientists would recognize, or if peer-reviewed have nothing to do with ID. The infamous Behe & Snoke paper, for example, shows that in the absence of natural selection, neutral drift alone can efficiently produce protein binding sites in realistically-sized populations in times consistent with the fossil record. This finding is hardly ID friendly.

But what is interesting is what is missing from this list, a paper from ID luminary Jonathan Wells. Why is this paper missing? It was in previous versions of the list. Could it be that Wells made a testable hypothesis, and it was shown to be wrong?

In 2005, Wells published a paper in which he claims that centrioles, small cylindrical structures associated with cell division and cilia, were turbines because, well, they look like human designed turbines to him (Wells, 2005). I will look at the turbine hypothesis in more detail later. As a design hypothesis it is fairly weak. The journal it is published in, Rivista di Biologia, is regarded as fringe publication, open to cranks. However, this did not stop the ID people from putting John Davisons’ barely coherent Rivista paper on the list. So why is Wells, hardly a marginal figure like Davison, excluded?

One thing that Wells did do was include a detailed testable hypothesis. True, the hypothesis is only marginally connected to the concept of intelligent design, but even more marginal papers were included in the list. Is it the very testability that is the problem?

Design is in the eye of the beholder.

Wells’s design hypothesis is based around a small organelle, the centriole (see image below). The role of the centriole is poorly understood, but it is thought to play an important (but not indispensable), role in aligning and separating chromosomes during cell division. It anchors long polymers of filamentous proteins called microtubules, which attach to the chromosomes. During mitosis, in a dividing cell, chromosomes are “pushed” towards the center of the cell, where they align, before being pulled back to the poles of the cell before the cell divides. The “push” that drives the chromosomes towards the center of the cell is called the “Polar Ejection Force” (PEF, or sometimes the spindle ejection force). Wells suggests that the centrioles are generating the PEF.

Here is Wells’s design hypothesis:

Centrioles consist of nine microtubule triplets arranged like the blades of a tiny turbine. Instead of viewing centrioles through the spectacles of molecular reductionism and neo-Darwinism, this hypothesis assumes that they are holistically designed to be turbines. Orthogonally oriented centriolar turbines could generate oscillations in spindle microtubules that resemble the motion produced by a laboratory vortexer. The result would be a microtubule-mediated ejection force tending to move chromosomes away from the spindle axis and the poles.

Yep, that’s the design hypothesis, now if you look at the image below (Panel D), you will see the structure of human centrioles, and they are basically cylinders with capped ends. Looking at them I am reminded of a line from Melanie Safka’sPsychotherapy”. “A things a phallic symbol if it’s longer than its wide”.

elegans_centriole.jpg

Figure from Workshop on Centrosomes and Spindle Pole Bodies, Hagen and Pallazo 2006 A-B C. elegans centrioles. D Human centrioles. E stylized comparison of C. elegans and human centrioles.

In this case, it seems a thing’s a turbine if it is longer than it’s wide. I’ve seen lots of turbines in my time, my dad used to drag me off to see dam turbines, my engineer friends have enthusiastically shown me the turbines in the Snowy River Hydro Scheme, I’ve crawled over turbo jets at the Aviation Museum and we always stop off at the wind turbines on our frequent trips from Adelaide to Melbourne. About the only common feature is that, at some level of abstraction, cylinders are involved. On the basis of the centriole structure I could with far more justification claim they were eel traps, or those things you stick in teapot spouts to stop tealeaves coming out.

Not that there is anything silly about the centriole being a rotating structure. Cylinders do rotate, and rotating cylinders are found in biological systems, so a centriolar function based on rotation is perfectly reasonable. It is the connection to human-built turbines (and hence to some “designer”) that is extraordinarily tenuous.

A testable hypothesis?

Wells spends some time of the details of how such a structure would function as a turbine. I don’t think he really addresses how the viscosity of fluids at such small scales would let a turbine act (at these scales water effectively acts like honey, viscosity isn’t mentioned in his formulas). Also why, if the centrioles are rotating the microtubules like a vortex mixer, don’t we see the chromosomes attached to the microtubules spin, and why since chromosomes are relatively fragile (Brouhard and Hunt, 2005), don’t they come apart. But be that as it may, despite the tenuousness of the design inference in this case, he has made a relatively detailed hypothesis about the centrioles being turbines, and even stated how it can be tested.

A. It predicts that spindle microtubules in animal cells begin to oscillate at the beginning of prometaphase, and that those oscillations rapidly accelerate until metaphase,.… B. It predicts that the centriole contains a helical pump powered by dynein molecules located in the inner wall of its lumen. … C. It predicts that the polar ejection force is regulated, at least in part, by intracellular calcium concentration.

Both A and B are technically difficult to test, but achievable. C is easy to do, but as the leading hypothesis of the “reductionist neo-Darwinians â„¢” also predicts the PEF is at least in part calcium dependent, it’s not very helpful.

So here we have a design driven hypothesis (however tenuous), with testable predictions. You would expect the year old ID “research center”, the Biologic Institute, to be on it. Or maybe this is the secret ID research that Paul Nelson is talking about. However, no follow up on this proposal has come from ID sources. Instead, the centrioles as turbines hypothesis has been firmly sunk by “reductionist neo-Darwinians â„¢”, completely unaware of Wells’s ideas, beavering away over a hot eppendorf tube.

Interlude with reductionism and Kids

First though, I’ll briefly outline the leading hypothesis of the “reductionist neo-Darwinians â„¢”. Their idea is that “motor” molecules, which bind to the chromosomes and the microtubules, push the chromosomes away from the cells poles until they meet in the midline. There is quite a bit of evidence for this. They have identified a chromosome bound protein that attaches to microtubles (Kid in mammals, Xkid in frogs and KPL-19 in C. elegans see Yajima et al., 2003, Powers et al., 2004, Zhu et al., 2005, Tokai-Nishizumi et al 2005 and references therein), that is structurally similar to other motor proteins. They can show that antibodies to these proteins prevent chromosomes lining up properly. Some elegant work with small interfering RNA’s to stop Kid production abolishes the PEF (Zhu et al., 2005), and some beautiful work has shown that Kid coated glass beads zip down microtubules, so that Kid is an active motor (Yajima et al., 2003). This has been recently confirmed in another experiment with chromosome bound microtubules (Brouhard & Hunt 2005). While not completely rock solid, there is substantial evidence that the PEF is due to chromosome bound “motors” pushing chromosomes down the microtubules.

Before I go on, I will rant about a pet peeve. Wells claims his idea is “holistic”, not reductionist. A turbine pushing chromosomes down microtubules is no less reductionist (or more holistic) than chromosome-bound motors pushing chromosomes down microtubules. The only difference is that the latter mechanism has actual evidence for it (everyone is a reductionist anyway, no matter what level of “holism” you aspire to, you are always reducing it from some more complex system so it can be understood).

Another pet peeve is Wells’s misleading citations. Wells claims that there has been little interest in centrioles, whereas it is an exploding field, as new molecular and functional tools have been developed to study them. The year Wells’s paper was published was the year of the third European Molecular Biology Organisation conference devoted solely to centrioles. The year before his paper, 15 papers solely on centriole function were published (this ignores all the other papers on centriole structure and morphology etc.). Wells states that Kid was not motile in a microtubule gliding assay, but does not report the authors caution that low force generating motors would not necessarily be seen in this assay, and a recent study has show that Kid is a low force motor (Brouhard & Hunt 2005). He reports that while Xkid deficient frog cells have PEF defects, frog oocytes have normal metaphase I. He neglects to mention that metaphase I oocyte chromosome alignment is mechanistically different from mitosis (the chromosomes are physically tethered to each other), and that metaphase II, which is mechanistically similar to mitosis, does have abnormalities. Nonetheless, these are relatively minor peeves.

So let us return to the centrioles as turbines hypothesis. While the evidence for the PEF being driven by chromosomal bound motors is substantial, it does not necessarily invalidate the centrioles as turbines hypothesis, although the almost complete wipe out of the PEF by Kid knockdown experiments is pretty compelling (Zhu et al., 2005). The fact that the majority of Kid is bound to the chromosome suggests it is not powering centriolar rotation. As I said, evidence gathered by “reductionist neo-Darwinians â„¢” has sunk the hypothesis. “Well,” the IDers will reply, “here we have a ID hypothesis generating fruitful research, even if it doesn’t support our side”. Sadly, the hypothesis was sunk as a by-product of researchers looking at completely different things, not checking if centrioles were turbines (Wells’s paper has gathered zero citations since its publication).

Teeny tiny problems

Firstly, look at the figure above again, this time look at the left-hand side of the image. The centrioles here are from the tiny worm C. elegans. As you can see, these are not turbine-like, they have a large, solid core, and widely separated poles, completely un-bladelike, surrounding the core. Despite not being turbines, C. elegans cells have the same PEF that mammalian cells do, and curiously enough, this PEF is controlled by a Kid-like protein, KLP-19 (Powers et al., 2004). Clearly, turbine-like centrioles are not required for a PEF.

The other line of evidence comes from tiny mutant fruit flies that lack centrioles all together (Basto et al., 2006, see figure below). Despite having no centrioles the chromosomes of these flies segregate normally, lining up nicely (even if it takes a while to get going). Thus the flies have a normal PEF in the complete absence of centrioles. This is consistent with data from fruit flies with defective centrioles (see references in Basto et al., 2006), and experiments in tissue culture where centrioles have been removed by laser, yet chromosomes align normally (Hinchcliffe et al., 2004 and references in Basto et al., 2006 see also Merdes and Cleveland 1997 for natural centrioleless cells). Thus the rationale for Wells’s hypothesis that centrioles are turbines collapses when the PEF occurs in the absence of centrioles.

Tiny_flies_1.jpg E Chromosomes line up normally in a centriole free fly cell. F detail showing lack of centrioles. G centrioles in a normal fly. Figure from Basto et al., 2006

So to summarise:

1. C. elegans, with non-turbine centrioles, has a normal PEF 2. Fruit flies with no centrioles have a normal PEF 3. Cells with centrioles, but no Kid, have no PEF

And so Wells’s hypothesis is overturned. In the end, this is not very significant, because the designer-hypothesis link was so weak. The failure of the hypothesis does not really impact ID, beyond showing yet again ID is not a fruitful source of research and that “reductionist neo-Darwinians â„¢” get to do all the heavy lifting.

This still leaves us with the question of why Wells’s paper is omitted from the list of putative ID research. Other, quite silly, papers are listed. Is Wells’s fatal flaw that he published a testable, and rejected, hypothesis?

References: Basto R, Lau J, Vinogradova T, Gardiol A, Woods CG, Khodjakov A, Raff JW. Flies without centrioles. Cell. 2006 Jun 30;125(7):1375-86.

Brouhard GJ, Hunt AJ. Microtubule movements on the arms of mitotic chromosomes: polar ejection forces quantified in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Sep 27;102(39):13903-8. Epub 2005 Sep 20.

Hinchcliffe EH, Miller FJ, Cham M, Khodjakov A, Sluder G. Requirement of a centrosomal activity for cell cycle progression through G1 into S phase. Science. 2001 Feb 23;291(5508):1547-50.

Merdes A, Cleveland DW. Pathways of spindle pole formation: different mechanisms; conserved components. J Cell Biol. 1997 Sep 8;138(5):953-6.

Powers, J., Rose, D. J., Saunders, A., Dunkelbarger, S., Strome, S. and Saxton, W. M. (2004). Loss of KLP-19 polar ejection force causes misorientation and missegregation of holocentric chromosomes. J. Cell Biol. 166, 991-1001. Tokai-Nishizumi N, Ohsugi M, Suzuki E, Yamamoto T. The chromokinesin Kid is required for maintenance of proper metaphase spindle size. Mol Biol Cell. 2005 Nov;16(11):5455-63. Epub 2005 Sep 21.

Wells J. (2005) Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Riv Biol. Jan-Apr;98(1):71-95.

Yajima J, Edamatsu M, Watai-Nishii J, Tokai-Nishizumi N, Yamamoto T, Toyoshima YY. The human chromokinesin Kid is a plus end-directed microtubule-based motor. EMBO J. 2003 Mar 3;22(5):1067-74.

Zhu C, Zhao J, Bibikova M, Leverson JD, Bossy-Wetzel E, Fan JB, Abraham RT, Jiang W. Functional analysis of human microtubule-based motor proteins, the kinesins and dyneins, in mitosis/cytokinesis using RNA interference. Mol Biol Cell. 2005 Jul;16(7):3187-99. Epub 2005 Apr 20.

1 TrackBack

That Moonie creationist with a degree in developmental biology, Jonathan Wells, floated an actual hypothesis a while back: he postulated that the centrioles were little turbines that generated a force with their rotation. I never saw it as much of... Read More

30 Comments

How do you tell the difference between a catfish and Jonathan Wells?

One is a scum-sucking bottom feeder. The other is a fish.

Wells is a Moonie and denies that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus. What kind a science could a clown like that produce?

http://tinyurl.com/poxpj

Wells is busy promoting a comic bookand so can’t participate in this discussion. Looks like he’s abandoned any pretence of science. That the DI shd be touting this as “proof” makes one ask who’s the catfish, Wells or the DI?

Bravo Ian. This should be added to the TD archive and the “must read list.”

I would like to remind everyone to play nice. Please avoid ad Hominim arguments. Be as crtical as you wish, but do be polite.

The complete demolition of Wells’s hypothesis aside, this was an interesting and clearly-articulated science post.

In addition to the very tenous link between Wells’s “turbine” hypothesis and “intelligent design” in the first place, I’m having difficulty understanding why there would be any “design”-related reason to prefer the pole-mounted turbine hypothesis versus the chromosome-bound microtubule-traveling low-force motor hypothesis. Ian may have been getting at this same objection when he noted that:

A turbine pushing chromosomes down microtubules is no less reductionist (or more holistic) than chromosome-bound motors pushing chromosomes down microtubules.

The more typical ID approach (Behe’s flagella=outboard motor argument, for example) would be to simply jump all over the low-force motor terminology and claim that such obvious micro-molecular “machinery” must have been designed.

Or have the chromosome-mounted motors been clearly shown to be reducible to their independently-functional parts?

Ian Musgrave:

Be as crtical as you wish

No crtex left, sorry. One drawback to being a pinhead.

The more typical ID approach (Behe’s flagella=outboard motor argument, for example) would be to simply jump all over the low-force motor terminology and claim that such obvious micro-molecular “machinery” must have been designed.

That must be a lot of fun because analogies like that can be drawn for pretty much anything in the universe.

Or have the chromosome-mounted motors been clearly shown to be reducible to their independently-functional parts?

Doesn’t matter. Smaller gaps just means a better designer.

In comment 118284

Steviepinhead Wrote:

Or have the chromosome-mounted motors been clearly shown to be reducible to their independently-functional parts?

The Kid motor is a single protein chain 665 amino acids long (it probably works in bunches though). It is related to a whole bunch of well known, simple motors, and is not “irreducibly complex” in any sense. See this diagram. The diagram comes from a paper that also showed that Kid zips along microtubules. K. Shiroguchi, et al., The Second Microtubule-binding Site of Monomeric Kid Enhances the Microtubule Affinity J. Biol. Chem., June 20, 2003; 278(25): 22460 - 22465.

Also I found another a cute paper where they used laser microscalples to cut off bits of chromosomes subject to the PEF. Some bits shoot forward, and the rest back. This is easily explained by the “dueling motors” on the chromosome, but impossible with Wells’s vortex hypothesis. Khodjakov, A., and C.L. Rieder. 1996. Kinetochores moving away from their associated pole do not exert a significant pushing force on the chromosome. J. Cell Biol. 135:315—327.

The larger issue is still that the DI, flush with money and whose yearly spending on PR would keep my lab running for 10 years, did not put any effort into testing Wells’s hypothesis. Although he was in an ideal position to do so.

Let’s see: A human mind discerns an unexpected connection between two objects and a wild-assed guess is made that the connection is the result of an actual, physical analogy. Somehow this is viewed as a triumph for the ability of ID to drive scientific investigation.

Ummm, OK…

Kinda reminds me of the story supposedly attributed to Friedrich August Kekulé von Stradonitz, who first deduced the ring structure of benzene. The story (and it probably is just a story) is that one night, Freddy dreamed of a snake eating its own tail and the next day proposed a circular structure for the the molecule. Another ID-driven discovery that’s been forgotten!

I suppose Kary Mullis’s creative idea for PCR is likewise a triumph for the ability of psychoactive substances to drive scientific discovery.

To be honest, I’ve never been able to find an IDer who could really explain why Wells’ proposition said anything about the fruitfulness of the ID ‘paradigm’. I wonder if Wells is following in the same vein as Phil Johnson. Note that Phil went out on a limb to support the position that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. If that idea turned out to actually be correct then Phile would’ve basked in the glory as a person of ‘great perception and foresight’ who made ‘bold stands against the establishment view and was vindicated’. That high opinion would have naturally increased his ‘believability’ as an evolution critic. It was a gamble, but honestly, what has happened to Phil since his complete failure in that area? It was a shrewd, ‘low risk’ gambit (Only a few thousand, distant South Africans died because the AIDS dissenters held the attention of the core leaders in that country for a few years and it’s not something you’ll ever read in the core evangelical/ID publications). Maybe this was Wells’ chance to grab 10 minutes of fame as a ‘dissident but vindicated scientist of great perception’. A few hours of arm-chair theorizing and you can steal some of the glory from the people actually working in that field. A very low risk activity with highly payback potential. Shrewd move.

Kudos and 5000 qualoos for Ian, for describing the change in the status of Wells’ hypothesis and noting the modifications to the DI’s web pages. Good eye!

OK, now here is my prediction to be archived in the bowels of the Google computers forever, or at least 5-10 years: “Over the next ten years, ID will continue to be a front for Creationism and further biological research will not vindicate ID, contrary to what the leading ID thinkers assume”. Now, I also predict that over the next 100 years, ID will continue to be an ‘unfruiting’ scientific discipline, but I’d like to be around to bask in the limelight as a person of ‘great perception and foresight’. So, some convenient (to me) endpoint is necessary.

Didn’t you know that greatest proof of an intelligent design in creation is the fact that evolution occurred? You see, when an innovator or engineer designs any piece of equipment from scratch, he or she moves gradually from the simple to complex designs. And the decision to bring on further levels of complexity at any given level is based on the performance of the components at that level. The Creator put in the first spark of electricity in the primordial soup to create the first proteins or nucleic acids, and sat back and relaxed as the process unfolded itself. Cells were formed, organelles were introduced, and gradually multicellular organisms sprang forth. When things became a little difficult to manage, such as the world being over-run by huge brontosauri, a well-targeted, well-directed meteor shower - again well-designed - nicely took care of them. With a little helpful nudge like that here and there, and introduction of variations by allowing a little change in the genes (like prototypes of machines), processes like natural selection - like well-designed seives - shook out the imperfections, and smoothed out difficulties in design.

Everyone knows that a system left to itself will move towards greater entropy and become chaotic. On the other hand, a intelligently-designed, guided system will function optimally, self-correct and improve upon itself. So there. Viva el intelligent design.

Disclaimer: No faiths or evidences, theologists or atheists, were harmed during the making of this opinion.

Post-script: Will this horse-s**t elevate me to the level of The Onion article on abortion?

suirauqa said: Didn’t you know that greatest proof of an intelligent design in creation is the fact that evolution occurred?

No, this is.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Yes, I can’t wait to go out and both Wells’s book. I’m sure it is full of the same common sense things that he ascribes to as a member of the Unification church:

* Before Adam and Eve’s were married in Eden, Eve had an affair with the Archangel Lucifer. This caused the spiritual fall of mankind. She later engaged in an pre-marital sexual relationship with Adam. This caused the physical fall of mankind. Together, these illicit sexuality caused them to form an imperfect family. Their sin led to Satan taking control of the world. * The church links Communism (the expression of Satan) with Cain and Democracy (the expression of God) with Abel. * The third Adam was born in Korea between 1917 and 1930. (The first Adam was the individual described in Genesis; the second Adam is Jesus). He will be recognized as second coming of Christ, the perfect man. He will marry the perfect woman, and will become the “true spiritual parents of humankind”.

Of course because Wells is a scientist and practices critical thinking we shouldn’t jump to conclusions by wondering whether his intellectual his faculties have been contaminated by his religious beliefs…

Isn’t it strange how people on the far Right and the far Left try to use holism to argue against science?

Ian Musgrave Wrote:

Sadly, the hypothesis was sunk as a by-product of researchers looking at completely different things, not checking if centrioles were turbines (Wells’s paper has gathered zero citations since its publication).

Hmm. Neither sought nor fabricated. Where have I heard that phrase before?

“Isn’t it strange how people on the far Right and the far Left try to use holism to argue against science?”

Not really - they are sufficiently bent to come full circle.

Unsympathetic reader, for what it is worth the Kekule story is repeated in Brock’s Norton History of Chemistry. Of course the substantial disanalogy between it and the ID crowd is that Kekule was not just satisfied with having dreamt a solution; he proceded to test it.

Unsympathetic reader, for what it is worth the Kekule story is repeated in Brock’s Norton History of Chemistry. Of course the substantial disanalogy between it and the ID crowd is that Kekule was not just satisfied with having dreamt a solution; he proceded to test it.

I see the entire story as not unlike the late unlamented Jeane Dixon whose eponymous effect refers to the propensity of the press to trumpet psychic hits and ignore the far more numerous misses.

In the Wells effect, both the hits and misses are counted as evidence for ID. The argument from ignorance taken to its ultimate.

Oh, Jeanne Dixon. That talented psychic who predicted about 62 that Kennedy would win re-election, but wouldn’t survive his term in office. She also predicted (in another venue) that Kennedy would lose re-election to the Republicans.

Well, Kennedy is assassinated in 1963 and, well, half of one of her contradictory predictions was right, so SUCCESS! The press has lauded her as correctly predicting Kennedy would be assassinated (which she did not) and ignores her two failures on the same issue.

The Jeanne Dixon effect is aptly named.

I won’t even mention the failure of Atlantis to rise above the waves again in 1969, which she also predicted. Nope, I won’t bring it up at all. Not me.

Ian states,

Wells states that Kid was not motile in a microtubule gliding assay, but does not report the authors caution that low force generating motors would not necessarily be seen in this assay, and a recent study has show that Kid is a low force motor (Brouhard & Hunt 2005). He reports that while Xkid deficient frog cells have PEF defects, frog oocytes have normal metaphase I. He neglects to mention that metaphase I oocyte chromosome alignment is mechanistically different from mitosis (the chromosomes are physically tethered to each other), and that metaphase II, which is mechanistically similar to mitosis, does have abnormalities. Nonetheless, these are relatively minor peeves.

Make no mistake. Those are not mere oversights, but deliberate, intentional omissions and part of an overall pattern of dishonesty from Wells and the ID creationists. And as such, they are not minor pet peeves but an indication of just how inherently deceitful the high priests of ID creationism are.

Ian, you know as well as I do that citing papers and their results but only discussing those parts that support your argument is terribly inappropriate for a published paper, even if it is in Rivista. Such behavior should not be written off as a “minor pet peeve”, but held up and shown to everyone. These people are pathological liars who try and dupe the general populace every chance they get. If every time we see this kind of thing, we use it to demonstrate to the public just how dishonest ID creationists are, hopefully the message will eventually begin to sink in.

Inoculated Mind Wrote:

Isn’t it strange how people on the far Right and the far Left try to use holism to argue against science?

No. They meet at the bottom.

This is somewhat unrelated to this post, but I just had to share it. There is new evidence for the endosymbiotic origin of centrosomes, with the discovery that centrioles house an RNA that encodes an RNA polymerase not found in any eukartyotic genome!

I really can’t understand IDers “hypothesis”, for example, Well’s “Centrioles as turbines” so-called hypothesis. First many of them (like Behe) generally deny the possibility of understanding the methods and the intentions of the supposed Designer (probably because they don’t want to loose the support of YECs or admit that the ID is the vacuous and contradictory traditional western GOD, or simply because they don’t want to be tested. I really don’t know), something that would be expected to figure out some sort of test. But when they come closer to propose something, they use as analogy a men (a natural, limited, fallible being) made/designed object, a turbine, not something that you would expect from a supernatural designer. Showing, for me, just there lack of imagination and their confusion.

Ok, maybe the problem is “What some one would expect from a Supernatural and Intelligent (however this means for the IDers) Designer (who do not uses evolution, at least not always) that could be test unambiguously”?

Very good peace work , Ian. Congratulations!!!

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 56, byte 56 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Good grief.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 56, byte 56 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 56, byte 56 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 56, byte 56 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 56, byte 56 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Looks like somebody should maybe close this thread - it’s on somebody’s speed dial, or something.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ian Musgrave published on August 9, 2006 2:03 PM.

Fire in the sky. was the previous entry in this blog.

ID in a Nutshell 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