Home » Intelligent Design » Glasgow Humanists Unable To Mount Successful Argument Against Behe

Glasgow Humanists Unable To Mount Successful Argument Against Behe

Michael Behe is currently on a speaking tour around the UK (tour website here), organised by the newly founded Centre for ID UK. Last night, I attended Behe’s Glasgow lecture. The evening was entitled “Darwin or Design – What Does the Science Really Say?” As is to be expected, Behe spoke both articulately and persuasively, developing a powerful cumulative positive case for design based on the nanotechnology which pervades life at the level of the cellular world. Behe is a very gifted speaker, especially when it comes to conveying his scientific ideas and concepts to an audience without a scientific background.

Representatives from the Scottish Humanist Society were also in attendance, and took the liberty to hand out anti-ID literature outside the venue. Nothing wrong with that, of course. ID has nothing to fear from people listening to both sides and critically evaluating the strength of the respective cases. Unfortunately, however, the literature was disappointing – it recycled, in large measure, material from the NCSE and from Wikipedia: hardly your most reliable sources of information when it comes to ID. Many of the objections presented therein were, in fact, addressed during the course of the presentation. Tellingly, when it came to the Q&A, the humanists were seemingly unable to articulate a reason why we ought to reject Behe’s arguments, and it was somewhat of an anticlimax.

Nonetheless, I thought that it might be worth posting a brief response to this literature here. One of the two pieces of literature which I picked up was a pamphlet headed “It isn’t Intelligent and it isn’t Design. ID is Bad Science – ID is BS”. When one turns the page, one is confronted with four headings, and I will discuss each in turn.

“What’s wrong with Intelligent Design?”

“Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific theory, and its premises are deeply flawed, scientifically and philosophically. ID makes no testable predictions. It is simply an argument by default, saying that because science has not yet fully explained the development of complex organisms, there must be a supernatural explanation. The Centre for Intelligent Design’s attempt to promote ID as science is profoundly misguided.

But ID does make testable predictions. But first it is important to be clear on what we are talking about when speaking of ID. The proposition of ID refers to the idea that we can infer, from evidence, that certain features of the world are best explained and understood in terms of intelligent causation. Defined thus, ID may be falsified by a demonstration that the explanatory filter for detecting design incorporates false positives. Behe argued last night that a complex and functionally specified arrangement of parts is a reliable indicator of design. As part of our everyday experience,  we make this judgement frequently. This is an easy proposition to test and to falsify. ID predicts that, if a feature is best explained as the product of purposeful intentionality, the feature will exhibit this property. ID, as it concerns living systems, also predicts that we will find large volumes of information – defined here as complex specified irregularity. This is precisely what is exhibited in the complexity and sequence-specificity of the nucleotide base pairs intrinsic to the molecules of DNA and RNA, and the amino acids which comprise proteins.

I would argue that it is also a prediction which is specific to ID that we should find higher levels of information in living systems – beyond that which is found in DNA. DNA encodes for proteins, but it does not alone determine how these proteins are organised into cell types, or how those cell types are differentiated into specific tissues and organs, or how these are ultimately arranged into body plans. For a thorough critique of the “transcription factors only” model of development, I highly recommend a 2002 paper by Adrian Bird in Genes and Development.

ID also predicts that the ratio of functional to non-functional amino-acid sequences with respect to forming a functional structural binding domain should be extremely low. This would represent a formidable challenge to the view that random mutations alone are sufficient to search the vast sea of sequential possibilities within reasonable time allocations. This prediction has been met (see, for instance, here and here).

One further ID-inspired prediction is the expectation that the non-coding regions of the genome (“junk DNA”) will turn out to exhibit function. This prediction is now fulfilled virtually on a daily basis (see, for instance, this video response to the “junk DNA” argument against ID made by Francis Collins).

Hopefully one can see that ID is not a ‘god-of-the-gaps’ type argument. It is founded on positive evidence and is based on a standard historical scientific methodology of inductive reasoning.

The humanist pamphlet continues,

“Scientific studies have explained a great deal about how life evolved, but much has still to be learned. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a senior fellow of The Discovery Institute, argues that some biological structures like the eukaryotic cell and the bacterial flagellum are too complex to have evolved by stages. But this is not true, since such intermediate stages are actually found in many organisms. Behe is following in the footsteps of the 19th century theologian William Paley who famously said, ‘It’s too difficult; god must have done it.’

The writer appears to be conveying that this is a direct quotation from William Paley (as opposed to a caricature of his argument). However, no citation is given for this, and I have not been able to locate the quotation in any other source. If I am mistaken, perhaps someone would be kind enough to post the reference in the comments box on this blog.

Darwinist arguments regarding supposed intermediate structures (such as the Type-III Secretion System in the case of the flagellar apparatus)  have been responded to so thoroughly and so many times, and it is not worth responding further here. Readers who are interested in pursuing further information with regards this claim may do so by reading this peer-reviewed paper by Meyer and Minnich. Suffice it to say that a demonstration of homology or a progression of forms is not, in and of itself, a causal explanation. The phylogenetic evidence is also suggestive that the T3SS is an evolutionary biproduct of the flagellar system, rather than the other way round (see, for instance, here).

If flagellum biosynthesis were to be expressed simultaneously with the Yop T3SS, flagellin monomers would likely be exported out the needle-like structure as well as the flagellar basal body, potentially limiting the efficiency of both systems. The potential for cross-recognition between Type IIIexported proteins in the same cell explains why the segregation of these systems by specific environmental cues is necessary. Expression of a flagellum under host conditions would result in a loss of polarised secretion of Yop proteins into the cells of the host. Flagellin is also a potent cytokine inducer – display of flagellin to the macrophages by direction injection via the Ysc secretin would strongly countermand the Yersinia’s anti-inflammatory strategy.

“Why is science so important?”

“Science constantly strives to explain the world around us by formulating hypotheses, and testing by observation. This produces evidence to explain how the world came to be as it is. Peer review ensures that only the best theory survives, until a better one comes along. Michael Behe has never submitted his theories to peer review, and he has no supporters among scientists. Behe’s own department at Lehigh University officially opposes his views and the theory of intelligent design.”

This paragraph is in error on several counts. First, Michael Behe has submitted his theories for peer review. His first book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996) was peer reviewed. Behe also contributed a chapter to Darwin, Design and Public Education and Debating Design – which are both peer-reviewed books.  He has also published a pro-ID paper in Protein Science [M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.]. For another peer-reviewed paper authored by Behe, supportive of ID [Behe, M.J., Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 67:155-162 (March 2000)], see here. For a non-exhaustive listing of other peer-reviewed papers, books and publications, see here and here.

Second, it is simply false to state that Behe has no supporters among scientists. See, for example, the Dissent from Darwin list of PhD-holding signatories.

The pamphlet subsequently goes on to quote from Judge Jones III’s Dover ruling, in which he stated that ID “presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resources, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.”

Quite aside from the fact that Jones’ ruling at Dover was baseless and founded on erroneous facts, it is not the place of a district judge to make pronouncements on questions related to the philosophy of science – in this case, the problem of demarcation. ID is entirely a scientific agenda. While it may have metaphysical – even theological implications – the theory does not require theological premises. To claim that potential theological implications make it a religious concept leads one into absurdity. Such would render the Big Bang cosmology (which has positive theological implications) also a religious view. It would also render Darwinism (which potentially has positive anti-theological implications) a religious view. Scientific theories ought to be evaluated and justified on the basis of their own merits, not on the basis of unwelcome metaphysical implications.

The pamphlet subsequently conveys an illustration of the vertebrate eye, with the following caption:

“Bad Design: In the human eye, the wiring (the nerves) are in the wrong place, in front of the light detection screen (the retina), which also creates a blind spot. (Thanks to evolution, our brain processes the images from both eyes to compensate, and ‘fill in’ the blind spots.”

This argument has been made, and responded to, so many times,that it is a wonder it is still made in such a casual fashion. However, recently identified functional reasons for this design challenge the old Darwinian claim. Biologist George Ayoub has shown, for example, that the vertebrate retina provides an excellent example of what engineers call a constrained optimisation, in which several competing design objectives are elegantly balanced to achieve an optimal overall design.

Light at various wavelengths is capable of inducing degenerative effects on biological machinery. The retina is clearly designed with the inbuilt purpose of withstanding the toxic and heating effects of light. The eye is well equipped to protect the retina against radiation from the outside world. Besides the almost complete exclusion of ultraviolate radiation by the cornea and the lens together, the retina also serves a crucial role in protection against such damage — for example, producing substances with combat the damaging chemical by-products of light radiation.

The photoreceptors, therefore, need to be in direct contact with the retinal pigment epithelium, which plays an essential part in sustaining them. The retinal pigment epithelium, in turn, requires to be in direct contact with the choroids. Both of these are required in order to satisfy the nutritional requirements and thus prevent overheating the retina from focused light (as a consequence of the heat sink effect of bloodflow).

If, conversely, the human retina were ‘wired’ the other way, these two opaque layers would need to be interposed in the path of light to the photoreceptors , which really would be bad design!

“Who’s behind Intelligent Design?”

The pamphlet goes on to quote from the Wedge Document, alleging that the Discovery Institute’s stated goal is nothing less than “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” It further notes that “Its goals are to see ID theory as the dominant perspective in science, and to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.”

This is somewhat rich coming from the Humanist Society Scotland, the website of whom is saturated with atheistic and anti-religious material. There’s nothing wrong with being critical of Christian theism, or even ID. But to claim that the motivations of a movement which propagates a theory disprove the said proposition is simply predicated on a fallacy – and also cuts both ways. ID – and indeed Darwinism – must stand or fall on the basis of its scientific merits – not on the basis of the religious views of its proponents.

“What is the Centre for Intelligent Design?”

The last section also argues from guilt-by-association, pointing out that the C4ID’s president, Norman Nevin, is openly a young-earth creationist. I am personally not a young-earth creationist. But ID is not chiefly concerned with the age of the earth. It is more primarily concerned with the detectability of the products of design. The ID community encompasses individuals with religious faith and those with none – from young-earth creationists (such as Nelson, Nevin and Woodward) to those who go so far as to accept common ancestry (such as Behe).

“10 + 1 Questions for Professor Behe”

The humanists also distributed an A4 page headed, 10 + 1 Questions for Professor Behe. Most of the issues raised have already been addressed here. One point which is worth responding to, however, is the quotation from Behe’s witness at Dover. Question 6 asks “Does Behe still concede, as he did under oath in 2005 that ‘there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred?’ If not, why not?”

An assertion that there are no peer-reviewed papers arguing, or claiming to document, how the design took place (that is, was implemented) is not to say that there are no peer-reviewed papers arguing either against Darwinism or supporting ID. A theory of design detection is quite different from a theory of design implementation. However, five years after Dover, this statement is no longer correct. Some models have been proposed with regards the mechanism of ID (see, for example, Michael Sherman’s 2007 paper in the journal, Cell Cycle).

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have to confess to a certain degree of surprise that the arguments were so weak. Given Richard Dawkins’ mantra that anyone who claims not to believe in evolution is ignorant, stupid or insane, one would expect some really quite strong evidence to be offered in support of the said proposition. However, when pressed on what this evidence actually is, it is always a tremendous anti-climax. When one looks at the desparate measures to which the humanists are made to resort, one may have a heightened confidence in the strength of the arguments put forward by the ID community.

Darwinism is in BIG trouble.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

34 Responses to Glasgow Humanists Unable To Mount Successful Argument Against Behe

  1. JM, ]

    This is just an excellent post, with some nice links to outside data (i.e. the Genes and Development paper).

    Thanks…and Congrats!

  2. JM I agree with UB, very nice links:

    Semi OT, I’ve just uploaded a short clip from a Paul Nelson lecture:

    Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead – Paul Nelson – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/

    Entire lecture:

    Understanding Intelligent Design by Paul Nelson
    http://www.nwcreation.net/

  3. Just sad. How many times have these pitiful objections from anti-IDers been refuted over the years? It goes to show that people with vehement irreligious biases aren’t willing to even honestly consider a theory which conflicts with their preferred ideology. They’d just rather fell straw-man after straw-man without bothering with what IDers are actually saying. And then they go to great lengths in their free time to try to persuade everyone else that life is meaningingless. If that’s what you truly believe–why not just let everyone believe what they want? Nothing really matters…the Universe will be cold and dead in a matter of years anyway.

    It rings of inconsistancy.

  4. Thanks, guys.

    I guess one could also argue that a further prediction of ID is the disparity-preceding-diversity (top-down) pattern in the fossil record.

    Given the nature of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, one would predict that small-scale differences or “diversity” between species should precede the emergence of morphological disparity between distinct phyla or ‘body plans’. Indeed, because the mutation/selection mechanism operates cumulatively and gradually, the novel body plans that define the different phyla must arise from numerous lower-level speciation events. Neo-Darwinism thus predicts a cone of increasing diversity in which large-scale morphological disparity results from the cumulative effects of many small-scale speciation events.

    The actual pattern, needless to say, flatly contradicts this prediction, and is more consistent with the concept of ID. The fossil record shows a ‘top-down’ pattern in which morphological disparity between the basic phyla morphologies arise suddenly (at the beginning of the Cambrian period), and only later does one observe the diversification of classes, orders, families, genera, species, etc.

  5. I was also at the lecture in Glasgow last night and thoroughly enjoyed it.

    I agree with everything you said in your assessment of both Behe and the humanists.

    I thought Behe’s argument was powerful, coherent and cogent. The humanists did nothing to show otherwise. Their 10+1 questions were mostly terrible and Behe handled them superbly. Most of their questions were subtle ad hominem attacks and the one question that they did ask about why Behe keeps referring to the flagellum, Behe dealt with easily. I was actually a bit disappointed that they didn’t give more chance for interaction and debate between Behe and the humanists if for no other reason than to show the Christians there how poor the 10+1 questions actually were.

    I did enjoy when they asked the question about Hitler. For those who weren’t present the question was along the lines of, one of the DVDs you are promoting has a Christian on it saying that Hitler read Origin of the Species and that is why he committed all the atrocities he did. Firstly Behe did a superb job in answering the challenge. Secondly when Behe answered that Hitler probably had read the Origin of the Species, the humanist shouted out and the Bible. Obviously the humanist didn’t realise that if you cannot attribute Hitler’s actions to one book, you cannot attribute it to another!

  6. One other thought I just remembered. It seems to me that the arguments that they were making against ID were against a straw man. It came across to me that their arguments were against a misunderstanding of ID.

    Behe’s argument had key points that if they could be disproven would have caused problems but the questions that were raised missed the point completely.

  7. JM, since natural selection will remove information with each new ‘sub-speciation’ from the original parent species,,,

    EXPELLED – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED

    Natural Selection and Mutations Reduce Genetic Information – Lee Spetner – Michael Denton – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816

    ,,,, and since ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ will take longer to build up in genomes and for their effect to be noticed in the fossil record,,,

    Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

    ,,, then the pattern we should expect to see for each parent species should be a tear drop shape,, i.e. we should see fairly rapid diversity at the base, with a fairly long term of stability after that, and then, since material processes cannot create information (Abel, Dembski, Marks), we should see a long slow loss of variety within species as well as loss of the most ‘extreme sub-speciations’ first and gradually a working in to the most ancient ‘optimal’ parent genomes.

    further notes:

    “The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion.”
    Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46

    Further facts that conform to the principle of ‘genetic entropy’:

    “According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet.”(body sizes tend to get smaller over time rather than larger)
    Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97

    “Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times.”
    Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19

    “Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history.”
    Science Daily, 8/8/07

    In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a ‘scientific law’:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
    Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
    http://www.pnas.org/?content/?.....l.pdf+html

    A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes
    ABSTRACT: Dollo’s law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or “lost” developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;
    http://www.pnas.org/?content/?.....l.pdf+html

    Dollo’s Law was further verified to the molecular level here:

    Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo’s law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, “The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future.

    One of the best examples for genetic entropy being obeyed in the fossil record is found with trilobite fossils:

    Trilobites are one of the most prolific ‘kinds’ found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the ‘simple’ creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record. In fact the 270 million year span of fossil evidence points to sudden appearance, rapid diversity, long term stability and then slow deterioration of variety until extinction. Thus conforming exactly to the principle of ‘top down’ Genetic Entropy and directly contradicting neo-Darwinism:

    The Cambrian’s Many Forms
    Excerpt: “It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.”"From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,”….(Yet Surprisingly)….”There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the “surprising and unexplained” loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
    http://www.terradaily.com/?rep.....s_999.html

    If the abrupt appearance for all the completely different and unique phyla in the Cambrian was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction.

    “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go
    through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.”
    Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco

    I like this following article for it highlights the principle of Genetic Entropy, i.e. loss of variety:

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    The evolutionary theory would have us believe that we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time:

    Origin of Phyla – The Fossil Evidence – Timeline Graphs
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....#038;hl=en

    Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – The Cambrian Explosion – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263

    Don Patton – Entropy, Information, and The ‘Deteriorating’ Fossil Record
    http://www.vimeo.com/17050184

  8. JM, since natural selection will remove information with each new ‘sub-speciation’ from the original parent species,,,

    EXPELLED – Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED

    Natural Selection and Mutations Reduce Genetic Information – Lee Spetner – Michael Denton – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816

    ,,,, and since ‘slightly detrimental mutations’ will take longer to build up in genomes and for their effect to be noticed in the fossil record,,,

    Evolution vs. Genetic Entropy – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086

    ,,, then the pattern we should expect to see for each parent species should be a tear drop shape,, i.e. we should see fairly rapid diversity at the base, with a fairly long term of stability after that, and then, since material processes cannot create information (Abel, Dembski, Marks), we should see a long slow loss of variety within species as well as loss of the most ‘extreme sub-speciations’ first and gradually a working in to the most ancient ‘optimal’ parent genomes.

    further notes:

    “The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion.”
    Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46

    Further facts that conform to the principle of ‘genetic entropy’:

    “According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet.”(body sizes tend to get smaller over time rather than larger)
    Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97

    “Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times.”
    Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19

    “Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history.”
    Science Daily, 8/8/07

    In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a ‘scientific law’:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes:
    Excerpt: “As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo’s law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible.”
    http://www.pnas.org/?content/?.....l.pdf+html

    A general rule of thumb for the ‘Deterioration/Genetic Entropy’ of Dollo’s Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:

    Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes
    ABSTRACT: Dollo’s law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or “lost” developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;
    http://www.pnas.org/?content/?.....l.pdf+html

    Dollo’s Law was further verified to the molecular level here:

    Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution – Michael Behe
    Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo’s law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, “The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future.

    One of the best examples for genetic entropy being obeyed in the fossil record is found with trilobite fossils:

    Trilobites are one of the most prolific ‘kinds’ found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the ‘simple’ creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record. In fact the 270 million year span of fossil evidence points to sudden appearance, rapid diversity, long term stability and then slow deterioration of variety until extinction. Thus conforming exactly to the principle of ‘top down’ Genetic Entropy and directly contradicting neo-Darwinism:

    The Cambrian’s Many Forms
    Excerpt: “It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.”"From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,”….(Yet Surprisingly)….”There’s hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian,” he said. “Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn’t vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites.” University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the “surprising and unexplained” loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
    http://www.terradaily.com/?rep.....s_999.html

    If the abrupt appearance for all the completely different and unique phyla in the Cambrian was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction.

    “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people’s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go
    through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.”
    Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco

    I like this following article for it highlights the principle of Genetic Entropy, i.e. loss of variety:

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology

    The evolutionary theory would have us believe that we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time:

    Origin of Phyla – The Fossil Evidence – Timeline Graphs
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....#038;hl=en

    Deepening Darwin’s Dilemma – Jonathan Wells – The Cambrian Explosion – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4154263

    Don Patton – Entropy, Information, and The ‘Deteriorating’ Fossil Record
    http://www.vimeo.com/17050184

  9. As you conclude in the article the oft-quoted Dawkins line – “ignorant, stupid or insane” – then would I be impertinent to ask whether or not these Glawegians are not also being “wicked” (the other aspect of Dawkin’s assessment) in not ‘fessing up about their own weak arguments? Unless they are ignorant, stupid or insane, and I truthfully doubt that, the evidence is certainly pointing to a more ‘wicked’ reason they are there.

    Let them bring it on and let them continue to be rebuffed by science.

  10. From the original post:

    “First, Michael Behe has submitted his theories for peer review. His first book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996) was peer reviewed.”

    Can you please describe the manner in which Behe’s book was peer reviewed and compare it to the peer review process as it is generally applied in the realm of scientific journals?

  11. G’day Muramasa,

    To quote Behe:

    “Q (Plaintiffs’ attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?

    A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.
    Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that’s going to — that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.

    Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.

    Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?

    A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.

    Critics, like yourself, are obviously claiming that Behe’s book can’t be compared to journal peer review. I personally found the content convincing and, as you would have to admit, Big Science does not like contadictory accounts being ‘out there’ for criticism and would naturally want to shut it down.

  12. Later in the same Q-and-A section of the Dover trial, a text of Dr. Michael Atchison is quoted. Atchison was identified by Dr. Behe as one of the five peer reviewers. Atchison describes his involvement in his article Mustard Seeds (a text where he stresses the importance “for us to share our faith and to identify ourselves as Christians”)

    The editor shared his concerns with his wife. His wife was a student in my class. She advised her husband to give me a call. So, unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately 10 minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up and I never thought about it again. At least until two years later.

    I had never seen the manuscript.…? Indeed, this can’t be compared to journal peer review.

  13. AussieID – Of the 5 peer reviewers, 4 have come out with statements that contradict Behe.

    I’ll quote from Wikipedia. I know it’s not popular around here, but it does give links to the statements, so I think they can be taken as factually correct:

    Michael Atchison
    Atchison has stated that he did not review the book at all, but spent 10 minutes on the phone receiving a brief overview of the book which he then endorsed without ever seeing the text.[18]
    Robert Shapiro
    Shapiro has said that he reviewed the book, and while he agreed with some of its analysis of origin-of-life research, he thought its conclusions are false, though the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.[19] Had the book been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and this comment had appeared, the review provided by Shapiro would have forced the conclusions regarding intelligent design to be changed or removed.[19]
    K. John Morrow
    Morrow criticized the book as appalling and unsupported, which contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.[20]
    Russell Doolittle
    Doolittle, upon whom Behe based much of his discussion of blood clotting, described it as misrepresenting many important points and disingenuous,[21] which also contributed to the original publisher turning down the book for publication.[22]

    It’s clear the book wasn’t reviewed in the same way a journal article would be: if it had been, one reviewer would have been ignored, two recommended rejection, and the fourth would have wanted major changes before publication.

    BTW, the Michael Atchison situation is described in the same transcript where you got your Behe quote from: it’s a bit later on.

  14. It’s interesting that the subject of “Peer Reviewed” comes up when another terminology would be more appropriate in describing the actual outcomes.

    How about “Peer Approved” ??? Does this not more accurately describe what actually takes place and goes on behind closed doors ???

  15. Jonathan M,

    Excellent post. UD needs more posts like yours.

  16. AussieID:

    Thank you for providing the text from the Dover Trial transcripts. It would appear that you stopped quoting a bit too soon to get the broader view of how the peer review process was carried out.

    Specifically, Dr. Michael Atchison was identified as one of the reviewers. Dr. Atchison described his role thusly (“She” in the text refers to the wife of Behe’s publisher):

    “She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.
    I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later.”

    You and the author of the OP have claimed that the peer review process for Behe’s book was comparable to that of a scentific journal research article. Is it your contention that 20% of journal reviewers never read the submitted article?

  17. Muramasa, perhaps you know of blatant misrepresentations and falsehoods in Behe’s book, do you care to share??? or perhaps you would like to be more current in your critique of Behe’s books and show exactly where is the experimental work that falsifies Dr. Behe’s 2 protein/protein binding site limit that he set in “The Edge Of Evolution’?

  18. Maramasa,

    When you are done defending the orthodoxy, please tackle the content. The world is still waiting for an appropriate response.

    You know…like the ones that are rubber stamped in the review processes.

  19. BA and Upright;

    One of the claims in the post was that Behe’s book was peer reviewed. Muramasa demonstrated that this is a misleading claim given that one of the so called peer reviewers had only a 10 minute telephone conversation with the editor and never read the manuscript.

    This is an important and relevant point. Why would an author make a claim for peer review that does not stand up? Your only response is to ignore this point and attempt to move the discussion on to something other than the issue Muramasa was raising.

  20. zeroseven, as I have seen evolutionists get all sorts of garbage past peer-review, I am not the one to be discussing the merits of peer-review with, but as, from seeing first hand hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed papers loaded with spin, I have learned to focus primarily on the experimental results of peer-reviewed papers and ignore the gross spin that is given to the evidence, especially when it is ‘surprising’ evidence from the Darwinian perspective. Which is exactly why I brought Maramasa’s, and now your, attention to the main point of contention. i.e. please cite the experimental work that refutes Dr. Behe’s limit of 2 protein/protein binding sites or else concede that the empirical evidence, as it now sits, fully supports Behe’ position! This is science is it not? Thus please desist from undo rhetoric and focus on the evidence.

  21. My intent was not to refute Behe’s biochemical claims.

    I was specifically addressing the claim that Behe’s book was peer reviewed in the same way as a scientific journal submission. It clearly was not.

    Heinrich and DiEb make similar points (as an aside, there must have been some delays in their comments appearing, as I did not see them when I made my reply).

    bornagain77 makes an interesting attack on the peer review process. The ID movement cannot have it both ways. Either work within the currently accepted framework or quit trying to make spurious claims about “peer reviewed” works.

  22. Muramasa you state:

    ‘My intent was not to refute Behe’s biochemical claims.’

    Then do you accept the severe limit that empirical evidence dictates exist for evolution?,,

    Evolutionists can’t have it both ways, they cannot claim to have ‘science’ backing them up, all the while ignoring what ‘science’ is telling them. ,,, Once again, evidence trumps all else in science,, ESPECIALLY POLITICS!!!!

  23. So, bornagain77:

    True or False: Michael Behe’s book was subject to the same peer review process as a paper submitted to a scientific journal.

    And please just answer True or False.

  24. Muramasa, I don’t know and don’t care, all I care about is if you want to challenge the specific claim of ‘The Edge Of Evolution’. That is all that matters as far as ‘true’ science is concerned!

  25. Very good, your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

  26. Muramasa you state

    “Very good, your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.”

    Is that really ‘all you need to know’??? Does not correctly discerning the question of whether you were the product of intelligence or whether you were the product of blind material processes concern you in this discussion? I should think that that particular question would matter much more to you than any particular politics of peer-review!! So much so that you would have a burning relentless hunger to ‘know’ more? Please tell me exactly why the ‘politics’ of peer-review should matter more to you than to ‘know’ more of the actual evidence at hand of whether you were created or not?

    notes:

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’’ (Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4165203

    Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs.
    http://www.detectingtruth.com/?p=66

    Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681

    Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

    Totally unique genes found in humans:
    Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358505
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-358547

    Kangaroo genes close to humans
    Excerpt: Australia’s kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, “There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,” ,,,”We thought they’d be completely scrambled, but they’re not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,”
    http://www.reuters.com/article.....P020081118

  27. further notes:

    Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design – Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
    Excerpt: “Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens.”

    I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:

    HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
    http://www.biobase-internation.....mddatabase

    This following video gives a glimpse of this ‘higher level’ body plan information in action:

    Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713

    The Human Body – You Are Amazing – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5246456

    Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5289335/

    Human Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5516446/

    In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig

    Scientists Map All Mammalian Gene Interactions – August 2010
    Excerpt: Mammals, including humans, have roughly 20,000 different genes.,,, They found a network of more than 7 million interactions encompassing essentially every one of the genes in the mammalian genome.

    Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....Zmd2emZncQ

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  28. I’ll say this one more time, though it may be pointless.

    I am not making any assessment of Behe’s claims. I am not a biochemist and not qualified to offer a critique. As an aside, there are many scientists who are qualified to offer critiques and have done so. Granted, the the likely response from the ID community is that they are part of the Darwinist plan to suppress dissent for whatever nefarious reasons.

    The original poster made a clear claim that Behe’s book underwent a peer review process equivalent to that of a scientific journal article. I asked for clarification, and a poster cited part of the Dover transcripts to substantiate this claim. I offered a rebuttal, at which point the peer review claim was cast aside. bornagain77 and Upright BiPed chose to ask me about an entirely separate topic.

    And why all the talk about how concerned I should be about whether I was “created”? How is that relevant to an allegedly scientific discussion?

  29. Murasama you ask:

    ‘And why all the talk about how concerned I should be about whether I was “created”? How is that relevant to an allegedly scientific discussion?’

    That is exactly the ‘science’ under discussion. i.e. Behe’s whole main point of contention is that blind material processes are woefully inadequate to produce the staggering levels of complexity that we find in the simplest of life, much less us, thus it is directly relevant!!! But perhaps you would just prefer to believe some exalted ‘experts’ opinion that happens to agree with your own opinion rather than to weigh this matter out for yourself??? Myself, I find the importance of the issue, not to mention the staggering implications for myself, to be far too valuable to trust to any so called experts who just may happen to agree with me, but indeed I search these matters out as diligently as my limited ability will allow.

  30. G’day Muramasa,

    It’s been interesting to read the previous postings. I wasn’t aware there was further conversation about the points raised in the Q&A section. Where I found the quotes it finished where I finished. Thanks for enlightening me of the Rothchild/Behe exchange.

    As you noted, “It would appear that you stopped quoting a bit too soon to get the broader view of how the peer review process was carried out.” I’ll be less time-pressed this time, and I read further on that:

    “Q. And is this your understanding of the kind of peer review Dr. Atchison did of your book?

    A. No, it wasn’t. I thought he had received a copy of the manuscript and went through it. So — but — so, yes, I was under a different impression … My understanding is different from what is given in this account.”

    If there is fault to be found it seems the editor did not fully exercise their duty. To continue:

    “Q. And you did see some comments from some of your other reviewers, is that right?

    A. That’s correct.

    Q. And they confirmed that you hadn’t made any errors in the biochemistry, correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. You were describing the bacterial flagellum correctly, its function, its appearance?

    A. Yes.

    Q. But they were reluctant or disagreed about intelligent design, correct?

    A. Several were, yes, uh-huh.”

    From my understanding of the reading the science is correct but the interpretation, as thought by the evolutionist “peer-reviewers” (and, yes, I say that lightly) was not what they would … allow.

    The book, if a paper, may not have been able to make it through the restraining evolutionarily-based peer-review confines. As this site so often shows, the ability to challenge the evolutionary establishment is often thwarted and this is not because of the science but of the foundational beliefs of the gate- keepers. That there are other papers that have been unable to be published because they criticise current evolutionary thinking is obvious. Is it the science or is it the process, though, that should be questioned?

    It is obvious that the questions about Behe were raised in the court because peer review is the wall that should not be breached yet he had been able to ‘circumvent’ the official channel by actually just publishing his ideas. How preposterous!

    Was On The Origin of Species peer reviewed? I found an interesting quote about Darwin: “He decided he did not want to expose his ideas to review by an editor as would have been required to publish in an academic journal.”

    Hmmm.

  31. 31

    Aussie ID you make some important key comments about the peer review system and how it operates today.

    It would seem that the system of peer review is corrupt in the both the fields of evolutionary biology and climate change. It would appear that condescension to the reigning paradigm is a pre-requisite to getting past first base in any peer review assessment in these areas of research. Papers can only be reviewed and accepted by true believers.

    It is fascinating that “Origin of Species” was never peer reviewed!

    Obviously the peer review system is contaminated by the politics of making sure that the paradigm controlling research funding survives. Discrimination is alive and well even in searching for truth as science and the advancement of science is all about.

    (Btw as an Aussie obviously I’m biased vis a vis your comments)!

  32. “I’ll say this one more time, though it may be pointless.”

    Your intent was clear from the start, as was the selective skepticism. Addressing the content of Behe’s claim IS the issue. It is the only issue that matters. Behe stands unrefuted. What is left is to bitch about the peer-review process, or insult him with a disclaimer on his Department’s website, or go for the ultimate in scientific rebuttals and simply suggest he is “lying for Jesus”.

    Yet his claim stands.

    - – - – - –

    Aussie, thank you for your comments.

  33. 33

    @Aussieid,From my understanding of the reading the science is correct but the interpretation, as thought by the evolutionist “peer-reviewers” (and, yes, I say that lightly) was not what they would … allow.

    The book, if a paper, may not have been able to make it through the restraining evolutionarily-based peer-review confines. As this site so often shows, the ability to challenge the evolutionary establishment is often thwarted and this is not because of the science but of the foundational beliefs of the gate- keepers.” –Aussie

    Wow, you hit it out of the ball park with that one.

    That is exactly the point every evolutionist is dancing around and they know it right well or they feel it somewhere in their hearts.

    They know they are being hateful and dishonest. “Decietful handlers of the word”. The peer review system is corrupt, that is the name of the game.

    The reviewers spend their time, or should I say, go directly to the end and look at the interpretation rather than the science and review the interpretation rather than the science. The science could be top notch, impeccable, yet the conclusion “appalling”. What rot! What a stinking pile of corruption!

    It reminds me of an experience I had in school. I found a rare book written by an author who was unknown to a fellow student, whose opinion I desired on the subject matter; And the first thing the person wanted to know in order to evaluate the soundness of the information was ,” who wrote it?”. I refused to answer that before he gave me his honest opinion because I wanted him to judge it on the basis of the reasonableness of the statment alone, but he refused.

    Keep up the good work. Just discussing it and letting the daylight and fresh air into the room kills the germs. These people are atheist secularists first and don’t want to admit the implications of that!

    Thank you all.

  34. @Aussieid,From my understanding of the reading the science is correct but the interpretation, as thought by the evolutionist “peer-reviewers” (and, yes, I say that lightly) was not what they would … allow.

    That’s not the impression I get from Doolittle’s comments. He was asked about the blood clotting part of the book (i.e. his area of expertise) and was not impressed. He’s quite clear that Behe was wrong about the science of blood clotting, and its evolution.

Leave a Reply