The common sense law of physics

_{Granville Sewell

July 29, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

I was discussing the second law argument with a scientist friend the other day, and mentioned that the second law is sometimes called the “common sense law of physics”. This morning he wrote:

Yesterday I spoke with my wife about these questions. She immediately grasped that chaos results on the long term when she would stop caring for her home.

I replied:

Tell your wife she has made a perfectly valid application of the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, let’s take her application a bit further.

Suppose you and your wife go for vacation, leaving a dog, cat and a parakeet loose in the house (I put the animals there to cause the entropy to increase more rapidly, otherwise you might have to take a much longer vacation to see the same effect). When you come back, you will not be surprised to see chaos in the house. But tell her some scientists say, “but if you leave the door open while on vacation, your house becomes an open system, and the second law does not apply to open systems…you may find everything in better condition than when you left.”

I’ll bet she will say, if a maid enters through the door and cleans the house, maybe, but if all that enters is wind, rain and other animals, probably not.

This is an application of the main point in chapter 5 of my new book : “If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering that makes it NOT extremely improbable.”

For a slightly more technical version of this story, complete with a mathematical analysis of the equations for entropy change, see my video .

(For those who don’t watch the video, or give up on it before the end, and thus don’t understand what this story has to do with evolution, I should include the punch line):

If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here. But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.

Comments

Vivid,
However my point, which you made for me, is that you cannot scientifically state “If the first complex physical organism was created by another complex physical organism, then it couldn’t actually have been the first complex physical organism after all, could it?” This is a statement that is not the result of any scientific experiment.
This is a statement that true by virtue of the meaning of the word "first". I hope we do not start doubting the meaning of every word. All I mean is that if X is the first complex organism, then no other complex organism could by definition have existed prior to P. And so once again we see that as far as our uniform and repeated experience goes (which is what Meyer explicity appeals to!) there are no intelligent agents who could have created the first complex organisms. What Meyer and ID folks in general are positing is something quite outside of our experience, which is something with some sort of mind (according to Meyer it would be a conscious mind) and which has the ability to do the sorts of things that human beings can do (viz. design and build complex mechanisms) without the benefit of a complex physical brain or body. Maybe such a thing could exist, and maybe not, but there are certainly no such things in our unform repeated experience.aiguy_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

FYI if you prefer you can replace "scientific experiment" with "uniform and repeated experience" Vividvividbleau_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

"My point is that ID theorists such as Stephen Meyer claim that our repeated and uniform experience includes a cause that can account for the origin of biological FSCI, but this is not the case. So it is not about experiments, but rather it is about our uniform and repeated experience." I know what your point is and as I said as you framed it it is pretty airtight. However my point, which you made for me, is that you cannot scientifically state “If the first complex physical organism was created by another complex physical organism, then it couldn’t actually have been the first complex physical organism after all, could it?” This is a statement that is not the result of any scientific experiment. Also neither is this claim "My point is that ID theorists such as Stephen Meyer claim that our repeated and uniform experience includes a cause that can account for the origin of biological FSCI, but this is not the case" You do not know that this is not the case by any scientific experiment. See #65. Vividvividbleau_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Vivid,
And that is my point. You do not know this from a scientific experiment you know this by invoking reason, specifically the LNC.
My point is that ID theorists such as Stephen Meyer claim that our repeated and uniform experience includes a cause that can account for the origin of biological FSCI, but this is not the case. So it is not about experiments, but rather it is about our uniform and repeated experience.aiguy_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

above,
Well in the same spirit you should also say that: “If materialistic darwinists did not insist that theirs was a scientific rather than a philosophical view, I would have nothing to discuss here” If that’s your measuring stick for scientific demarcation then we need to be fair.
I'm not talking about "Darwinists" - materialistic or not. I'm talking about ID theory. I don't really understand what "Darwinism" has to do with "materialism", but that is another discussion entirely, and I'd like to stick to one topic here.
AIGUY: “ We have countless observations of complex organisms creating FSCI, but we have no observations of anything else creating FSCI” ABOVE: Maybe you’re not aware of it when you do it but the above statement is exactly what I am referring to when I speak of materialistic presuppositions. Simply put, the concept of intelligence (the ‘I’ in the ID) is replaced with ‘complex [physical] organism’. That is false equivocation.
I really think you are misconstruing my remarks pretty dramatically. I am not equating "intelligence" with "complex physical organism" at all, and none of my comments suggest otherwise. Rather, I am saying while it would be imaginable for something which is not a complex physical organism to be intelligent, there is no such thing in our uniform repeated experience. So no matter how hard you try, you cannot dismiss my argument by saying it rests on materialistic presuppositions - it does not.
Furthermore, it’s semantics we are now getting into and the way you phrase your statement begs the materialistic question. Like I said before, you try to subsume intelligence under materialism in a typical reductionist manner and finally get to the statement ‘complex [physical] organism’. I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
I don't know how else to make my point to you either, but I trust the fair reader will see that I make no assumptions about ontology in my argument. Let's say I reject materialism and believe instead that the mind is ontologically distinct, irreducible, and causal, and that human beings have immortal souls. That doesn't change my argument here one iota: It would still be the case that in our repeated and uniform experience, every single thing which we would call "intelligent" would also be a complex physical organism (a human being or other living thing).
Under dualism humans are not JUST complex physical entities and that in fact changes everything. That’s the difference and that is why materialism needs to be presupposed in order for your objection to stand.
Sorry, but you just could not be more confused on this point. Of course under dualism humans are not just complex physical entities, but that does not change the fact that they are indeed complex physical entities!!! Under dualism, we have dual natures - one is our material body and one is our immaterial mind. That means that we are spiritual entities AND ALSO material entities! Not just one or the other. Now, one more time: There is nothing in our experience that exhibits intelligence except things which are (whatever else may be true of them) complex physical entities! Even if they have immaterial minds or immortal souls, that does not mean they do not ALSO have complex physical bodies! You may imagine that something could remain conscious and intelligent without any sort of body, but (except for paranormal research) these sorts of entities are outside of our uniform and repeated experience. (And if you'd like to rely on paranormal research to salvage your position, you need to make that explicit).
...So even if I agree with you for the sake of argument it seems like you are now in a dilemma. You either acknowledge that logical inference is a reality and a necessity for the scientific enterprise or reject any claims evolution makes that depend on the unobservable past, which themselves are not inferred or are extrapolated postulates.
I am in delimma whatsoever. Who ever said I would defend evolutionary theory?aiguy_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

"If the first complex physical organism was created by another complex physical organism, then it couldn’t actually have been the first complex physical organism after all, could it?" And that is my point. You do not know this from a scientific experiment you know this by invoking reason, specifically the LNC. Vividvividbleau_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

vivid,
AIGUY: “obviously the first complex physical organism could not have been created by another complex physical organism…” VIVID: Why is this so obvious?
If the first complex physical organism was created by another complex physical organism, then it couldn't actually have been the first complex physical organism after all, could it?aiguy_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

RE 60 "obviously the first complex physical organism could not have been created by another complex physical organism..." Why is this so obvious? Vividvividbleau_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

-“If ID Theorists did not insist that theirs was a scientific rather than a theological view, I would have nothing to discuss here.” Well in the same spirit you should also say that: “If materialistic darwinists did not insist that theirs was a scientific rather than a philosophical view, I would have nothing to discuss here” If that’s your measuring stick for scientific demarcation then we need to be fair. -“ We have countless observations of complex organisms creating FSCI, but we have no observations of anything else creating FSCI” Maybe you’re not aware of it when you do it but the above statement is exactly what I am referring to when I speak of materialistic presuppositions. Simply put, the concept of intelligence (the ‘I’ in the ID) is replaced with ‘complex [physical] organism’. That is false equivocation. Furthermore, it’s semantics we are now getting into and the way you phrase your statement begs the materialistic question. Like I said before, you try to subsume intelligence under materialism in a typical reductionist manner and finally get to the statement ‘complex [physical] organism’. I don’t know how else to explain it to you. -“ Even if dualism was true, that does not change the fact that we cannot observe anything but complex physical entities creating FSCI” Under dualism humans are not JUST complex physical entities and that in fact changes everything. That’s the difference and that is why materialism needs to be presupposed in order for your objection to stand. Your stance also depends on what I call naïve empiricism (naïve in this case is not a demeaning term). I too use to think like that and it’s not something that can be easily overcome simply because we are just so predisposed to it. But I think further analysis into the issue would go more into even more semantics and definitions pertaining to ‘observation’, ‘evidence’, ‘physicality’ and the like. -“ The “designer” that ID posits is either a complex physical organism, or it is not… [etc]” Like I said before, the identity of the designer is not an issue for ID, so the remainder of that argument is frankly irrelevant. -“ No, an instrument can measure things, and we have no reason to believe a thermometer is conscious. If you disagree, then again we are merely disagreeing about definitions and not about facts about the world.” The thermometer is designed specifically by a human to aid in his/her measurements. A thermometer does not measure anything. Mercury just expands in a glass cylinder. It’s a human being that does the measuring via his consciousness with the assistance of the given apparatus. But I do agree with you that a lot of our disagreement on the entire subject is very much an issue of semantics. -“ In summary, Meyer makes a distinction between science and philosophy, and clearly claims that his theory if fully scientific. If you wish to deny my argument because there is no such thing as metaphysics-free science, then you’ll need to deny Meyer’s argument on the very same basis.” I have no problem with that actually! I’m not an IDist by the way. Finally, for the sake of argument let’s just say that I decide to put all my objections to your argument aside. If one were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, a significant part of evolutionary theory would fall outside of real science. While many examples have been given, the most obvious one would be that we simply cannot observe the past. We can only infer the past from the present. So even if I agree with you for the sake of argument it seems like you are now in a dilemma. You either acknowledge that logical inference is a reality and a necessity for the scientific enterprise or reject any claims evolution makes that depend on the unobservable past, which themselves are not inferred or are extrapolated postulates.above_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

RE 60 aiguy, I think your position as you frame it is pretty airtight. Is it your position that only that which can be empirically confirmed through repeated observation and experience defines what is and is not scientific? Vividvividbleau_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

inunison,
I fail to see the relevance of your objection to ID hypothesis. All you did, is frame question “Who designed the designer?” in terms of FSCI.
No, that isn't even close, really. What I point out has nothing to do with the origin of the designer. Rather, I point out that in our uniform and repeated experience, all designers (i.e. producers of FSCI) are complex physical organisms. Thus the claim by Stephen Meyer that there is cause which is known to our uniform and repeated experience which could account for the origin of life is false (because obviously the first complex physical organism could not have been created by another complex physical organism, and no other type of intelligent agent is known in our uniform and repeated experience). above,
AIGUY: -“ID proponents such as Meyer go to great lengths to distinguish philosophy and theology from science, and insist their “ID Theory” is the latter. It is this to which I object.” ABOVE: Well that is a question pertaining to the demarcation of science. Not an issue exclusive to ID alone.
The point you seem reluctant to address is that it is ID Theorists themselves who insist on making this demarcation, whether or not you believe there is a demarcation to be made. If ID Theorists did not insist that theirs was a scientific rather than a theological view, I would have nothing to discuss here.
I am not calling you a materialist or that was not my intention anyway. What I am saying is that the objection is based on a materialistic presupposition, as seen in your following statement: “We observe that complex physical organisms produce FSCI, and nothing else.” So not only is materialism presupposed – for you are treating the material as primary – you are also now employing reductionism
You insist I assume both materialism and reductionism, based on statements which imply neither. You merely have to give me some counter-example to show where my observation might fail to hold, rather than impute metaphysical stances to me that I do not hold. So please: Tell us how to observe something which is not itself a complex physical mechanism rich in FSCI but which produces FSCI. We have countless observations of complex organisms creating FSCI, but we have no observations of anything else creating FSCI. Nothing could be more clear, more obvious, more true. No reasonable person could possibly disagree, (unless you turn to paranormal phenomena which have been discussed upthread). This has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysical commitments. This has to do with you and I agreeing that we can observe complex physical organisms (like human beings) creating FSCI, and then agreeing that neither of us can observe anything else which has this ability. Even if dualism was true, that does not change the fact that we cannot observe anything but complex physical entities creating FSCI.
A more accurate phrasing of the above statement would have been: “in our uniform and repeated experience we currently have no direct way of observing an intelligent agent that is not a physical organism”.
Thank you so much for conceding this obvious point. In our repeated and uniform experience, every intelligent agent we observe is invariably a complex physical organism.
But that still does not undermine ID. All ID needs to operate is the observable fact that in our uniform and repeated experience we know that the only known origin of FSCI is an intelligent agent. That is why ID makes no claims as to the identity of the designer.
The "designer" that ID posits is either a complex physical organism, or it is not (I presume you will agree with that). If the designer is a complex physical organism, then ID fails to explain the origin of complex physical organisms. If the designer is not a complex physical organism, then it is something outside of our uniform and repeated experience. That is my argument. It rests on no materialist or reductionist assumptions. You may attempt to retreat into hyper-skepticism (how do we even know what is real? every belief is based on metaphysics! maybe we're all living in a dream!) but this would be disingenuous, because when Stephen Meyer claims that he has scientific evidence that points to a known cause as the best explanation of FSCi in biology, he isn't making caveats about science resting on metaphysics or the impossibility of knowledge.
Actually it is true and is in fact hidden in your own words. For any set of physical states that are MEASURABLE, one requires observation, consciousness and evidently agency.
No, an instrument can measure things, and we have no reason to believe a thermometer is conscious. If you disagree, then again we are merely disagreeing about definitions and not about facts about the world.
Also, I don’t think you can define decoherence or any mindless material interaction as agency and I can’t even see the logic behind doing such a thing.
You misread my post. I used decoherence as an analogy, not to define it as agency. One can interpret waveform collapse as the result of conscious observation, or as the result of unconscious interaction with the environment - decoherence). In summary, Meyer makes a distinction between science and philosophy, and clearly claims that his theory if fully scientific. If you wish you wish to deny my argument because there is no such thing as metaphysics-free science, then you'll need to deny Meyer's argument on the very same basis. Otherwise, you should concede that Meyer is mistaken when he claims that we have a cause which is known to our uniform and repeated experience which could account for the origin of life.aiguy_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

@CY -"Lastly, while we disagree on many things here; I don’t think these discussions are a waste of time. They are fruitful in our attempts to help others to understand ID." That's precisely why I joined this community. It's the only one that I have been a part of that I can say I enjoyed interracting with both believers as well as atheists/materialists. You just don't see the usual angry mob mentality and extreme narrow-mindedness that you see on other sites. Not to mention the insults.above_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

EZ: CY has raised several points that are food for thought for thoughtful materialists. If you want to see a part of why I spoke in terms of implausibility, cf the [peer reviewed] paper by Abel here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, (slightly off topic) One thing I just remembered, and it concerns arguments from incredulity. Richard Dawkins has been known to make statements to the effect that the existence of God is highly improbably. Now we here have ascertained that he makes such statements based solely on his apriori commitment to materialism. This is an example of what I referred to in the other thread as the Darwinist double standard. Darwinists are allowed to make arguments from incredulity, but non-Darwinists are not; even if such non-Darwinian arguments are based on evidence, and not merely from apriori metaphysical assumptions.CannuckianYankee_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

I don't think the discussions are a waste of time either! They need and should be going on. But I don't think I've got anything else to contribute. You've heard everything I've got to say before and I don't need to make you go through all the explanations again. If I think of something I will toss it into the mix and trust you will continue to be kind. Thanks again for your time and consideration and for letting me ask some questions.ellazimm_{August 1, 2010
August
08
Aug
1
01
2010
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

ellazimm and others: "Since design requires a designer then the probability of design must also, in my way of thinking, take into account the probability and/or evidence of there being a capable designer at the required time (not getting into the dating issue, that I really don’t want to approach)." First of all, thanks for giving us the last word on this. I appreciate that you have considered our thoughts without the usual insinuations we get from others on this board who defend Darwin. However, let me just point out a few problems I see with your approach to answering your questions, which really should be framed beyond Darwinian metaphysical assumptions; but sadly, you have shown that you simply cannot escape Darwinian reasoning. How so? Well first of all, your first paragraph I quoted above is riddled with metaphysics. What you're essentially inferring here is that empiricism apart from reason is the only valid purveyor of truth (particularly as it relates to the existence of a designer of life). We've already had this discussion on another thread, which lasted quite some time, and amounted to over 600 posts. I refer you to the thread concerning a short video that was posted on Youtube several weeks ago, in which Stephen Meyer discusses the question regarding ID's "scientific bona fides." In that discussion, several Darwin supporters asserted in no uncertain terms, that evidence is evidence, without any interpretation or metaphysical assumptions needed. In so doing, they reached the absurd notion that evidence trumps the law of non-contradiction particularly with regard to the apparent counterintuitive properties of quantum phenomenon. Hence, their belief that a thing can exist and not exist at the same time; or that a thing can be two places at one time. So our metaphysical assumptions are important in this question of our origins. And good metaphysics are bound by first principles and right reason. As several others have stated in other threads as well, the evidence for a designer is not only a question that seeks empirical evidence, but is also a question at the primary level of metaphysical reasoning. This is why I referred you to William Lane Craig's presentation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. I think the issue still stands that if you aren't prepared to deal with the metaphysics, you aren't prepared to have a satisfactory basis for what you believe - be it Darwinian evolution, ID, or some other metaphysical or scientific position. What does it take to understand that requiring evidence for a designer solely based upon an apriori materialist metaphysic, informs itself by that metaphysic alone? Thus, It is self-defeating. ID, on the other hand, strives to avoid self-referential logic. IDists don't say as they are accused: "Darwinian evolution does not make sense, therefore God dunnit." So self-referential materialism then becomes not an issue of empirical evidence, but an issue of fuzzy logic. As I stated before, Darwinian metaphysics are teeming with absurdities, which cannot be overcome. I mentioned the issue of causation and the problem of an infinite regress of causes. Must I spell this out? OK, I will: There are two parts to the Kalam Cosmological argument, which Craig addresses. The first part is the causation issue, and the second part is the infinite regress issue. The causation issue can be summed up as follows: A) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. B) The universe exists. C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. That's the logic behind the argument, and now here is the rub: A cause of everything that exists cannot itself be caused. This leads to the implication that there must be a first cause, which itself was not caused. Now the second part of the argument is essentially a proof that actual infinites cannot exist. This includes in our case infinite material causes and infinite time. Without going into much detail, we arrive eventually to the understanding that a necessary first cause, that was not caused, and is not bound by the constraints of time and material; thus is transcendent, created everything that exists. Therefore, it becomes quite reasonable to infer a designer based on metaphysics alone. But this is an issue, which few Darwinists feel comfortable dealing with. Why not? Well first of all, if you consider these issues seriously enough, you come to certain conclusions. One is that a materialist metaphysic is highly insufficient and incomplete in consideration of causation and infinite regresses. Materialism asserts that matter is all there is. But it becomes necessary somewhere down the line that matter came into being. If matter has always existed, then we have two problems that cannot be overcome. The first problem is that matter changes (it's interesting that evolution should be founded on this fact). Change requires the passage of time. If time is infinite, then what part of that infinity is the span of time in which we have lived? Is it in the middle of that infinity, towards the beginning, or towards the end? You see where this leads? Furthermore, how can we think to start at the present time and count backwards to the point of infinity? You can see by this that if time is infinite, there was an infinite amount of time before our time, and there will be an infinite amount after. So we would not have arrived at our present time if time was in fact infinite. Darwinists fail to deal with these absurdities in their assertion that matter is all there is. If matter is all there is, then matter has always existed. It did not have a cause. It could not have had a cause apart from some entity, which was not itself matter or which was caused. So you can infer anything you want by this, but one thing you cannot infer is that a designer needs to be shown to exist by the physical evidence alone. But the present physical evidence alone is apparently sufficient to some very thoughtful people (although I would also point out that their metaphysic is also involved). I mentioned Antony Flew before, but I think that his case requires further inspection. Flew stated in an interview not long ago that he was never impressed by the cosmological arguments for God's existence. As an atheist, he reasoned that the cosmological argument presents its own absurdities, and I can imagine that for him this was the question of "who designed the designer?" But what is interesting is that the design argument persuaded Flew that God exists. It's interesting because for even one of the world's most staunch yet very thoughtful atheists, the design argument was enough. It's also interesting because while Flew may not have been completely committed to a materialist metaphysic, he did have a keen understanding of how that metaphysic operates - with it's self-defeating inferences to only material causes; which is why he emphasized that one must "go where the evidence leads," and leave behind metaphysical assumptions. So while he may not have been impressed by the cosmological argument, he apparently utilized some of the issues of causality and infinite regresses to form his conclusions. For me it's the opposite. I'm more persuaded by the cosmological argument than with the design argument; however, design has solidified for me what intuitively came to be a part of my own reasoning. Now in light of all this, let's deal with your second statement: "As you say, the probability of some of what we observe in nature coming about via random mutation and natural selection is very, very low. (Although the probability of SOMETHING coming about via random mutation and natural selection is not as low.)" The glaring question here is: "how can SOMETHING come about via natural processes at the beginning - at the proposed singularity? You first have to deal with the singularity and what caused it before making assumptions about nature and causality. You have no more evidence that SOMETHING can come about via natural processes alone than that living systems can come about by the same processes. It is a self-defeating assumption in light of the issues of causation and infinite regresses. And furthermore, you've restated what we already made quite clear - me in my initial discussion of the probability issue in post #50, and Kairosfocus in his much more elaborate discussion on this issue in post #52; which as I mentioned, is an issue, which Meyer addresses even more in depth in his book. It's not that natural selection has a very very low probability. The issue may not even be (and probably isn't) natural selection, but simply some form of chance and necessity in the origin of life, which presents (to use KF's term) a "maximally implausible" scenario for how life began through abiogenesis. I know you understand the difference between Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis, so I fail to see why you conflate the two here. Natural selection is not at issue at least here. Natural selection is like a combustion engine. It operates only after the initial spark required for it's continuation. What is at issue is the initial spark - the ability of natural processes acting alone to account for the origin of life; which is inexplicably an issue of how FSCI arose, and what we invariably assert based on all available evidence and without conjecture, that FSCI does not arise apart from intelligence. So when you assert: "The probability of there being design and a designer (since design cannot exist without a designer) is even more improbable without other evidence of the existence of a designer." The key word here is "other." What other evidence is required apart from a metaphysical appeal to right reason; that nothing comes about without a cause, and the present physical evidence, which appears to confirm that natural processes alone cannot account for first of all existence, and second of all, life? You continue: "Which, as has been pointed out, cannot be established, for a supernatural designer anyway." Where has it been pointed out apart from a position of materialism? Second - what is your definition of "supernatural?" Where does that fit in? If the designer exists, then such a designer is more real than simply "supernatural," whatever we mean by that. So such an argument is informed solely by the metaphysical assumption, and not by any real appeal to logic or reason. It is again a self-referential argument, which is self-defeating. I have no qualms, nor defense for your alien designer argument. More metaphysical assertions in your next paragraph: "Also, just to clarify what I meant (even though I’m sure you’ve heard it many times): The imperfect fossil record is consistent with common descent with modification. The DNA evidence (including protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) is consistent with common descent with modification." The key word here is "redundancy." While this may be true, it is formed from the typical Darwinian metaphysical argument that "God would not have done it this way." See, like I said, you cannot escape your metaphysical assumptions. The common descent argument is as we discussed earlier, informed by the metaphysical assumption. If you abandone that assumption, the fossil record can mean something quite different. Here's a thought experiment for you: how would the evidence you suggested above not be so if design were at play - without appealing to any metaphysical assumptions about a designer? See, it's not IDists who talk about designers, so much as it is Darwinists. They insinuate that a designer would not do things the way they appear by the evidence. Yet their insinuations are very subtle. Your above quote is an example of a subtle Darwinian insinuation; which over the past several years, I've learned to detect. So based on that, I stand by my earlier observation that Darwinists have multiple converging lines of explanation; but the evidence remains for our purposes here, neutral until the Darwinist can without his/her metaphysical assumptions, draw a reasonable argument from it. They have not done so. Lastly, while we disagree on many things here; I don't think these discussions are a waste of time. They are fruitful in our attempts to help others to understand ID. I think we all appreciate your conduct on this board, and many of us have been impressed by the way you presented your arguments without the most common Darwinist insinuations of our position, which we see all too often - especially outside of this board in other forums. That said though, I think it's important for us all to consider that what we view as evidence does not escape the filter of our own metaphysical outlook. The real question is: what metaphysic fits better with right reason?CannuckianYankee_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Sorry kairofocus for not including you in my thanks, I think we were writing at the same time and I didn't see your post 'til after I finished mine. I guess by maximally implausible you meant extremely, highly, improbable. It was the use of the word maximally that confused me.ellazimm_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

CY: thanks for taking the time to reply. I feel I do understand the ID position better but I don't think I can ever adopt it. I won't keep popping up here asking questions because I think I now see the basic split between the camps. Since design requires a designer then the probability of design must also, in my way of thinking, take into account the probability and/or evidence of there being a capable designer at the required time (not getting into the dating issue, that I really don't want to approach). I think not doing this will always seem disingenuous to me. As you say, the probability of some of what we observe in nature coming about via random mutation and natural selection is very, very low. (Although the probability of SOMETHING coming about via random mutation and natural selection is not as low.) The probability of there being design and a designer (since design cannot exist without a designer) is even more improbable without other evidence of the existence of a designer. Which, as has been pointed out, cannot be established, for a supernatural designer anyway. Now, if the designer was from an alien species then I don't see why material evidence would not exist. I suspect that, considering Dr Behe's edge of evolution notion, most ID proponents believe that design has been implemented every time a new genus or family or species has emerged. Since some of that has happened fairly (geographically) recently and no material evidence of another species with our intelligence or above has ever been found then I doubt that the alien designer option is seriously considered by anyone. Also, just to clarify what I meant (even though I'm sure you've heard it many times): The imperfect fossil record is consistent with common descent with modification. The DNA evidence (including protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses) is consistent with common descent with modification. The morphological evidence is consistent with common descent with modification. The geographic distribution of species is consistent with common descent with modification. That's part of what I meant by multiple converging lines of evidence. Thanks for your time, I really do appreciate it. I will do my best to not misrepresent the ID position even though I can't agree with it. I can see that many people who do accept the tenets of ID are intelligent and caring people so I shall eschew name calling and other forms of derision. And I won't waste your time. All the best.ellazimm_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

EZ: I think you will find the video at top right this and just about every UD page gives an idea. DNA stores 4-state [G/C/A/T] information in strings of nucleotides, a string data structure. RNA copies it [substituting U for T], and it is ported out of the nucleus to the ribozomes. There, step by step proteins are coded using the 3-letter codons and matching tRNA's that match then are tipped over to lock the carried amino acid to the growing protein. A stop codon then terminates, and of course the protein is folded [sometimes with help of a chaperone molecule], activated and put to use. Algorithms are step by step finite [halting] sequences that achieve results. Much more is going on in the background to support this process, with something like 75 helper molecules involved. The protein's folded and activated structure depends on the sequence of amino acids, which is coded in the DNA. Observe the anticodons in the tRNA that match the mRNA codes are at the opposite end to the carried amino acids. [TRNA is like a tool-arm that has to key-lock fit to be right [obviously there are 20 tRNAs, to match the 20 AAs], then it is tipped to add its AA to the protein chain.) So, as a key part of the metabolic functional processes in the cell is a digital information system, only it uses 4 states not the 2 we are used to in electronics. To put that information to work, there are dozens of coordinated molecules that work as nanomachines, starring the RNA, Ribosomes and enzymes. For the simplest organisms, we see DNA of order 100 000 to 1 million bases, or twice that many in bits. Just 1,000 bits specifies so many possible configurations that the atoms of the observed universe, changing state every 10^-45s or so, will only sample 1 in 10^150 of that number in its lifespan. So it is not reasonable to see a chance based search [and chance is what makes for contingency where intent is not at work] can scratch the space of possibilities. The islands of fucntion are too isolated to be credibly found by thermodynamics and chemistry in Darwin's warm little pond or the like. That is, the search boils down to no search, and chance is not a plausible source. The natural selection so vaunted by darwinists then has the problem that until the system we are talking is in place it is not possible, i.e. we do not have a self-replicating, metabolising entity -- notice the double functionality [extrapolations of self-catalysing reactions need not apply] -- so no reproduction is happening. No reproduction, no differential success across sub populations so no culling out of less fit forms. Origin of life is a roadblock to the darwinian mechanisms. But FSCI is known to be routinely made by intelligences, as to origin. By direct observation -- no metaphysical speculation there, dFSCI as we see in cells is known to come from intelligence. When we come to novel body plans, we are looking at needing to get 10s of millions of base pairs, and tightly co-ordinated systems, dozens of times over, and this has to be ebryologically feasible or the organism does not survive the transformation. Nor is it credible that such changes can happen one small step at a time. No way do you move from hello World pgms to Wordpress that way, working each tiny step of the way. Absent a priori commitment to evolutionary materialism, the issue would be a no-brainer. The signs in they cell may not say whodunit, but they clearly strongly point out that twerdun. Hope that helps. Gkairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

ellazimm, I forgot to point out also that Darwinists will object to: "we know that the only known origin of FSCI is an intelligent agent." The only basis for such an objection is the question-begging emphasis on chance and necessity, which has not been demonstrated.CannuckianYankee_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

ellezimm, "I think this is part of the problem I’m having understanding ID. Those who support modern evolutionary theory point to multiple, converging lines of evidence. The existence of an intelligent designer seems to rest on an argument based on improbability." I trust you had time to look up some of the sources we provided you on another thread. I'm not certain what you mean by "The existence of an intelligent designer seems to rest on an argument based on improbability." I think we have made clear that ID does not argue the specifics of a designer, but for the specifics of design. I know this sounds confusing, but it's an important distinction. If you break it down, there's either chance plus necessity or there is design (or a combination of the two). While design implies a designer, we are addressing the two options (RV + NS or design - or a combination of the two); which are really the only issues we can answer scientifically. Yes, ID can be answered scientifically. If chance and necessity can be demonstrated, design becomes the less probable. When you keep this perspective, you avoid invoking a metaphysical assumption. Based on this clarification, probability is a very legitimate and valid exercise in scientific verification. Meyer committed several chapters to this very issue in his book. The issue is not that chance and necessity alone in the origin of life are highly improbable. The issue is that chance and necessity are so astronomically improbable as to make them alone essentially impossible. We can't really say that they are definitely impossible, but the odds are indeed astronomical. Darwinists will charge that this is an argument from incredulity, or that it is "god-of-the-gaps." One has to ask "How improbable does an explanation need to be for Darwinists to capitulate?" Another related question would be: "Is 'god-of-the-gaps' a legitimate charge, or is it indicative of the Darwinist commitment to not allowing 'a divine foot in the door?'" It becomes quite clear that Darwinists are quite satisfied with the astronomical improbability of chance and necessity to account for FSCI in the first life forms, because they have an apriori commitment to chance and necessity; a materialist assumption. They continue to fail in showing that it can work. And a really revealing observation is that they admit they can't show how it works. Current theories of abiogenesis are riddled with conjecture. In fact, there are so many current theories of abiogenesis based on chance and necessity, that it is quite difficult to get a handle on all of them. Parsimony has left the building on the question of abiogenesis. Now you point to "multiple converging lines of evidence." In this you appear to imply that evidence belongs to those who discover it. It does not. Evidence belongs to all of us. The evidence belongs to ID as much as it belongs to Darwinian evolution. I think you are conflating evidence with explanation. They have multiple converging lines of explanation, but quite often the evidence, which belongs to all of us, conflicts with their apriori metaphysically based explanations. Now back to ID. If we consider other possibilities other than chance and necessity due to abandoning apriori materialist metaphysics, it becomes quite clear that intentional and purposeful design is the best option given the improbability that you pointed out. Is it only an explanation from improbability? Not quite. It also employs a reasonable account for how FSCI CAN come about based on what we already know from other disciplines, like engineering. It also employs a comparative framework for methodology based on other disciplines such as archeology and SETI science. As Above pointed out: "All ID needs to operate is the observable fact that in our uniform and repeated experience we know that the only known origin of FSCI is an intelligent agent. That is why ID makes no claims as to the identity of the designer." So I think we are really forced to ask ourselves if chance and necessity is the best option given what we already know about how designers operate, given the calculated improbability factor, and given the apriori commitment to material causes necessary to make such an extrapolation. I think you will find that if you take a hard look at the evidence (which belongs to all of us), ID is the best option. In that, you are not obligated to infer a supernatural designer.CannuckianYankee_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Does 'maximally implausible' mean a probability of zero? I'm not too sure of algorithmic functionality either. If you could provide some background I'd be happy to pursue it.ellazimm_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

kairofocus: I'm not sure what you mean by 'maximally implausible' in "d) In addition, the algorithmic functionality of the discrete state information, the codes and the like are maximally implausible products of chance processes; the other observed source of highly contingent outcomes." I have been thinking about the inference to design a lot; it comes up in archaeology all the time. And, in archaeology, if an object is found to have designed aspects BUT was created before any known designers existed then the design inference becomes far less likely. I'm not saying a very clear case wouldn't be able to create a new paradigm but it would have to be damn good. There would have to be confirmatory evidence that made the design inference more likely. I think this is part of the problem I'm having understanding ID. Those who support modern evolutionary theory point to multiple, converging lines of evidence. The existence of an intelligent designer seems to rest on an argument based on improbability. I'm not trying to be 'snarky', I'm just trying to get at the heart of the argument.ellazimm_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

@aiguy -“ID proponents such as Meyer go to great lengths to distinguish philosophy and theology from science, and insist their “ID Theory” is the latter. It is this to which I object.” Well that is a question pertaining to the demarcation of science. Not an issue exclusive to ID alone. -“It will be obvious to any fair reader of my posts that your statement is deeply confused. For example, I say “Agents may transcend physical cause, and they may not. This is a philosophical question and it cannot currently be answered by appeal to observation.” For you to mistake me for a materialist is a revealing error. I am not a materialist.” Actually, Sir John Eccles along with many others had much to say about the matter of transcendence based on observation. But I do agree that the question is also to an extend a philosophical one, a quality that is shared by just about most if not all of our human inquiries/theories. I am not calling you a materialist or that was not my intention anyway. What I am saying is that the objection is based on a materialistic presupposition, as seen in your following statement: “We observe that complex physical organisms produce FSCI, and nothing else.” So not only is materialism presupposed - for you are treating the material as primary - you are also now employing reductionism, which as Quine puts it a ‘metaphysical article of faith’. I said this before several times and I will say it again, the objection is a valid one if and only if one is committed to that specific metaphysic. -“I simply point out the most obvious fact, which is that in our uniform and repeated experience (these are Meyer’s words!) there is no such thing as an intelligent agent which is not a complex physical organism.” A more accurate phrasing of the above statement would have been: “in our uniform and repeated experience we currently have no direct way of observing an intelligent agent that is not a physical organism”. That of course could simply a be human epistemological limitation. But that still does not undermine ID. All ID needs to operate is the observable fact that in our uniform and repeated experience we know that the only known origin of FSCI is an intelligent agent. That is why ID makes no claims as to the identity of the designer. -“What I meant by “anthropomorphic” was explanations that employ mentalistic concepts (thought, consciousness, sentience, intent, volition, etc).” That’s precisely what I was addressing actually. Most current theories in science not only employ such mentalistic concepts but presuppose them as well. So according to your previous post, all these should be consider failures then. -“ You are defining information as something that requires agency (which by the way you haven’t bothered to define). If you define information differently (e.g. any set of measurable, discrete physical states) then your statement is not true.” Actually it is true and is in fact hidden in your own words. For any set of physical states that are MEASURABLE, one requires observation, consciousness and evidently agency. Also, I don’t think you can define decoherence or any mindless material interaction as agency and I can’t even see the logic behind doing such a thing.above_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

AiGuy, 33:
Contrary to many ID authors (and in particular Stephen Meyer in “Signature in the Cell”) there is no known cause in our experience that could account for the existence of ~~the~~ FCSI ~~in biology~~
1 --> I have struck the complex question words, to emphasise the basic point where questions are being begged. 2 --> In scientific work we distinguish between the present where direct observation is possible, and he remote past, where such is not. One terminology is that now-sci is "operational" and deep past of origins science is "origins science." 3 --> As Lyell and Darwin pioneered, the concept is that we observe patterns active in the present and use them as explanatory models for the past, per a ladder of inferences on that past. 4 --> This has obvious limitations, and we should never confuse the model past with actual reality as it happened. But it does allow us to peer into the past using scientific methods and come up with more or less plausible models. 5 --> In the case of causal factors, we observe routinely that:
a) mechanical necessity is associated with low contingency lawlike regularities (e.g. a dropped heavy object reliably falls at a given rate on earth's surface) b) chance is associated with statistically distributed contingent patterns, e.g. the bell type curve for say lengths of a bolt made in a factory, or the flat random distribution of a fair die, etc. c) Functionally specific, complex information (especially the case of coded digital [discrete state]algorithmically functional complex information) is just as routinely associated with intelligent causes. d) In addition, the algorithmic functionality of the discrete state information, the codes and the like are maximally implausible products of chance processes; the other observed source of highly contingent outcomes.
6 --> So, we have good reason to infer from dFSCI to design as its credible and empirically warranted cause. 7 --> In addition, we have no good, empirically anchored grounds to rule out the possibility of other language using, algorithm-creating intelligences. So, we have no good grounds to a priori rule them out as possibilities. 8 --> So, we turn to the relevant case, the living cell. There we see coded, algorithmically functional digital complex information, i.e. dFSCI. It is in the context of a metabolising entity with a self-replicating facility that depends crucially on string data structure stored coded information, in DNA, RNA and proteins. 9 --> Such a system is irreducibly complex and functionally organised. 10 --> So, we have excellent empirical warrant to infer to design as its best explanation, so soon as we do not allow imposition of ideological a priori evolutionary materialism to censor out possibilities. 11 --> So, the real problem is not the scientific status of inference to design, but the a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism on origins science. And, if a dominant Magisterium in ecclesiastical robes telling us how to think and what not to think was unacceptable, so is one in lab coats. _____________ And that becomes a big problem in an age when scientific institutions have become captivated by that ideology in a lab coat. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

aiguy, I fail to see the relevance of your objection to ID hypothesis. All you did, is frame question "Who designed the designer?" in terms of FSCI.inunison_{July 31, 2010
July
07
Jul
31
31
2010
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

(typo above: docoherence => decoherence)aiguy_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

above,
From Popper to Khun to Lakatos, it has been demonstrated that science is theory laden and ridden with metaphysics. That is an observable fact, so I don’t know how you can go about claiming that you have no interest in metaphysics. Science is not something we do in suspended animation. Sorry.
ID proponents such as Meyer go to great lengths to distinguish philosophy and theology from science, and insist their "ID Theory" is the latter. It is this to which I object.
No, actually there is no problem with clarity here. There is however a problem with circular logic on your part. It’s fairly evident that you’re presupposing materialism in you objection,
It will be obvious to any fair reader of my posts that your statement is deeply confused. For example, I say "Agents may transcend physical cause, and they may not. This is a philosophical question and it cannot currently be answered by appeal to observation." For you to mistake me for a materialist is a revealing error. I am not a materialist.
Like I said before, the objection is valid if and only if one is a materialist or a positivist. Even a simple commonsense dualism overcomes your objection, let alone the numerous and more sophisticated substance ontologies. Now if your objection is a methodological concern and seeing how you are content in not knowing or believing we may not know, I can surely sympathize, but beyond that the objection simply begs the materialistic question.
I beg no question nor make any ontological assumptions at all. I simply point out the most obvious fact, which is that in our uniform and repeated experience (these are Meyer's words!) there is no such thing as an intelligent agent which is not a complex physical organism.
Finally, strictly speaking, every explanation we give or will ever give will be an anthropomorphism in one way or another – and of varying degrees – for the simple fact that our experiences are filtered through that which we are, anthropoi (Greek for humans). The notion that we can ever construct a worldview devoid of the human element in our theories is simply a delusion
What I meant by "anthropomorphic" was explanations that employ mentalistic concepts (thought, consciousness, sentience, intent, volition, etc). upright,
The claim is exactly that, we have a cause that could be the origin of FSCI. Not only that, we have a cause that is the only known originator of FSCI. That is not a conclusion; it is an empirical observation – one that is both valid and correct when judged by our universal experience.
We observe that complex physical organisms produce FSCI, and nothing else.
If you are then suggesting that our universal experience is not valid because we ourselves require FSCI in order to be alive and make conclusions, then I will ask if there are any other physical phenomena that we require to be alive, which we cannot know about because we require them in order to be alive and think about them. If such is the not the case, may I ask for a logic flow in order to fully understand your argument which invalidates any understanding of FSCI but not the other physical realities required to study physical realities?
I am talking about our universal experience, which is that the production of FSCI invariably comes from FSCI-rich mechanism. Thus, if ID wishes to posit a known cause as an explanation of FSCI in biology, it must be talking about an FSCI-rich mechanism, and not some hypothetical sort of entity that somehow can produce FSCI without itself already being FSCI-rich. I'm not saying that hypothesis is false; I'm saying that we do not observe such things to exist.
The concept I wish to approach you with is the idea that this information about the carbon atom – indeed, any information whatsoever about anything in the cosmos – would not exist at all without an agent to create it.
This is not a statement that can be empirically tested because it is analytic rather than synthetic. You are defining information as something that requires agency (which by the way you haven't bothered to define). If you define information differently (e.g. any set of measurable, discrete physical states) then your statement is not true. You can also define "agency" such that it has nothing to do with mind (e.g. as docoherence theories replace conscious observation with mindless processes in quantum mechanics). Again, I am not interested in debating philosophy of mind, epistemology, or ontology here. I am making no claims about the truth of any particular metaphysics. I am simply pointing out that the conclusion of ID cannot be said to rest on our uniform and repeated experience, as Meyer claims it does.
AIGUY: Agents may transcend physical cause, and they may not. UPRIGHT: Again, I see an obvious disconnect. My comment was not about the transcendence of agents to physical cause; it was about the observational reality that information is not a material particle orbiting within the interior of atoms, but is instead an abstraction that requires perception in order to exist. This observation would hold true whether an agent transcended physical causes or not.
You use the term "agent", which is a term from philosophy and not science (i.e. we have no operationalized definition of what it means to be an "agent"). You say you are unconcerned if agency is free or ontologically distinct from physical cause (as opposed to Dembski, for example, who concedes his version of ID entails dualism and libertarian free will); in that case the thing you posit as a cause may be an unknown process that has nothing at all in common with human mentality. I'm trying to make this very simple; I'll take one more crack at it but then I must bow out of this interesting discussion for reasons of time. 1) Meyer claims that our uniform and repeated experience confirms that FSCI originates only via intelligent agency, and so offers that as a known cause to explain FSCI in biology. 2) The intelligent agent Meyer posits must either be a complex physical organism, or not. 3) If the designer is a complex physical organism, then ID fails to explain the origin of complex physical organisms. (And by the way, once we posit the existence of extra-terrestrial life forms as our designers, a simpler explanation would be that we are descendents of these life forms rather than the products of their bioengineering!). 4) Otherwise, if the designer is not a complex physical organism, then what Meyer is positing is clearly not something known to our uniform and repeated experience. 5) Either way, then, Meyer is wrong: There is nothing in our uniform and repeated experience that could be responsible for the origin of FSCI in biology.aiguy_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Above at 39 Thank you! (but you will notice I got no answer to the question, so be it)Upright BiPed_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Aiguy, Thanks for the response. I am somewhat dismayed by the disconnect between what I wrote and your response. For instance you respond:
Living things operate from a semiotic (correlated) mapping…
The problem of intentionality (how symbols mean things) is a difficult and contentious area of philosophy.
Yet the mapping to which I am referring to is hardly a philosophical question. It is entirely observable; in fact, our entire understanding of biochemistry surrounds it being elucidated. You go on to say:
I’m not concerned with philosphical arguments here; only the claim that we have empirical knowledge of a cause that could account for the origin of FSCI
The claim is exactly that, we have a cause that could be the origin of FSCI. Not only that, we have a cause that is the only known originator of FSCI. That is not a conclusion; it is an empirical observation - one that is both valid and correct when judged by our universal experience. If you are then suggesting that our universal experience is not valid because we ourselves require FSCI in order to be alive and make conclusions, then I will ask if there are any other physical phenomena that we require to be alive, which we cannot know about because we require them in order to be alive and think about them. If such is the not the case, may I ask for a logic flow in order to fully understand your argument which invalidates any understanding of FSCI but not the other physical realities required to study physical realities?
The concept I wish to approach you with is the idea that this information about the carbon atom – indeed, any information whatsoever about anything in the cosmos – would not exist at all without an agent to create it.
Agents may transcend physical cause, and they may not.
Again, I see an obvious disconnect. My comment was not about the transcendence of agents to physical cause; it was about the observational reality that information is not a material particle orbiting within the interior of atoms, but is instead an abstraction that requires perception in order to exist. This observation would hold true whether an agent transcended physical causes or not. You go on to say:
This is a philosophical question and it cannot currently be answered by appeal to observation.
To the extent of my actual question, I would say that is most certainly an observational issue, and that my observation is most certainly valid. As far as moving into a conclusion on dualism, I agree, I haven’t any desire to go there. I’ve already been and have the T-shirt, but that has nothing to do with my question.
Information requires perception from an agent in order to exist (be it from an ant or an astronaut)….
I understand what you are saying here, but yet again I will simply say that we are deep into very muddy philosophical waters, which is far outside of the argument I am making about experience-based knowledge.
Actually I would have preferred you simply affirmed the obvious, as opposed to acknowledging it but saying it doesn’t weigh in. Of course it does – for the exact reasons I stated above. In any case, I appreciate all your responses, although I would have liked to hear your direct answer to my direct question.Upright BiPed_{July 30, 2010
July
07
Jul
30
30
2010
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply