tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7171774443140822713..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Protein Evolution: A Problem That Defies DescriptionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4638568649400027422011-01-15T19:49:26.170-08:002011-01-15T19:49:26.170-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13957576299638604472011-01-15T19:18:25.981-08:002011-01-15T19:18:25.981-08:00Correct English is not my first language. Usually ...Correct English is not my first language. Usually I find the mistakes after I posted it and think: OH, I am such an idiot. I should know how to do better....<br /><br />Sorry for the whale thing and any confusion I caused. I don't read it all. It is too much to read and there are too many other things I have to take care of. <br /><br />Certainly we don't "need" the accumulation of neutral mutations for evolution to happen. Well, it can speed it up quite a bit though...:)<br /><br />I don't know but somehow I have the feeling that those who argue pro creation don't really believe it and just argue for the "fun" of it because it doesn't make any sense. I might be wrong though. <br /><br />However there are actually people who do believe all this and some of them are very young and believe it so strongly that they reject any other idea from the beginning, making science education impossible in high school. <br /><br />It is scary and causes quite some teacher huge trouble because those kids convert the Biology class into nothing else than a destructive debate that (supposed to?) goes nowhere - naturally. <br /><br />It is amazing.... I could never believe it if I would not witness it. It is really sad because not all kids are lucky and have a scientist as parent who can make up for the loss of time spend on debates - and there it goes the science education in high school all together, while higher education is crying about the decreased number of young people interested in studying it, which in return has the result that there might not be enough people in near future to advance our knowledge - at least in the US. And, this is no fun at all. And - I am in a state that "only" has moderate problems with this issue..... I don't even want to know how it is at other places.... Why are we doing all this to ourselves?emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62477502173990273712011-01-15T16:53:56.974-08:002011-01-15T16:53:56.974-08:00Hey emil,
You misread John a little bit. He is aw...Hey emil,<br /><br />You misread John a little bit. He is aware that there can be random conservation and recombination of non-advantageous alleles (neutral and semi-neutral, and he might love the idea of disadvantageous). But his "point" (semi-inpired by Neal's) is that whales could not have evolved because they needed many mutations that all by themselves provided no advantage. Well, he might have a "might" there somewhere. So, my answer is that I don't see why whale evolution would have "needed" the accumulation of many mutations that in and on themselves were neutral, and only combined would have helped the changes. He is B.S.ing the case of whale evolution based on the citrate thing in E. coli having needed two mutations that each is neutral without the other.<br /><br />By the way, I enjoy your posts (I suspect that English is not your first language though).<br />Best!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13324374331580923312011-01-15T14:54:07.540-08:002011-01-15T14:54:07.540-08:00Oh, sorry I forgot another three major mechanism b...Oh, sorry I forgot another three major mechanism by which genes are maintained even though they might not be optimal or even "dysfunctional".<br /><br />First, genes are linked. That means the chance of recombination is dependent on the distance between the genes on a chromosome. As closer they are, as less likely recombination happens.<br /><br />Now, lets say there is a gene that is under high selective pressure like one that is related to good eye sight. Directly next to it is another gene, lets say something that has to do with locomotion. If the locomotion gene gets mutated it still will be maintained within the population if the eye sight gene is under ligher selective pressure than the locomotion gene. This way, the "defective" locomotion gene will be maintained. <br /><br />It might get mutated again and again and again or the environment changes - whatever. As long as it is carried along with the eye sight gene due to its selective pressure, it will be maintained even if it is somewhat dysfunctional. At some point it then might become highly advanterous due to some "good" mutation or due to environmental changes and BANG, there we go.<br /><br />Second, there are many examples where things are just "good enough" instead of optimal. It seems to be that "good enough" is enough to be maintained. With this, genes can "move" through dips within the fitness landscape without any problem.<br /><br />Third not every gene is always under selective pressure. Some just are not and it is sort of random what happens to those genes. They can change without any problem within reasonable limits because it just doesn't matter. At some point it might get under selective pressure and there we then get a "large" change that seemingly came out of nowhere.<br /><br />So, accumuation of small "disadvanterous" changes that lead as a summation to an highly advanterous large change impossible? NO, realy not.emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21924386901430854352011-01-15T12:43:38.062-08:002011-01-15T12:43:38.062-08:00"And you're forgetting that although sexu..."And you're forgetting that although sexual reproduction can combine the mutations you want in the same organism, unless they already provide selectable advantage (the original issue), they are no more likely to be retained there than any other random mutation."<br /><br />Sorry, this is not true. There are usually two versions of each gene and it has been shown in some marine species (for example), that even fatal genes can be maintained within a population as long as this gene is recessive. In marine species this has been shown to make it possible for them to "move" inland and "change" to fresh water species in a hurry which seemed to be impossible due to the huge problem of maintaining homeostasis in freshwater vs. saltwater.<br /><br />Also, some genes are discovered that are, what is called female/male driven. That means, there are genes that are related to sex which are maintained within a population even though they are detremental to either the female or the male. Depending on the mating system however, the detremental gene is maintained within the population anyway which makes it possible for the species to change in a hurry once additional genetic changes or environmental changes eventually let that gene fall under positive selection. <br /><br />With those and other known systems it is possible that a gene (and with this a protein) can change (slowly) even through stages in which they are fatal to the animal and still will be maintained within a population until some additional changes in the environment or further genetic changes turn out to be advanterous.<br /><br />It is true that it is almost impossible for proteins to have evolved at once because of their usually complex function and sensitivity to changes. However, the model that everything has to happen at once is false. <br /><br />There are mechanism that allow maintaining even fatal genes (silently) within a population and with this allows the accummulation of changes until the summation of all those changes eventually turns out to be advanterous. Once such accumulation of change is advanterous and therefore then selected for, a large population can "pop up" in a hurry without any problem. Not possible? Well.<br /><br />For this, see what happened with introduced species. There are cases in modern times (we saw it happen) where the introduction of only a couple of individuals that had advanterous trades was enough for to end up with a high population within only a few decades.<br /><br />Biology is tricky which isn't a surprise because guess what, those mechanisms that allow such (seemingly impossible) things are under extreme positive selection.emilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15892485493507907986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64749957581241950522011-01-08T15:46:53.486-08:002011-01-08T15:46:53.486-08:00Yes it started that way, but in a very short time ...<i>Yes it started that way, but in a very short time (relatively speaking) you had a huge amount of allele variability in the flask.</i><br /><br />No you didn't.<br /><br /><i>And you're forgetting that although sexual reproduction can combine the mutations you want in the same organism, unless they already provide selectable advantage (the original issue), they are no more likely to be retained there than any other random mutation.</i><br /><br />But the key is whether they gave an advantage. It seems quite evident that in the whale example they did. Unless you have some piece of evidence to the contrary.<br /><br /><i>More genes simply reduces the selection coefficient for each gene by the same factor.</i><br /><br />I have no idea what you are saying, but more genes increases the possibilities for recombinations and shuffling exponentially.<br /><br /><i>As for transposons, tandem duplications, controlling sequences and regulatory proteins, these are all found in E.Coli as well, yes?</i><br /><br />If you think that an organism having around 90% of its DNA as genes has the same tandem duplications, transposons, and controlling sequences as an organism that has perhaps at most 5% of its DNA as genes then maybe. A much higher proportion of coding genes in multicellular eukaryotes are regulatory proteins than in E. coli, also increase exponentially the possibilities for new regulatory cascades.<br /><br /><i>This is a very simplistic way of approaching evidence. I did not say there was NO evidence compatible with this event. If fossil A has a particular bone structure more similar to fossil B than average, the evidence is more compatible. But one piece of evidence that falsifies is worth a hundred pieces that seem to support.</i><br /><br />No, it is not simplistic. New genes would be a surprise, but not enough to falsify the theory. One piece of evidence that falsifies sure is worth a hundred pieces that support it. New genes show potential as falsifiers. But that's it. We would have to ask whether these genes look like virus, like transposons, like transported by either (as by being surrounded by such and such kinds of sequences), et cetera. But we don't know if there are any new genes there, do we?<br /><br /><i>To be certain the actual history of whales will remain unaltered. But you are comparing natural selection to very strong directed selection.</i><br /><br />What exactly makes natural selection impossible to qualify as strong "directed" selection? (quotes because you probably charged the word with "intelligent design" overtones). A niche is a direction, competition can be strong and thus push a population strongly and away (directed), lack of food in one niche and availability of food at another can be selection forces both strong and directed, the results of natural selection over a long period can look as the results of shorter periods of stronger selection ...<br /><br /><i>see how long your dog breeds last against even the average mutt, let alone wolves.</i><br /><br />See how long do the wolves last among humans. Dogs are adapted to an environment where wolves can't compete. Wolves are adapted to an environment where our dog breeds can't compete. So?<br /><br />No more time in my hands until perhaps a week. The other guys seem willing to have some fun conversing with you. Enjoy.<br /><br />...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68362041280184777642011-01-08T15:35:03.036-08:002011-01-08T15:35:03.036-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25029589338511436242011-01-08T12:01:12.817-08:002011-01-08T12:01:12.817-08:00I spent over 20 hours on these conversations so I ...<i>I spent over 20 hours on these conversations so I could just spit out caricatures of evolution?</i><br /><br />Sure you did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15505550703299958502011-01-08T11:59:07.889-08:002011-01-08T11:59:07.889-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37238801222357493812011-01-08T10:54:56.338-08:002011-01-08T10:54:56.338-08:00oleg:
=====
And by the way, it's not just anat...oleg:<br />=====<br />And by the way, it's not just anatomical evidence that points to a close relation between whales and other mammals (ungulates, in particular). Genetic evidence independently points that way.<br />=====<br /><br />Of course, but I wan to know about John's specific disdain for <i>Pakicetus</i>. You need to use morphological data to link fossil andextant taxa before using genetic evidence.Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48395466919612450362011-01-08T10:22:05.946-08:002011-01-08T10:22:05.946-08:00John,
I am so sorry that you spent half a week on...John,<br /><br />I am so sorry that you spent half a week on me and got no new information. But sure it must be hard for you to get new information if you are trying so hard not to get it. After all, you mistook and twisted attempts at giving you new information and got us stuck into circles of clarifying and clarifying and clarifying what should have been easier.<br /><br /><i>and it seems like an act you're using to leave in a harumph</i><br /><br />Take it whichever way you like the most. I have grown up beyond kinder-garden. I can live with whatever you want to imply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19768409022619787752011-01-08T09:30:43.603-08:002011-01-08T09:30:43.603-08:00John: Yeah, I thought someone might point that out...<b>John</b>: <i>Yeah, I thought someone might point that out, but I think it still gives a good idea of the amount of diversity that can arise. Besides, a large part of this issue seems to be how connected the paths between genes are, whether one, two, or 50 or more mutations. Are we appealing ot hopeful monsters again, or no? I'm just trying to get his whole idea so I can evaluate what he's saying. </i><br /><br />Point mutation is very limited. Recombination is a very powerful mechanism in evolution. <br /><br /><b>John</b>: <i>I was just wondering if you thought Pakicetus gained a significant portion of it's genes from "another" organism along the way. </i><br /><br />Possible, but most variation is believed to have originated within closely related organisms. <br /><br /><b>John</b>: <i>Unless someone has sequenced a proto whale genome from fossilized remains, I'll assume this means something like, we found a fossil that had more flipper like paws and so this must have come from genes that gradually morphed no more than 2 or 3 mutations at a time to the current form in whales. </i><br /><br />Start with the nested hierarchy, not an isolated lineage. There is strong evidence of Common Descent. This provides the historical context, and there are a number of well-supported evolutionary lineages.<br /><br /><b>John</b>: <i>if you played the tape in reverse, you'd say it was tetrapod evolution and it had advantages because it could forage on land. </i><br /><br />Playing the tape in reverse, given the overall historical context, makes no sense. <br /><br />Demonstrating natural selection for historical cases can be difficult. The evidence in this case is rather straight-forward; an open niche followed by invasion and increasingly adaptive characteristics.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61946953662414102262011-01-08T08:52:04.033-08:002011-01-08T08:52:04.033-08:00"Dogs to whales" is actually wrong. The..."Dogs to whales" is actually wrong. The claim is that <i>Pakicetus</i> is closely related to whales. Dogs and whales share ancestors, that's another claim. <br /><br />And by the way, it's not just anatomical evidence that points to a close relation between whales and other mammals (ungulates, in particular). Genetic evidence independently points that way.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45581476025363588662011-01-08T08:47:11.274-08:002011-01-08T08:47:11.274-08:00John:
====
Except that "dogs to whales" ...John:<br />====<br />Except that "dogs to whales" pretty much sums up your position. That's what makes me think that YOU GUYS are "B.S.ing" But I will clarify from now on and say doglike or Pakicetus or proto-whale so it sounds less rediculous when you defend it.<br />====<br /><br />Explain where's the B.S. in <i>Pakicetus</i> being related to whales, given the evidence. I guess you know a lot of comparative anatomy backing that position, don't you?Geoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00480560335679211508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29054679305728053962011-01-08T07:53:32.608-08:002011-01-08T07:53:32.608-08:00Negative Entropy: "Please don't try and a...Negative Entropy: "Please don't try and answer this one any more. Your pretension that I "act surprised" because you "brought a theme of this forum" betrays a much more cynical dishonesty on your part. "<br /><br />If you don't want an answer, don't read it, right? Forgive me for making you scroll 10 more clicks. As far as this laundry list you're keeping of my wickedness, I've been ignoring your accusations and trying to focus on the facts for a while now, but since your building longer lists of imaginary slights than evidence for "terrestrial-creature-that-is-dog-like-but-not-a-dog to whale" evolution, the former is starting to interfere with progress on the latter. So let's see, has anyone ever accused you of living in a dream world of victimization? I don't buy it, and it seems like an act you're using to leave in a harumph. Like, Oh NOES, "What am I to believe??" How can I go on when you've twisted my metaphor so horribly and in such an unfortunate fasion? You hater of truth, you user of obviously discredited creationist quackery for rhetorical effect, I shall protect my secret proofs of evolution from your evil hands! .... just saying this is what I'm feeling from you right now.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "OK. after reading your new set of comments. I see that we would just continue in circles. So, we are done for now.<br /><br />Feel free to steer us out when you come by new evidence. Or you can always let me know what convices you if I ever gain worthiness in your sight.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42871063879910459932011-01-08T07:52:59.594-08:002011-01-08T07:52:59.594-08:00Negative Entropy: "Also, you know quite well ...Negative Entropy: "Also, you know quite well that creationist quacks use the "dogs to cats," "crocoducks" and such ridiculous cartoons of evolution. So using "dogs to whales" makes it easy for me to think you are B.S.ing."<br /><br />Except that "dogs to whales" pretty much sums up your position. That's what makes me think that YOU GUYS are "B.S.ing" But I will clarify from now on and say doglike or Pakicetus or proto-whale so it sounds less rediculous when you defend it.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "I still gave you the benefit of the doubt until you used the "turn to intelligent design" card. What else do you expect but for me to be unpleasantly surprised?"<br /><br />If you were surprised, I'm certain it was unpleasant. I think I would have face-palmed after that one.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "In retrospect I should have supposed that you would be this kind of a creationist. But well, now I know."<br /><br />Oh, poor you, I spent over 20 hours on these conversations so I could just spit out caricatures of evolution? If this is how you want to go out, then believe whatever lets you exit fastest. Great, I spent half a work week on you and you didn't tell me one new thing, thanks for all your expertise.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39917038600239452512011-01-08T07:52:23.142-08:002011-01-08T07:52:23.142-08:00Negative Entropy: "Once you have richness of ...Negative Entropy: "Once you have richness of genes around, the probability to evolve an existing gene/protein into some new function becomes higher than that of evolving new proteins from scratch."<br /><br />I'm not sure how you arrived at this. Isn't this claim the opposite of the gene duplication claim? If a protein is useful the way it is, isn't it less likely to change into something else than a random sequence that has no stabilizing selection applied to it? It seems like an existing gene requires an additional duplication event to start searching again, while an existing random sequence has already started. "...the copy is then free to mutate, etc. etc..."<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "Innovations are possible to be evolved on top. The simile was with how building a base technology makes it easier to build on top afterwards."<br /><br />To be sure, any possible modifications to existing proteins are more likely to happen when they exist than when they don't exist. But that does not mean it is more likely to happen than the first emergence of a gene itself.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "I should not need to explain this. If you wanted to understand you would have. But you had to bring the rhetoric. I guess you are proud that we have to be careful how we explain lest you start playing your tricks."<br /><br />If you believe we are designed creatures, I completely understand your metaphor. I am proud, and I'm proud of you for any careful explaining you do for me. Yes, since it seems to me that most adherents to common descent are certain of it for often contradictory reasons, I try my best to beg for precision.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45074890681877098912011-01-08T07:50:34.835-08:002011-01-08T07:50:34.835-08:00Negative Entropy: "But we were not talking ab...Negative Entropy: "But we were not talking about intelligent design, and your B.S. rhetoric, you know quite well, is to take an honest metaphor and twist it..."<br /><br />I did not restate your metaphor in any way. The misfortune of using a metaphor where everything is designed is yours. You can laugh at something you did accidentally, or get angry if you feel you betrayed a weakness in a metaphor you once found convincing. Only you know what you knew. It seems often that evolutionist turn to these types of explanations in desperation in place of directly discussing the facts they've encountered, so I feared you had finally departed from thinking critically. Apparently you have long ago consigned intelligent design to the dust bin of BS. While I don't agree with all of their tennets, I feel they do make a few good arguments, some of which have implications for the current discussion. I think you've been at this board long enough to realize that. If you felt I was being dismissive, It was probably because I didn't feel like typing a long reply restating direct questions only to be rewarded with more metaphors.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "I was trying to make it easier to grasp: evolving proteins should have taken much longer at the beginning than afterwards."<br /><br />Do you agree that this includes the assumption that the search space between functional proteins is not equal on average? Also, DNA repair is "highly conserved"Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2844469805894759232011-01-08T07:49:32.447-08:002011-01-08T07:49:32.447-08:00Negative Entropy: "In whale evolution we see ...Negative Entropy: "In whale evolution we see lots of steps, but each step has advantages."<br /><br />Unless someone has sequenced a proto whale genome from fossilized remains, I'll assume this means something like, we found a fossil that had more flipper like paws and so this must have come from genes that gradually morphed no more than 2 or 3 mutations at a time to the current form in whales. "each step has advantages".. compared to what? if you played the tape in reverse, you'd say it was tetrapod evolution and it had advantages because it could forage on land. Do you know the level of shamaan voodoo that branch of "science" goes through? It can't change daily because it's not even that coherent.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "Clear finally? Two different problems."<br /><br />No, you'll certainly have to clarify the gene level implications you are drawing from looking at proto whale fossils.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80138272907423823372011-01-08T07:48:59.382-08:002011-01-08T07:48:59.382-08:00Negative Entropy: "But remember we are talkin...Negative Entropy: "But remember we are talking about bacteria and mutations towards a new function (citrate consumption)"<br /><br />It seems that "new function" is how you've decided to file it away. But citrate consumption is not a new function in E. Coli. otherwise how could you break the genes that turn it off?<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "where any of these mutations provide no advantage unless both mutations are present. That is not exactly whale evolution (or not necessarily)."<br /><br />How could you POSSIBLY know that? It seems to be an EXTREMELY constrained claim. I'm sure I don't know what you mean here. It occured in a genome of 4500, but it's never going to crop up in one that's 20,000?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27480761035645784212011-01-08T07:48:16.607-08:002011-01-08T07:48:16.607-08:00John: "Incidentally, does that mean you think...John: "Incidentally, does that mean you think HGT played a large role in the wolflike-whalelike transition?"<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "Are you reading any of my comments or just searching for positions of attack?"<br /><br />I was just wondering if you thought Pakicetus gained a significant portion of it's genes from "another" organism along the way. Isn't that a reasonable inference to draw from your statement? But as you can see, I'm very methodically reading your comments.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "This would correct about the experiment, but not what we were talking about. Again, in nature bacteria cannot be their own route."<br /><br />Then why do you say they are here,<br />Negative Entropy: "But also think how unrealistic it is to expect this to be any quicker if we are denied, by the experimental setting, enough variety of bacteria within each flask for taking different routes towards different solutions"Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79097364230560538162011-01-08T07:47:42.016-08:002011-01-08T07:47:42.016-08:00Negative Entropy: "Then you did not look at t...Negative Entropy: "Then you did not look at the evidence, you looked at something presented by some creationist who withheld important information."<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ was the last I looked at I think. It seems familiar. But no, I don't generally read creationist literature when researching evidence FOR evolution. Often I talk to evolutionists like yourself. Like right now.<br /><br />Negative Entropy: "Nope, all the information is very public. Just take a look by yourself. Just avoid the creationist quackery."<br /><br />No one will ever be able to go over all the data, and even then, different people take away different implications. I thought you might be an independent thinker with insights I'd not seen before. I'm just asking for what YOU find convincing... precisely.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52308114891283980702011-01-08T07:46:30.047-08:002011-01-08T07:46:30.047-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5529369833673145812011-01-08T07:43:22.072-08:002011-01-08T07:43:22.072-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60968933251832652522011-01-08T07:42:17.591-08:002011-01-08T07:42:17.591-08:00trying to repost in order.. yuktrying to repost in order.. yukJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.com