New Genetic Sub-Code Discovered

Computer programmers are familiar with a subprogram or subroutine which is a code within a larger program that carries out a specified function independently.  It’s an important mechanism in the world of computer programming. Another type of subroutine has been recently discovered in nature.

ScienceDaily reports…

“The researchers from ETH and SIB now identified a new sub-code that determines at which rate given products must be made by the cell.  This information has several interesting implications.”

First, it provides novel insights into how the decoding machinery works.  Secondly, and more pragmatically, it makes possible to read information about gene expression rates directly from genomic sequences, whereas up to now, this information could only be obtained through laborious and expensive experimental approaches, such as microarrays.  “A cell must respond very quickly to injuries such as DNA damage and to potent poisons such as arsenic.”


“The new sub-code enables us to know which genes are turned-on quickly after these insults and which are best expressed slowly.  One benefit of this study is that we now can get this information using only analysis of the coding sequence,” said Dr. Gina Cannarozzi.”

Sub-codes will reveal a new look on how the translation processes works in the ribosome! This article says nothing about evolution which is good science when it comes to learning about nature. Also, the specified complexity in which we are learning about verifies creation even further. Genetic information that involves an amazing system of codes within codes and hierarchical levels of information which makes an unthinking process marginal with no curable time factor.

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “New Genetic Sub-Code Discovered

  1. Michael, you still haven’t answered any of our questions !

    Why are you still ignoring your readers ? That is very suspicious, to say the least …

  2. Repair-mechanisms:

    A cell must respond very quickly to injuries such as DNA damage and to potent poisons such as arsenic

    … provide a clear refutation of Darwinian theory. “Injuries” are supposed to be the generators of novel features, but in this case the cell acts to repair “damage” by mutations in order to preserve the organism in its current state.

    A simple Darwinian explanation? “Sure. The cells have evolved to a point now where they know the difference between mutations that they want to adapt to and those they want to correct and repair.”

    Beyond that, as mentioned, the authors forgot to point out how this new insight “sheds light” on the evolutionary pathways that supposedly created this specified complexity.

    Perhaps they just assumed that since “everybody knows these functions evolved” that there was no reason to give a detailed explanation of how it occurred. :-)

  3. “Perhaps they just assumed that since “everybody knows these functions evolved” that there was no reason to give a detailed explanation of how it occurred. :-)”

    Indeed ! Why bother explaining over and over again something that is so obvious ? Why restate what is already known ? That would make any article exceedingly long … and you can read that stuff in textbooks.

  4. Good answer. We can read about the origin of new discoveries published in a paper this week, in textbooks that were written a year ago. It’s obvious — of course!

  5. Two questions for Michael—

    (1) Please describe the role played by any creationist researchers in any part of this discovery.

    (2) Please name any creationist principle that might have predicted this mechanism, that might possibly have aided in its discovery, or that would explain how it functions.

    .

    I thought not. The problem is that scientific theories per se are not “right” or “wrong.” They are useful or vacuous. Which one they are is determined by the amount of further knowledge, research, and applications that they generate.

    Thus far, creationism has generated absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever to finding out how the world works or how we humans might manipulate it for our benefit.

    Remember the trees that produced no fruit? The gardener gave them more chances, but they bore nothing. Short biblical quiz, Michael: What did the gardener finally do with the trees that could not produce?

    Go thou and do likewise.

  6. Ah, two more questions, Olorin !

    That is five now – Michael is never going to answer any of them …

  7. One of the ways we can gauge Michael’s knowledge is by the wrong stuff that he repeats mindlessly.

    Science Daily: “A cell must respond very quickly to injuries such as DNA damage and to potent poisons such as arsenic”

    You don’t even need to know a lot about science here, Michael. Why is arsenic a favorite poison oi novelists as well as in real life? How was Napoleon poisoned stealthily? Because arsenic is SLOW. It takes weeks, months, or even years to build up to toxic levels. Many coastal areas of Bangladesh have arsenic-laced water. They haven’t all died quick deaths, have they? Most of them never will die from the arsenic. It will just keep on building up.

    So much for quick response to arsenic.

    If Michael knew anything about biology (or even about world affairs or literature) he might show a little hesitation in quoting this sentence. But no. Tell us again, Michael:

    What are your qualifications for discussing any aspect of science? We’ve now been waiting two months for your answer.

  8. Creationbydesign: “… provide a clear refutation of Darwinian theory. “Injuries” are supposed to be the generators of novel features, but in this case the cell acts to repair “damage” by mutations in order to preserve the organism in its current state. ”

    CbD, we might also ask what qualifications you have to sally forth on the subject of evolution?

    Injuries generate novel features for evolution? Sorry. Mutations produce novel features. Mutations include mechanisms such as gene duplication, changes in gene regulation, and copying errors. That’s (neo-) Darwinian theory.

    So tell us again how DNA damage repair refutes Darwinian theory?

    By the way, not all novelty is produced by Darwinian mutation. Genetic drift is a significant factor. Epigenetic effects, such as DNA methylation from the environment.

    You might also deign to remember that a human body has trillions of cells. How many of these could possibly produce “novel effects”?

    One of the reasons people laugh at creationists is that they know so little about the theories that they attack.

    .

    Creationbydesign: “Beyond that, as mentioned, the authors forgot to point out how this new insight ‘sheds light’ on the evolutionary pathways that supposedly created this specified complexity.”

    Whom are you quoting as to “sheds light”? Not Michael. Not the Science Daily article. Not the Cell research paper. Oh, I see. It’s a scare quote. Well, go scare someone else.

    And why should the article, or the Cell paper, find, or even mention, evolutionary pathways? One can study many things in biology without involving evolution. However, this result will surely cause biologists to wonder where the mechanism came from, and to investigate its evolutionary origins.

    On the other hand, no creationist in the whole world will ever suffer a susurration of curiosity over this discovery. Why should creationists pursue the matter further? They already know that Goddidit, so there is no need for more explanation. IN FACT, further investigation might show that subcodes did evolve from a simpler mechanism. No, much better to stop right here.

  9. The issue here is that Michael does not want to listen and I am assuming he even enjoys the attention that we give him.

    He is going to continue to claim these discoveries as evidence for creationism which makes me really, really sad. One of these days I will make a website showing how complex lightning is… therefore Zeus did it.

    Want some popcorn?

  10. Tim, lightning can be very complex. The Hawaiian word for “computer” is “lolo uila,” literally “lightning brain.”

    .

    E komo mai,

    ==Soc Puppette

  11. Michael: “Computer programmers are familiar with a subprogram or subroutine which is a code within a larger program that carries out a specified function independently.”

    The only publicly available report of the Cell paper is variations of the Science Daily article. So I can’t tell what this newly discovered “sub-code” consists of. However, it seems likely that the DNA involved is similar in any way to a computer subroutine. As usual, Michael just picked up on the “sub” and made up the rest. We already know that this is typical for Michael.

    The sub-code apparently controls the translation rate of a gene into a protein, perhaps by influencing its tRNA or by controlling a ribosome’s activity. It seems likely that this sub-code is a part of the gene itself—that is, the full sequence is a code for the protein, and the sub-code is a smaller sequence either part of the full code or associated with it. In this case, both its structure and its operation would be entirely unlike a programming subroutine.

    Michael, of course, can’t help here, because (a) he knows nothing about the subject, and (b) he doesn’t have access to the Cell paper either. But this statement does show off his reckless disregard for truth. If it bolsters his position, make something up. This is why scientists always demand full context for creationists’ quotations, and citations to any source material.

    .

    we have arranged a number of questions over the past few months to demonstrate Michael’s (lack of) qualifications to discuss scientific topics. here’s another one: What is the purpose of a subroutine in a computer program? That is, why don’t we just write its code in-line in the program? What programming construct has largely replaced subroutines in modern programs? (Oops, that’s two questions. I’ll bet on 0 for 2.)

  12. Whom are you quoting as to “sheds light”?

    Every evolutionist who uses that term to cover up their ignorance (I can help you with about 400 links, if you’re interested). In this case, as you admit, the Science Daily article didn’t even bother with the usual lame disguise. So, it doesn’t even “shed light”. The darkness persists as before.

    And why should the article, or the Cell paper, find, or even mention, evolutionary pathways?

    Why should an article featuring the discovery of even more complexity in the cell than previously thought to exist need to make even the slightest mention of evolution? Good question. Mentioning evolution certainly wouldn’t help because they clearly don’t have a clue. I’ve already read here that the evolutionary pathways of this new structure just announced yesterday, supposedly has already been explained in current textbooks. Why not just repeat that lie? It’s just as good as any other we’ll find.

    One can study many things in biology without involving evolution.

    You’re one for understatement — no doubt! :-)

  13. -Scratching my head as i read this post-

    Arguing with Creationists: It can be fun, but also frustrating.

    I guess that’s why I do it. I LOVE the rush :P

    But I fail to see the reason for this post. Is it simply the lack of the mention of evolution which makes Michael publish this post?

  14. CbD: “Why should an article featuring the discovery of even more complexity in the cell than previously thought to exist need to make even the slightest mention of evolution? Good question.”

    Would you like me to name about a dozen recent research papers on new complexity in cell biology that also don’t mention evolution?

    Sci 328:232 “Variations in Transcription Factor Binding among Humans (8 Apr)
    Sci 328:235 “Heritable Individual-Specific and Allele-Specific Chromatin Signatures” (8 Apr)
    Sci 328:85 “Orchestration of Floral Initiation by APETALA1” (2 Apr)
    “Sci 328:98 “Dynamic Regulation of Archaeal Proteosome Gate Opening as Studied by TROSY NMR” (2 Apr)
    Sci 327:1614 “Doc2b Is a High-Affinity Ca++ Sensor for Spontaneous Neurotransmitter Release” (26 Mar)
    Sci 327:1638 “Shaping Development of Autophagy Inhibitors with the Structure of the Lipid Kinase Vps34” (26 Mar)
    Sci 327:1650 “The Wnt/beta-Catenin Pathway Is Required for the Development of Leukemia Stem Cells in AMI.” (26 Mar)
    Sci 327:”Loss of Rap1 Induces Telomere Recombination in the Absnce of NHEJ or a DNA Damage Signal” (26 Mar)

    Sorry, CbD, I only got through three issues of a single journal. But you get the idea. I could probably find just as many cell-research papers that do not mention the entir field of genetics. Or hot chicken soup.

    .

    CbD: “Mentioning evolution certainly wouldn’t help because they clearly don’t have a clue. I’ve already read here that the evolutionary pathways of this new structure just announced yesterday, supposedly has already been explained in current textbooks. ”

    OK, now tell me that the second sentence just above does not contradict the first.

    CbD: “Why not just repeat that lie? It’s just as good as any other we’ll find.”

    How do you know they are lies? Pick one that you think is a lie from what you have read, and support your contention with evidence.

    I thought not.

  15. I’ve mentioned before that I respect the legal profession and I guess that you’re probably a very good lawyer. With that in mind, I hope this response can be of help to you.

    You’ve posted several biological research papers that found no need to mention evolution at all. This merely strengthens the point I was making — discussion on evolution is irrelevant, in those cases, because it adds no value. Biologists can do that work without even accepting evolutionary theory since the origin of those newly-discovered structures is unknown, and they’re struggling merely to understand how they function in real time. What value does evolutionary theory bring to that discussion? None, except some empty claims that “we know it evolved” while we don’t even know if we’ve identified all the mechanisms that could have been involved. So, it would be more wishful thinking and just-so-stories masquerading as science — in those cases where evolutionary theory is trotted in as an explanation (to Science Daily’s credit they avoided this).

    Sorry, CbD, I only got through three issues of a single journal. But you get the idea. I could probably find just as many cell-research papers that do not mention the entir field of genetics. Or hot chicken soup.

    If you’re saying that evolutionary theory is as relevant to biology as discussions on chicken soup are, well … I appreciate your open-mindedness, but even I’d give it a bit more credit than that.

    CbD: “Mentioning evolution certainly wouldn’t help because they clearly don’t have a clue. I’ve already read here that the evolutionary pathways of this new structure just announced yesterday, supposedly has already been explained in current textbooks. ”

    Perhaps you didn’t read the posts by Eelco (he refers to “our” responses to Michael, so I assumed that he speaks for all the critics here). Of course there’s a contradiction. Or more clearly, a false statement. He claimed that the textbooks explain the origin of these new structures even though Science Daily only published the new finding just yesterday. So, are you going to support Eelco’s claim that “you can read that stuff in textbooks”? I merely explained why Science Daily was wise to avoid a mention of evolution because they can’t even describe how the process works.

    CbD: “Why not just repeat that lie? It’s just as good as any other we’ll find.”

    How do you know they are lies? Pick one that you think is a lie from what you have read, and support your contention with evidence.

    I thought not.

    Maybe I can help you understand this.
    You, apparently, think that the evolutionary origins of this new sub-code that determines at which rate given products must be made by the cell has already been explained in textbooks, right?

    That’s what Eelco said, just after saying that Michael hasn’t answered “our” questions.

    You followed his post by stating:

    We’ve now been waiting …

    So, (thinking “we” and “our” refer to the same) I’ll accept that you believe that current biology textbooks explain the evolutionary origin of this “new sub-code” which was first published in the April 16th, 2010 issue of the journal Cell.

    Now, you want to know why I call that a lie.

    Again, this shouldn’t be that difficult to explain, but perhaps you’re missing something. Ok, I’ll try …

    See, textbooks are compilations of knowlege which take a long time to produce. They are published, at most, on a yearly basis and as such, cannot contain the latest news about biological findings.

    So, when scientists (in this case, biologists and computer experts) discover a new finding in the cell and publish it this year in a journal, it is not possible that biology textbooks, which were compiled at the earliest, a year ago, could explain the evolutionary origin of this new finding.

    So, when I see the claim “that you can read that stuff in textbooks”, I conclude it is a lie.

    Now, I realize that this all might be difficult to understand, but perhaps you can point me to a biology textbook that mentions this “new subcode” and also gives a detailed explanation of the evolutionary origin of the same.

    Failing that, I notice that you said nothing about the original claim from Eelco about this information already being available in textbooks (an impossibility) and this exposes your bias very clearly. I conclude that you’re blind to the errors (lies) that “we” make.

    Again, I hope this explanation helps.

    I’ve discussed these matters here with you before, and I’ll expect one or more lengthy replies with many digressions from the point.

    While I sincerely appreciate your time, I’m afraid that I can’t offer a better explanation than what I’ve given already. Feel free to offer the closing statement.

  16. @creationbydesign:

    My comment on textbooks referred to biology in general: evolution is a fact as well as an excellent theory for most of biology, so it makes sense to assume that the functions described in this paper also originated through an evolutionary pathway. That is the default assumption given the fact that evolution is such a good theory throughout biology, although you do not always need it (as Olorin demonstrated so clearly).

    Of course it could be wrong in this case, and that would be very interesting. But then you would need to have some indication that it is wrong in this case, and as far as I can see this is not found.

    Any scientific paper should be seen in the light of the complete body of current scientific knowledge, without having to repeat all this in every single paper. Evolution is such an well-tested and accepted theory (and presented extensively in textbooks) that no-one bothers to justify it again and again in every single paper on biology. In fact, at this point in time one would have to justify a scientific result in case evolution is claimed not to work, AND explain why it works so well everywhere else. Furthermore, a new theory would still have to work outside of the scope of the paper as well.

  17. CbD:

    “We’ve now been waiting …”

    So, (thinking “we” and “our” refer to the same) I’ll accept that you believe that current biology textbooks explain the evolutionary origin of this “new sub-code” which was first published in the April 16th, 2010 issue of the journal Cell.

    Short answer: CbD entirely missed the context of “We’ve been waiting.”

    Here’s the background, for CbD’s benefit, and to remind Michael yet again. In early February, Michael challenged Olorin’s qualifications to contradict some of the science horsepuckey that Michael emits. Olorin set out his CV, and returned the challenge to Michael. About the same time, Eelco estimated that Michael’s readership was very small. Michael denied that, so Eelco challenged him to reveal his hit counts. For two months now, “we’ve been waiting” for Michael to put up or shut up.

    That is, “we’ve been waiting” has no relevance to the present post.

    .

    But, just to be clear, no one asserts that current textbooks explain any specific evolutionary pathways of the recent discovery of DNA sub-codes. That seems to go without saying, and Eelco again explained it at 2010-0421-0850.

    On the other hand, it is highly likely that the general evolutionary principles described in current textbooks will be relevant to explanations of the origin of this new phenomenon, when biologists investigate this discovery further. It seems obvious that this is Eelco’s import in his comment at 2010-0420-0748.

    . The subject paper in Cell (probably—I haven’t read it) doesn’t say anything about the origin of this mechanism because the authors have not (yet) looked into this aspect. Others will; you can bet on that.

    And that is a major difference from creationism. Science is about knowledge and practical applications.. Creationism cares nothing for these goals, but seeks only to justify its faith by denying physical evidence that others produce.

    Thus the title of Michael’s blog is fallacious. In the past year,at least, he has not put forward a single “new discovery about creationism.” Nor has he essayed a single “comment about creationism.” Every post has dealt solely with superficial attacks upon evolution, or unsupported claims that evolution can never explain this or that discovery in biology, paleontology, astronomy, cosmology, or physics. All of these being subjects about which Michael refuses to admit his ignorance. Although we’ve been waiting.

  18. U/D mentioned practical applications of evolutionary research. I’ve mentioned several that have popped
    up in the past few months. here’s another one, from Science 327:633 (5 Feb 2010), “Toadness a Key Feature for Global Spread of These Amphibians.” This application also illustrates what happens when an investigation seems inconsistent with an aspect of evolution. Creationists would take such an opportunity merely to claim that evolution has again been falsified, whereas scientists employ it to expand the theory.

    Evolutionary researchers had long noted the extremely wide range of toads throughout the world, from their origin in South America. Not a big problem, but unusual. They had also noted that some features of various species did not fit easily in a phylogenetic tree of their evolution. Of course, repeated evolution of fetures is well known.[1] But this is on a grand scale.

    So what the investigator did was to analyze the geographic distribution of the toad species with the phylogenetic tree, and the time of their first arrival. They came up with a list of seven traits—“toadnesses”—that allow these amphibians to invade large numbers of environments having very different conditions.

    The practical application? recall the word “invade” above. Invasive species are a major modern problem. They are carried to a new environment where they flourish better than in their original setting.[2] Sio, if we look at a species that is likely to be transported by human activity to another locality, it would be nice to have a list of traits that indicate the potential for whether it is likely to be invasive.

    Ines van Bocxlaer has a list of such traits that have appeared multiple times in multiple evolutionary branches in fossils from very different climatic conditions. Ability to live away from wet, humid areas. Check. Poison glands to deter predators. Check. Lots of internal fat storage for energy reserves. Check. Large clutch sizes. Check. Larvae require no maternal care. Check…..

    And, by the way, Ms. van Bocxlaer then added more toad species, in order to verify her results on the initially studied toads. Something creationists would never think of, much less carry out.

    .

    Another application of evolutionary research to benefit humanity. Cumulative applications of creationism since 4004 BC? Still zero.[3]

    .
    ==============

    [1] For example,the mammalian jaw appeared and disappeared several times—leading to the discovery that its basic difference from the reptile jaw is controlled by a single gene. (Who would have guessed? Certainly not creationists.)

    [2] Contrary to what creationism would predict. Created organisms would be created in the environment which suits them best, and would do less well elsewhere. But then creationism has never been able to explain biogeography, and attempts to bury it with silence.

    [3] Would you care to play the discrimination card now, or later?

  19. CbD, here is one of the many reminders to Michael that “we’ve been waiting” for his responses:

    Olorin…………….on March 21, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Michael, we’re ge6tting impatient over your refusal to produce your readership data to back up your claim that Eelco’s estimate is wrong.

    We’ve been waiting f o r e v e r for your substantive review of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell.

    And, of course, we’re waiting for your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject whatever.

    “Pour l’encouragement des autres,” as they say.

  20. The creationist readers of this blog will be interested in this YouTube video

    It presents proof of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, given by Jeffrey R. Holland, one of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter day Saints. As such, Mr Holland is a prophet and a revelator of the Church. Thus he speaks authoritatively from God, unlike the ministers of other denominatuions such as the True Bible Believers.

    Mr Holland will aver that the Book of Mormon was revealed directly by Christ for the purpose of purifying His church, and that Mormons alone possess the full gospel. He will present evidence that American Indians are the ten lost tribes of Israel, and that Jesus Christ himself appeared bodily to them.

    .

    Michael, or creationbydesign, or others may take issue with these claims. They may even wish to provide evidence and arguments here that the Mormons’ claims might be less than legitimate. At any rate, the rest of us would be interested to see whether creationists’ arguments on this subject could be any less cogent than their scientific arguments against evolution. (Mormons generally believe that Genesis is symbolic, and that science reveals the nature of the physical world.)

  21. Tim C: “I LOVE how we actually waste our time on this blog.”

    Well, at least Michael allows comments. You have probably noted that most creationist/ID sites do not. Some of us here are the reason for that. (In fact I was personally responsible for getting comments banned on the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News and Views” blog in August 2007.).

    Uncommon Descent is an exception, but several people have been banned there, and a number of uncomfortable comments, and even entire threads, have disappeared without a trace. (One that I remember occurred when a commenter demonstrated that William Dembski’s definition of “intelligence” would include Darwinian natural selection. Heh heh.)

    My take is that, although Michael may be cast in kryptonite, some of his readers may be more insightful. At least one has tipped.

    So we should be grateful that Michael allows us a lot of latitude—if not longitude—even to impugning his character occasionally.

    Thanks, Michael.

  22. Yes, good point – my comments are almost never approved on creationist websites, and they’re not offensive, just corrective.

    This goes for their Youtube vids as well… like 9/10 of all creationist vids have their comments disabled.

    Can we call this willful ignorance?

  23. Tim, this is a clear clinical case of willful ignorance. In other situations, however, there is a fine line between willful ignorance and stupidity that challenges the diagnostician.

    I’ve mentioned the reason for the prevalence of W.I among creationists. At best, new knowledge can only comport with an already fixed faith. However, new knowledge also has the potential for contravening this faith, creating an unacceptable cognitive dissonance. this is the same reasoning that the newly-minted Muslims employed in burning the library at Alexandria in the 7thC—If a book contradicts the Koran, it is heretical and should be destroyed; if it is compatible with the Koran, it is superfluous, and may be destroyed. Conclusion: burn ’em all. (Thus depriving the modern world of thousands of now-lost Greek philosophy, mathematics, science, and politics.)

    Creationists also largely wish to destroy consensus in other areas as well. Global warming for sure. HIV/AIDS. Vaccination. Holocaust. JFK Warren report.

    It does seem ironic that creationists are so into destruction..

  24. Tim C opines that this blog is a waste of time.

    But perhaps not.

    Despite the name of the blog, none of Michael’s posts concern creationism. Instead, they all describe advances in mainstream biology, paleontology, cosmology, chemistry, and physics.[1] Therefore, one may peruse the posts to learn of interesting new scientific discoveries, merely by sloughing off Michael’s determined denials of their validity. In fact, this blog may be especially interesting in that Michael reports on unexpected discoveries that modify existing theories. For, as an editor of Science News once remarked, “The most interesting words in research are not ‘I’ve found it!’ but rather ‘Hm. That’s strange….'”

    Michael’s anonymous source also feeds him early on-line copies of journals. I don’t know about you all, but I wait for the print copies of Science so I can kick back and peruse them on the four-season porch with a cold lileko’i martinini in hand.[2] And, being retired, I have no easy access to NAS Proceedings, Cell, and some others that Michael’s source at the Institute for Creation Research receives and then burns to heat the building.

    So you might enjoy this blog as “New Discoveries and Comments About Unexpected Scientific Research.[3]

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

    [1] The reason, of course, is that there never have been any new discoveries in creationism itself.

    [2] Substitute liliko’i juice for the cranberry, and go easier on the Cointreau. Somewhat sweet, fuller taste.

    [3] Being unlearned in so many areas, Michael is no doubt unaware of Charles Fort, the 1920s eccentric who spent the days of his entire adult life at the New York Public Library, recording instances of seemingly unexplainable phenomena. I have a copy of his Collected Works. As of a few years ago, the Fortean Society still published the Fortean Times to continue and distribute Fort’s life work. Amazing.

  25. Tim C: “Yes, good point – my comments are almost never approved on creationist websites, and they’re not offensive, just corrective.”

    Mark Twain had a good story about that. A farmer bragged that he had trained his goat, and needed only to speak gently to him. Not believing this, a friend asked for a demonstration. The farmer picked up a 2×4, hit the goat in the head with it, then spoke a command, which was carried out. The friend protested that this was not “gentle.” The farmer replied, “Well, first you have to get his attention.”

    ==Soc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s