James Shapiro’s book is scaring at least one Darwinist

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 9, 2011

Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Yet another “post-Darwinism,” Evolving Thoughts complains about Shapiro’s Evolution:/a> A view from the 21st century thusly:

Over the years there have been many books that purport to “radically revise” or “supplant” Darwinian evolutionary biology; they come with predictable regularity. Usually they are of three kinds: something is wrong with natural selection, something is wrong with inheritance, or something is wrong with phylogeny. This book, by geneticist James A. Shapiro, exemplifies all three.

Shocka!

I shall presume that the science is correct, and the choice of apparent counterexamples to the ruling paradigm (which seems to be far more fluid than many of these books expect. Lateral transfer, endosymbiosis and jumping genes are many “post-Darwinian” ideas that have been easily inserted into the consensus) is illuminating. What is the illumination thus gained?

Not Darwinism. After many historical ruminations, Evolving cannot recommend the book. In consequence, Shapiro has gone into grief therapy. 😉

Comments

avocationist, These people have all made choices for personal or intellectual reasons. And the person who has to follow a command to be good is not a good person. And you can have the law of God written in your heart regardless of any belief system. No doubt you can. But for the purposes of the discussion, I'm taking materialism and atheism as true and pointing out what remains given them. As for being able to base 'morality' on something given atheism and materialism (the conjunction is key), sure you can. I'm pointing out what's available to manage that, and what 'good' and 'evil' is in the end. I suppose you can argue that if morality is based on one's personal likes and dislikes, that it's still 'based on something'. But hey, at that point I'm simply pointing out what it's based on.nullasalus_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus, "For the platonist, for the thomist, for the divine command theorist, for other non-materialists and/or theists, good is far more restricted if their view is correct." Here's the problem. People follow different authors, philosophers, interpreters of their chosen belief system, and in fact they often switch within their lifetimes. These people have all made choices for personal or intellectual reasons. And the person who has to follow a command to be good is not a good person. And you can have the law of God written in your heart regardless of any belief system. I do realize that my last two posts here are slightly off topic in that they discuss problems with discernment of the good, and not the lack of any true basis for morality in a materialist world, although even there I think I could make one.avocationist_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

On Goodness. "I consider it “good” because if the rule is kept, everyone benefits. “Everyone benefits” seems to me to be as good a definition of “good” as anything. The word “benefit”, indeed, is derived from the Latin for “makes good” and if everyone benefits then that is more good than only some people benefiting, no?" This is a fine definition, and what I like about it is that it emphasizes one's fellow man, which I often think is neglected by the religious, despite it's very strong scriptural support, in favor or pleasing God. Now the religious may be right that materialism offers no real right and wrong, but that does not mean that humanity isn't very confused on this issue as Isaiah points out, calling darkness light and light darkness.avocationist_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

avocationist, It’s true that Buddhism does not teach about a personal God. Buddhism is very, very different as religions go. It is all about direct experience of reality and cutting dogmas. You know, I hear that a lot, but whenever I've read into buddhism it's never been borne out. Not that it's bad to have dogma, or beliefs, or a metaphysical system, but I think the 'direct experience and cutting dogmas' line is a claim that just doesn't stand up. Either way, I only brought up buddhism since it's still a good example to 'christian' countries having a lock on atheists. As to atheist muslims, they better keep their mouths shut! Feel free to throw a question mark over the muslim nations then, but it's a lose/lose for the claim in question I think. The problem as I see it is that when these issues are brought up one meets with a wall of smug denial, and an almost glee, that many perfectly decent members of humanity find their God abhorrent. I don't think it's glee. It's simply evidence of a motive that is alternately glossed over or flat-out denied. Why not examine it? I don't think it's fair to suggest that it goes unexamined. Maybe not often enough, but that debate does take place. What doesn't take place nearly as much is the concession that many atheists are motivated by a dislike of God, or of particular religions. That's one reason why Thomas Nagel's quote gets so much airtime - because that sort of frankness is pretty rare. Even when someone admits they hate this God, the idea of it being a motivating factor gets dodged or denied often in my experience.nullasalus_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Lizzie: "How do you know your God is good? And, as a followup: How do you know that your god is the True God?" I think #1 is a good question because I have never thought of it as a logic question. I know God is good only through personal revelation. Sorry! But perhaps if we look at the cosmos and realize that nongoodness is always alied with death and failure...or perhaps God is automatically good because God is everything and therefore loves everything just as you love yourself. My God is the true God because there can only be one - it is in my conception of God that I may fall short of the truth, indeed we are all merely strivers after truth, a situation that may continually improve, one hopes!avocationist_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Nullasalus, It's true that Buddhism does not teach about a personal God. Buddhism is very, very different as religions go. It is all about direct experience of reality and cutting dogmas. Contrary to what people think, it does not deny God but considers the question better pursued after enlightenment than before. So the matter for them would be comparable to not believing in reincarnation, because of soullessness, as western atheists believe. As to atheist muslims, they better keep their mouths shut! So far as I know, the Koranic Allah is similar to Jehovah in odiousness, but I am not sure. "But again, I think you answered your own question. As I and others have said, accept the possibility or even likelihood of God or gods, and you open the door to – you make live options out of – plenty of gods or a God that people hate. And some of that hate isn’t motivated by ‘goodness’." The problem as I see it is that when these issues are brought up one meets with a wall of smug denial, and an almost glee, that many perfectly decent members of humanity find their God abhorrent. There is no real attempt at honest dialog. One can just write them all off as being bad. And yet they are not. Thomas Paine said it well when he said that to accept the God (mostly of the OT) as true, he would have to lose everything within himself that was compassionate and sympathetic, and that alone was valid grounds to reject it. And yet he believed in a benevolent deity. Many times I have seen here the assertion that atheists abhor the Christian God, but I don't see anything other than denial and bluster as to why. Why not examine it? Why are you so certain that yours is the morally superior position? How is your belief system not circular if not amenable to examination? When I say "you" I do not mean to single you out personally; these are questions I have.avocationist_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

EL: "I don’t understand." Nullasalus @ 72: "I thought I made it pretty clear, so what you don’t understand is something I don’t understand." Ah! You're catching on to this passive-aggressive variation of "Deny-and-Demand" -- in "vanilla" "Deny-and-Demand", the person who wishes to muddy the waters simply denies the argument he has been given, and demands another. This works because most people (unlike me) are too "nice" or "polite" to demand that the obfuscator stop his intellectual dishonesty, or because most people don't even recognize what is going on. In the passive-aggressive variation of "Deny-and-Demand", the person who wishes to muddy the waters simply continuously pleads that "I don't understand" ... without ever saying *what* is unclear to him, and without ever making any attempt on his own to work through the (alleged) non-understanding. This tactic works because the "nice" person *wants* to be helpful, and *wants* the other to understand whatever it is, and so he keeps flailing around, trying to overcome a "misunderstanding" that is never identified. Then, after he tires of the game, the obfuscator may say something like, "Well, since it can't be explained, it must not be worth my time."Ilion_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 73: "She thinks that nothingness may be unstable. In other words, that nothingness has attributes and properties." Which is another way of asserting that 'nothing' is 'something'; that is, her "explanations" require a self-contradiction.Ilion_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

The "flaw" is always that the conclusion is unwelcome.Ilion_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

And of course there is a flaw in it. Somewhere. It will be exposed. In time. Just not by me.Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

But Ilion, there are no human beings. Humans beings are a myth, invented by apes who wished to become godlike.Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

EL @ 57: "Ilion, that is an interesting argument. I think it has a major flaw but it is interesting." Oh, don't be silly! I wouldn't going around linking to an argument which says that each human being is the proof that God is if there were a flaw in it.Ilion_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

nullasalus:
Given that you’re left with ‘I want to criticize other metaphysics and moralities!’ as the only card in your hand, it’s becoming pretty clear that you’re copping to my criticisms of morality on atheism and materialism. In the end, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are statements about our personal likes and dislikes, and those of others, at any given moment.
Why look closely at what you're adopting when you can criticize what you think you left behind in order to provide the needed rationalization?Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Unless existence is spontaneous, yes.
Let's not forget that this person [EL] is confused about nothingness. She thinks that nothingness may be unstable. In other words, that nothingness has attributes and properties. What a silly person.Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

I don’t recall calling myself a theist, but if I did, I am pretty sure I would have qualified it very carefully. If by that you mean you casually play fast and loose with definitions and say 'Well in a certain way I'm a theist!', sure. Your view of careful qualification is a sight to behold. Yes, it can be “proven wrong”. That’s its strength, And no, I have ruled out explanations in advance; I have not said so, nor do I. And in the past you've alternately said that your pseudo-god requires no faith because you know it exists, and that it's not a belief but rather an orientation. Now it's that your pseudo-god can be proven wrong. Take your pick. Perhaps not, but it appears to apply to your labelling of me. Sadly, no. And which, apparently, you have misunderstood, and I hope I have now explained. I trust you will now revise your view. No, I see no reason to revise my view as I've explained above. But feel free to start correcting your patterns and habits on this front. Please stop dismissing my attempts at clarifying my position as “obfuscating”. I have not “engag[ed] in shenanigans”. You have made a mistake. Please stop insisting that whenever you're caught blowing smoke, playing fast and loose with definitions, and otherwise that it's just 'clarifying your position'. It's tiring. It’s perfectly possible that the fluffy logic is mine. It’s also perfectly possible that the fluffy logic is yours. That you refuse to consider that possibility reflects more badly on you than it does on me. And we're back to this old routine. We have a disagreement, and darnit, I'm the bad guy because I think I'm right and that the evidence supports my view. Nowhere did I say I'm incapable of being mistaken. The mere possibility doesn't do much here. You really should learn this lesson. But please do not ascribe to me different ones, and if I correct your characterisations, please do not assume that it reflects lack of integrity on my part. I don't 'assume' anything but give the benefit of the doubt at the start of an interaction. Over time, after track records get established and evidence accumulates, this can change in various directions. You play the game where if I don't perpetually assume the absolute best of you, regardless of your past behavior or reasoning, that I'm being mean or unfair. No, I'm not going to watch you bluff, blow smoke, casually redefine things, or generally engage in poor reasoning repeatedly and then act as if it never happened. You seem to be saying that under materialism and atheism, morality is whatever anyone thinks it is. The implication seems to be that under theism, it isn’t. Considering I've said more than once that nothing in my criticism relies on theism, this doesn't hold. A materialist and an atheist could point out what I'm pointing out. Some do. I don’t understand. I thought I made it pretty clear, so what you don't understand is something I don't understand. I would argue that everyone stands to get more in the long term. Selfishness partly deprives others of benefit, but ultimately it also deprives the selfish person. It’s short-termism as well as short-sightedism. That's a nice bumper-sticker idea, but it's trivial to imagine situations where a person will personally benefit more long-term if they're selfish either in the short-term or long-term. Better yet, under atheism and materialism 'benefit' itself is just another word for 'get what I and/or others want and like'. You're saying that being selfish is wrong in large part because it doesn't maximize a person's own benefits. But the easy reply here is "But that's a strategic criticism. If the strategic criticism is flawed - if an individual would benefit more by acting selfish, or exploiting others, then that alone provides all the reason necessary to engage in those acts." Well, not really, as I think I argued. But let’s say you are right: so how do you derive an objective morality from theism? And don’t say that we aren’t talking about theism! If you are criticising a-theism for not providing an objective moral standard, then you need to show how theism does. I think it's funny, and so damn telling, that you keep stamping your feet and insisting I defend theism - even though I A) Based none of my criticisms on theism, B) Expressly drew a difference between atheism and materialism, C) Have pointed out that what I'm pointing out could be pointed out by an atheist materialist, and in fact has been in the past. Thank you, but I'll continue to stick to the topic. The fact that you really, really don't want to spend your time on defense for morality given atheism and materialism says quite a lot. You have asserted that under materialism or atheism, morality is just a matter of personal preference (which seems a bit oxymoronic to me seeing as the Golden Rule is precisely the rule that says that your own personal preference must be deprioritised, but leave that aside for now). So if that isn’t to be just a general comment about the problems of deriving morality, then you need to show, as I’ve said, how theism is different. First, you yourself have reframed the Golden Rule as that which prioritizes your own best interests in the long term anyway - so double up on the irony. Second, once again, I don't need to show how theistic morality is different - because at no point have I relied on theism or even immaterialism to make the arguments I'm making. I've been content with examining what 'good' and 'evil' can be, at best, given atheism and materialism. I've expressly said that a moral nihilist, or an atheist materialist, could lodge the criticisms I'm making. Given that you're left with 'I want to criticize other metaphysics and moralities!' as the only card in your hand, it's becoming pretty clear that you're copping to my criticisms of morality on atheism and materialism. In the end, 'good' and 'evil' are statements about our personal likes and dislikes, and those of others, at any given moment. Huff, puff, insist no one else can do any better. But hey, admit that much. These statements seem to me to be directly contradictory. Is there a typo? No, it's you having trouble reasoning again. I mentioned the spread of possible answers to the morality question if one abandons atheism and/or theism. That does not at all commit me to saying 'All of those are true at the same time!' or other such nonsense. C'mon, this is just weak. So are you claiming, Nullasalus, that your faith is not a matter of choice? Why did you adopt it, rather than, for example, Islam? What is it, in other words, about the faith that you hold that makes it self-evidently true? And once again, you bring up a red herring. My faith, whatever it is, has nothing to do with this subject. I have at no point relied on it to point out what I've pointed out. That you repeatedly are diving for this is just so damn instructive. Make my faith, whatever it is, false. Make every faith in the world false. My points about atheism and materialism on the topic of goodness and morality still stand.nullasalus_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

---Liz: “I don’t think that really works. You are saying that unless the eternal thing is personal, it cannot do anything except be eternal, so it cannot make something temporal? No, I wasn’t saying that at all. A non-personal force or law, which by definition is deterministic and mechanistic, can do only what it does and nothing else; it cannot change its nature by first being a non-creator and then choosing to become a creator. An eternal, unchanging law either always creates universes or it never creates universes. If the non-personal force is, and always was, creating universes, then the universes (or universe) it creates must also be eternal and cannot, therefore, begin to exist. If it is never creating, well, then, obviously it can’t create the universe. This follows as surely as the night follows the day. From these considerations it is clear that only a personal agent who can choose to create or not create can create a universe that begins in time.StephenB_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Thank you for youre response.
Something eternal must be responsible for the beginning of the temporal universe.
Unless existence is spontaneous, yes. And depending what you mean by "eternal" - non-time-bound, I guess. OK.
If that eternal something is a personal agent, which possesses the power of choice, then the explanation makes sense. A self existent, eternal, personal creator chose to create the universe, complete with matter, space, and time, all of which depend on the personal, self-existent being that created them. If that eternal something is a non-personal force, which by definition is deterministic and mechanistic, it can do only what it does and nothing else. A force, principle, or law, whether temporal or eternal, cannot morph into something other than what it is. That means that an eternal, impersonal force or law cannot change its nature by choosing to introduce time, create other laws, or fashion a law-governed universe.
hmmm. I don't think that really works. You are saying that unless the eternal thing is personal, it cannot do anything except be eternal, so it cannot make something temporal? Why not? What if the "eternal thing" were simply the instabilty of zero dimensional existence? I guess the reason I don't find the argument persuasive is that I think that "choosing" is a property of material objects - brains, for instance, but also other systems that act as filters, taking in input and producing sorted output. So it seems more likely to me (and, interestingly, in accord with the old idea that God is "simple") that the [] (place holder for the reason there is something rather than nothing) is a intrinsic property of existence rather than a choosing mind. Still, interesting thought. To me, it always comes back to the nature of mind (which is why I found Ilion's article interesting - to some extent I agree he raises the key question). That's leaving aside the evidence for the divine nature of Jesus, of course. Which, if I found persuasive, would probably trump the other stuff. But I don't.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle: "Why?" (cannot God or the first cause be an immaterial force). Something eternal must be responsible for the beginning of the temporal universe. If that eternal something is a personal agent, which possesses the power of choice, then the explanation makes sense. A self existent, eternal, personal creator chose to create the universe, complete with matter, space, and time, all of which depend on the personal, self-existent being that created them. If that eternal something is a non-personal force, which by definition is deterministic and mechanistic, it can do only what it does and nothing else. A force, principle, or law, whether temporal or eternal, cannot morph into something other than what it is. That means that an eternal, impersonal force or law cannot change its nature by choosing to introduce time, create other laws, or fashion a law-governed universe.StephenB_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

junkdnaforlife:
The resurrection of Jesus Christ. Based on the historical method as applied to Gospels via adverse witness, criterion of embarrassment, oral tradition, primary and secondary sources, non-biblical sources, eyewitness testimony, historical impact etc, archeological discoveries, including the scientific method as applied to the Shroud of Turin, the explosion of the Church,
Fair enough, and thanks. I don't myself find those persuasive, but I agree that if I did find it persuasive, I would probably listen to what Jesus had to say. Actually, I do anyway, because I think it most of it makes a lot of sense. And I did find the Shroud of Turin persuasive for quite a while!
and most importantly, reasonable and rational faith.
Not sure about this part as and "and" but I guess given the foregoing, yes, reasonable and rational. Thanks again.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Mung: What is good and where does it originate?” Elizabeth Liddle: That is what I am asking. Mung: No, that isn’t what you’re asking. Elizabeth Liddle: Actually it was exactly what I was asking, which was why I said so. What happened to assuming I mean what I say? Elizabeth Liddle:
I should point out that my question is: How you derive an absolute standard of morality from theism?
See. Told you. Elizabeth Liddle: OK, well, to clarify, no I don’t think that good is whatever I want it to be. Isn't that what I said? Mung: No, he [nullasalus] is saying it [good] is whatever you [Elizabeth Liddle] want it to be. And of course, you [Elizabeth Liddle] disagree with him, right? Elizabeth Liddle:
...no I don’t think that good is whatever I want it to be.
So someone else decides for you what is good, and that just happens to coincide with what you want? You say:
I think there’s a case to be made that the Golden Rule is as near to an absolute standard of what most people would regard as goodness as we are likely to get, which is probably why so many cultures have come up with it.
So the more people that agree about a thing the closer it becomes to an absolute standard? The democratization of the good. Or are you measuring the Golden Rule against an absolute standard and saying it comes close?Mung_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

it’s important for you to show how you make an objective judgment about which conception of God, of the many that humankind has proposed" The resurrection of Jesus Christ. Based on the historical method as applied to Gospels via adverse witness, criterion of embarrassment, oral tradition, primary and secondary sources, non-biblical sources, eyewitness testimony, historical impact etc, archeological discoveries, including the scientific method as applied to the Shroud of Turin, the explosion of the Church, and most importantly, reasonable and rational faith.junkdnaforlife_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Also, I should point out that my question is: "How you derive an absolute standard of morality from theism?" If your answer depends on a specific conception of God, then obviously, it's important for you to show how you make an objective judgment about which conception of God, of the many that humankind has proposed, is correct.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Yes, I need to ask. And no, I wasn't a Quaker for 50 years.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

You were a Quaker for 50 years and you really need to ask? You know the answers. You just reject them. But that's fine. What enables you to reject is the very thing that enables others to accept.junkdnaforlife_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

OK, go on, I'm listening.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

"how you derive an absolute standard of morality from theism." Jesus Christjunkdnaforlife_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
You seem to be saying that under materialism and atheism, morality is whatever anyone thinks it is.
No, he is saying it is whatever you want it to be. And of course, you disagree with him, right? Because you know what good is and where it originates, and it’s not just whatever you want it to be, right?
Well, that's a little bizarre. OK, well, to clarify, no I don't think that good is whatever I want it to be. I think there's a case to be made that the Golden Rule is as near to an absolute standard of what most people would regard as goodness as we are likely to get, which is probably why so many cultures have come up with it. What I want to know is how you derive an absolute standard of morality from theism. Or any standard, actually. I'm not saying you can't, I would just like to know how you (or any theist) does it.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Pav (#58)
Rather, I was countering Wilkin’s point of view, which, as best I can understand it, is that all of science, not just the work of engineers, is the result of trial and error.
I'm not sure Wilkins was going that far. However, it's not an important point. I think we both disagree with Wilkins.
Is there a quote by Shapiro that you’ve drawn upon ...
I have not read Shapiro's book, though I have seen some of his papers and watched that video which was linked from UD a few weeks ago. I was just trying to do my best to understand what Wilkins was saying about Shapiro's book. I'll readily grant that I might have that wrong.Neil Rickert_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Neil @ {24}:
Yes, sure. I agree with that. However, your earlier comment particularly mentioned Faraday and Maxwell. But what Faraday and Maxwell did is not close to engineering.
The point I was making by bringing up Faraday and Maxwell was not that their work was engineering work. Rather, I was countering Wilkin's point of view, which, as best I can understand it, is that all of science, not just the work of engineers, is the result of trial and error. I illustrated that minus the cognitive dimensions, no science would exist, and, hence, be extension, no 'applied science' (engineering) could ever take place. It is the mind that 'discovers' science (let's all remember that science is Latin for 'knowledge'---who else knows but intelligent beings?) and then 'applies' it. It's application involves, egad, 'final causes', that is, teleology; or, as Shapiro put it "functional goals".
As best I can tell, Shapiro is pointing out that his use of teleological language is more limited than that used in engineering. Wilkins is not agreeing that there is a difference.
Is there a quote by Shapiro that you've drawn upon in attributing to Shapiro the distinction you see? If there is, I don't have access to it.PaV_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Ilion, that is an interesting argument. I think it has a major flaw but it is interesting. Thank you for the link.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 11, 2011
August
08
Aug
11
11
2011
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply