Why Darwinian medicine is a dead loss

_{News
June 25, 2011

Medicine

2}_{Categories
Medicine}

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

In “Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations,” at Evolution News & Views (June 25, 2011), neurosurgeon Mike Egnor makes a critical distinction between proximate explanations and evolutionary explanations,s they apply to medicine:

Proximate explanations are the description of the process itself. A proximate explanation of type 1 diabetes is that it is caused by lack of insulin. A proximate explanation of Duchenne muscular dystrophy is that it is a recessive X-linked genetic disease that causes muscle degeneration, weakness and death. Males are affected, though females can be carriers. It is caused by a mutation in the dystrophin gene on the X chromosome (Xp21).

As you can see, proximate explanations are what medical researchers would call the scientific explanation for a disease. Proximate explanations are medical science and provide the foundation for all medical treatments.

[ … ]

The difficulty with evolutionary explanations in medicine is:

1) All of the relevant pathophysiology is provided by the proximate explanations, which are the only explanations useful for treatment.

There are other difficulties but that first one is the swish of Occam’s Razor, as far as medicine is concerned.

Takin’ it to the street: You tripped and sprained your ankle. What you need is a speculative history of the sprained ankle in vertebrates … not!

The principle question is, what is evolutionary medicine meant to do, given that it is no use in the normal sense?

Comments

Mung:
Allow me to belabor the point. If the population does not die out, it obviously adapted, and that is what Darwinian theory predicted would happen. If the population does die out, it obviously did not adapt, and that is what Darwinian theory predicted would happen. O Blessed Theory Thy pow’r be praised despite thy faults We remain unfazed.
Mung, you are stuck in the rut of thinking everything is about proving Darwinism right or wrong. It isn't. In the case of antibiotic resistance, it's about risk minimisation. Because Darwinian theory says that if you assault a population with a toxin and fail to kill it, the remaining population will be biased in favour of the resistant members, and subsequent generations will be resistant to the toxin. For this reason, from the beginning, my mother, and others, warned that over-use of penicillin would tend to result in a population of penicillin-resistant bacteria, and that a) penicillin should not be lightly prescribed, b) where possible, the bacteria's sensitivity to penicillin should first be confirmed and c) people should finish the course. This was a direct application of Darwinian theory to clinical practice. It does not confirm that Darwin was correct. But it was a correct prediction, and indeed, penicillin resistant bacteria have become a major problem, and, with the proliferation of antibiotics, multiply resistant bacteria are also a problem. In other words, because the best survivors of a population in a given environment are those whose progeny dominate subsequent generations, antibiotic resistance is a real problem. You actually don't need Darwin to understand that, but that's because Darwin's principle is pretty obvious! In fact probably many people who think that Darwin was the silly guy who thought we all recently swung from trees, still would use common sense to arrive at Darwin's conclusion when it comes to antibiotic resistance. Even Michael Egnor, and Puragu. Indeed, Puragu has explictly said he accepts microevolution. Well, Darwinian evolution is what explains microevolution. ergo, Darwinian evolution has practical application to many aspects of medicine.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
01:55 AM
1
01
55
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle: I have enjoyed this thread and have a question for you (I hope I'm not too late!). And I'm not a scientist (they didn't teach much about Darwin in my accounting courses), so please bear with me. In #4 and #8, you explain how bacteria evolve due to antibiotics. I think I understand your explanation, but it doesn't seem to explain what actually happens. Allanius (#35) explains that there is no real evolution, that there were already different strains before the antibiotic was administered, which to me makes more sense. So... are you saying that, immediately before the antibiotic is ingested, there were no resistant bacteria, but then they somehow instantly evolved due to interaction with the antibiotic so that some would survive?? If you are NOT saying this, then how do the bacteria evolve any resistance that wasn't there? If none were resistant to the antibiotic, they would all be killed, wouldn't they? It seems that evolution, in the way you think about it, didn't actually do anything, but rather the antibiotics just selected for a variant that was naturally -- and already -- there, well before the antibiotic was introduced. My understanding matches what I think Allanius explained, that the bacteria have been pre-programmed to produce descendants that are continually different in subtle ways for the purposes of increasing the odds of some offspring remaining after any environmental threat. And these changes are ALWAYS restricted in some way, so that no matter how many generations occur, and no matter how many variations occur, they are always the same species. (It seems to me, from what I've read, that the bacteria make changes in MICRO ways that never change the basic kind of bacteria, but these changes are never MACRO in a way that creates a new bacteria.) So, if you could, please explain for me how it is that the antibiotic causes evolution (rather than simply eliminating most varieties, but ignoring those that had already been modified before the bacteria ever saw the antibiotic). Thanks, EJRejruff_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

It [Darwinian theory] predicts that either the population will go extinct or adapt…
Allow me to belabor the point. If the population does not die out, it obviously adapted, and that is what Darwinian theory predicted would happen. If the population does die out, it obviously did not adapt, and that is what Darwinian theory predicted would happen. O Blessed Theory Thy pow'r be praised despite thy faults We remain unfazed.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

If you picket an abortion clinic with a placard saying “antibiotic”, don’t blame me if you get some odd looks.
Hey. Not a bad idea! :) I wonder if they got FDA approval for using their antibiotics.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
It [Darwinian theory] predicts that either the population will go extinct or adapt...
Which is precisely why many of us here (most of us?) consider Darwinian theory to be vacuous. Review time: YOU: Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape. And they do. ME: Except when they don’t. Which is also a “prediction” of Darwinian theory. YOU: What? YOU: It predicts that either the population will go extinct or adapt, i.e. evolve to survive in the new + antibiotic environment. 'Nuff said.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 28: :D Thanks for trying :) Seriously. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Michael Egnor, whom I believe is a professor at a college of medicine, weighs in on the 'non-value' of neo-Darwinian explanations for medicine: The difficulty with evolutionary explanations in medicine is: 1) All of the relevant pathophysiology is provided by the proximate explanations, which are the only explanations useful for treatment. 2) Evolutionary explanations are based on proximate explanations -- scientists understand a disease, and then, based on the detailed proximate explanation for the disease, evolutionary biologists concoct speculations as to how the disease evolved. Evolutionary explanations are always dependent on proximate explanations, not the other way around. 3) Evolutionary explanations do not provide a substantial basis for therapy. Even in situations in which evolutionary biologists claim that an evolutionary explanation has provided therapeutic insight, actual scientific confirmation of the effect of the therapy (i.e.- the proximate explanation) is needed to actually implement the theory. 4) Evolutionary explanations by themselves are worthless to medicine. All medical treatments are based on detailed proximate explanations 5) Even in areas of medicine in which evolutionary insight is claimed to be important (such as the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria), the necessary expertise -- microbiology, cell biology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, population biology, pharmacology, pathology, etc. -- is already an integral part of medical education and research. Evolutionary biology has contributed nothing of substance in the past, except to point out that bacteria that are not killed by antibiotics are not killed by antibiotics, which is sole insight provided by 'natural selection' to antibiotic resistance. 6) As evolutionary biologists readily acknowledge, there are very few evolutionary biologists in medical schools, and modern medicine has progressed rapidly and far without evolutionary speculations about disease. 7) Evolutionary speculations about disease belong in departments of evolutionary biology, not in medical schools. Any genuine insight provided by such evolutionary speculation can be communicated to medical researchers through the normal process of communication (a brief e-mail, a paper presented at a scientific meeting, etc) 8) The incorporation of evolutionary biology in medical school curricula is a waste of valuable resources. It is the actual proximate scientific explanations for disease that guides medical research. Speculation about biological origins already has a scientific home, and provides little help to medicine. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/darwinian_medicine_and_proxima047701.htmlbornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Darwinism is the modern narrative, and the spell cast by this narrative is so powerful that it covers over a multitude of logical sins, as seen in the tales being spun about antibacterial resistance. First of all, the concept of resistance among strains of bacteria is not dependent on Darwin. In fact the old understanding of “antibacterial resistance” was that some strains of bacteria were more resistant to antibiotics than others. These strains do not have to “evolve.” They were there all the time but came to the fore and flourished as other bacteria were destroyed. No evolution occurs in this case except in sense of change in the overall character of the bacterial colony. And by the way, this was the standard explanation as recently as 20 years ago. Emergence, not evolution, is what institutions like the NIH were telling the public before the Darwinists decided to seize upon bacterial resistance as their cause célèbre. Now everywhere you go you hear that the resistant bacteria “evolve” according to selection pressures. First of all, no one has ever quantified in vivo the degree to which antibacterial resistance is attributable to “evolved” resistance or to emergent resistance. As far as we know, most of the observed resistance could be due to emergent strains coupled with gene transfer. But let’s grant that the contribution made by genetic change is significant, as claimed. First of all, these bacteria cannot be said to “evolve” in the sense that Darwin used the term. Information must be added in order for more complex forms to emerge and species to develop. That is not what is seen in bacteria, where resistance develops due to a loss of information. So the analogy that some try to draw between between antibacterial resistance and Darwinism is misleading at best. But the question remains—does the clinician need to have Darwin in mind in order to see bacterial resistance and devise effective strategies for minimizing it? Do doctors need Darwin to be good doctors? Is it really true that “nothing makes sense” in biology apart from Darwin’s theory? The answer is a simple “no.” A physician may have Darwin in mind, and the frame provided by Darwin’s theory may help him to give logical order to what he observes in his patients—but this framework is not necessary. Physicians do not need the concept of Natural Selection to recognize resistance. Nor does Natural Selection dictate the strategy they use to minimize resistance, which is simply to use restraint. Actually the world of medicine should be a treasure-trove for ID. We are still waiting for the day when the management at UD discovers the myriad medical journals that publish bread-and-butter research in microbiology. Guess what, Darwin’s theory virtually never finds its way into the Methods of these studies, as would be the case if Dobzhansky were actually onto something. That’s because the theory does not have the explanatory power to account for the miracles in engineering that are being uncovered every day.allanius_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle @13:
Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape.
This is false. You’ve made a very similar claim in the past and I pointed out why it was false then as well. So why do you persist?
I don't recall you pointing out that it was false, and I don't think it is. I guess that's why I persist. :) Perhaps you'd better "point out" again why you think it is false. It's certainly not false that it is what Darwinian theory predicts. It predicts that either the population will go extinct or adapt, i.e. evolve to survive in the new + antibiotic environment. It is also not false that they have adapted. So what part is false?
And they do. Except when they don’t. Which is also a “prediction” of Darwinian theory. Amazing theory.
What?
Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape.
Darwinian theory does not and cannot predict that any species will survive in the face of conditions [read fitness landscape] which can bring about the death [read anti biotic] of that species, much less conditions designed to bring about the death of that species.
You seem confused. Obviously I am using "antibiotic" in the specific sense of a class of drugs that are toxic to bacteria, specifically those originally derived from fungi. And a "species" doesn't die, it goes extinct. A population may also go extinct. And if a population doesn't adapt (evolve) to survive in a newly hostile environment it will go extinct. Therefore Darwinian theory predicts that unless you manage to kill of the entire population of bacteria in a human carrier, you risk adaptation occurring; in other words, you risk the population evolving resistance to the hostile agent. Which is why you must "finish the course".
Consider all the extinct species. If Darwinism predicts they would have evolved and survived, then Darwinism has been falsified.
Mung, I do tend to assume that readers of my posts use some common sense. Yes, of course, some populations will go extinct, rather than adapt. The vast majority of populations do. However, if you introduce a new hostile agent to a population of bacteria, you run the risk that instead of rendering that population extinct, you will trigger the evolution of an adapted population with resistance to your hostile agent. Which is exactly what has happened: as Darwinian theory enabled us to predict, widespread use of antibiotics has resulted in the evolution of multiply resistant populations. Because we know which of our actions is likely to cause this, we can take some steps to minimise the risk. This is important, and it's a direct practical application of Darwinian theory to clinical practice. Incidentally, the same also applies to the widespread use of bactericidal work-top cleaners.
Consider sterilization, or heating things to a temperature which is lethal to life [anti biotic].
Exactly. And a much better approach, because that way you can kill the bacteria before they even enter the patient, by a broad spectrum method that you can't use in vivo.
Darwinism does not and cannot predict that any species will evolve to survive in deadly conditions.
Obviously not.
The claim that Darwinian theory predicts that any species will evolve and survive rather than perish is rubbish, plain and simple. It is false. Please stop repeating it.
Mung, I am not capable of predicting what straw man you will erect from my posts. As I said, I mostly assume that my readers will use their common sense. Obviously, just as I thought it was clear on that other thread that I was using "advantageous" in the sense in which it is used in population genetics (seeing as we were talking about population genetics) I took it as read that my readers would understand that "antibiotic resistance will evolve" was virtually footnoted by "unless the whole population dies", particularly as I kept on repeating "which is why you have to 'finish the course'". That's the Whole Point. If you manage to have the whole population go extinct, then it won't adapt. duh. So the danger is: IF you don't take the whole course, or IF some of the population survive anyway, THEN you will get the evolution of resistance. Unfortunately it has proved impossible to render our pathogenic bacteria extinct, and so, as a predictable (from Darwinian theory) result, we are now faced with resistant populations. Is that clear now? Because really, if it wasn't before, you must have been skimming my posts rather than reading them for meaning.
Darwinian theory does not predict what any “fitness landscape” is going to look like.
Obviously not.
Therefore it is incapable of predicting whether a species will survive or perish in the face of conditions hostile to life.
True, O King.
fyi – anti biotic = anti life.
"Antibiotic" has a widely agreed specific meaning, and it should have been (indeed was) abundantly clear in which sense I was using it. If you picket an abortion clinic with a placard saying "antibiotic", don't blame me if you get some odd looks.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle @25:
As for your linked “predictions” – that site appears to me to be based on a profound misunderstanding both of evolutionary theory and the nature of scientific hypothesis testing.
Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot (Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects of the theory. His website is www.DarwinsPredictions.com.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle @13:
Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction/b>, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape.
This is false. You've made a very similar claim in the past and I pointed out why it was false then as well. So why do you persist?
And they do.
Except when they don't. Which is also a "prediction" of Darwinian theory. Amazing theory.
Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape.
Darwinian theory does not and cannot predict that any species will survive in the face of conditions [read fitness landscape] which can bring about the death [read anti biotic] of that species, much less conditions designed to bring about the death of that species. Consider all the extinct species. If Darwinism predicts they would have evolved and survived, then Darwinism has been falsified. Consider sterilization, or heating things to a temperature which is lethal to life [anti biotic]. Darwinism does not and cannot predict that any species will evolve to survive in deadly conditions. The claim that Darwinian theory predicts that any species will evolve and survive rather than perish is rubbish, plain and simple. It is false. Please stop repeating it. Darwinian theory does not predict what any "fitness landscape" is going to look like. Therefore it is incapable of predicting whether a species will survive or perish in the face of conditions hostile to life. fyi - anti biotic = anti life.Mung_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

as to buttress Dembski and Marks work on Conservation of Information,,, "LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information": Dembski - Marks http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,,It is now shown that 'classical information' is a subset of quantum information;,,, This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer's contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely 'emergent' from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm ,,,and here is the empirical confirmation for 'conservation of quantum information',,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. (This experiment provides experimental proof that the teleportation of quantum information in this universe must be complete and instantaneous.) http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.htmlbornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

f/n ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007bornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, so you are not going to take my word for it that neo-Darwinian evolution is a pack of lies??? :) Dang it!!! Well, here is a bit more formal way to show that neo-Darwinian evolution is a pack of lies; Neo-Darwinian evolution purports to explain all the wondrously amazing complexity of life on earth by reference solely to chance and necessity processes acting on energy and matter (i.e. purely material processes). In fact neo-Darwinian evolution makes the grand materialistic claim that the staggering levels of unmatched complex functional information we find in life, and even the 'essence of life' itself, simply 'emerged' from purely material processes. And even though this basic scientific point, of the ability of purely material processes to generate even trivial levels of complex functional information, has spectacularly failed to be established, we now have a much greater proof, than this stunning failure for validation, that 'put the lie' to the grand claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. This proof comes from the fact that it is now shown from quantum mechanics that 'information' is its own unique 'physical' entity. A physical entity that is shown to be completely independent of any energy-matter space-time constraints, i.e. it does not 'emerge' from a material basis. Moreover this 'transcendent information' is shown to be dominant of energy-matter in that this 'information' is shown to be the entity that is in fact constraining the energy-matter processes of the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. notes: Falsification of neo-Darwinism; First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of 'local realism', or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism - Reductive Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for 'spooky' forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA - July 2010 Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1 Quantum Information confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011 Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure 'quantum form' is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement 'effect' in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) 'cause' when the quantum entanglement 'effect' falsified material particles as its own 'causation' in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various 'specified' configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company's, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)!bornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

So how do I know that your references aren't "a pack of lies" ba77? References themselves require evaluation. What I provided, in any case, rather than references, was a logical argument. What do you find wrong with my logic? And if you want references, I can provide some if you are interested.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth states: 'Well, it isn’t “a pack of lies” ba77.' ,,,In the spirit of Elizabeth's reference-less rebuttal,,, Yes it is a pack of lies!!!bornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Well, it isn't "a pack of lies" ba77. The basic Darwinian principle is simple logic. Demonstrating that that logic is actually implemented in living things has been demonstrated at many scales in many ways. That it has been used as an excuse for atrocity has no bearing on whether it is true or not, any more than the fact that atomic bombs were dropped on Japan has any bearing on whether e=mc^2 or not. As for your linked "predictions" - that site appears to me to be based on a profound misunderstanding both of evolutionary theory and the nature of scientific hypothesis testing. There are certainly unsolved issues in accounting for the appearance of life on earth, not least being the appearance of the first modern-type cell. There are also intriguing questions about the evolvability of evolvability - whether mutation rates, for example, are optimised at a population selection level, and whether the mechanisms of variance-production themselves evolved. And we know now that the role of drift is far greater than Darwin would have been aware of. Then there is the whole burgeoning field of "evo-devo" which has hugely enhanced our understanding of how allelic variance produces phenotypic effects. So evolutionary science is far from static - predictions are constantly being made, some are falsified and some confirmed. It's how science works. But the basic Darwinian structure remains intact. We know it works because we can see it happening, in the lab and in the field.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, the neo-Darwinian framework, being a pack of lies that it is, is absolutely useless for truly 'understanding all kinds of things'. And indeed, if followed, will consistently lead to false predictions for science. Darwin’s Predictions http://www.darwinspredictions.com/ not to mention tragic consequences for man,,, From Darwin to Hitler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A ,,bornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

She practised medicine for several decades, Puragu! In any case, we seem to agree that microevolution is relevant to antibiotic resistance. So I hope we can agree that in that instance, Darwinian evolutionary theory is relevant.
However, for the most part I disagree about understanding of underlying Darwinian processes being helpful, it’s not, in fact it deflects attention from the problem at hand.
Clinically, you may well be right that Darwinian processes aren't usually especially relevant, although I'd like to see an example them "deflect[ing] attention from the problem in hand".
We have a population of human beings we can work with already. Darwinian processes are able to suggest stories on how some mutation emerged in some ancestor or was passed down, but these stories are usually too vague, not clinically significant, change with the times and rely on proximal data, not vice versa.
So what about the epidemiology of sickle cell disease? I'm not saying: by understanding how we evolved we can understand disease. That would be silly. What I am saying is that by viewing human beings in a Darwinian framework, we can understand all kinds of things, and predict all kinds of things, that we would not be able to do without that framework. I gave some examples above.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

EL: "She tried not to treat any condition with an antibiotic until she had a lab report that identified what the bacteria was sensitive to; she insisted that her patients “finish the course”; she avoided prescribing antibiotics for conditions likely to resolve spontaneously." I am sorry to hear about your mother. She seems to have had access to pretty modern medicine e.g. sensitivity results, for 1945. Those are pretty much conditions in which current 1st World physicians practice. However, for the most part I disagree about understanding of underlying Darwinian processes being helpful, it's not, in fact it deflects attention from the problem at hand. We have a population of human beings we can work with already. Darwinian processes are able to suggest stories on how some mutation emerged in some ancestor or was passed down, but these stories are usually too vague, not clinically significant, change with the times and rely on proximal data, not vice versa.Puragu_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

I agree that not all ‘distal’ theories are equal.
Cool :) Also, it's a continuum. I mean death is caused, in a distal sense, by birth :) But that's not very useful. What matters, I suggest, is what is useful. I contend that an understanding of Darwinian processes is - or at least can be - useful in medicine. It's certainly useful in my own work (mental health research).Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

I never said that all of medicine is done on a trial and error basis. So please don’t suggest that. However, before you can study a given mechanism of resistance you need actual resistant bacteria, and those we isolated or at least recognised as early as 1946.
Right. And given that such resistance variants were discovered to be possible, the possiblity of the evolution of resistant populations became a strong likely result of widespread antibiotic use, as predicted by Darwinian theory.
I don’t think the type of research I mention is arbitrary. It has proven most beneficial in easing suffering. That’s my primary aim in medicine.
Excellent :) No, I'm sure it isn't arbitrary. What I'm saying is that both proximal and distal mechanisms inform our understanding of what causes disease and disorders, and that if we (in a reductio ad absurdum) abandoned all but proximal observations, we would make much slower progress than if we said, for instance "we know this condition is caused by bacteria - if we find a toxic agent for this bacteria, then we might be able to cure the condition", or, on the other hand, "we know this condition is caused by bacteria, but this is a patient who has been taking long-term antibiotics, and so it is possible that she has an endemic population of penicillin-resistant bacteria; we had better see whether we can find an alternative approach to treating the infection". And, specifically, the clinician (or, more likely, researchers aware of the problem) might find out the mechanism of resistance, and search for a class of antibiotic that suppressed bacterial multiplication by a different mechanism. Again, the whole logical thought process is informed by theory.
We recognise micro-evolution in medicine but to figure out the actual mechanisms proximal work.
Well, I'm delighted that you recognise micro-evolution! But micro-evolution is Darwinian. So it's an example of Darwinian theory being relevant.
What measures did your Mother introduce to protect her patients from antibiotic resistance? Do you have evidence that they were in any way effective?
She tried not to treat any condition with an antibiotic until she had a lab report that identified what the bacteria was sensitive to; she insisted that her patients "finish the course"; she avoided prescribing antibiotics for conditions likely to resolve spontaneously. I have no systematic evidence that it benefited her patients, although ironically, she herself suffered from not being treated by as good a physician as she was, and ended up with chronic kidney infections by multiply resistant bacteria. Eventually she died from brain haemorrhages resulting from amyloid angiopathy, possibly caused by chronic infection. Now, regarding the epidemiology of sickle-cell disease.... :)Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

I agree that not all 'distal' theories are equal.Puragu_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

No, I didn't in fact, vjtorley, but I realised that my paragraph was potentially misleading. Let me emend it here:
That’s not making sense to me, Puragu. Obviously if you have a candidate mechanism for a process you make far faster progress in figuring it out than if you don’t. Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape. And they do. I’m not sure how you proposed that people would have come to that conclusion without actually having a mechanism to hand. As another example of where a theoretical mechanism informed a major clinical discovery, if medicine had progressed by trial-and-error, without the germ theory of disease, it might have got to antibiotics in the end, but it would have taken a heck of a lot longer. As it was, because Chain and Florey knew that infection was caused by bacteria, they knew that if they could find an agent that killed bacteria they could cure infection. So they checked the literature and found Fleming’s paper.
I didn't mean to imply that Chain got there by adopting Darwinian theory, but by adopting another "distal" theory, the germ theory of disease. Apologies for any confusion!Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: You DO realize that Ernst Chain, who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Alexander Fleming and Howard Florey, was an ardent anti-Darwinian, don't you? See here. Concerning the materialistic theory of evolution, Ernst Chain (who could be described as a theistic, anti-Darwinian evolutionist) stated:
"I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation. "I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." (Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, 147-148).
Chain described "the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man" thus:
"Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories from animal ethological studies, and in particular ethological studies on primates, must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve. "It may be amusing for those engaged in the task to describe their fellow man as naked apes, and a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach – which, by the way, is neither new nor original – does not really lead us very far. "We do not need to be expert zoologists, anatomists or physiologists to recognise that there exist some similarities between apes and man, but surely we are much more interested in the differences than the similarities. Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals." (Chain, 1971, "Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society," Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring 1971, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 368).
Here's another quote:
"Only one theory has been advanced to make an attempt to understand the development of life – the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution. And a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory." (Chain, as cited in The Life of Ernst Chain: Penicillin and Beyond, by Ronald W. Clark, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985, p. 147.)
Chain also made it clear that he was very concerned about the effect of Darwinism on human behavior:
Any speculation and conclusions pertaining to human behaviour drawn on the basis of Darwinian evolutionary theories...must be treated with the greatest caution and reserve....a less discriminating section of the public may enjoy reading about comparisons between the behaviour of apes and man, but this approach--which, by the way, is neither new nor original--does not really lead us very far.... Apes, after all, unlike man, have not produced great prophets, philosophers, mathematicians, writers, poets, composers, painters and scientists. They are not inspired by the divine spark which manifests itself so evidently in the spiritual creation of man and which differentiates man from animals. (Chain, Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society, London: The Council of Christians and Jews, p. 26.)
vjtorley_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

I never said that all of medicine is done on a trial and error basis. So please don't suggest that. However, before you can study a given mechanism of resistance you need actual resistant bacteria, and those we isolated or at least recognised as early as 1946. I don't think the type of research I mention is arbitrary. It has proven most beneficial in easing suffering. That's my primary aim in medicine. We recognise micro-evolution in medicine but to figure out the actual mechanisms proximal work. What measures did your Mother introduce to protect her patients from antibiotic resistance? Do you have evidence that they were in any way effective?Puragu_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

further note: Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pg. 162 Swine Flu, Viruses, and the Edge of Evolution "Indeed, the work on malaria and AIDS demonstrates that after all possible unintelligent processes in the cell--both ones we've discovered so far and ones we haven't--at best extremely limited benefit, since no such process was able to do much of anything. It's critical to notice that no artificial limitations were placed on the kinds of mutations or processes the microorganisms could undergo in nature. Nothing--neither point mutation, deletion, insertion, gene duplication, transposition, genome duplication, self-organization nor any other process yet undiscovered--was of much use." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/swine_flu_viruses_and_the_edge.html Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009 Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own. http://www.discovery.org/a/9951 Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago? Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330 The Paradox of the "Ancient" (250 million year old) Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ;bornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, you, nor anyone else, is the least bit warranted to extrapolate the deleterious mutations, that are responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria, to the grand macro-evolutionary claims of neo-Darwinists that all life came from bacteria. It is simply a scientific felony to do as such!!! If any prediction has been confirmed, it is the fact that severe constraints are found to be in place which confirms the 'variation within kind' prediction of the Theistic model; Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 Testing the Biological Fitness of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria - 2008 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/darwin-at-drugstore Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/thank_goodness_the_ncse_is_wro.html List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp The following study surveys four decades of experimental work, and solidly backs up the preceding conclusion that there has never been an observed violation of genetic entropy: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit') http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have "invented" little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution Dr. Behe states in The Edge of Evolution on page 135: "Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site (in other words, generating a truly beneficial mutational event that would actually explain the generation of the complex molecular machinery we see in life) is of the same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine resistance in the malarial parasite." That order of difficulty is put at 10^20 replications of the malarial parasite by Dr. Behe. This number comes from direct empirical observation. Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth Shies Away from Intelligent Design but Unwittingly Vindicates Michael Behe - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The rarity of chloroquine resistance is not in question. In fact, Behe’s statistic that it occurs only once in every 10^20 cases was derived from public health statistical data, published by an authority in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The extreme rareness of chloroquine resistance is not a negotiable data point; it is an observed fact. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/richard_dawkins_the_greatest_s.htmlbornagain77_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Puragu:
Elizabeth, antibiotic resistance was observed irrespective of Darwinian evolution or predictions. We do not need Darwinian explanations for it, we can observe it and extrapolate from that point. In that light Darwinism did not provide us anything new that we did not see ourselves empirically. Even if we never heard of TOE, we’d still have figured it out. We’d have, because we have microbiology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology, and other fields which do pretty well without TOE.
That's not making sense to me, Puragu. Obviously if you have a candidate mechanism for a process you make far faster progress in figuring it out than if you don't. Darwinian evolution offered a clear prediction, that bacterial populations would evolve resistance to an environment in which antibiotics were part of the landscape. And they do. I'm not sure how you proposed that people would have come to that conclusion without actually having a mechanism to hand. If medicine had progressed by trial-and-error, without the germ theory of disease, it might have got to antibiotics in the end, but it would have taken a heck of a lot longer. As it was, because Chain and Florey knew that infection was caused by bacteria, they knew that if they could find an agent that killed bacteria they could cure infection. So they checked the literature and found Fleming's paper. You need to be able to rack the microscope to lots of different focal lengths to do effective research! Not just proximal, not just distal.
Genetics per se is not based on a Darwinian framework. Genetics is an independent area of science. We owe more to Mendel in that department than Darwin.
I disagree. Genetics is about the mechanics of inheritance with variation. What we know about genetics depends in large part on an understanding of common descent, and the idea that populations adapt and diverge. I guess you could be a very narrow geneticist and ignore this, but you'd be very limited in what you could do.
What we do need is more people to do proximal research and more funding.
Well funding is good. But insisting on "proximal research" as a priority seems arbitrary to me, like insisting that, I dunno, chemists should stop worrying about quantum physics and just stick to molecules. Unless you are prepared to go from the near to the far - to look for both proximal and distal causes, you are crippling yourself for no good reason that I can see. Yes, medical research needs to be translated into practical patient care, and yes the translational process goes in both direction (from "proximal" clinical observation back to more "distal" science as well as the other way round) but to insist that all research occurs at the clinical seems to me not only arbitrary but bad clinical practice. My mother was using her knowledge of Darwinian evolution to sensibly modify her clinical practice well before antibiotic resistance was a widely known problem, to her patients' benefit.Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

I understand it to be the evolution of bacterial strains that are resistant to (i.e. are not killed or prevented from reproducing by) widely used antibiotics, as predicted, among others, by my mother. What is your understanding?Elizabeth Liddle_{June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply