Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s anti-Darwin book “can’t be ignored by the thinking public”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Meanwhile, in Darwin’s corner, there is now an English prof somewhere who was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household” (along with a growing army of accusers and litigants?)

Political scientist John West’s essay in The Claremont Review of Books, “Dissent of Man,” is now online here:

It’s not often that a book by a professional philosopher attracts the notice—let alone the ire—of the cultural powers-that-be. One can think of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind in the 1980s, but other examples are hard to come by. At any rate, Mind & Cosmos is well on its way to becoming a book that can’t be ignored by the thinking public. Thus far, it has been denounced in the Nation and the Huffington Post, dubbed the “most despised science book of 2012” by the London Guardian, defended in the New Republic (where Nagel’s critics were blasted as “Darwinist dittoheads” and a “mob of materialists”), subjected to a feature story in the New York Times, and put on the cover of the Weekly Standard, which depicted Nagel being burned alive, surrounded by a cabal of demonic-looking men in hoods.

The author has attracted special displeasure from the powers-that-be for using Mind and Cosmos to praise intelligent design proponents such as biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. As the New York Times explained, many of Nagel’s fellow academics view him unfavorably “not just for the specifics of his arguments but also for what they see as a dangerous sympathy for intelligent design.” Now there is a revealing comment: academics, typically blasé about everything from justifications of infanticide to pedophilia, have concluded that it is “dangerous” to give a hearing to scholars who think nature displays evidence of intelligent design.

An especially brazen attempt [at Darwin myth-making] is Rebecca Stott’s Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution. Stott’s book purports to tell “the story of the collective discovery of evolution” starting with Aristotle, medieval Islamic writer Al-Jahiz, and Leonardo da Vinci. If it really accomplished that feat, the book would be extraordinary, given that each of those writers believed in the fixity of species and a natural world imbued with purpose.

Though the author herself, a professor of English at East Anglia University, obviously wants to draw a line from Aristotle, et al., to Darwin, she (unlike her book jacket) is frank enough to concede that the thinkers she discusses for the first hundred pages of her book were not in fact evolutionists, Darwinian or otherwise.

Stott highlights what she sees as the oppressive forces of religion squelching heterodox ideas among the valiant, free-thinking proto-evolutionists. For anyone familiar with 19th-century broadsides like Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology, this approach is far from fresh. But writing the book was obviously therapeutic for Stott, who makes clear at the start that she was traumatized by growing up in a “Creationist household.” More.

Note: Full title of the essay is “Dissent of Man: A review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel and Darwin’s Ghosts: The Secret History of Evolution, by Rebecca Stott”

Comments
A point to be made on AVS's comments about new species being formed: one definition of "kind" is “a family or group of living creatures or things that are interfertile among themselves, but not fertile with others outside their family. (That is, whose sex cells will unite to form, or begin to form, an offspring; but with those of another ‘kind’ or family are absolutely incompatible and unable to unite.)” This definition is the same as the old definition once given to “species.” Then “species” was used to mean the offspring of a single specially created pair. But with the advent of the theory of evolution “species” has changed meaning and according to present-day scientific usage numerous species may all be of the one Biblical kind. When variations occur within the one kind evolutionists speak of some of them as new species and as evidence that species change; according to their narrowed-down definition of “species” it is true, but species do not change if we hold to the old definition of the term and which coincides with the above definition of the Biblical kind. Any hybrids he may be able to produce through breeding experiments are not really evidence of evolution in action, simply because if plants or animals are interfertile and produce offspring they are of the same kind; there is no stepping over the kind boundary. It is impossible to overstep this boundary, because two different kinds are not interfertile and no offspring could result. Through selective breeding and cross-breeding and mutations a great variety of plants or animals may be developed, but they are all within the boundary of their kind. Science is without evidence to successfully dispute this.Barb
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
What is so pathetic is that this one is such a true believer ??Johnnyfarmer
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
AVS: "And this is for real barb. Hope you finally dug that stick out of your rear. Doesnt look like it though." More pathetically-worded ad hominems from an unintelligent troll. Got anything substantial to add? No? Begone.Barb
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
AVS @ 114 "I have better things to do than teach you guys. Adios." Sorry you have to go .... but thanks for teaching us how to effectively overuse ad hominem and insult.Johnnyfarmer
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
AVS, We can only hope for the evolution of a troll nerve. Until then, it's not at all likely that you struck a nerve that has not yet evolved. AVS:
Just to clear up my simple mistake, it was lysozyme that gave rise to alpha-lactalbumin.
Yet the source I cited says:
The alpha-lactalbumin is a subunit of lactose-synthase, an enzyme responsible for lactose production, a disaccharide that influences milk production
Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
My my, did I strike a nerve? Just to clear up my simple mistake, it was lysozyme that gave rise to alpha-lactalbumin. I wouldnt want you to be anymore confused than you already are Mung. Mr. Johnny, please do everyone a favor and stop talking about science. And thanks for the well-wishes Mr Bornagain, have a goodone. Bye guys <3AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
FACTS SUCK! IF YOU'RE A LIAR.Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
AVS:
Now enjoy having the last words here because I have better things to do than teach you guys. Adios.
You leave us wondering whether it was the lysozyme gene that underwent mutation in order to produce the alpha-lactalbumin gene or it was the the alpha-lactalbumin gene that was mutated in a small number of places to get the lysozyme gene. "Maybe I switched the two accidentally" is not an explanation. Adios. Troll.Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
AVS @ 68 you state "I’ve no idea what you are talking about. If you cant look at the info on the numerous species of primates, especially the hominids, and say they look like transitional species then I dont know what to tell you. That is all." These transitions you speak of are slight modifications of the same basic skeletal plan. Little is known about how genetics causes these slight variations during embryo development or even how vulnerable they are to mutation. Same goes with instinctive behaviors... Little is known about how and where this inherited information is stored and if it is even subject to mutation. But for evolution to be true it must be assumed that shapes and sizes of morphological features along with inherited behavioral traits are subject to mutation. Where is the proof ? Perhaps the natural variation in the gene pool is not the result of mutation but is found to be fixed in the species. Now admittedly it might not be so hard (who knows?) to stretch or distort a existing feature already providing some function. This is the easier to do kind of evolution. Much more difficult is to evolve new innovations which require new tissues (and thus new proteins) along with genetically controlled shaping of the parts during embryo development along with development of new inherited behaviors which might be necessary for this new feature to function. Since you know so much about biology I would like to move onto something more difficult to explain. How about explaining to us dummies how invertebrates transitioned into vertebrates .... since your specialty seems to be vertebrate forms.Johnnyfarmer
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Take care AVS, and I hope you finally lose that shallow ego of yours so as to be more friendly. It really is unbecoming for you to wall yourself off like that from other people. Underneath that gruff facade you put on you seem to have a very decent sense of humor,, poem: Ocean Sunset The deep stirring sounds of the ocean surf And the breathtaking hues of the setting sun’s sky Speaks a tension between time and timeless That brings a holiness to mind and eye Surely its a spatial dimension that We barely perceive but do not yet possess An apparent sheen on the near side of infinity We are allowed to see but not yet transgress The overwhelming beauty of this translucent Continuum strips the veil of my shallow ego And these moments of spiritual transcendence Have been as much immortality as I know For I come suddenly upon a awareness Of the force of life and love that is shared within me And the strange but perfect exhilaration that God made both this ocean sunset and me to bebornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Or maybe I switched the two accidentally? I know its hard to imagine, but even Im not perfect. If you guys really cant put two and two together to realize that, then this is hopeless. No matter what I say, you guys are gonna dance your way around it and BS you way through a response. If you want to learn, pay for an education. When you get your science info from unscientific sources, this is what happens. Now enjoy having the last words here because I have better things to do than teach you guys. Adios. And this is for real barb. Hope you finally dug that stick out of your rear. Doesnt look like it though.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
AVS:
Look, Im not sure what is so confusing about this, our genes undergo mutation, its a fact of biology. If the alpha-lactalbumin gene is mutated in a small number of places, you get the lysozyme gene. What is so hard about that?
Permit me to explain. Earlier you claimed that it was the lysozyme gene that underwent mutation in order to produce the alpha-lactalbumin gene. But now you assert that it is the alpha-lactalbumin gene that is mutated in a small number of places to get the lysozyme gene. Troll much?Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
AVS, when you get done answering mung's specific and interesting questions, I also want you to focus on the specific question I asked you (use a dictionary if it helps): 'could you be so kind as to provide an actual example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein instead of assuming your conclusion with sequence comparisons?' note: The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1bornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Oh Im sorry, you want an "actual example"...riiighttt. Look, Im not sure what is so confusing about this, our genes undergo mutation, its a fact of biology. If the alpha-lactalbumin gene is mutated in a small number of places, you get the lysozyme gene. What is so hard about that? Why do you need me to come to your house, set up a lab, and show you how this works? Is this why you failed all your science classes? Probably. "Created no new genetic material"? Really? Are you serious? A whole new species came about. You want all these examples, but you cant even understand or accept the most basic of them. Its like talking to a wall. By the way, was that your first copy/paste/random quote-free post ever? Wow. Its a big day for you.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
AVS:
So first we take our lysozyme gene, then we mutate it. ... Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.
If that's true, it's definitely of interest. This is a gene that was transcribed to mRNA and translated into a protein? As this lysozyme gene mutated, what happened to it's fitness? Each mutation to the gene resulted in more copies in each subsequent generation? What happened to the carriers of the original gene? Selected against? Reduced in numbers as a total of the population?
Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.
If that were true they would call it the alpha-lactalbumin gene.
The alpha-lactalbumin is a subunit of lactose-synthase, an enzyme responsible for lactose production, a disaccharide that influences milk production
You seem to be asserting that some gene (lysozyme) evolved into a subunit of some other gene (lactose-synthase). I'll stop now and give you an opportunity to explain. Of primary interest is your claim that this alleged transformation involved a new protein fold. AVS:
this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin
Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
AVS, now, now, I know you think you got this whole English as a second language thing down, but when I ask for a example of Darwinian processes creating a protein, I mean exactly that, I want an actual example (i.e. a demonstration) of Darwinian processes creating a protein. I don't want you claiming (lying about) laboratory work which they have not done, and I don't want you pointing to sequence similarities between different proteins, and I don't want you pointing to plant hybridization which created no new genetic information, I want you to put your money where your mouth is and show me just one example of purely Darwinian processes creating a new protein. This should be a piece of cake for you. You should literally have thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of examples you could produce to silence Darwin critics, but you have none! Why is this AVS and why do you resort to such underhanded tactics (of misdirection and deception) to try to make it look like you have actual evidence for Darwinism when you have none?bornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Mr Bornagain, youre getting senile in your old age. You asked for "an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein," that was what the lysozyme example was to. Then you asked for a "demonstrated example" and I gave you the helianthus example. The issue is not with my command of the English language, but your failing memory.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
AVS you claim that you have an demonstrated example???
So first we take our lysozyme gene, then we mutate it. Now, incase you didnt know, mutations are an important part of evolution (theres your “darwinian processes”). Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin.
Yet they did no such thing! They merely compared sequences and claimed that one evolved from the other!
Molecular divergence of lysozymes and alpha-lactalbumin. Excerpt: Lysozyme C gene also gave rise, after gene duplication 300 to 400 million years ago, to a gene that currently codes for alpha-lactalbumin, a protein expressed only in the lactating mammary gland of all but a few species of mammals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9307874
Perhaps your reading of English is trailing your writing of it AVS because that is certainly not a demonstrated example? In fact all such claimed proofs for evolution turn out to be 'just so' story telling which does nothing but assumes as a conclusion the very thing being debated.bornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
So your response is a post that has nothing to do with what we are talking about? Figures. 99% of it wasnt even your own words. Its ok, your friends here will all console you and trash-talk AVS the troll, dont worry. Just know that when you and your buddies are confronted with real science, you have nothing to say.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
AVS, as to the sunflower in general, it may interest you to know that sunflowers are so well designed that it inspired this innovation: Biologically inspired design: How sunflowers could reshape solar power - By Kirsten Korosec | January 11, 2012 Excerpt: The key to building an efficient concentrated solar power plant that uses less land may just lie within the face of a sunflower. Researchers at Massachusets Institute of Technology in collaboration with RWTH Aachen University in Germany found they could reduce the footprint of a CSP install by nearly 16 percent percent and increase the amount of sunlight collected by arranging the mirrors — otherwise known as heliostats — in a pattern similar to the spirals on the face of a sunflower.,, Take a look at the face of a sunflower and you’ll notice the florets are arranged in a spiral pattern, known as the Fermat or parabolic spiral. (Play the animation from Flickr user Rob Ireton for a look at a growing sunflower and how it maintains the same pattern). The criss-crossing spiral can be represented by a fraction describing the angle. The angle of each floret in a sunflower is relative to the next at a degree of 137.51, otherwise known as the golden angle. The result is a pattern of interconnecting spirals, where the number of left and right spirals are successive Fibonacci numbers. The Fibonacci sequence can be found in pine cones, branching plants, seed heads and even sea shell shapes. Researchers copied this pattern and angled each mirror at about 137 degrees relative to its neighbor, according to MIT. The result was a compact, efficient pattern. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/biologically-inspired-design-how-sunflowers-could-reshape-solar-power/12016 Of related note to the 'top down' Fibonacci design of the sunflower is this beautifully done video: Nature by Numbers - video http://vimeo.com/9953368 Quote: Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galileibornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Ok, so I have to spell it out for you Mr Bornagain? No problem, I'll try to make it as simple as possible for you (and I'll stick with english, dont mention it) So first we take our lysozyme gene, then we mutate it. Now, incase you didnt know, mutations are an important part of evolution (theres your "darwinian processes"). Now, after just a small number of mutations, the lysozyme gene produces a protein that has a different amino acid sequence, and this new protein sequence folds into a completely different proetin, alpha-lactalbumin. As for your supposed "rebuttal" of my Helianthus example, if you had done a little research you would know that every single plant I mentioned had the same number of chromosomes. There was no polyploids present whatsoever. The two parent species and the new species all had the same number of chromosomes (2N=34 incase you were wondering). A+ for effort though.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
AVS, I know a man of your intellect probably speaks a dozen or so languages fluently, and English is probably not your first language, so when you state,,,
Mr. Bornagain, you asked for “an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein.” I gave you exactly that: An example of one functional protein sequence arising from another by just a small number of mutations. Now of course after I do that, you move the goalpost and ask for “an actual demonstration of evolution in action.”
,,,it is understandable that you do not fully comprehend the English meaning that when I ask for “an example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein” I mean exactly that, I mean I want to see an actual example of Darwinian processes creating a new protein. I do not want you to point to one sequence and then point to another sequence and proclaim that one sequence evolved from the other. That, as I'm sure you are well aware, is called 'assuming your conclusion into your presupposition'. Sorry for any confusion and good luck on picking up English as a second language. As to your other claim about hybridization
Plants, Polyploidy, and Evolutionary Dead Ends Casey Luskin January 27, 2012 Excerpt: The notion that flowering plants can be crossed to produce polyploid hybrids is nothing new. It's long been known that polyploidy occurs commonly in flowering plants. But duplicating a chromosome doesn't necessarily produce new genetic information, and polyploidy plants generally have small small-scale differences from their haploid counterparts. As Jonathan Wells observes regarding this example: "There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants -- all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or 'polyploidy.' In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced without hybridization. Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy 'does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera' or higher levels in the biological hierarchy.2" Speciation by polyploidy does not produce new morphological characteristics,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/plants_polyploi055301.html#sthash.uPWk9ll4.dpuf
As well AVS, did you know that Dr. John Sanford, who invented the 'gene gun', and is/was one of the world's leading experts in plant breeding and trans-genetic crops, never recorded the origination of a single gene by Darwinian processes in all those years of research? In fact, Dr. John Sanford after all those years of research in plant breeding, wrote a book called 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome' in which he holds (since Darwinian processes cannot create new genetic information) that genetic information of life is slowly eroding:
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in video description) http://vimeo.com/35088933
Moreover AVS, did you know that Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, who is Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany, stated that:
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html
,,Moreover AVS, there is also the little problem of the entire foundation, which undergirds neo-Darwinism, which you are defending, now being shown to be false:
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212 Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology – Denis Nobel – July 2013 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzD1daWq4ng Here is the paper that accompanies the preceding video: Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences http://musicoflife.co.uk/
bornagain77
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Yeah, actually if you scroll up this page, the only science to be found is in things I have posted.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
AVS, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation? Guess not. Back under the bridge, troll.Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Hey Johnny, I figured it out. Your little confusion about the 10% brain usage myth is understandable as you actually do only use 10% of your brain, unlike the rest of us.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Interestingly, I found this quote from a review of Nagel's book: "Joan Roughgarden, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at the ­Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, agrees that evolutionary biologists can be nasty when crossed. "I mean, these guys are impervious to contrary evidence and alternative formulations," she says. "What we see in evolution is stasis—conceptual stasis, in my view—where people are ardently defending their formulations from the early 70s." (https://chronicle.com/article/Where-Thomas-Nagel-Went-Wrong/139129/)Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Give the kid a chance ... remember it took Dean Kenyon (coauthor of Biochemical Predestination) three years to detox completely from Darwinism ....Johnnyfarmer
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
I know you guys would like that so you can continue your circlejerk that ya got goin here but Im just having too much fun.AVS
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
AVS, let us know when you actually plan on leaving. You know, like you said you were going to do several posts ago.Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
AVS, Considering the subject of the OP, have you read Nagel's book?Mung
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply