tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8121716506510810667..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Professor: You’re Quote-Mining Elliott SoberUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger148125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74993474633641864512012-01-23T16:17:14.156-08:002012-01-23T16:17:14.156-08:00But, Hawk, you're missing the point. ID'is...But, Hawk, you're missing the point. ID'ists aren't contesting consensus research. They're contesting the claim by many CA adherents to the public that they know to be fact what they can't possibly know at this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47653143268853269552012-01-22T16:51:16.775-08:002012-01-22T16:51:16.775-08:00Hawks:
It sure beats doing no lifting at all...
...Hawks:<br /><br /><i>It sure beats doing no lifting at all...</i><br /><br />Well good point.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76784469108383909162012-01-22T11:08:54.761-08:002012-01-22T11:08:54.761-08:00Cornelius,
...contrastive thinking does the heavy...Cornelius,<br /><br /><i>...contrastive thinking does the heavy lifting.</i><br /><br />It sure beats doing no lifting at all...Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14872739287323014512012-01-21T07:06:41.574-08:002012-01-21T07:06:41.574-08:00It doesn't matter if the psychic attributes at...It doesn't matter if the psychic attributes attributed to a hypothetical designer are merely hypothetical (i.e., made up), because that's the nature of hypothetical explanation. But neither SA or naturalisitic CA is falsifiable. Something like the posited version of historical, naturalistic CA MIGHT be demonstrable IF it's possible. But we don't yet know that it IS possible. But it's certainly not falsifiable.<br /><br />In the meanwhile, all one has available for theory comparison is analogies which serve as indicators of various kinds of parsimony. And CA theory doesn't have any that succeed at the level of extrapolation the hypothesis requires. So, as CH says, naturalistic CA of the degree positied by macroevolutionists only seems plausible because it uses analogies that work at the level of SA and because it's the last conceivable thing standing once you rule out teleology in biological origins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35537699998188705272012-01-21T06:41:30.029-08:002012-01-21T06:41:30.029-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39280982322428001432012-01-19T00:45:05.314-08:002012-01-19T00:45:05.314-08:00Hawks:
In any event, it is I believe, scientifica...Hawks:<br /><br /><i>In any event, it is I believe, scientifically fruitless to compare evolution (or anything, really) to creationism. At least some assumptions one adds when one models creationism will inevitably be pure speculation (i.e. a belief in what the creator would/could do). Since there is no evidence to support such a belief, any conclusion one draws will have no scientific merit. So, even though creationism in it's various guises say more about the designer than ID does, they both have the same "flaw" - you have to make stuff up to make predictions.</i><br /><br />Yes, right. Unfortunately that's what the evolutionary apologetics have to offer. As Sober, Mayr and others have explained, contrastive thinking does the heavy lifting.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76386330182740593862012-01-18T11:20:33.512-08:002012-01-18T11:20:33.512-08:00Cornelius,
But this only works if that SA model r...Cornelius,<br /><br /><i>But this only works if that SA model represents the creationist concept.</i><br /><br />You are right here. While the SA modelled is a <i>possible</i> creationist concept, it it is by no means the only. Other assumptions would have to be added in order for us to know which creationist versions would possibly be refuted. CA and SA as used by Sober does have some assumptions built into it, such as it doesn't use the input of any creator (at least not after the first LUCA(s)) and assumes lots of time has passed since this event. So, for example, if we use a "common" creationist age of the Earth as 6,000 years, the modelled SA is irrelevant as it assumes a longer timeline.<br /><br />Therefore, if one were to use CA vs SA alone, one could not state that one had rebuked creationism-that-has-species-barriers. Now, I know that Darwin produced more evidences for CA than "mere" non-adaptive features, but since I don't know what these are, I can't really comment on what version of creationism, if any, could be rebuked. <br /><br />In any event, it is I believe, scientifically fruitless to compare evolution (or anything, really) to creationism. At least some assumptions one adds when one models creationism will inevitably be pure speculation (i.e. a belief in what the creator would/could do). Since there is no evidence to support such a belief, any conclusion one draws will have no scientific merit. So, even though creationism in it's various guises say more about the designer than ID does, they both have the same "flaw" - you have to make stuff up to make predictions.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77901460141548333172012-01-15T19:43:55.390-08:002012-01-15T19:43:55.390-08:00Hawks:
I sure hope that you understand that the s...Hawks:<br /><br /><i>I sure hope that you understand that the species barrier concept has nothing to do with what a creator could or could not do.</i><br /><br />No, you’re still not understanding. The species barrier or “insuperable boundaries” were not modeled directly. What was modeled was separate ancestry (SA). The model was very simple. It simply said that given SA, the designs of different species are independent (i.e., species are designed using a tabula rasa—clean slate—approach). Thus if a similar design is found in different species, it must have occurred twice independently, and so the similarity must be due to chance.<br /><br />Under the common ancestry (CA) model, on the other hand, similarities in different species are not necessarily independent, but rather can arise from a common ancestor. Therefore, while a bad design that is found in different species is unlikely under CA, it is even more unlikely under SA because it would have had to have occurred twice. Under CA it occurred only once, in the common ancestor.<br /><br />So the evolutionary logic, embodied in Darwin’s Principle, is that bad designs refute SA, because CA (though unlikely) is relatively speaking much more likely than SA to be the cause.<br /><br />Next, as Sober reports, this confirmation of CA is used to argue that the creationist concept of “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries” is a myth. But this only works if that SA model represents the creationist concept. In other words, Darwin’s Principle uses a model of SA that evolutionists think represents the creationist concept of “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries.”<br /><br />So when Darwin and the evolutionists say they have shown the creationist concept to be a myth, they are claiming that their SA model represents what a creator would do.<br /><br />This is really rather simple. If you say you have refuted a creationist concept, then you must have modeled that creationist concept. In this case, Darwin and the evolutionists say the creator must use a tabula rasa approach with the different species.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1595364983670604602012-01-15T13:56:43.388-08:002012-01-15T13:56:43.388-08:00Cornelius,
For instance, if there were insuperabl...Cornelius,<br /><br /><i>For instance, if there were insuperable barriers between the species, then the Creator could have created those species independently, or not.</i><br /><br />Before I write anything else, I would like a clarification: I sure hope that you understand that the species barrier concept has nothing to do with what a creator could or could not do. You do realize that it is about what <b>not</b>-creator could and could not do? I.e. what can natural processes do.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36161382744718025882012-01-15T02:37:05.711-08:002012-01-15T02:37:05.711-08:00Hawks:
SA could represent non-divine ancestry
Of...Hawks:<br /><br /><i>SA could represent non-divine ancestry</i><br /><br />Of course it can, we’ve already been over this, remember? Separate ancestry (SA) can represent all kinds of histories and causes. The question is about the <b>specific SA model</b> that Darwin and evolutionists use that Sober reports on, and what they say it represents.<br /><br />What types of histories does it represent? One type that it must represent is the “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries” between them concept of creationism. That must be represented because, as Sober explains, that concept was shown to be a myth. <br /><br />If the evolutionist’s SA model does not represent creationism’s concept of “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries” then that concept could not have been shown to be a myth, as Sober explained.<br /><br />That SA model could very well represent other kinds of histories and causes as well, in addition to the creationist concept of “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries.” But that doesn’t change the fact that Darwin’s SA model must also represent creationism’s concept of “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries.”<br /><br />This is an obvious and important aspect of using likelihood ratios of which you seem to be ignorant, or refusing to acknowledge. If you’re going to use a likelihood ratio to refute X, then X must be represented in the likelihood ratio. You cannot use a likelihood ratio to refute Y (by modeling merely Y), and then conclude that, oh by the way, we’ve also refuted X as well. You can only conclude that X is also refuted if the likelihood ratio also represents X.<br /><br />So, your denials notwithstanding, Darwin’s Principle refutes creationism’s concept of “kinds” and associated “insuperable boundaries” by first modeling it.<br /><br /><br /><i>evolutionists could be wrong to conclude that they had rebuked versions-of-creationism-that-claim-that-there-are-species-barriers.</i><br /><br />Of course they could be wrong. But they claim they are right, which means they believe that Darwin’s Principle represents that creationist concept.<br /><br /><br /><i>evolutionists could be right to conclude that they had rebuked versions-of-creationism-that-claim-that-there-are-species-barriers. After all, species barriers is an empirically testable concept. If one rebukes species barriers, one automatically rebukes anything that claims that there are species barriers.</i><br /><br />No, that’s absurd. Darwin’s Principle does not show that species barriers, per se, are a myth. They may well be a myth, but demonstrating that would require far more than this simplistic evolutionary model. Darwin’s Principle shows that a particular model, which is taken to represent creationism’s “kinds” and “species barriers,” is a myth. <br /><br />For instance, if there were insuperable barriers between the species, then the Creator could have created those species independently, or not. Just like an architect who can reuse ideas and themes or, on the other hand, he can design each building completely independently, tabula rasa, of the others he has designed.<br /><br />Darwin’s Principle makes the tabula rasa assumption. In other words, the SA model assumes complete independence. And that is then used to conclude that creationism’s concept of “kinds” and “insuperable boundaries” is a myth. So the tabula rasa assumption is assumed to represent the creationist concept.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91486874738029164842012-01-12T17:28:11.654-08:002012-01-12T17:28:11.654-08:00Geoux/TWT,
The approach Aggasiz was advocating, I...Geoux/TWT,<br /><br />The approach Aggasiz was advocating, IMO, was based upon the natural tendency for parsimony. When we classify, we don't PREFER arbitrary boundaries. We prefer systematic groupings.<br /><br />And yes, new fossil finds add to the groupings, but they haven't rendered the groupings arbitrary. And connecting the natural systematic groupings by one genealogical jump would involve significant saltational leaps.<br /><br />Moreover, we don't only find new kinds. We extend stratigraphic ranges, diminishing certainty about the extent to which stratigraphic ranges correspond to existential ranges.<br /><br />Also, we can't know that trees are inconsistent with phylogenetic interpretations once we infer beyond extrapolated patterns (which don't account for radical branching) anyway. <br /><br />Anyone can interpret a tree to be phylogenetic so long as they're willing to posit whatever various modes and tempos of change that would be required. In the absence of a bona-fide causal explanation, it's really an aesthetic preference as to how to draw lines on that matter.<br /><br />In short, Agassiz preferred applying parsimony to classification boundaries whereas macroevolutionists prefer the parsimony of limiting causality to non-volitional causality, except for possibly human free-will, which many deny. But if minds aren't free, there is no knowable normativity applicable to thought in the first place.<br /><br />Neither parsimony preference is proveably better than the other by any particular experiment. That's the problem. But on-going research might, if naturalistic macroevolution is possible, tilt the evidence away from Agassiz's preference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5648399565586913352012-01-11T09:38:06.530-08:002012-01-11T09:38:06.530-08:00Cornelius,
Do I need to spell out every detail?
...Cornelius,<br /><br /><i>Do I need to spell out every detail?</i><br /><br />In this case you certainly did. The conclusion that the non-existence of species barriers rebuke versions-of-creationism-that-claim-that-there-are-species-barriers is not even controversial; it is entailed. Given how often Cornelius complains about how evolutionists equivocate over the word evolution, I am VERY surprised the he now does the very same thing for the word creationism.<br /><br />As for Cornelius claim that SA is something divine:<br /><br /><i>But if there is no relationship between separate ancestry and divine intervention, and if Darwin’s logic refuted separate ancestry but not divine intent then, I reminded the professor, Darwin could not rebuke creationism as Sober had explained.</i><br /><br />and<br /><br /><i>...of course it (SA) represents creationism. Otherwise evolutionists could not say they have rebuked creationism...</i><br /><br />Point 1: SA could represent non-divine ancestry and evolutionists could be <b>wrong</b> to conclude that they had rebuked versions-of-creationism-that-claim-that-there-are-species-barriers. Your argument is still circular.<br /><br />Point 2: SA could represent non-divine ancestry and evolutionists could be <b>right</b> to conclude that they had rebuked versions-of-creationism-that-claim-that-there-are-species-barriers. After all, species barriers is an empirically testable concept. If one rebukes species barries, one automatically rebukes anything that claims that there are species barriers.<br /><br />Cornelius conflates creationism-that-claim-that-there-are-species-barriers with creationism-that-is-divine. The former is testable, the latter not.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37794776883736379842012-01-10T21:26:36.255-08:002012-01-10T21:26:36.255-08:00Geoxus:
You shouldn't have assumed that Sober...Geoxus:<br /><br /><i>You shouldn't have assumed that Sober was equating SA with creationism solely because of the mention of the "myth of the walls", a concept which can stand independently of any creationist claims.</i><br /><br />But it wasn’t “solely because of the mention of the ‘myth of the walls’” Sober specifically stated that it was the “kinds” and the “insuperable boundaries” between them concept of creationism that was shown to be a myth. Furthermore, Sober explicitly defines these “kinds” and “insuperable boundaries” to be creationism.<br /><br /><br /><i>I concede that yours is a possible lecture, although convoluted, and clearly not as evident as you present it. Upon ambiguity, you failed to apply the principle of charity.</i><br /><br />Convoluted? Ambiguous? Darwin repeatedly attacked creationism in his book using what Sober calls “Darwin’s Principle.” Sober reports on this. He discusses the objection to common ancestry by creationists who hold to “kinds” of species separated by barriers, and how Darwin’s Principle rebuked this concept of “kinds” and barriers, showing them to be a myth.<br /><br />I’m simply reading what the paper says, a completely uncontroversial reporting on this evolutionary logic. You deny it and yet I’m the one with the convoluted interpretation?<br /><br />How is it convoluted to say that Sober reports that the popular concept of creationism was shown to be a myth, when Sober himself defines that concept of creationism, and when it is precisely what Darwin did in his book?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44916050867597225842012-01-10T21:13:58.754-08:002012-01-10T21:13:58.754-08:00Hawks:
In fact, Cornelius claims that when Sober ...Hawks:<br /><br /><i>In fact, Cornelius claims that when Sober says that common ancestry rebukes species barriers, Sober really MEANS that rebuking the species barrier concept means that one also rebukes creationism.</i><br /><br />No, you are continuing to misread the paper. Sober does not say that Darwin rebuked species barriers. Sober says that Darwin rebuked “kinds” and species barriers. Darwin repeatedly attacked creationism in his book using what Sober calls “Darwin’s Principle.” Sober reports on this.<br /><br /><br /><i>Indeed. Sober talks about them because they serve as a comparison to CA. Funnily enough, he never says anything about comparing CA to divine SA.</i><br /><br />Of course he does. Sober discusses the objection to common ancestry by creationists who hold to “kinds” of species separated by barriers, and how Darwin’s Principle rebuked this concept of “kinds” and barriers.<br /><br /><br /><i>So, what Cornelius is doing is saying that since Sober claims that CA rebukes species barriers, Sober is also claiming that CA rebukes creationism. Sober, of course, never directly says anything about rebuking creationism</i><br /><br />Of course he does. Again, you are simply misreading the paper (and then accusing me of not knowing how to read). Sober specifically identifies “kinds” of species separated by barriers as a creationist concept, and says that Darwin showed it to be a myth.<br /><br /><br /><i>How does Cornelius reach his conclusion? Well, one argument he lays forth is that some other people have said that CA rebukes creationism. These people, like Sober, are evolutionists and it seems that since one evolutionist says something, they all say it.</i><br /><br />No, the argument is not that “some other people” have rebuked creationism using Darwin’s Principle—it was <b>Darwin</b> that rebuked creationism using Darwin’s Principle. Sober it talking about Darwin. You need to read the paper.<br /><br /><br /><i>Sober is clearly aware of the simple fact that when one shows that something is wrong with a creationist claim, all it shows is that that version of creationism is wrong. NOT that all of creationism is wrong.</i><br /><br />Of course. Do I need to spell out every detail? When Sober points out that Darwin shows creationism to be a myth, it is with reference to the “kinds” and barriers concept of creationism. I’m not sure if there are other versions prevalent, but of course if there are then they would not be falsified. My point is not that every possible, conceivable form of creationism was rebuked.<br /><br /><br /><i>Because of this, I think it would be safe to say that even IF Sober were to claim that CA rebuked creationism (via species barriers), he would add the disclaimer that it only rebukes those versions of creationism that claim that there are species barriers.</i><br /><br />Sure, he did. Sober specifically stated that it was the “kinds” and the “insuperable boundaries” between them concept of creationism that was shown to be a myth. Read the paper.<br /><br />This must be one of the better examples of evolutionary mental gymnastics I’ve seen in awhile.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52246907443786109532012-01-10T20:52:29.851-08:002012-01-10T20:52:29.851-08:00Geoxus,
Upon ambiguity, you (Cornelius) failed to...Geoxus,<br /><br /><i>Upon ambiguity, you (Cornelius) failed to apply the principle of charity. </i><br /><br />Which he justifies by a hasty generalization (evolutionists always rebuke creationism). And circular reasoning (...of course it (SA) represents creationism. Otherwise evolutionists could not say they have rebuked creationism...).Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49587216413310931352012-01-10T19:46:34.691-08:002012-01-10T19:46:34.691-08:00Well that's all well and good but you still ha...<i>Well that's all well and good but you still haven't explained the quote-mining charge.</i><br /><br />Well, I have, you just disagree with the explanations.<br /><br />You shouldn't have assumed that Sober was equating SA with creationism solely because of the mention of the "myth of the walls", a concept which can stand independently of any creationist claims. I concede that yours is a possible lecture, although convoluted, and clearly not as evident as you present it. Upon ambiguity, you failed to apply the principle of charity. And after reading Hawks' post, I reckon you also failed to inform yourself better (or at least to present the information*) about Sobers' thinking on refutations of creationism.<br /><br />* I now remember reading similar remarks on Sober's "Evidence and Evolution" book, which Cornelius <b>also read</b>. I'll check that when I have some more time.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45989553270914262862012-01-10T19:12:55.016-08:002012-01-10T19:12:55.016-08:00Joe:
Because you have always not put forward any ...Joe:<br /><br /><i>Because you have always not put forward any positive hypotheses of your own.</i><br /><br />Well that’s because I’m not as smart as you guys.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>And, as I pointed out then, the evidence for common ancestry of chordates is of the same sort as it is for diatoms.</i><br /><br />I didn’t know that. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by “same sort.”Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47384925373965928632012-01-10T19:02:35.467-08:002012-01-10T19:02:35.467-08:00TWT,
You're missing his point. He claims that...TWT,<br /><br />You're missing his point. He claims that both his model and CA cannot be tested. The old creationist "we look at the same facts, we just have different interpretations*".<br /><br />The "walls" claim can be contested if interpreted as phenotypical discontinuities (esp. as gaps invariably tend to narrow as we find more taxa) but could still exist as purported barriers to evolution despite the phenotypical continuum (which would make them even more arbitrary).<br /><br />* And the word of the Bible.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52658946558131290482012-01-10T18:51:26.858-08:002012-01-10T18:51:26.858-08:00Sorry for the delay, I was busy with some other ev...Sorry for the delay, I was busy with some other evil-doings.<br /><br />Jeff says:<br /><br /><i>Me either. And saltational leaps would work as well anyway. That's not the point. It's the bit about non-arbitrary, systematic classification. IOW, greater ease of recognizing readily discernable grouping criteria.</i><br /><br />If it's non-arbitrary, you <b>should</b> have an idea were the walls could be.<br /><br /><i>I agree. That's the point.</i><br /><br />To say that we don't <b>have</b> causal models and that we <b>can't use</b> the models to certain degree of extrapolation, are two different things.<br /><br /><i>So tell me how we start with no circularity and come up with a way to relate extant organisms to fossils causally. Sure, you can build trees. But a tree doesn't imply a genealogical relationship.</i><br /><br />A tree may not imply phylogenetic relationships, but the relevant point is that we get trees that are <b>consistent</b> with a phylogenetic interpretation, whereas inconsistent trees are possible (see previous post).<br /><br /><i>I think it would be a surprise just like all kinds of similar finds. That's because we prefer less variation over more for classification purposes, though we might want some variety for novelty. But that doesn't mean a five-year old wouldn't see the thing and think it a chicken. UCA pushes the difficulty of non-arbitrary classification to the other extreme.</i><br /><br />I didn't intend to imply anything about classification with the toothed chick paper, but about causality. They found regulatory mechanisms that can <b>cause</b> the transformations that help to make your "gaps".Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53454244101916856882012-01-10T17:58:21.402-08:002012-01-10T17:58:21.402-08:00Jeff, do you have evidence to show that there are ...Jeff, do you have evidence to show that there are "walls" and can you show exactly what and where those alleged "walls" are in every organism that has ever lived?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53901996799314756132012-01-10T17:14:05.230-08:002012-01-10T17:14:05.230-08:00Indeed. And that's how you test to see if ther...Indeed. And that's how you test to see if there are no walls. You keep looking. There's no difference between the approaches unless we can find relevant, consistent patterns between extant and fossil data that are indicative of no walls. But we don't have that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50525515226630645662012-01-10T05:16:02.803-08:002012-01-10T05:16:02.803-08:00How do we start with what is empirically known and...<i>How do we start with what is empirically known and test the hypothesis that there are no walls?</i><br /><br />Keep looking until you bump into one?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74749317143583143202012-01-10T04:08:51.660-08:002012-01-10T04:08:51.660-08:00How do we start with what is empirically known and...How do we start with what is empirically known and test the hypothesis that there are no walls?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69569984181470959882012-01-10T04:05:23.425-08:002012-01-10T04:05:23.425-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35642645250028876332012-01-09T20:25:27.394-08:002012-01-09T20:25:27.394-08:00The emphasis I did in my previous post on the word...The emphasis I did in my previous post on the word "some" should really have been on the word that comes right after it. I.e. "versions".Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.com