Blind Cave Fish Across The World

Did similar-looking blind cave fish swim across the world or did they evolve separately or was it something else? Two hypotheticals that deal with “what if” were being presented to the public as explanations.

In the BBC, they report…

“A study in PLoS One showed Madagascan and Australian cave fish inherited their blindness from a common ancestor. Their forebears probably lived in caves on the prehistoric southern super-continent Gondwanaland. Then continental drift tore this family apart – transporting them to their current locations.”

Did the study really show that they fish inherited their blindness from a common ancestor? If it did, then what is this…

“One possibility was that the cave fishes had evolved independently, from terrestrial counterparts. Species adapt to environmental challenges and opportunities and – through a process of natural selection – only the fittest survive (click here). When separate species are exposed to the same selective pressures they often come up with the same solutions – a process known as convergent evolution.”

The previous post discussed “only the fittest survive” with another study on how a creature went unchanged for a supposed 500 million years in the evolutionary time frame and survived while a much more fancy creature with better traits went extinct. But the question remains, if the study “showed” inheritance through a common ancestor to explain why blind cave fish have similar characteristics but are 4000 miles apart then why are they including other speculation? Maybe it was shown after all!

Convergent evolution was also considered, “When separate species are exposed to the same selective pressures they often come up with the same solutions — a process known as convergent evolution.”

Here is what the researchers came up with in their explanation. They believe  two lands split 60 million years ago, leaving the two species of cave-dwellers 4,000 miles apart, no longer able to share a common gene pool.  But where is the evidence of two lands splitting 60 million years ago to separate the species?   Two lands splitting is a major phenomena, one of which cannot rest its evidence on two types of blind cave fish that are 4,000 miles apart!

Their explanation defies logic, first of all, blindness is degeneration (a loss of a trait) rather than evolution (new information gained).  In the creationist model, variations within a species is acceptable and observable without adding new genetic information that evolution requires in this case.

Unlike the BBC press release, the authors admitted in their study that evolutionary theory is not confident in the seat of scientific explanation here:

“A major issue plaguing our understanding regarding the evolution of cave animals has been a lack of basic information regarding the assembly of these biotas, including mechanisms of speciation and phylogenetic origin.” 

Just basic information regarding assembly along with mechanisms of speciation and phylogenetic origin is not understood in the story of evolution, then why are you trying to explain it then? Another thing that is illogical about their story, it doesn’t take 60 million years to go blind. A generation or two could do that! 60 million years is more time than the major transitions they claimed to have happened with mammals!

Also why would these blind cave fish go unchanged and remain in the same location for 60 million years being on opposite sides of the ocean looking more similar between each other than other gobies? Does that register as logic to you? The best explanation comes from the Biblical account where a global flood happened which is where creationists believe the flood had broke up the continents and spread them apart rapidly. Only pockets of fish populations would have survived which is why they were discovered where they are now rather than in places like India!

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Blind Cave Fish Across The World

  1. The best explanation comes from the Biblical account where a global flood happened which is where creationists believe the flood had broke up the continents and spread them apart rapidly. Only pockets of fish populations would have survived which is why they were discovered where they are now rather than in places like India!

    This time, let’s start with Michael’s explanation, rather than with his dungheap of misinformation about evolution.

    Michael says that a group of blind fish were separated to Madagascar and Australia when his presumed flood broke up their original habitat into pieces.

    But, Michael claims, none of the blind fish made it to India in this breakup.

    If Michael had paid attention in 5th-grade geography, he would note that India is sort of in the middle of a line with Madagascar at one end and Australia at the other end.

    So please tell us,Michael, how do you explain that these fish—being blind and all—managed to entirely avoid India at the center of your presumed original habitat, and end up only at the farther reaches of their original home, with nothing in the middle?.

    I thought not.

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

    (One of the scientific hypotheses also involves continents in motion. However, their actual movement differs from that proposed by creationists. More later.)

  2. I see. And the collision killed all the blind fish on India. Because they couldn’t see where they were headed.

    If, as Michael claims, India was a part of the continent that broke up, then India should have blind cave fish as well.

    Besides, how do you know India slammed into Asia? Does the Bible say that?

    Once more, how does creationism explain why there no blind cave fish in India?

  3. Besides, how do you know India slammed into Asia?

    The Himalayas

    Does the Bible say that?

    Again, irrelevant but it seems you do like to beat that dead horse. Does the bible tell you explicitly to brush your teeth? Does evolution tell you explicitly to do the same?

    Once more, how does creationism explain why there no blind cave fish in India?

    It doesn’t. Neither evolutionism or creationism knows the exact reason(s)?

  4. It doesn’t. Neither evolutionism or creationism knows the exact reason(s)?

    But Michael said that creationism does explain this—

    The best explanation comes from the Biblical account …
    … which is why they were discovered where they are now rather than in places like India!

    The question was addressed to Michael. Inquiring minds want to know what is his reason for believing that creationism explains why India has no blind cave fish if Australia and Madagascar do have them?

    You may note a difference here. Creationism says that things are the way they are because they are the way they are. Geology says that things are the way they are because they got that way. Which of these do you think has the greater power to explain?

    .

    Besides, how do you know India slammed into Asia?

    The Himalayas

    Does the Bible say that?

    OR did geology tell you that?[0] The geology that says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that continents moved slowly over billions of years—as they still move today. It is this geology that tells us the Himalayas resulted from a collision, and supports a scenario as to HOW this happened, and how other major topographical features came about as well..

    If you instead believe that the continents were hurled by supernatural forces over a very short time span, then you have no basis for claiming that the Himalayas resulted from a collision. They could have just as easily been produced by one of the many other unexplained magic upheavals posited by creationists. Of course, these miracles pose an impenetrable barrier. No research is possible into HOW the Himalayas arose, and creationism can provide no clue as to how any other features came about.[1]

    The point here is that you cannot lean on science for support in a matter where you claim that the science is fatally flawed. You don’t get to pick and choose only the things you like, and discard the things you don’t. [2] That only occurs in computer programming.

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

    [0] You should realize by now that there is usually another question behind the first one.

    [1] This is another instantiation of the general principle that creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control, nor contributed to any scientific discovery, quod vide.

    [2] Michael does this continually. He will rely upon astronomers’ measurements of mass, luminosity, and other attributes of galaxies in order to show that they are not ancient. Yet these measurements are predicated upon the ages of the galaxies. He trumpets analyses of Denisovan DNA, without pausing to consider that these analyses posit time intervals that he claims have not existed. And so on.

    .

  5. Please pardon the shouting above. Faulty close-bold tag after “does.”

    Michael, some WordPress blogs have preview editors. Is that possible here? (For us in the 47% of Americans who are victims relying on the government for our html editors.)

  6. Creationism says that things are the way they are because they are the way they are.

    Really? That’s news to me and I suspect to the majority of creationists as well.

    If you instead believe that the continents were hurled by supernatural forces over a very short time span

    For all your readings on creationism, it surprises me when you make such strange claims one would expect from an Internet atheist troll who can’t spot a fallacy to save his life.

    This is another instantiation of the general principle that creationism has never explained any physical phenomenon in a way that leads to further understanding or control, nor contributed to any scientific discovery

    I mentioned Matthew Maury many weeks ago but you are still peddling this atheistic meme. You seem to think that catastrophism is somehow deficient even if it could result in the same features as gradual tectonic movement. I also mentioned that there is no reason to assume that evolution can lead to a valid prediction since natural laws would also be a product of random evolution pruned by selective pressures. Evolution selects for survival not necessarily for truth. Thus you are being an inconsistent evolutionist if you question Michael and expect him to give you the ‘truth’.

    Creationism provides the framework for ALL scientific discoveries as it explains the immutability of physical laws and laid the framework for science. Wiggle all you want, you simply cannot explain on evolution how the laws originated, what sustains them and why they are immutable.

  7. Creationism provides the framework for ALL scientific discoveries as it explains the immutability of physical laws and laid the framework for science.

    Horse puckey. You are trying to arrogate credit for what the entire Christian church has done, when creationism is only a theological backwater that was investigated and abandoned a thousand years ago.

    We went through that, and you had no answers to my questions—which dealt with examples that you yourself had proposed.

    .

    Wiggle all you want, you simply cannot explain on evolution how the laws originated, what sustains them and why they are immutable.

    No wiggle required.
    (a) The laws originated, as do all scientific laws, in the mind of the discoverer.
    (b) The laws are sustained only by observed evidence.
    (c) The laws are not immutable, but provisional..

    You are confusing science with religion, where the laws originate in fiats laid down by authorities, are sustained by fear of punishment, and are immutable until put to the sword by some other religion.

    In the words of Augustine, quoted by John Paul II in his encyclical on science and religion: “Credo ut intelligam; intelligo ut credam.” It does seem ironic that the best place to get a good education in evolution is at a Catholic school.

    Doesn’t it?

  8. Notice how you dismiss 6.5 sentences to focus on a little over 3. Wiggle wiggle.
    If “The laws are not immutable, but provisional” then evolution is provisional. If evolution is provisional, then it is not a fact. If it is not a fact, come back to me when it is. I doubt you even realize the stink bomb you wrote in (a) to (c). In the meantime, keep wiggling :)

  9. My bad, it’s actually worse. You dismiss 9.5 sentences to focus on 3! I think you broke a hip wiggling on natural laws. Thanks I needed a good laugh.

  10. I tried to concentrate on a few things that you don’t understand about science.

    And here’s one more: evolution is both a fact and a number of theories. You should look up the scientific definitions of these terms.

    Actually, very few engineers understand much about the processes of science. It was an eye-opener for me when starting to work closely with researchers 50 years ago..

  11. Evolution is an extrapolation, not a repeatable experiment. Thus it can never be a scientific fact like gravity even if Eugenie Scott wants it to be. It can, however, be a valid theory or hypothesis or simply true, but never a scientific fact. If engineers are so dense on the scientific method, might I suggest you spend your energies to that end (educating us science illiterates) rather than replying to a lowly blog?

  12. If engineers are scientifically illiterate, why not spend your energy educating us instead of posting on a blog? Is Michael an engineer? Anyway, since evolution is not repeatable but is an extrapolation, while it may be a valid theory, hypothesis or just plain truth, it is not a scientific fact like gravity. Wiggle wiggle.

  13. If engineers are scientifically illiterate, why not spend your energy educating us instead of posting on a blog? Is Michael an engineer? Anyway, since evolution is not repeatable but is an extrapolation, while it may be a valid theory, hypothesis or just plain truth, it is not a scientific fact like gravity.

  14. Chazim, it is you who are wandering away from the subject of Michael’s post, and my question to him about it.

    Please try to stay focused.

    Michael said he believes that creationism can explain why genetically closely related blind cave gobi were found in two locations separated by thousands of miles, yet not found in intermediate locations. The question was WHY he believes that creationism explains that situation. Your comments were entirely off point.

    And, as usual, there is a question behind the question. To puncture the surprise, it is this: What do (either of you) believe to be the purpose of the PLoS paper on the blind cave gobi? The reason for that question will be to illustrate a major difference between science and crationism.

    Does anyone feel up to answering the question(s)?
    Or are we in for just more bloviation?

  15. Evolution is one pathway of millions of circumstances which cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. Of course I can say Richard Lenski, his work is an excellent case in extrapolation. Or perhaps Lenski recreated the big bang in a test tube by only using E coli? Now that would be a slam dunk for evolution though not necessarily for creationism of the ID or theistic variety.

  16. Your comments were entirely off point.

    Olorin, try to see the bigger picture.

    Your superior scientific expertise would be better served writing a book, creating your own blog, trolling ICR or AiG, conducting seminars or publishing pro-evolution papers. Whether or not he has a valid creationist explanation is irrelevant.

  17. Evolution is one pathway of millions of circumstances which cannot be repeated in a controlled setting. Of course I can say Richard Lenski, his work is an excellent case in extrapolation.

    You don’t remember what was the purpose of Lenski’s experiment. If you did, you would not have written either of the above sentences. because they are both factually incorrect.

  18. A little Lenski quiz—
    (1) Why did Lenski separate the E. coli into different batches?
    (2) What were the results of comparing the different batches?
    (3) Name another, unanticipated, finding, from the experiment.

  19. Evolution is an extrapolation, not a repeatable experiment. Thus it can never be a scientific fact like gravity

    Stephan Jay Gould, “Evolution as fact and theory”, The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive.

    Gravity is a fact? I’ll be gobsmacked! It’s not a theory then?

    ————————–

    Yes, thank you. The rehearsal went well. Verdi’s Requiem Mass is not as difficult as anticipated.
    I had not known that VERDI was an acronym for “Vittorio Emmanuele Re D;Italia.”

  20. Lenski’s experiment did not prove evolution, it showed adaptation. No new information was added to the genetic coding of the E coli. To show evolution, Lenski would have to go through 13.6 billion years from the big bang to present day. Lenski is thus an extreme example of absurd extrapolation. Gravity is a hypothesis, theory, law and repeatable scientific fact. Evolution is a hypothesis and a theory but not a law or repeatable scientific fact. It is no small surprise that you’re gobsmacked if you would claim Lenski for showing [macro] evolution. One wonders what lab experiments prior to Lenski in 2008 evolution was based on. Care to give some examples from the time of Darwin (1870) to say 1900 when “scientific” evolution was entrenched? Surely you have more than only Lenski because one would think it high inappropriate, unscientific and patently stupid to believe in the “scientific fact of evolution” in 1870 when its only experimental validation was in 2008! So fire away Olorin, educate the ignorant creationist masses. Subdue us with your science!

  21. Frankly, all you had to do was assume creationist catastrophism and you would have had your answer.

    Frank, that’s the problem with all creationist theories. One must assume something. And that assumpion ultimately leads to a supernatural event—such as the rearrangement of the earth’s surface far beyond the power of natural forces. By definition, miracles are the end of the line for investigation. Full stop. Double bar. Arrêt.

    .

    But, as stated earlier, my question to Michael was only a lead-in to the next question. Perhaps you’d like to try it, since, you think[1] you know the answer to the first question.

    The second question is this: What was the overall purpose of the PLoS paper? Hint: Why did the authors spend so little of the paper’s length announcing their finding of a close genetic relationship? They could have done that in a page or two.

    Yes, there will be a third question.

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

    [1] Or rather, crev.info thinks.

    .

  22. So evolution assumes nothing? It starts from scratch, no axioms whatsoever? Are you not assuming uniformitarianism? One might also classify the Big bang as supernatural as per current knowledge of material compression so why is one supernatural better than the other? The answer to your first question is that no one knows for certain.

    You seem to have many questions and insist that they be answered. Why do you refuse to provide the answer to my question about the science experiments (bar Lenski) which showed evolution?

    Once again:

    Surely you have more than only Lenski because one would think it highly inappropriate, unscientific and patently stupid to believe in the “scientific fact of evolution” in 1870 when its only experimental validation was in 2008! So fire away Olorin, educate the ignorant creationist masses. Subdue us with your science!

  23. The answer to your first question is that no one knows for certain.

    Yes, but now we’re on to the second question regarding Michael’s post.

    Why do you refuse to provide the answer to my question about the science experiments (bar Lenski) which showed evolution?

    Because that question has nothing to do with Michael’s post. You’re trying to change the subject. After we finish with the post, then we can consider the other subject.

    Creationists frequently employ this tactic to avoid embarrassing questions. Before the Kitzmiller trial in 2005, William Dembski often dreamed of the day when he could confront “evolutionists” in court, where they could not squirm out of direct questions. Dembski volunteered as a witness in Kitzmiller. The problem was, he observed Michael Behe get shredded by the other side when the judge made him answer questions without changing the subject. (He had to be threatened with contempt of court for avoiding questions.) When Dembski saw the result of his fondest desire turn to ashes before his eyes, he reneged as a witness—although he kept the $20K witness fee.

    The same thing happened in Edwards v Aguilar. Prominent creationist Dean Kenyon champed at the bit to confront evolutionists in court. But, when it came to the trial—–

    “The attorney general [i.e., for the creationist law] presented six science witnesses, two more than had testified for the ACLU, [the scientific side] presumably on the grounds that quantity made up for evident lack of quality. There would have been more had not a serious case of disappearing witnesses set in as the second week wore on. Dean Kenyon, a biologist from San Francisco State University, fled town after watching the demolition of four of the state’s witnesses on day 1 of the second week. And Henry Voss, a computer scientist from California, was rapidly withdrawn at the last minute when, in pretrial deposition, he too began to expound on things satanic and demonical.”[1]

    This is the major reason many scientists will not debate creationists. The creationists weave impenetrable nets of other topics, until the audience forgets that they never actually answered what was put to them.

    If you can’t answer the question, just say so.

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

    [1] Lewin, “Creationism on the Defensive in Arkansas.” Science, 215(4528), pp. 33-34, January 1, 1982

  24. Olorin, once again, look at the bigger picture. If you don’t have scientific proof (pre ‘adaptation = macroevolution’ Lenski) for evolution[1], it does not matter if Michael can answer you or if he is correct or incorrect. If you cannot answer my question which asks for the basis of your plentiful evolutionary postings, then there is no point in either Michael or I answering you. You do not require over 20 lines of circumlocution to say that all you have is poor Lenski. As such, I would humbly request that Michael NOT answer you UNTIL you can show what rigorous scientific evidence you and the mainstream scientific community have, that is not Lenski. You guys have been doing research with the taxes from creationists from since 1870 so where’s this bulk of non-extrapolation repeatable evidence? Also, please stop using ID examples as if they were one and the same with YEC, that’s guilt by association [2]. If Michael is a YEC, then your examples should be YEC. And when you give these many scientific replicated examples of evolution seen in experiments, please make sure to have them footnoted as you do above so we can verify. Stop bothering about blind fishes, that’s almost irrelevant. You need to “educate the ignorant creationist masses” by subduing “us with your science!” [3]

    [1.] Lenski is such a poor example that I’m actually sorry for evolutionists tightly grasping his experiment as if it were a saviour. Perhaps the E Coli. is actually the evolutionist messiah. All hail!
    [2.] But you do commit logical fallacies often so that’s expected
    [3] Testable, repeatable science please, not faith in supernatural big bangs, abiogenesis and macroevolution.

    See, I can do snarky comments in footnotes too.

  25. If you don’t have scientific proof (pre ‘adaptation = macroevolution’ Lenski) for evolution[1], it does not matter if Michael can answer you or if he is correct or incorrect. If you cannot answer my question which asks for the basis of your plentiful evolutionary postings, then there is no point in either Michael or I answering you.

    In other words, you have no idea what the answer to the question is. So you wish to move the goalposts to the far side of Saturn.

    This is why debating creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies away squawking victory.

    The purpose of the question is important because it elucidates a major difference between creationism and how science operates.

    ———————————

    You might cut your teeth with a related matter: What was the overall purpose of Lenski’s experiment? What are his findings? Hint: What you said in the parenthetical comment above is risibly incorrect.

  26. That may be so but it is a small aspect of science. If one were to be lectured, they need to know that the lecturer is qualified. I thus have asked multiple times for lecturer Olorin to produce the foundational scientific principles on which he proposes to educate us. This is equivalent to a student asking his lecturer if the lecturer could differentiate an equation. Simple stuff for someone as esteemed and multiple degreed as you.

    What is “risibly incorrect” is that you would call creationists unscientific yet expect us to scientifically answer your question or even be able to spot a scientific fallacy. Your multiple logical absurdities aside [1], if you don’t have proof except Lenski, you might want to seek out help from some of the millions of evolutionary scientists who are partially paid by taxing the ignorant creationists and IDers. Perhaps you can start and work your way down on the Project Steve list [2]. Surely these eminent scholars who use evolution every day can think of an actual experiment which demonstrates evolution since you seem incapable of doing so even with your wide array of science journals. Once again, stop bothering about blind fishes (and Lenski), that’s almost irrelevant. You need to “educate the ignorant creationist masses” by subduing “us with your science!” And for the record, no one has squawked victory [3]. If asking a question is squawking victory then I fear that evolution is even worse than any rabid illiterate bible thumping creationist could possibly imagine.

    [1] Again, as blatantly expected
    [2] They’re scientists not engineers so they’re supposed to actually understand how science work
    [3] Perhaps you need to check your literacy skills or eye sight

  27. I thus have asked multiple times for lecturer Olorin to produce the foundational scientific principles on which he proposes to educate us

    In other words, you have not the slightest idea what Chakrabarty’s paper was all about. Or Lenski’s, either. So you really need to change the subject.

    You may remember that my question was to Michael, and you jumped in with another topic. This is called “crapping on the board.” Then you moved the goalposts for an adequate answer. This is called “knocking over the pieces.” Now we have an attack for not educating you properly. This seems to be leading up to the “squawking victory” part.[1]

    The Chakrabarty paper paper illustrates the difference between how science progresses and how creationism has remained mired up to its axles for a century. The Lenski paper is important because it addresses an unresolved basic question—the contingency vel non of evolutionary processes.

    Those who will not learn from concrete examples will not learn from presentations of “foundational principles either. You may remember the way in which Jesus taught. He didn’t say, “Look,guys, even if you have only a little, your gift is important..” Instead, he said, “Once there was a widow who didn’t have two mites to rub together….”

    ————————-

    Since you seem to know so little about the practice of scientific research, I would suggest Bowler & Morus, Making Modern Science (U. Chicago Press 2005). It is the most highly acclaimed of the recent histories of science. It is divided into two parts: historical incidents that illustrate how various fields arose, and a set of “themes”—science and technology, science and war, science and religion, etc—for insight as to how science relates to other human endeavors. To alleviate your ignorance as to the philosophy os science, the Teaching Company offers several lecture series. My favorite introduction is Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It. (Michael likes Teaching Company series; maybe you could borrow it from him.)

    For help with ignorance of evolution, U. California has an excellent web tutorial. Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish (Vintage 2009) reconstructs how various body parts evolved in a clear and engaging style.. (Shubin is the discoverer of the Tiktaalik fossil—an example of evolutionary prediction.) As you look through the many examples, overlay on them the affine transformations that we learned in undergrad engineering, and you’ll see the relationship.[2]

    To calm your rage against evolution, you might try a benzodiazepine such as Xanax. Or Valerian Root, if you are into herbal remedies.,

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

    [1] The purpose of endnotes is to present support or ancillary material. Snark bombs;can go in the main text.

    [2] If you will fill your pants waiting to read about laboratory experiments in evolution, Amazon will overnight Garland & Rose (Eds), Experimental Evolution: Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection Experiments (U. Cal. Press 2009), 752pp.. You might wish to start with Chapter 20, “Laboratory experiments in speciation” (subheads: “Key concepts”; “What previous experiments have taught us”; “Neglected questions”; “General guidelines for experiments on speciation”; “Conclusion.”) As a computer wonk, you may also be interested in Roff, Modeling Evolution (Oxford U.Press 2010).;

  28. Olorin,

    Dancing around while grasping at straws. You state, “The Lenski paper is important because it addresses an unresolved basic question—the contingency vel non of evolutionary processes.” Lenski paper was showing “modification of function” event rather than a gain-of-function one (new information). The bottom line is that the results are interesting and well done, but not particularly novel, nor particularly significant as you would like to believe.

    You also mention, “Shubin is the discoverer of the Tiktaalik fossil—an example of evolutionary prediction.”I don’t believe there is any science publication that uses the Tiktaalik fossil as a confirmation…Let’s take a look at that again in nature back in 2008…

    “The pectoral fin skeletons of Panderichthys and Tiktaalik share certain unusual features such as a blade-like radius and a longitudinal ridge-and-groove on the flexor surface of the ulna. These can tentatively be interpreted as attributes of the ‘elpistostegid’ segment of the tetrapod stem lineage and thus ancestral for the tetrapod forelimb. Given that recent phylogenies consistently place Panderichthys below Tiktaalik in the tetrapod stem group, it is surprising to discover that its pectoral fin skeleton is more limb-like than that of its supposedly more derived relative.”

    “In Tiktaalik4, like in ‘osteolepiforms’ and rhizodonts (more primitive fish members of the stem group), the ulna and ulnare are of similar size. The axis of the fin comprises two more elements distal to the ulnare, and the distal radials are arranged pinnately around this axis. In contrast, in Panderichthys and tetrapods, the ulna is much longer than the ulnare, the ulnare is the last axial element, and the distal radials/digits are arranged in a transverse fan shape11 (Fig. 3). It is difficult to say whether this character distribution implies that Tiktaalik is autapomorphic,2 that Panderichthys and tetrapods are convergent, or that Panderichthys is closer to tetrapods than Tiktaalik. At any rate, it demonstrates that the fish-tetrapod transition was accompanied by significant character incongruence in functionally important structures.”

    Translation of last sentence because it’s a very interesting admission. The last sentence says that if these fossils represent an evolutionary line from fish to tetrapod, the features are all mixed up and out of sequence including the “functionally important structures.” This would hardly be a confirmation of a prediction within evolution’s framework as you would like to believe.

    When Panderichthys fossil showed up and was considered a better example of evolution over Tiktaalik, they admit this…“Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well — although the quality of that specimen was poor.” And as you read previously with features all mixed up and out of sequence including functionally important structures, I would say that is very poor quality. But it was hyped up and you bought into it and apparently you haven’t revised your belief in Tiktaalik either even though most in your community that represents evolution have…

  29. You state, “The Lenski paper is important because it addresses an unresolved basic question—the contingency vel non of evolutionary processes.” Lenski paper was showing “modification of function” event rather than a gain-of-function one (new information).

    Well, at least Michael will take a guess as to the purpose of Lenski’s 2008 paper. Chazing dreads even to try.

    But Michael is clueless—even after the obvious hint italicized in the above quote. Michael, all you have to do is bend down and actually read Lenski’s paper. He tells us exactly what his aims are, and what question he hopes to answer. He reports interim results (the experiment is ongoing) that favor one alternative over the other. He also describes an unexpected result, unrelated to his original purpose.

    Chakrabarty’s paper does not state its purpose in so many words. You have to think about it from the point of view of the general aims of scientific research—Chazing’s “big picture.” Chakrabrty’s colleagues, of course, perceive exactly what his paper requests from them. However, creationists, who approach science from the point of view of “proving” something rather than understanding it, will remain oblivious. As indeed, you and Chazing seem to be.

    Knowing now that the purposes of the Lenski and Chakrabarty papers were not to “prove” evolution, would either of you care to hazard another guess?

    OR perhaps yup would prefer to list here—
    . . . . 0.————————–
    . . . . 0.————————–
    . . . . 0.————————–
    any lab experiments that reproduce all or part of creation week, so that you can confirm special creation. Even just a paltry piece of poofery, such as the having God materialize a crockoduck or a fruit-salad tree. Go ahead, start the prayers. Maybe you’ll be more successful than the priests of Ba’al in 1 Kings 18.

    I thought not.

  30. The Lenski paper is important because it addresses an unresolved basic question—the contingency vel non of evolutionary processes.

    If Lenski needed to address contingency, on what basis was evolution to be considered scientific before Lenski !?

    Since you seem to know so little about the practice of scientific research, I would suggest …

    Once again again again, where are the repeatable scientific experiments from since 1870 partially funded by creationist taxpayers which show evolution in action i.e. information addition to the genome? I have little time or money for five whole books and I did ask to be educated by you not someone else. I want your take on these experiments [0] because I want to see how a trained engineer does science not how an evolutionary biologist does it [1]. Since these experiments would be widely popular and readily available on the Internet as slam dunks against creationists[2], which URL(s) point me to this wealth of resource?

    [0] And I highly doubt that you would simply accept any creationist evidence by me posting a list of creationist or ID books.
    [1] Apparently not very well: http://lifesciences.ieee.org/publications/newsletter/april-2012/94-computational-biology-corner
    [2] Can’t you simply send me the URL of a page written by one of your evolutionist friends like PZ Myers or Jerry Coyne?

  31. Well, at least Michael will take a guess as to the purpose of Lenski’s 2008 paper. Chazing dreads even to try

    Oh sure, very afraid of Lenski. He sure demonstrated evolution or the possibility of evolution right professor Olorin?

    any lab experiments that reproduce all or part of creation week, so that you can confirm special creation

    Creation is a one time non-naturalistic event. Creationism does not dare to even think of reproducing said event or demanding God validate himself for their pleasure. The creation does not make demands of the creator. Rather it aims to understand the thoughts of God through his creation. One wonders the sad nature of the god that you serve.

    I thought not.

    Indeed, you do not think. Rather like your incorrect rendition of the Hindu theology of Bose, you also do not understand the very first book AND chapter of the book you treat with low regard. This of all your nonsensical ramblings, is the absolute worse by far.

  32. Creation is a one time non-naturalistic event. Creationism does not dare to even think of reproducing said event or demanding God validate himself for their pleasure. The creation does not make demands of the creator.

    There it is in a nutshell, folks. CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE Creationism cannot perform experiments on creation. Creationism cannot formulate falsifiable hypotheses about creation. Creationism cannot test creation. Creationists do not submit scholarly papers on creation for criticism by their peers. Creationist principles have never enhanced human control over, the physical world for the benefit of mankind.

    Creationism is entirely a religious belief. The US Supreme Court has said so. Half a dozen lower Federal court cases in the past few years have held this. 99.999% of qualified research scientists in life and cosmological sciences understand this.

    And now, finally, Chazing admits it.

    Why does creationism continue to hide behind the public’s respect for science? Why don’t creationists say—with Martin Luther—We don’t care what your science shows; I WILL NOT believe it. That would be a lot simpler, and you wouldn’t have to lie as much. That philosophical position is called “omphalism,” and it still may have somewhat of a following. Another advantage is that it is not falsifiable, because it can disregard all evidence to the contrary—unlike creationism, which must distort it.

    And it would eliminate the constant fear of disproof which seems to shadow creationists constantly, and must be beaten back at every scientific advance..

    .

    But, to return to the subject, Do either of you fine fellows know what Lenski and Chakrabarty’s purposes were in writing their respective papers?,/strong> Or do your still believe that the purposes were to prove that Stevie Wonder is descended from blind cave fish, and that E. coli come from the big bang?

  33. There it is in a nutshell, folks. CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE Creationism cannot perform experiments on creation. Creationism cannot formulate falsifiable hypotheses about creation. Creationism cannot test creation. Creationists do not submit scholarly papers on creation for criticism by their peers. Creationist principles have never enhanced human control over, the physical world for the benefit of mankind.

    Squawking galore. Let me work through this simplistically for you, is the big bang repeatable in a lab? THAT’S A DIRECT QUESTION

    Creationism is entirely a religious belief. The US Supreme Court has said so. Half a dozen lower Federal court cases in the past few years have held this. 99.999% of qualified research scientists in life and cosmological sciences understand this.

    False dichotomy. Even if creationism was religious, that does not rule out that it could also be scientific. Just because evolution is scientific, that does not mean it is also not religious. Science flows out of and is subservient to special revelation.

  34. What your so-called supreme court rules is only relevant to Americans and lest one forgets, the supreme court said many nasty things about non-Europeans. Your 99.999% is literally incorrect, impossible to verify, most likely assumes that only scientists in the Western world are REAL scientists and is the fallacy of appealing to popularity. You continue to not disappoint in at least one fallacy per post. If however, you have by some miracle proof of this 99.999%, post it.

    And now, finally, Chazing admits it.

    I have not, this is your sad version of “squawking victory.”

    Why does creationism continue to hide behind the public’s respect for science? Why don’t creationists say—with Martin Luther—We don’t care what your science shows; I WILL NOT believe it. That would be a lot simpler, and you wouldn’t have to lie as much. That philosophical position is called “omphalism,” and it still may have somewhat of a following. Another advantage is that it is not falsifiable, because it can disregard all evidence to the contrary—unlike creationism, which must distort it.

    Luther was parroting the science of his day, just like you doing right now are simpleton.

  35. But, to return to the subject, Do either of you fine fellows know what Lenski and Chakrabarty’s purposes were in writing their respective papers?,/strong> Or do your still believe that the purposes were to prove that Stevie Wonder is descended from blind cave fish, and that E. coli come from the big bang?

    You seem to have serious problems focusing on the larger picture. These papers are not in any way relevant to the BIG question which is: What repeatable scientific experiments convinced Olorin that evolution was scientific?

    I asked a simple question before and once again you ignored it:

    If Lenski needed to address contingency, on what basis was evolution to be considered scientific before Lenski !?

  36. “There it is in a nutshell, folks. CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE Creationism cannot perform experiments on creation. Creationism cannot formulate falsifiable hypotheses about creation. Creationism cannot test creation. Creationists do not submit scholarly papers on creation for criticism by their peers. Creationist principles have never enhanced human control over, the physical world for the benefit of mankind.”

    First myth: Creationism cannot be tested. He “squawks” on the very things that are testable. One example is the age of the earth, in creationism, the earth is not billions of years rather thousands of years. Young earth and young universe is certainly testable and observable. Variants within a kind, another testable and observable element of creationism! The experiment on the fruit fly that created 600 generations in the lab which became resistant to change!

    This would be a confirmation of creationism which holds to the fact that variants cannot produce brand new species. Thus science! I “squawk” on a variety of things such as neanderthal man, how did evolutionists conclude that this tribe of people “grunted” for communication? How does one test with a subject who is no longer living? They certainly didn’t personally hear neanderthal man communicate from the dead. So how did they come up with such a conclusion? And look at the new research, how far off they were about neanderthal man with all their speculations based on evolution. Evolutionists speculate history in the same manner that is way off in all areas of science.

    Second myth: Creationists do not submit scholarly papers on creationism for criticism. Yes they do, it’s called, the Journal of Creation. Secular publishers do not accept papers of any kind that deals with creationism in a positive way rather only papers which criticize creationism or intelligent design. Those papers that are already critical of creationism or intelligent design are not critical by their peers who accept them for publication. One paper was published 2004, that was pro-intelligent design that passed peer-review and was published which lead to a fire storm. After that, they made sure that people in positions would reject anything that is not pro-evolution for publication (before it would even make it to peer-review). So creation scientists don’t submit pro-creationist scholarly papers to them for criticism. By being critical of them that they don’t, is nothing more than building a strawman’s argument.

    Myth three: This one he didn’t mention but it is commonly used in strawman arguments. Science is another term for evolution. Chemistry for example, deals with the basic structure of matter in terms of its atomic elements, molecules, and compounds in addition to exchanges along with reactions between them. Chemistry is not the theory of evolution.

    Myth four: Another common misconception often used in strawman arguments is if we believed in a Creator, the Bible would have to explain all natural events and we would never advance in technology as a result because the Bible doesn’t explain it all in terms of explaining things like how thunderstorms work. It’s a faulty strawman argument. This however begs the question, how has evolution along with its various complex explanations of nature advanced us in the world of technology?

    We know that cars are manufactured by certain companies by intelligence rather than a mindless process called, evolution. Yet, does that stop us from the process of learning about cars and advancing technology in cars? No! Even though it’s intelligently designed, Christians who are called into this field, continue to help advance technology in cars which is part of science!

    Evolution is treated like a religion, it has prophets who create story lines which later are falsified. Defenders of evolution use weak arguments that are not logical against creationism and are certainly not science. Defenders of evolution also confuse historical science with operational science, the very term “science” is distorted by them in order to try to make evolution to sound more scientific than creationism but is is not.

  37. Why does creationism continue to hide behind the public’s respect for science?

    The issue is one of truth not validation. Again, Olorin is squawking about creationists desiring the respectability of science when that is exactly what evolutionists do. Without the veneer of science and the supposed creative power of billions of years of time in which any fairy tale can happen, there is no other option open to evolutionists.

    Evolution as I see it, is a mixture of many religions. It is atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, scientism (science alone is god), sectarian polytheism/pantheism (my reason and that of all others who think like me is god) and paganism (my god isn’t the god of the bible, worship of the creation and not the creator).

    Myth four: Another common misconception often used in strawman arguments is if we believed in a Creator, the Bible would have to explain all natural events and we would never advance in technology as a result because the Bible doesn’t explain it all in terms of explaining things like how thunderstorms work.

    Here is another aspect of the problem with this often peddled assertion. No creationist holds this view. Thus as you rightly said, it is a strawman. Additionally, when Newton discovered gravity, was he thinking about evolution? When Maury discovered ocean currents, was he not thinking about creationism? When Mendel discovered aspects of genetics, was he thinking of evolution?

    So I for one would love to hear Olorin (or any other evolutionist) answer the question: HOW HAS EVOLUTION ALONG WITH ITS VARIOUS COMPLEX EXPLANATIONS OF NATURE ADVANCED US IN THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY?

    And that’s yet another direct question. Please don’t post books, just explanations or peer-reviewed articles which one can access.

  38. Trying to keep creationists on-topic is harder than herding turtles. The question, now 3 weeks old (Sept. 20), is—

    What do (either of) you believe to be the purpose of the PLoS paper on the blind cave gobi? The reason for that question will be to illustrate a major difference between science and creationism.

    The purpose was not, as you supposed, to “prove” evolution. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The authors wished to present a finding that they could not explain with existing evolutionary theory. They’re on your side. Apparently this obvious fact had escaped both of you.

    The paper sheds much ink on showing the close genetic relationship of the Australian and Madagascaran gobi, to show that this conclusion is rock (so to speak) solid. It emphasize that both groups are obligate troglobites, which forecloses many vicariance routes.Then it presents the anomalous geographic locations, and lays out a number of possible mechanisms at length: convergent evolution of the two populations, tunneling through karst, higher salinity tolerance, and extinction from a previously wider clade, e.g. But the authors feel that none of these explanations is adequate.

    Therefore, they present their results as an unresolved anomaly, with hopefully enough data for their colleagues to have a go at an explanation.

    Now, a paper that presents a result apparently at odds with creationism would never be permitted in a creationist journal.. Answers Journal explicitly forbids it, in their Instructions to Authors Manual (Item VIII-4 in particular). Open criticism of another creationist paper is beyond the pale. (I remember two AJ papers on atomic decay rates 5 years apart that contradicted .each other, and even shared a co-author. Yet the later one did not cite the earlier one! Dishonest.)

    Creationism is not science. It does not publish for peer criticism, to advance knowledge. Creationism is interested only in confirmation of a specific dogma, and publishes only to dazzle the scientifically illiterate..

  39. Now, on to the purpose of Lenski’s 2008 paper. Although Lenski explains his purpose half a dozen times in the paper itself, it’s obvious that neither of you has deigned to read it. Rather, you depend like sheep on the spin that Answers in Genesis gives to it.
    Lenski’s experiment was not designed to “prove” evolution, nor to recreate it, or even to demonstrate the power of selection. This is ridiculous. No one performs experiments to prove the fact of evolution in the past half century.

    But there are still some major, almost philosophical, questions that remain outstanding. One of them is contingency. S.J. Gould maintained that historical contingency makes evolution largely unpredictable in the long term. S.C. Morris countered that “the evolutionary routes are many, but the destinations are limited” because of selection constraints, so that paths may be repeatable from the same initial conditions.[1]

    Lenski proposed a test[2] to distinguish between these alternatives by allowing a large-scale model system to evolve under strictly controlled conditions, keeping detailed records. His E. coli batches were slightly starved of glucose (normally their only nutrient) in order to impose some selective pressure. Lenski’s expected outcome was hundreds of different batches of E. coli over several decades. He could then analyze the final strains, to determine whether or not they had all arrived at similar adaptations. Saving intermediate batches allowed him to pinpoint which changes occurred at what times, to trace the routes to these adaptations, all of which were expected to be minor.

    But then the unexpected happened. After more than 31,000 generations, some of the batches proliferated. They had evolved a capability for importing the citrate medium which had been added as an inert medium, and metabolizing it. Now, the inability to ingest citrate is a defining characteristic of E. coli. Therefore, the bacteria which had evolved this totally new capability[3] were really no longer E. coli, but a new species.[4] Although this new capability was not crucial to the experiment, it did provide a watershed event that could be used to investigate the extent to which preceding lines could recreate the capability. It turns out that certain lines could re-evolve citrate import, and others could not.

    The 2008 paper analyzes the particular series of paths taken for each branch, and thus strengthened the conclusion that, as held by Gould, evolution follows a path contingent upon its initial conditions and a priori unpredictable events along the way.[5]

    That’s the purpose of the Lenksi long-term experiment.[6] If you would like to refute his conclusions, and prove that evolution is instead driven along only certain pathways, you may proceed. Any other argument is irrelevant to the Lenski’s paper.

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

    [1] P. 7899. Lenski could have traced the question back even further, to Jacob Monod’s “bricolage” concept: Is evolution basically a tinkerer, or a designer?

    [2] Unlike creationism, science tests its hypotheses.

    [3] A new paper, resulting from analyses of the archived samples, details the specific duplications and mutations involved, and the timing. Blount, et al., “Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population,” Nature 489:513–518 (27 September 2012).

    [4] The Lotka-Volterra equation would predict that the new species would drive the old one to extinction, but this did not happen. Although the new species has a great advantage in metabolizing an additional nutrient, the old one retains a competitive advantage in metabolizing the original glucose. Woods, et al., Second-order selection for evolvability in a large E. coli population,” Science 331:1433-1436 (18 March 2011)

    [5] Some of us remember the “Lenski Affair,” in which creationist lawyer Andrew Schlafly challenged Lenski on grounds totally irrelevant to the purpose of his experiment. Lenski himself handed Schlafly his hambone on a platter. Schlaffly complained to the publisher (PNAS),, who called Schlafly’s understanding of the issues rudimentary, and pwned him again.. It got so bad that Schlafly’s supporters abandoned him; the few who remained were identified as parodists. Biologists still laugh over that one.

    [6] Which still continues, having passed the 55,000 generation mark some time ago.

  40. Apparently this obvious fact had escaped both of you.

    Apparently, you don’t read well.

    (I remember two AJ papers on atomic decay rates 5 years apart that contradicted .each other, and even shared a co-author. Yet the later one did not cite the earlier one! Dishonest.)

    What papers are these?

    Creationism is not science. It does not publish for peer criticism, to advance knowledge. Creationism is interested only in confirmation of a specific dogma, and publishes only to dazzle the scientifically illiterate..

    So their work isn’t reviewed by their peers? And again, why don’t you illuminate the scientifically illiterate by giving us papers pre Lenski which experimentally demonstrated the evolution of novel functions?

    Me: Evolution is an extrapolation, not a repeatable experiment.

    Olorin on September 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm: Can you say “Richard Lenski”?

    Compare with Olorin on October 4, 2012 at 12:23 am: Lenski’s experiment was not designed to “prove” evolution, nor to recreate it, or even to demonstrate the power of selection. This is ridiculous.

    Ridiculous indeed.

    No one performs experiments to prove the fact of evolution in the past half century.

    Oh, so from before 50 years ago, what experiments were there to show how new functions developed in the lab?

    If you would like to refute his conclusions, and prove that evolution is instead driven along only certain pathways, you may proceed. Any other argument is irrelevant to the Lenski’s paper.

    Why would creationists want to refute one form of evolution using another form of evolution? “This is ridiculous”. Anyhow, the argument that you still don’t get is that creationists are still waiting on you to show how new functions develop. Perhaps I will evolve a new function in that time :rolls eyes:

    HOW HAS EVOLUTION ALONG WITH ITS VARIOUS COMPLEX EXPLANATIONS OF NATURE ADVANCED US IN THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY?

    Still waiting to be smitten by evolutionary science on that one. “This is ridiculous.”

  41. If you would like to refute his conclusions, and prove that evolution is instead driven along only certain pathways, you may proceed. Any other argument is irrelevant to the Lenski’s paper.

    Why would creationists want to refute one form of evolution using another form of evolution? “This is ridiculous”. Anyhow, the argument that you still don’t get is that creationists are still waiting on you to show how new functions develop. Perhaps I will evolve a new function in that time :rolls eyes:

    You refuse to read Lenski’s paper. You dismiss an explanation of its purpose with an irrelevant question. What is the use of proceeding further? I give you books, but all you do is eat the covers.

    Lenski’s papers also describe how the new function arose. The new function involved the linkage of a couple of previously unrelated genes, which co-opted a different promoter to allow citrate uptake This function was implemented by duplications and mutations, including a couple of potentiating mutations which occurred before the new function arose, and duplications afterward to amplify the new capability. It’s all documented in Lenski’s September 2012 paper, which you also have not condescended to read.
    .

    It is becoming a waste of time trying to educate someone who embraces ignorance as a way of life.

    “It is bad not to know. It is worse not to want to know.”

    BaNtu proverb

  42. Chazing shouts—

    HOW HAS EVOLUTION ALONG WITH ITS VARIOUS COMPLEX EXPLANATIONS OF NATURE ADVANCED US IN THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY?

    This is not an area whose literature I follow. Here are a couple of applications of evolutionary theory that caught my eye recently and have not yet precipitated out of this aging memory. I have not included applications that, so far at least, are useful only in research, but only those that show practical benefit. And I don’t remember specific citations, so you may have to do some actual work yourself.

    > Evolutionary research into the transition between the 3-chamber reptilian heart and the 4-chamber mammalian showed that he key was a change in a single protein for the ventricular septum. An incomplete septum is a common human congenital malformation. This knowledge prompted treatments for the defect.

    > A researcher questioned the then-common theory of taste, because it could not have evolved into that form. He revised the theory based upon an evolutionary path. This new understanding led to the discovery of “taste modulators”—compounds which have no flavor themselves, but can affect the flavors of other chemicals. This allows, for example, less sugar for an equally sweet taste.

    > The evolution of adaptive immunity in isolated herds of Scottish sheep showed that immunity incurred an evolutionary cost. So the researcher proposed that herd animals be treated for infectious diseases, not for minimum infection infection as before, but for maximum fitness, which occurs at a lower treatment rate.

    > 8,000 years ago, the first farmers chose annual varieties of their crops, because they could evolve favorable traits faster than perennials. But annuals have disadvantages that are becoming more important—such as higher soil erosion. So evolutionary researchers are using selection to develop perennial varieties that can substitute for the annuals.

    > Research into the evolution of frogs has uncovered suites of traits that facilitate spread into a new territory. This allows predictions as to which animals and plants will be greater threats as invasive species, and steps to prevent them from becoming invasive.
    .
    .
    The last three involve policy issues where evolutionary theory has found the cause of a problem and suggests a solution. So let’s run a comparo to see whether creationism can offer better solutions.for the benefit of mankind.

    > Overfishing has devastated ocean stocks. Governments have specified the minimum size of fish that can be harvested. This has not worked. All fish have become smaller.
    —Evolution says the problem is _______, and recommends _______ as a solution.
    —Creationist principles, on the other hand, claim that the problem is _______, and offer ________ as a solution.

    > To combat the same problem in the Pacific, salmon have been caught, raised in sheltered ponds, then released. But, after release, predators eat all their eggs, causing populations to crash.
    —Evolutionary research says the problem is _______, and recommends _______.
    —Creationism, however, proposes that the problem is _______, and says we should ________.

    > Antibiotic resistance is becoming an important medical problem. Evolution researchers propose to combat this problem by mixing up a cocktail of multiple antibiotics.
    —Evolutionary theory recommends to mix the antibiotics so that ______.
    —Creationist theory recommends a different mix, namely_______
    (This last problem is one where the Discovery Institute actually HAS made a recommendation. Epidemiologists, however, are unanimous that this mix would actually increase resistance, and lead to unnecessary deaths.).

    .

    Anticipating a lack of response, creationism has nothing to offer for solving problems in the physical world or for enhancing human progress. If Chazing feels it does, he can propose creationist recommendations for the issues above. Or he can describe specific discoveries that have benefited mankind.

    Then we can all sit back and have a good laugh.

    Another good laugh.

  43. This just in—Another practical result from evolution research.

    Research into the evolution of snake venoms found that they originated by duplications and mutations of non-toxic snake proteins. A couple of them, surprisingly, have forms that can act as pain-killers.

    Although the paper on this subject is from Nature,[1] I found out about the discovery from Answers in Genesis, in a News to Note on Oct. 13.

    Thank you, Answers in Genesis :-)

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

    [1] iochot, et al., “Black mamba venom peptides target acid-sensing ion channels to abolish pain,” doi:10.1038/nature11494 (on line 3 Oct. 201)
    .

  44. What papers are these?

    I just ran across my comment on 8/14 about the inconsistent articles that do not cite each other for content. Both papers were published in Answers in Genesis. Here is the reference—

    Again, a competent peer review in a science journal would catch this.[2] Especially since these two papers share an author. But then creationism is not science, and thus need not be consistent.

    ………..

    [2] Chaffin & Oliver 2012 do cite Chaffin 2005—but only for the general background proposition that allowed and forbidden decay states are used in radiometric dating. Misleading, if not outright deceitful.

    Can you look them up yourself, or do you need help?

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