Cephalopod development and evolution

| 63 Comments
ceph_tease.jpg

People are always arguing about whether primitive apes could have evolved into men, but that one seems obvious to me: of course they did! The resemblances are simply too close, so that questioning it always seems silly. One interesting and more difficult question is how oysters could be related to squid; one's a flat, sessile blob with a hard shell, and the other is a jet-propelled active predator with eyes and tentacles. Any family resemblance is almost completely lost in their long and divergent evolutionary history (although I do notice some unity of flavor among the various molluscs, which makes me wonder if gustatory sampling hasn't received its proper due as a biochemical assay in evaluating phylogeny.)

One way to puzzle out anatomical relationships and make phylogenetic inferences is to study the embryology of the animals. Early development is often fairly well conserved, and the various parts and organization are simpler; I would argue that what's important in the evolution of complex organisms anyway is the process of multicellular assembly, and it's the rules of construction that we have to determine to identify pathways of change. Now a recent paper by Shigeno et al. traces the development of Nautilus and works out how the body plan is established, and the evolutionary pattern becomes apparent.

Continue reading "Cephalopod development and evolution" (on Pharyngula)

63 Comments

Indeed, gustatory impression is a perfectly valid character. For example, I believe that phylogenetic analysis of “tastes like chicken” demonstrates that pork beef and lamb are derived, whereas there is a fair chance that dinosaurs tasted like chicken. I am not aware of a published phylogenetic analysis of “tastes like calamari,” but perhaps a collaborative proposal to NSF could be worked out involving extensive taste sampling dumped into the latest version of PAUP or perhaps Mesquite?

So eating sushi can be a scientific experiment? LOL

Henry

I had a friend whose reason for ordering jellyfish in a Japanese restaurant was that he wanted to try another phylum. (and it didn’t taste like chicken)

“Tastes like chicken” has its own Wikipedia page with a couple of relevant links.

What does Nautilus taste like, anybody know?

Nemo’s submarine? Probably tastes like metal. Oh, you may have meant the animal of that name… :D

‘Panda’ says:People are always arguing about whether primitive apes could have evolved into men, but that one seems obvious to me: of course they did! The resemblances are simply too close, so that questioning it always seems silly.

Using the ‘Panda’ logic we should be able to safely assume that a tail, webbed feet, and a snout resembling a duck’s bill makes the platypus closely related to a Duck!!!

Resemblance is NOT an way to arrive at who is related to who.

In fact there is NO real scientific way to solve this problem.

The number of chromosomes bounce all over the scale from one type of creature to another. There is NO way to line up the DNA and determine relationship either. It is all pure guesswork, and bad guesswork at that.

James,

What’s your “guesswork”? Do you have any evidence that might suggest that “humans and other apes originated from two or more origin-of-life events” is a better explanation? If so, when do you think the lineages originated? Again, “best guesses” will suffice for now. Mere incredulity towards the prevailing explanation will not.

Resemblance is NOT an way to arrive at who is related to who.

In fact there is NO real scientific way to solve this problem.

Really? Do you have any idea if you’re related to your mother and father, aside from the records? Are the courts faulty in deciding paternity cases? Was it all just guesswork when the victims of 9-11 were identified by their DNA, since of course resemblance (of DNA between samples) is no guide to relatedness?

Are humans related to each other? How could you possibly know, since we have to suppose so from their resemblances? I asked Paul Nelson the same thing once, and sensibly he didn’t answer (he avoids all sorts of questions).

The number of chromosomes bounce all over the scale from one type of creature to another.

Yes, dolt, we have a 23 haploid chromosome count, and apes have 24. And guess what, our “chromosome 2” has genes corresponding to two ape chromosomes. How can that be? I guess it’s all just magic, since we have no way of telling if children are related to parents, humans are related to each other, or primates related through a common ancestor. After all, if you accept the evidence that humans are related, it’s the same sort of reasoning that leads to the forbidden conclusion that chimps and humans are related.

Gee, and we “materialists” dare to say that creationists and IDists are anti-science. And all we have to show in evidence for this charge are people like James Collins who flatly denies the basis of science (roughly, pattern recognition) and those who studiously avoid dealing directly with the implications of pattern recognition in the same way across “categories,” as we see with all of the IDists.

Absolutely nothing would work if we applied their subjectivism. Not only science and justice would be utterly perverted, the ordinary inferences made by humans in their daily lives would be undercut by their ignorance and deliberate perversions of human knowing.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Re “Resemblance is NOT an way to arrive at who is related to who.”

It’s not just similar or not similar, it’s the degree of similarity.

Humans and chimpanzees have mostly the same parts, made of mostly the same tissue types, in mostly the same arrangement. That’s talking about all or at least the vast majority of parts.

The “resemblance” between platypus snout and duck bill is superficial; in most ways they differ as much as any mammal differs from any bird.

Henry

James:

This may come as a shock, but your thoughts have occurred to many scientists before, and there is an enormous literature devoted to dealing with these very issues. Furthermore, much of this literature has been devoted to critically (and I mean savagely) questioning and evaluating methods for phylogenetic reconstruction. Yet still, in spite such intense criticism, an overwhelming majority of scientists view the exercise as both scientific and remarkably accurate, meaning that it has survived the assault and even grown. Now clearly you must have some special insight into the issues that the scientific community has overlooked. Apart from bald-faced assertions of ignorance (your platypus example is freshman-high-school-biology-first-day-of-class stuff, assuming that anyone taught this stuff in high school anymore), perhaps you would care to elaborate? I’m dying to hear them. Please. We all await. Fire away.

James Collins Wrote:

The number of chromosomes bounce all over the scale from one type of creature to another. There is NO way to line up the DNA and determine relationship either. It is all pure guesswork, and bad guesswork at that.

Simply not true. Actually, we can track changes in chromosome numbers through evolutionary history just like any number of other traits. We can also look at genes that have are still transcribed in one organism that has ceased serving a useful function in another (a pseudogene; go ahead and look up information for the psi pseudogene, for example, if you’re actually intent on considering data) and make comparison that other data validate, thus creating a useful model

And as far as physical traits, we can indeed tell homologous from analogous traits through things like the fossil record and molecular biology. The fact that both whales and fish have similar structures for locomotion doesn’t pose a problem, and neither does both a platypus and duck having a bill since the structures look superficially similar but are physiologically quite different because they developed differently during evolutionary history and follow very different developmental pathways in the given animal.

Where on earth did you get the idea that we can’t “line up” DNA from different chromosomes, anyhow? It’s certainly not a problem I’ve ever heard an investigator bring up. Can you point to a scientific study in which this problem actually occurred? A link would be nice.

James Collins wrote:

Using the ‘Panda’ logic we should be able to safely assume that a tail, webbed feet, and a snout resembling a duck’s bill makes the platypus closely related to a Duck!!!

Actually the tail and webbed feet of a platypus in no way resemble a ducks bill. Although the duck and the platypus do have a common ancestor.

I think you have a problem discerning the difference between homologous structures and analagous stuctures. Please study up before you make any more daft assertions.

Glen Davidson Wrote:

Yes, dolt, we have a 23 haploid chromosome count, and apes have 24.

James has an even more fundamental problem with his insistence that chromosome number is a uniquely defining characteristic. By that definition, someone who had Downs Syndrome, or any number of other disorders rooted in aneuploidy, would no longer be considered human at all. I’m not sure what they’d be according to James.

Give me a break, similarities are not scientific proof. It is the weakest proof available. Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias. For example, naturalists say that evolution is proven true when we look at the 98.8% similarity between certain segments of the DNA in a Chimpanzee and compare them with the same segments of DNA of a Human. Yet that similarity is not nearly good enough to be considered “conclusive” scientific proof. For starters, preliminary comparisons of the complete genome of chimps and the complete genome of man yield a similarity of only 96%. Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity may actually be closer to 85% to 90%. Secondarily, at the protein level only 29% of genes code for the exact same amino acid sequences in chimps and humans (Nature, 2005). As well, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish? Our DNA is 70% similar to a fruit fly; So are we therefore 70% fruit fly? Our DNA is 75% similar to a worm; So are we 75% worm? No, of course not!! This type of reasoning is simple minded in its approach and clearly flawed in establishing a solid scientific foundation on which to draw valid inferences from! Clearly, we must find if the DNA is flexible enough to accommodate any type of mutations happening to it in the first place. This one point of evidence, (The actual flexibility of DNA to any random mutations), must be firmly established, first and foremost, before we can draw any meaningful inferences from the genetic data we gather from organisms!! Fortunately we, through the miracle of science, can now establish this crucial point of DNA flexibility. The primary thing that is crushing to the evolutionary theory is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms that can be measured, at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms that are harmful and/or to the life-form having the mutation (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998)! Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to DNA that would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although evolutionists try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate genetic entropy. Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is clearly overwhelming, for doctors have already cited over 3500 mutational disorders (Dr. Gary Parker).

“It is entirely in line with the al nature of naturally occurring mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them to be detrimental to the organisms in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation” H.J. Muller (Received a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations to DNA) “But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variation needed for evolution… There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.” Jonathan Wells (PhD. Molecular Biology)

Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter. Since, it is an established fact that at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to DNA will be harmful and/or , then it is also an established fact that there is at least a 999,99930,000,000 to one chance that the monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a end of harmful/fatal mutations that will kill him or severely mutilate him before him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with! This number (999,99930,000,000), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome! Worse yet for the naturalists, mathematician William Dembski PhD. has worked out the foundational math that shows the mutation/natural selection scenario to be impossible EVEN IF the harmful/fatal rate for mutation to the DNA were only 50%. The naturalist stamps his feet again and says that symbiotic gene transfer, cross-breeding (yes they, desperately, suggested cross-breeding as a solution), gene duplication and multiplication of chromosomes, alternative splicing etc .. etc .. are the reasons for the changes in DNA between humans and apes. They say these things with utmost confidence without even batting an eye. Incredibly, this is done in spite of solid evidences testifying to the contrary. Indeed, even if a hypothetical beneficial mutation to the DNA ever did occur, it would be of absolutely no use for it would be swallowed in a vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations that would be below the culling power of natural selection! “The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information” Ray Bohlin, (PhD. in molecular and cell biology)

“Evolution through random duplications”… While it sounds quite sophisticated and respectable, it does not withstand honest and critical assessment” John C. Sanford (PhD Genetics; inventor of the biolistic “gene gun” process! Holds over 25 patents!)

The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses in complexity any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (Trifonov, 1989)! No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a another study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study that indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. This “complex interwoven network” throughout the entire DNA code makes the human genome severely poly-constrained to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy, 2005). This means the DNA code is now much more severely limited in its chance of ever having a hypothetical beneficial mutation since almost the entire DNA code is now proven to be intimately connected to many other parts of the DNA code. Thus even though a random mutation to DNA may be able to change one part of an organism for the better, it is now proven much more likely to harm many other parts of the organism that depend on that one particular part being as it originally was. This “interwoven network” finding is extremely bad news for naturalists!

Naturalists truly believe you can get such staggering complexity of information in the DNA from some process based on blind chance. They cannot seem to fathom that any variation to a basic component in a species is going to require precise modifications to the entire range of interconnected components related to that basic component. NO natural law based on blind chance, would have the wisdom to implement the multitude of precise modifications on the molecular level in order to effect a positive change from one species to another. Only a “vastly superior intelligence” would have the wisdom to know exactly which amino acids in which proteins, which letters in the DNA code and exactly which repositioning of the 25 million nucleosomes (DNA spools) etc .. etc .. would need to be precisely modified to effect a positive change in a species. For men to imagine blind chance has the inherently vast wisdom to create such stunning interrelated complexity is even more foolish than some pagan culture worshipping a stone statue as their god and creator. Even if evolution of man were true, then only God could have made man through evolution. For only He would have the vast wisdom to master the complexity that would be required to accomplish such a thing. Anyone who fails to see this fails to appreciate the truly astonishing interwoven complexity of life at the molecular level. Even though God could have created us through “directed evolution”, the fossil record (Lucy fossil proven not ancestral in 2007) and other recent “hard” evidence (Neanderthal mtDNA sequenced and proven “out of human range”) indicates God chose to create man as a completely unique and distinct species. But, alas, our naturalistic friend is as blind and deaf as the blind chance he relies on to produce such changes and cannot bring himself to face this truth. Most naturalists I’ve met, by and large, are undaunted when faced with such overwhelming evidence for Divine Intelligence and are convinced they have conclusive proof for naturalistic evolution somewhere. They will tell us exactly what it is when they find it. The trouble with this line of thinking for naturalists is they will always take small pieces of suggestive evidence and focus on them, to the exclusion of the overriding vast body of conclusive evidence that has already been established. They fail to realize that they are viewing the evidence from the wrong overall perspective to begin with. After listening to their point of view describing (with really big words) some imagined evolutionary pathway on the molecular level, sometimes I think they might just be right. Then when I examine their evidence in detail and find it wanting, I realize they are just good story tellers with small pieces of “suggestive” evidence ignoring the overwhelming weight of “hard” evidence that doesn’t fit their naturalistic worldview. Instead of them thinking,” WOW look how God accomplishes life on the molecular level,” they think” WOW look what , dumb and blind chance accomplished on the molecular level.” Naturalists have an all too human tendency to over-emphasize and sometimes even distort the small pieces of suggestive evidence that are taken out of context from the overwhelming body of “conclusive” evidence. This is done just to support their own preconceived philosophical bias of naturalism. This is clearly the practice of very bad science, since they have already decided what the evidence must say prior to their investigation. I could help them find the conclusive proof for evolution they are so desperately looking for if they would just listen to me. For I know exactly where this conclusive proof for evolution is; it is right there in their own imagination. What really amazes me is that most naturalists are people trained in exacting standards of science. Yet, they are accepting such piddling and weak suggestive evidence in the face of such overwhelming conclusive evidence to begin with. This blatant deception; , dumb, blind chance has the inherent wisdom to produce staggering complexity, is surprisingly powerful in its ability to deceive! That it should ensnare so many supposedly rational men and women is remarkable. Then, again, I have also been easily misled by blatant deception many times in my life, so, maybe it is not that astonishing after all. Maybe it is just a painful and all too human weakness we all share that allows us to be so easily deceived.

Bond, James Bond,

Based on the similarity of this post to your post some weeks ago, I will conclude that you’re an ineducable trolling moron. Is that scientific enough?

This “Bond” person doesn’t appear to have the slightest clue about how genetics work; lots of red herring garbage in there that entirely ignores… well… pretty much all of science. Good examples of quote mining, though.

James the hit and run creo:

Give me a break, similarities are not scientific proof. It is the weakest proof available. Naturalists always try to establish scientific validity for evolution by pointing to suggestive similarities while ignoring the foundational principle of science (genetic entropy) that contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias.

1. The first three sentences are lies. It goes downhill from there. Similarities are important evidence for any theory, it is strong evidence especially when consistent with other data sets (which it is), and genetic entropy doesn’t exist except in Jame’s mind.

2. The chances are low that James can even read much less understand all that gibberish and lies. But maybe he can explain genetic entropy and some other imaginary scientific principles.

3. The chances are high that he just cut and pasted that from somewhere else. Which shows that there are at least 2 people totally confused.

Re “Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if there were just a 1% difference of DNA between monkeys and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. “

Let’s see. Five million years or so in each of the two lineages. 30 million base pairs.

30 million base pairs / ( 5 million years * 2 lineages ) = 3 base pairs per year, or about 60 or so per generation.

Average number mutations per generation over the entire genome is over 100, iirc. (Average within coding regions is between 1 and 2, iirc.)

No contradiction there.

Conclusion: this guy started a multi-page essay without having done the required math.

Henry

His creo-teachers measure quantity of work, not quality.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 60, byte 426 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 5, column 64, byte 433 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 7, column 2, byte 431 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part.

How is it that all of our computer binary programs have to be created, yet nature miraculously did this all on her own?

My gut feeling tells me that we’re missing something here.

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

Or,if that’s not how it happens, when did a dog give birth to a half something else, or whatever?

You know what I mean.

I think my ex is a mutant. I told him I would ask you guys what his chances are of finding another mutant like him.

I read somewhere that they only used DNA from like 37 some women to trace the whole female lineage down to the Eve-mother.

Well, I’m sure they missed at least one other lineage. If you tested the DNA from my ex-mother-inlaw, I know that the findings would be different. How can they be so sure having traced so few ancestral genomes?

Last question:

If my mother-in-law’s DNA was sequenced, tested or whatever you call it, and it was found that her DNA did not make her quite human yet, or if it showed that she had mutated just a little past being human, how would I go about donating her to a lab for experimental research? I mean monkeys are mostly human - 93% - right? So, if we can do it to monkeys …

Anyone???

Bev Collins Wrote:

My gut feeling tells me that we’re missing something here.

What’s missing is this:

Theistic evolutionists who believe that life is designed and created clearly state their conclusions of the whats, whens, and hows (proximate causes), and base them on multiple independent lines of evidence. Anti-evolution activists, and the cheerleaders who mindlessly parrot them, in stark contrast, are being increasingly evasive on what their designer did, when, and how, that would make their “theory” qualify as something other than evolution. The evasion has gotten so bad that the only one to offer a hint of what he thought happened instead (Michael Behe) has conceded the entire 4-billion year timeline and common descent to mainstream science, and none of his colleagues have challenged him directly, even if they seem to disagree.

My gut feeling tells me that we’re missing something here

I don’t know if we are missing anything, but you are clearly lacking a basic understanding of the science you’re so smugly attacking.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 94, byte 277 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Bev Collins Wrote:

Where are the half species: The in-between species when one species mutates into another species?

They’re right here. They’re not even fossils; all the intermediates between the two end species are still very much alive. This is just one example, of course. Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Check out the squirrels there sometime… but you have to go all the way around.

Bev Collins Wrote:

I read somewhere that they only used DNA from like 37 some women to trace the whole female lineage down to the Eve-mother.

I don’t know what you’ve read or where you read it, but this isn’t what the so-called “Eve hypothesis” is. Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on only from mother to offspring (has nothing to do with father and is recombined during sexual reproduction like nuclear DNA) was examined from women selected randomly from georgraphically and ethnically diverse populations around the planet. Because mitochondrial DNA changes so slowly over time, comparative analysis allows the construction of phylogenetic trees that are rooted not in a single individual, but in a single population with a minimum size of ~10,000. “Eve-mother” is a misnomer based on popular reporting of a study which most people haven’t read and, unfortunately, aren’t equipped educationally to understand even if they did. “Eve” sounds better and sells more magazines than “an African population of at least 10,000 individuals that existed in the prehistoric past.”

Bev Collins Wrote:

If you tested the DNA from my ex-mother-inlaw, I know that the findings would be different. How can they be so sure having traced so few ancestral genomes?

I can’t say anything about your ex-mother-in-law; I’m fairly certain my own is descended from wild boars. We can have this certainty because, again, the study didn’t look at nuclear DNA, which is prone to a relatively high right of mutation (replicative error) due to the way in which genetic material is parsed out as the result of sexual meiosis; mitochondria are effectively asexual reproducers with a comparatively small genome and don’t undergo much mutation and no recombination whatsoever. Because the rate of change is so small and so constant, the mitochondrial genome makes an excellent clock, and we can get a very good idea of how long it takes to go from one sequence to another with a very high degree of predictability. That’s not to say that we can get 100% accuracy, but we can definitely make a prediction that allows us to incorporate the small margin of error that does exist (hence “a population of 10,000 individuals” instead of “Bob and Sally Robustus from Kinshasa”).

They have recently ascertained that about 95% of DNA is regulatory. The genome appears to have been created, and the genes are turned off and on to create different beings, for the most part.

That is a false statement. They have done no such thing. The function of noncoding DNA is mostly unknown. The provisional answer right now, some is regulatory, some is just there.

It will take decades for scientists to understand noncoding DNA well. This will be done by scientists with lots of hard work. It will not be done by creationists who load up the ABI 1200 LIE SYNTHESIZER and go out for a cup of coffee and call it done.

For extra credit, why don’t you explain what the 8% of the genome that dates in part back to the monkeys that is defective retroviruses is doing?

If a miracle in your soul occurs, explain your activities? “If I post lies on message boards, god exists.” Of course, quote from the bible. Avoid the part about 10 commandments.

Lord Kelvin was quite right to criticize the vague, uniformitarian idea that the earth had always existed. His estimate of the age of the earth was much too low, but not because of his religious views. He didn’t know of any energy source that could supply the sun with fuel for billions of years. The discovery of atomic energy, of course, changed his viewpoint. I doubt that many scientists after 1900 did disagree that evolution occurred. But when the implications of evolutionary theory contradicted the accepted ‘paradigms’ (sorry) in their own field, they almost invariably shrugged off the evolutionary perspective until they got whupped upside the head with some totally unexpected discovery that showed the evolutionary theorists were right, after all. I’m not sure this was a bad thing, either. It certainly proves that evolution hasn’t enjoyed any special aura of infallibility in the scientific community, as creationists like to claim.

Torbjörn Larsson:

Actually, from what I read, Schrödinger’s Cat was an attempt of “reductio ad absurdum” - Schrödinger meant it to illustrate absurdities the Kopenhagen interpretation would lead to. I don’t think he ever personally thought that the cat would be a non-observer - but according to some of interpretations back then, it would be.

Back from the weekend and commenting again FWIW.

Marek Wrote:

Schrödinger meant it to illustrate absurdities the Kopenhagen [sic] interpretation would lead to.

That rings a bell. But formally his gedanken experiment was consistent with the classical Copenhagen interpretation, so while it was absurd it wasn’t quaint. :-P

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on July 30, 2007 11:48 AM.

All Epistemologies Are Not Created Equal was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Invertebrates 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