tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8145112068531261681..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Just Took Another Hit—Right Where it CountsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32398334892670679632012-05-09T20:31:25.388-07:002012-05-09T20:31:25.388-07:00In your dice rolling game you show a distinctively...In your dice rolling game you show a distinctively random nature. It's not even a faint to use the term random mutations because that's is how mutations are perceived in standard evolutionary theory. Coupled with other naturalistic processes it become evolution, which is not quite so random.Reglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14337554831010541096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66954013564163392612012-05-09T20:18:39.430-07:002012-05-09T20:18:39.430-07:00Not the first. But your right it doesn't happe...Not the first. But your right it doesn't happen nearly enough. So many people assume ID means christian because it's championed by christians, when in fact any theory that tries to make speculations on a creator immediately breaks down on itself for bearing a false foundation. The fact that it's often used to levy religious interests also hurts it's chances at being taken as a serious science... which I actually think it is.Reglesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14337554831010541096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-458133259584758562012-05-03T21:36:28.810-07:002012-05-03T21:36:28.810-07:00John: "Because of the signal is so strong, it...John: "Because of the signal is so strong, it should be easy to identify be definition."<br /><br />of->if<br />be->byJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63456860268522444342012-05-03T12:04:52.775-07:002012-05-03T12:04:52.775-07:00Scott: "John, did you actually read the artic...Scott: "John, did you actually read the article?"<br /><br />John: "Do you care to make a wager with me?"<br /><br /><br /><br />Scott, I think something "just got stuck". I think any offspring would go on producing the normal way. But you are welcome to take the other side of the wager.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72707256654126979382012-05-03T12:01:53.887-07:002012-05-03T12:01:53.887-07:00Thorton: "Why do they demand to be spoon fed ...Thorton: "Why do they demand to be spoon fed years of college level biology for free and won't lift a finger to educate themselves?"<br /><br />Because of the signal is so strong, it should be easy to identify be definition. But if there is no signal, then there is no selection pressure by definition. Just asking you to decide - something that should be easy for you after "years of college level biology"<br /><br />Thorton: "Like I said, if you refuse to do any work yourself don't be surprised when you stay ignorant."<br /><br />Show the first respect for knowledge, and I'll care what knowledge you might think you have. Because as of now, it seems to me that you have either not read the paper and are bluffing, or that the paper does not answer the questions I posed. I feel bad that you will go to the grave with so much unshared "knowledge".Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18000226243449793882012-05-03T11:22:40.036-07:002012-05-03T11:22:40.036-07:00Yet again with the inventing problems needlessly. ...<i>Yet again with the inventing problems needlessly. This one doesn't even serve to illustrate a point....</i><br /><br />It illustrates a point, what you imagine of "chance" can just as easily be invoked <b>against</b> mythologies of progress toward an end (in this case, an imaginary string of sixes) as for it. The only way out of this problem is to rig the game and invent rules, which is exactly what proponents of imagining things about chance in this way do. It is similar to the rule about imagining what God <b>wouldn't do</b> and never allowing anyone to imagine what God would do. It seems that when it comes to citing imaginary evidence to support a desired result, proponents of the result need rules.<br /><br /><br /><i><b>Why not a string of a billion?</b><br /><br />Why not indeed. But the number really doesn't matter.</i><br /><br />Indeed... that's why I said that you might as well imagine a trillion sixes. There is no limit.<br /><br /><br /><i>Random mutation, taken alone, is random.</i><br /><br />It's not really. It's just that you want to say that you've reached the limit of knowledge in that area. <br /><br /><i>And is, I suspect, the basis of the Creationist strawman that 'evolution is random'.</i><br /><br /><br />It's not a strawman when leading proponents of "evolution" throughout society keep saying that order has emerged from chaos and subsume that idea in evolution. It is merely what they've said and with public funding generally drawn from creationists no less. Or is this like the rule about only imagining what God wouldn't do and never allowing anyone to imagine what God would do? In other words, various public representatives of evolution can subsume the idea that order spontaneously arose from chaos but then when creationists <b>reply</b> that it did not... well. <br /><br /><b>But these random mutations then undergo natural selction - a system which selects the good mutations and discards the bad...</b><br /><br /><br />Natural culling doesn't necessarily select the good and discard the bad, a bad result that results in less adaptability and less intelligence over all can be selected for just as easily as the good result of more intelligence, adaptability and order.<br /><br /><i>...- like a man keeping the dice which show up 6 and rerolling the others. This makes the entire process, taken as a whole, non-random.</i><br /><br />Very well... taking the way that you're imagining things for granted and with no regard for reality (where dice get knocked over, the man dies, etc.), what is the non-random process generally directed toward? <br /><br /><br /><i>Given that natural culling is not random then what is guiding it?<br /><br />Easy. Natural selection.</i><br /><br />But I just said that. Natural selection is natural culling, naturally... and given that you've said that it isn't "random"* then what is it generally directed toward? <br /><br />*Again, note that the contrast between non-random and random is actually just an illusion brought about by an absence of knowledge anyway. So it is not as if one actually contrasts with the other. Instead, that's just the way that you've decided to play pretend about things. And given that, what is "non-random" natural culling generally directed toward?mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77125300854547809502012-05-03T11:22:19.373-07:002012-05-03T11:22:19.373-07:00You are creating problems unnecessarily. It is ran...<i>You are creating problems unnecessarily. It is random as far as we are concerned since no-one can calculate every single contributing factor and accurately predict a roll of a die.</i><br /><br />But the problems that I am creating in your imaginary scenarios by imagining things otherwise are all that is necessary to refute imaginary events of that sort. Meanwhile, back in the real world <b>it can be observed</b> that the man would die before throwing a billion sixes because in the real world it takes time to throw dice. You can combine that with my imaginary evidence of the dice "randomly" hitting the other dice that he's already thrown and knocking your string of sixes apart. After all, things of that sort actually happen in the real world too.<br /><br /><br /><i>If we could, casinos would be out of business.</i><br /><br />The more scientia/science one has, the closer charlatans and those who profit off of ignorance are to being out of business. That's why the business of Darwinism would decline without total State support, as decentralized networks are emerging due to technology generally created as a result of capitalism. Ironic, given that the so-called "theory of evolution" was generally just a projection of capitalism onto nature anyway.mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10353560194944017132012-05-03T09:23:30.236-07:002012-05-03T09:23:30.236-07:00Human hear at freq 10- 20,000, dogs up to 60,000 ,...Human hear at freq 10- 20,000, dogs up to 60,000 , the bats 150,000. If the Designer " reuses optimal designs" why a give dogs a Ferrari and humans a Pinto?<br /><br /> It is your argument that optimal designs in nature are proof that an outside force is present. Prestin may be quite good at what it does, but is it optimum? There are lots of possible proteins not in the human body,is it impossible that one of them might be better?<br /><br /> The question always has been, if you don't know all the possible choices how can you judge the optimum?<br /><br />Just asking, this is more philosophical than experimental.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20251759343829451402012-05-02T19:42:19.787-07:002012-05-02T19:42:19.787-07:00This is a excellent thread.
First it demonstrates ...This is a excellent thread.<br />First it demonstrates the error of classifying creatures by their reproductive abilities.<br />Then it one again makes unlikely the idea of convergent evolution.<br />Then it shows once again that need is the origin of biology.<br /><br />It doesn't surprise me about this lizard because it been a error to classify creatures by reproduction tactics.<br />Yes lizards birth by eggs or live and snakes and everything.<br />Its no big deal even if mechanism is not understood since the lizard probably once did not have this placenta.<br /><br />My favourite idea is that marsupials were wrongly classified as different creatures then placentals just because, largely, they have marsupial reproductive details.<br />Then when they are found in striking likeness to placental creatures CONVERGENT evolution must be invoked to explain it.<br />When in fact reproductive differences should not be seen as important in classification.<br />This lizard is still a lizard and is not a mammal or halfway there.<br />A paradigm shift is needed here.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7971185305405866292012-05-02T12:23:47.463-07:002012-05-02T12:23:47.463-07:00BA -
I was specifically up-braiding Cornelius ab...BA - <br /><br />I was specifically up-braiding Cornelius about inferring that evolution was a random process, when he must know full well that it wasn't.<br /><br />Then you barged in and threw enough urls to fill a telephone directory, linking to every point you can think of, relevant or no, and now you're lecturing me on quantum physics and proteins?<br /><br />And you wonder why I'm not bowing down agog at your pearls of wisdom?<br /><br />I'm not adverse to discussion but you seem to be Hell-bent on making it as difficult and unpleasant as possible. It is not a difficult concpet to grasp. <br /><br />Simply pick a point and make it. Briefly. And it would help if it held some relavence to the discussion at hand.<br /><br />Simply throwing dozens of copy-pasted links at people and then chiding them for not having read them all and fully, when each individual one could potentially spawn a discussion as long as one of CH's posts, is totally unreasonable.<br /><br />And just for the record, how many of these links actually link to peer-reviewed scientific journals? How many are genuine pieces of scientific work? Because just a cursory glance over the links reveals some of them to be from this very blogsite, evolutionnews, biologicinstitute, and uncommondescent - sites which frankly hold as much scientific merit as wwww.ibelieveinfairies.com. These are blogsites set up purposely for the misapplication of science. That is their raison d'etre - to filter science to Creationists in such a way as to make their religion look plausible. Avoiding them and going straight to actual scientific papers might help. Just sayin'...Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44230988456919531182012-05-02T12:22:19.352-07:002012-05-02T12:22:19.352-07:00Vel, you claim to be presenting no argument but ye...Vel, you claim to be presenting no argument but yet you presuppose prestin is sub-optimal. And Yet you have presented absolutely no empirical reason why you should presuppose as such other than you want it to be that way (natural?), and indeed in reality you have no empirical evidence whatsoever of even a single protein being generated by purely material (accidental) processes, whereas I have optimality on several fronts,,, including prestin now:<br /><br />Prestin-driven cochlear amplification is not limited by the outer hair cell membrane time constant. - June 2011<br />Excerpt: Outer hair cells (OHCs) provide amplification in the mammalian cochlea using somatic force generation underpinned by voltage-dependent conformational changes of the motor protein prestin. However, prestin must be gated by changes in membrane potential on a cycle-by-cycle basis and the periodic component of the receptor potential may be greatly attenuated by low-pass filtering due to the OHC time constant (τ(m)), questioning the functional relevance of this mechanism.,,, These data suggest that minimal τ(m) filtering in vivo <b>ensures optimal activation of prestin.</b> <br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21689600<br /><br />Power Efficiency of Outer Hair Cell Somatic Electromotility - <br />Excerpt: Results show that the motor (OHC) is highly efficient over a broad range of auditory frequencies. Results also show that the motor is likely controlled by the brain in a way that allows the listener to focus attention on specific frequencies, thus improving the ability to distinguish sounds of interest in a noisy environment.<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705677/<br /><br />If that is still not good enough for you Vel, there is this,,<br /><br />The normal human ear can distinguish between some 400,000 different sounds, some weak enough to <b>cause the eardrum to move as little as one-tenth (1/10) the diameter of a hydrogen molecule.</b><br /><br />Now vel, if you want to quibble over moving a eardrum one-tenth (1/10) the diameter of a hydrogen molecule, saying that such fine-tuning is not optimal, well, there is really nothing further I can say further to change your mind.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9678273669638341192012-05-02T12:03:21.099-07:002012-05-02T12:03:21.099-07:00BA ,
I am presenting no argument ,I would just li...BA , <br />I am presenting no argument ,I would just like for you to explain use of optimal, again just because present day engineering is incapable,does not mean the system is optimal,could the answer be the assumption that Optimal design is proof of a designer? Or did I misunderstand your argument?<br /><br />And you have no emotional attachment to the designer ,mon ami?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8724630458892039622012-05-02T11:48:12.359-07:002012-05-02T11:48:12.359-07:00John
Otherwise I feel I cannot accept the various...<i>John<br /><br />Otherwise I feel I cannot accept the various day dreams about how it happened.</i><br /><br />Why is it that Creationists are always so intellectually lazy? Why do they demand to be spoon fed years of college level biology for free and won't lift a finger to educate themselves?<br /><br />If you want to read that particular paper, pay for the paper like everyone else. Or search the scientific literature for other, similar articles. Many species of lizards and snakes are know to have evolved <a href="http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/topic_331_Viviparity-in-lizards-snakes-and-mammals/" rel="nofollow">viviparity.</a> There are over 100 known instances of the independent evolution of live-bearing. All involve the loss of the eggshell as in this case. Blackburn himself has several earlier papers with background investigation on this particular species, and there are dozens of others on the evolutionary history of the <i>Trachylepis</i> skinks.<br /><br />Like I said, if you refuse to do any work yourself don't be surprised when you stay ignorant.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29898372545698109192012-05-02T11:22:01.345-07:002012-05-02T11:22:01.345-07:00John, did you actually read the article?
The egg ...John, did you actually read the article?<br /><br />The egg hatched inside the hen, rather than hatching externally. Again, the question becomes, why did the egg remain in the hen?<br /><br />It could be due to some sort of environmental factor, genetic factor or some combination. as such, If the chick is female, it too might give live birth, etc. At which point, selection pressures that did not exist before, in regards to live birth, would be in effect due to a chick remaining in the hen's body, etc. <br /><br />In over words, no one thinks the reproduction changes in the lizard happened all at once for no reason at all. It could have started out with changes as small as this chicken.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12653451917531692792012-05-02T11:05:43.833-07:002012-05-02T11:05:43.833-07:00Well vel, I have optimality on several fronts, and...Well vel, I have optimality on several fronts, and echolocation past the best man has achieved by purposeful design (frankly I'm not interested in searching further just for you). If you want to believe life is an accident after that, go for it, I have done my part, and you have offered no compelling reason other than emotional attachment to 'natural' that it should be otherwise.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66038007392974739922012-05-02T10:27:06.926-07:002012-05-02T10:27:06.926-07:00Your words BA,
" we would expect to find from...Your words BA,<br />" we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse Optimal Designs"<br /><br />Perhaps I misunderstood,you meant ,not optimum, but better than we can produce as humans presently. <br /><br />Typically if your draw a conclusion from a fact, it is up to you to justify the fact as true.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68644537521163515042012-05-02T09:41:10.819-07:002012-05-02T09:41:10.819-07:00So maybe a hopeful monster? to live birth from egg...So maybe a hopeful monster? to live birth from eggs in one go? I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say no. Do you care to make a wager with me?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57098149047322283522012-05-02T09:39:35.991-07:002012-05-02T09:39:35.991-07:00A biological system that adapts requires the knowl...A biological system that adapts requires the knowledge of under what conditions adaptation should occur (when), which adaptations should be employed (what) and how to actually build those adaptations (how). <br /><br />In other words, the key question here is: how was the knowledge used to build the biosphere, as found in the genome, created?<br /><br />If said knowledge was pre-programmed (front-loaded) into some ULCA, then not only would it's genome need to contain the knowledge of when, what and how it should adapt, but the when, what and how for all future organisms under all future conditions.<br /><br />What is the origin of this knowledge? How could it account for future conditions, interactions with other organisms, climate changes, variations in food supplies, natural disasters, extinction events, etc? Where does this massive "lookup table" exist in each organism? Where does the knowledge of how to build each potentially needed adaptation for itself, and future organisms, located? If it doesn't exist, then how does an organism know when, what and how to adapt? <br /><br />Merely saying some designer wanted an organism to adapt, and could because it has no defined limitations, doesn't explain the origin of this knowledge, how it is formatted and stored, etc. it's just pushing the problem into some unexplainable realm. <br /><br />In other words, the underlying explanation of evolutionary theory is that knowledge is created via a process of conjecture and refutation. Specifically conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. <br /><br />This would include the knowledge of how to adapt to it's environment, such as the immune system, etc. <br /><br />People also use conjecture and refutation to create knowledge. However, people are universal explainers. That is, they can create explanatory theories, which include details about how things are, in reality. As such, people use explanations as a criteria to determine which possibilities to test and which to discard.<br /><br />This results in the creation of explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />On the other hand, evolutionary process are not people. As such, they cannot create explanations and use them as a criteria to discard conjectured genetic variations. <br /><br />This results in the creation of non-explanatory knowledge. <br /><br />So, my point here is that biological systems that adapt could be built using either explanatory or non-explanatory knowledge. Which, again, this leads us to the question of the origin of the knowledge use to build the biosphere. <br /><br />However, ID does not address the origin of this knowledge at all. <br /><br />A designer that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptable biological systems, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economical state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptable biological systems, already present in it's genome. <br /><br />However, evolutionary theory does have an expiation for the origin of this knowledge. It's a form of conjecture and refutation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69560808875167788972012-05-02T09:39:16.744-07:002012-05-02T09:39:16.744-07:00Thorton: "It's in the paper, and the refe...Thorton: "It's in the paper, and the references provided in the paper, and in the further references those provide."<br /><br />The original is behind a pay wall. So did you just assume this without even checking yourself? Actually the comments at the discover magazine link say, "Blackburn wants to reconstruct the evolution of this complex organ from simpler versions in other lizards. Doing so might even tell us about how the human placenta evolved. 'It goes to show,' he says, 'that you never know what diversity may be out there until you look.'"<br /><br />So is it possible now that you didn't read EITHER LINK? If one of the authors even says they don't know, how can you claim they know?<br /><br />So, I'll ask again, what does the paper say is the force (which should be easy to identify given that it is so strong) that pushed for this adaptation? What other methods have been developed that were discarded? Which of the current methods is more successful? Since you have access to this paper, please let us know.<br /><br />Otherwise I feel I cannot accept the various day dreams about how it happened.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53962578773469427772012-05-02T09:35:43.969-07:002012-05-02T09:35:43.969-07:00velikovskys,
Yes, this is true. This is why the e...velikovskys,<br /><br />Yes, this is true. This is why the employment of quantum mechanics has been proposed as the best way to properly describe the experiment.<br /><br />"<i>In fact, the acknowledgment of fundamental limitations on our ability to separate between mutation selection and detection has led Vasily Ogryzko to suggest that for the proper description of the Cairns' experiments, the formalism of quantum theory would be required, with the phenomenon of adaptive mutations naturally following from such an approach.[1]</i>"<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutation" rel="nofollow">Adaptive mutation</a>)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78463457897532355122012-05-02T09:09:46.596-07:002012-05-02T09:09:46.596-07:00Well vel, since you seem to be content with me doi...Well vel, since you seem to be content with me doing all you searching, let me google that for you:<br /><br />http://lmgtfy.com/?q=optimal+enzmes+functional+proteinsbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72367879714052079032012-05-02T08:59:34.575-07:002012-05-02T08:59:34.575-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85060703988399348612012-05-02T07:42:20.400-07:002012-05-02T07:42:20.400-07:00Did you read the rest of the Wiki article? There s...Did you read the rest of the Wiki article? There seems to be a question in the validity of the experiment's methodologyvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37132976135262383912012-05-02T06:46:13.532-07:002012-05-02T06:46:13.532-07:00Adaptive mutations seem to contravene the primary ...Adaptive mutations seem to contravene the primary tenet of evolutionary theory - i.e. that mutagenesis occurs randomly.<br /><br /><br />"Evolutionary theory describes that mutagenesis occurs randomly, regardless of the utility of a genetic mutation to the organism. If it is beneficial or neutral, the organism will survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation. However, molecular biologist John Cairns has proposed that "<i>when populations of single cells are subject to certain forms of strong selection pressure, variants emerge bearing changes in DNA sequence that bring about an appropriate change in phenotype</i>." <br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_mutations" rel="nofollow">Adaptive mutation</a>)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3919486325535044212012-05-02T03:46:25.935-07:002012-05-02T03:46:25.935-07:00Well Ritchie, you made a dogmatic claim that funct...Well Ritchie, you made a dogmatic claim that functional proteins could easily change into other functional proteins by neo-Darwinian processes. And you simply broad-brushed references to several journals to support this dogmatic claim of yours without reference to any specific experimental work. Since I adamantly disagree, I showed you why they don't from several specific papers. Experimental work from several angles which gives a very exciting insight into 'non-local, transcendent quantum information's' foundational role in constraining proteins into a thermodynamically stable state. Now since science is primarily concerned about relentlessly pursuing the truth, then I would think that if one actually concerned with finding the truth about reality then he would be overjoyed to see such experimental work contrary to what he had erroneously believed. But no, this is not what you do! You, instead of showing even one specific paper to the contrary, or instead of being filled with wonder at the staggering implications of it all, instead wish to lecture me on how I should post. Well, Perhaps I would consider your advice much more favorably if I saw you treat the specific matter at hand even remotely honestly! Instead of in the dishonest and deceptive manner I've seen you move thus far!!!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com