Behe, Lenski and the “Edge” of Evolution, Part 3: Tinkering Over the Edge

Bookmark and Share

November 2, 2012 Tags: Genetics

Today's entry was written by Dennis Venema. You can read more about what we believe here.

Behe, Lenski and the “Edge” of Evolution, Part 3: Tinkering Over the Edge

Note: In this series, we reexamine the claim made by Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe to have found a limit to “Darwinian” evolution in light of recent results from the laboratory of Richard Lenski.

In the last post in this series, we discussed how the development of Cit+ bacteria in the Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) took place in three stages: potentiation (necessary mutations that allowed the Cit+ trait to evolve much later), actualization (the mutation step that converted a Cit- cell to a Cit+ cell), and refinement (mutations subsequent to actualization that improved the nascent Cit+ function). We then went on to examine the details of how the actualization step took place, and noted that it was a significant “gain-of-FCT” mutation according to the criteria of Intelligent Design (ID) proponent Michael Behe.

As interesting as the details of the actualization step are, the other steps (potentiation and refinement) are even more significant when considering Behe’s claimed “edge” to what evolutionary processes can achieve. Before we consider the impact of these findings on Behe’s ideas, a thorough investigation of these details is in order.

Potentiation: setting the stage

As we noted back in 2011, the LTEE culture that eventually went on to evolve the Cit+ trait had a mutational event at around generation 20,000 that was necessary for future actualization. One of the challenges for determining the details of the potentiation step is that this mutation (or possibly mutations) does (do) not produce an obvious change in the organism that a researcher can detect at the time. The only change they produce is to allow for future rare events (i.e. conversion to Cit+), making them tricky to identify.

In any other experimental system, it would be pretty much impossible to track down these potentiating steps, or even to conclusively determine that any potentiation steps occurred at all. In the LTEE, however, we have access to the ancestors of the future Cit+ bacteria, since they were frozen down and saved for later studies. This allowed the Lenski group to thaw out selected ancestors from various generations, re-run the evolution experiment from these selected time points, and watch to see if the Cit+ trait would evolve again. In the re-run experiments they observed numerous Cit+ actualization events, allowing for a statistical analysis of the results. These results, combined with extensive sequencing to place the various Cit+ cells from the re-run experiments into groups, demonstrated that at least two separate potentiation mutations occurred in the original LTEE, and that these mutations were separated by a few thousand generations. Once these two potentiating mutations were in place, cells were able to become Cit+ through the actualization mutation event we discussed in detail in the last post in this series. As we noted back in 2011, however, this actualization step produced only a very weak Cit+ ability. Further mutations that improved Cit+ function would soon follow.

Refinement: honing a new function

Once the (albeit very poor) Cit+ ability arose in the LTEE, it provided only a very slight selective advantage. These first Cit+ cells, when placed in competition with their descendants, are easily outcompeted – indicating that an additional mutation, or mutations, improved the nascent Cit+ trait. Work by the Lenski group showed that later, more robust Cit+ cells had duplications of the original tandem mutation that lead to the original Cit+ cell – effectively increasing the copy number of the new citrate / succinate transporter gene with its altered regulatory DNA. As the refinement process proceeded, the Lenski group found cells with three copies, four copies, and even nine copies (!), all of which most likely increased the amount of the citrate / succinate transporter made under aerobic conditions. Cells later on in the refinement process settled on a four-copy system, which the Lenski group hypothesizes to be more stable (based on research on tandem arrays in other systems). This switch from a predominance of high copy number cells (i.e. nine copies) back to cells with a more moderate number (four) predominating suggests that additional mutations are arising that allow the four-copy cells to outcompete the nine-copy cells, and find a balance between (unstable) high copy number and the Cit+ function derived from each copy. Some candidates for these additional mutations identified by the Lenski group include mutations in the citrate / succinate transporter itself, and two enzymes involved in citrate metabolism. Future work will be needed to determine if these mutations were the ones that had a significant effect on the Cit+ refinement process, or if other mutations were responsible.

Taking stock

With these details in hand, we can now improve our accounting for the number of mutations involved in the entire process, from potentiation, through actualization, and on to a certain point of refinement (which remains ongoing in the LTEE):

The first potentiation mutation (total = 1)
The second potentiation mutation (total = 2)
The actualization mutation (total = 3)
Duplication of the Cit+ tandem array (at least once, more likely twice) (total = 4 or 5)
Mutation(s) to improve Cit+ function with moderate copy number (at least one, likely more) (total = 5 or 6, or more)

As we can see, at a minimum the entire process involved at least 5 mutations, and more likely 6 or more. An additional important point to note is that these mutations did not occur simultaneously, but were spread out over thousands of generations.

Implications for Behe’s “edge”

In the last post in this series, we noted ID microbiologist Ann Gauger’s response to Lenski’s results. Two features are important to note: the number of mutations she claims are postulated for the Cit+ transition, and her reasoning that this transition is within Behe’s “edge” of what evolution can accomplish:

“When is an innovation not an innovation? If by innovation you mean the evolution of something new, a feature not present before, then it would be stretching it to call the trait described by Blount et al. in "Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population" an innovation…

The total number of mutations postulated for this adaptation is two or three, within the limits proposed for complex adaptations by Axe (2010) and Behe in Edge of Evolution. Because the enabling pre-adaptive mutations could not be identified, though, we don't know whether this was one mutation, a simple step-wise series of adaptive mutations, or a complex adaptation requiring one or two pre-adaptations before the big event.

Presumably, Gauger is counting only potentiation and actualization and omitting refinement altogether. As we have seen, the entire process requires at least 5 mutations, and probably more. Even more interesting, however, is that she generalizes Behe’s “edge” beyond the formation of protein-protein binding sites (the focus of Behe’s claimed limit to evolution) to a number of mutations needed for a new function. This might seem odd, but in fact this generalization is absolutely in keeping with Behe’s model. Behe’s calculation for his “edge” is an estimate based on simultaneous mutations – in other words, Behe proposes a limit to the generation of protein-protein binding sites as a specific application of his general rule that multiple, simultaneous mutations are vanishingly rare. For those interested in a detailed discussion of how Behe’s model is based on an assumption that simultaneous mutations are required for the evolution of new protein-protein binding sites, I have discussed it at length in a previous series. The point here is a simple one: Gauger fails to note that Behe’s edge is based on simultaneous mutations. If indeed all five (or more) mutations needed for this transition to Cit+ in the LTEE were required simultaneously, we could be confident that the trait would never arise.

Put more simply, Behe is right that numerous mutations occurring simultaneously are too rare to expect in evolution. What he has not demonstrated, however, is that evolution must proceed only by numerous mutations occurring simultaneously. With the LTEE, we have direct evidence of what Behe defines as a “noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation” occurring step by step, without the need for simultaneous mutations.

In the next post in this series, we’ll explore Behe’s ideas further, and examine the second source that Gauger cites as a limit for complex adaptation – the work of ID biologist Douglas Axe.

For further reading:

Blount, Z.D., Barrick, J.E., Davidson, C.J. and Lenski, R.E. (2012). Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population. Nature 489; 513- 518.

Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (New York: Free Press, 2007).

Michael J. Behe (2010). Experimental evolution, loss-of-function mutations, and “The first rule of adaptive evolution”. The Quarterly Review of Biology 85(4); 419-445.


Dennis Venema is Fellow of Biology for The BioLogos Foundation and associate professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signalling.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >


Share your thoughts

Have a comment or question for the author? We'd love to hear from you.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 3 of 3   « 1 2 3
Roger A. Sawtelle - #74530

November 19th 2012

Bilbo,

Thank you for the interviews. 

 But Margulis’s main objection to neo-Darwinism was not its understanding of Natural Selection, but its belief that an accumulation of genetic mutations could be the major cause of novelty.

Margulis’ objection to neoDarwinism is that it rejects symbiosis as the primary source of novelty or new species.  My objection to neoDarwinism is that it rejects symbiosis as the basis for natural selection. 

Whereas I have always understood symbiosis as a source of Variation, lichens are an important genus and clearly were created by symbiosis, I made the decision not to push symbiosis in Variation, but to concentrate on Natural Selection where it is clearly the dominant force.

In the Mazur interview she makes clear her view of natural selection.  She accepts the Mathusian view that population unchecked would grow geometrically.  However itis clear that this Darwinian defined process would not really select, so it should not be called selection.  That is why symbiotic selection works, while Darwinian does not.

Margulis was on the right track by putting symbiosis at the center of her thought.  It turns out that some of her ideas may not right, but she was right about the symbiotic origin of eukaryotic cells, which gives power to her understanding of symbiogenesis. 

Margulis and ID are both critics of neoDarwinism, but as she said, ID does not really give an alternative explanation to evolution, while she did.  I am trying to provide an alternative scientific explanation for evolution to take the place of Darwinism.  What is hurtful is that people who also disagree with Darwin also reject all other alternatives except their own without understanding them.  

      

 

 


Eddie - #74538

November 19th 2012

Roger:

No one is trying to be hurtful to you.  But your intellectual stubbornness can only be borne for so long, before your conversation partners start to show impatience, and speak bluntly.  

You are determined to offer a grand new theory of evolution that solves problems that professional evolutionary biologists have not solved, when you do not seem to understand even basic high school biology; and when people raise objections to you on these points, you become defensive.  But how can you expect not to be criticized, when you are attempting to deal with post-doctoral questions in evolutionary theory, without the necessary intellectual training?  

I’m not denouncing you for not being an expert in biology.  I’m not criticizing you for taking a layman’s interest in science, or even for offering your own speculations, as speculations.  But you offer your statements about ecology and natural selection with the firmness of Moses coming down the mountain; and when someone who has studied the material (more than you have) ventures to disagree with you, you tell him he “still doesn’t get it,” or words to that effect, when in fact you are the one with the scientific misunderstanding.

Earlier you showed confusion yourself, when you accused me of confusion about the mitochondrion (which you misspelled, something a biology major wouldn’t do) in relation to symbiosis; now, in your post above, you say:  “I made the decision not to push symbiosis in Variation”—as if you could, when symbiosis has nothing to do with variation!  It is this kind of statement, the kind of statement that could only come from someone without any real training in biology, that makes me impatient with your grand ambition to teach the world the true causes of evolution.

You also don’t seem aware that lichens are a symbiotic association of two different species, which retain their separate identities while living permanently together, whereas the symbiosis that Margulis regards as the driving force of evolution involves much more than close or even permanent association, but the actual fusing of two distinct species into one.  (As in the case of the mitochondrion, which in her theory lost its original identity as an independent symbiote and became a mere organelle in the newly-formed creature.)

I’m not condemning you for making errors or showing misunderstandings.  I’m pleading with you to drop your grandiose vision of yourself as someone capable of bringing together evolutionary theory, ecology, and theology, and to adopt the more humble position of a non-scientist and clerically-trained person with an interest in evolution and its implications for faith.  The large self-conception of which I am speaking causes you to lecture to others, to resist correction by others, and to be an inattentive listener to others.  I’m trying hard not to be harsh here, but to “speak the truth in love” as they used to say.  And I can’t speak the truth without pointing out features of the way you present yourself that you simply don’t seem to have noticed. 


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74548

November 20th 2012

Eddie,

I was having a good discussion with Bilbo when you barged in making all sorts of accusations.  You seem to be very defensive of Richard Dawkins and aghast that I would quote him. 

However now Bilbo is back in the conversation with two interviews with Lynn Margulis which I have responded to.  Please allow him to comment and continue the conversation without your off topic rantings.

I appreciate that you came to the defense of Jon before and now Bilbo, but I really do not think thay need your help.

Now in regards to mitochondria.  Bilbo mentioned the contribution of Margulis in that area.  I pointed out through the quote from Dawkins that her greatest contribution was the origin of the eukaroytic cell through the symbiotic merger of two other types of organisms. 

After you failed to give credit to Margulis for this discovery, I suggested that you were confusing her work with mitochondria with her work on eukaroytic cells.  Maybe my wording was unclear to you, but I was certainly not accusing you of confusing two types of cells. 

Symbiosis is not a narrow concept, but a broad one.  I do not think that Margulis used in in a narrow way, but if she did she is mistaken.  I do not subscribe to all of the her ideas, nor all of the ideas of anyone, except Jesus Christ. 

However as I said I think she was on the right track generally when she labelled the earth the “symbiotic planet.”  Clearly you do not agree, but unless unless we get busy we will lose our symbioitic planet.  Sorry, that is the preacher coming out in me.  

If I have a grandiose view of nature, I thnk that is because the universe is grand because it was created, structured, and empowered by a wonderful, Complex/One God, and not by a simplistic random sequence of events.

Eddie, I appreciate your concern for me and I probably should not come on as strong as I do, but to be honest and to faithfully speak truth with love, I think that you need to look in the mirror when you make these criticisms.                 


Eddie - #74558

November 20th 2012

Roger:

I “barged in” out of compassion, to give Bilbo some support, because I saw you treating Bilbo in the same way that, in the past, you had treated me and others.  However, I agree with you that Bilbo does not need my help:  he pointed you to the same readings I would have pointed you to.

Yes, your wording about the mitochondrion was unclear.  If it were just an isolated case, I would chalk it up to sloppy prose.  But I gave you other examples.  I believe your wording is often unclear because you do not understand the material.  Incomplete understanding will naturally produce unclear writing.  

I agree with you that Margulis uses symbiosis to explain more than just the origin of the mitochondrion.  Where you were not listening to Bilbo was in not getting his point, which was, in effect:  “Yes, she thinks that, but not all evolutionary biologists agree.”  

I made no statement on whether Margulis was right or wrong about the extent of symbiosis in evolutionary change.  My point was that you cannot, enamored with her views, represent them as if they are the agreed-upon consensus of evolutionary biology.  Many think that her views are relevant to the explanation of some features of some one-celled organisms, but not a good way of explaining evolutionary change overall, especially regarding multicellular organisms.  Again, I am not taking sides, but merely pointing out that your remarks did not do justice to the debate as it exists among the professionals.  You simply picked the theoretical view you liked the best and ignored the debate.

I never failed to give Margulis credit for the hypothesis about the mitochondrion.  If you read my remarks that way, you simply did not read them carefully.  And of course I know that Dawkins gave credit to Margulis.  My point, which I stated clearly, was that he did not necessarily agree with her about anything other than the mitochondrion.

I have never denied the importance of symbiosis in understanding ecology.  Nor, I think, would most biologists.  But you were talking about mechanisms of  evolution —variation, natural selection, endosymbiosis.  My point was that the role of symbiosis in evolution was not as certain as you were making it out to be.  But on ecology, rest assured that I am every bit as dedicated to preserving the balance of nature as you are.

I was not concerned about how grand your view of nature was, but about how grand your view of your own theoretical capacities was.  You come across as believing that you can synthesize evolutionary theory, ecology, and theology, and that the attempts of others to do so, when they disagree with yours, are simply due to error or confusion.  That was what I was objecting to:  your uncanny certainty that you can solve problems that are global in scope without any training in the component disciplines, and your tendency to dismiss others as “not getting it.”  In other words, it was not so much your contents I was objecting to—I agree with some of your conclusions and emphases—as the the way that you carry on dialogue.

I think that you have identified part of the cause of what I object to when you say:  “that is the preacher coming out in me.”  I have always had a visceral reaction to preachers, not primarily because of what they say (though half the time, it is either heretical or vacuous), but because of the way they say it.  They often assume a confidence, in speaking about matters other than the Gospel (which is what they are trained to preach on), that is unwarranted by their level of knowledge.

I will now let you get back to your conversation with Bilbo.  You may have the last word, if you’d like. 


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74698

November 25th 2012

Eddie,

Thank you for your gracious response.

I understand that we see certain situations very differently.  I see a serious crisis in Western culture and civilization because philosophy, science, and theology have gone off track.  You do not agree with my analysis.

Because of this crisis it seems to me that it is needed for us to step across these boundaries to find a way of thinking that can put us back on track.  Since I believe that God did not put us here to pass the back so to speak, I have endeavored to work on this process myself.  You are more than welcome to work on this too.

Yes, I do have some definite and strong views, and yes I do not have a Ph. D. in any field.  I am doing my best to understand evolution, ecology, philosophy, and theology based on my reading of science, philosophy, and the Bible.  I respect your opinions and those of others which is why I am on the internet.

I realized after I had written that comment about having the preacher coming out in me, that I was refering to the most serious scientific issue of our time, which is climate change.  It is my firm belief that theory and action need to be combined, but I do not find this concern on this blog.  Can you tell me why?

I think that combining ecology and evolution is a strong point of my thinking because it brings to the fore two of the most vexing issues of our time.  I do not understand why most people seem to think there is no basic connection between them.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Eddie - #74704

November 26th 2012

Roger:

Of course ecology and evolution are related; it has been that way since the time of Darwin.  The external environment—including competitors, temperature, soil, available vegetation or prey, etc.—is the stage upon which “natural selection” makes its “choices.”  If the ecology is changed, the selective “pressures” will change (of course all this language is metaphoric, though evolutionary biologists sometimes don’t seem to remember that), and evolution will take a different route.

Is the ecology important for reasons other than evolution?  Of course!  Our life depends on the thin envelope of air, water and soil on this planet.  And outside of such self-interested concerns, there is the responsibility we have, as intelligent beings, endowed with intelligence and foresight by God, to preserve beings other than ourselves.

Is climate change real?  Yes.  Climate is always changing.  A thousand years ago Greenland was as habitable as Scandinavia is today.  And several ice ages have come and gone without any help from human CO2 emissions.   Are human beings responsible for current climate change?  Probably, to some small degree.  But you seem to have embraced the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) view, i.e., that human activities (carbon dioxide emissions) are a major contributor to global warming, and that by drastic alteration of our industrial and economic system, we can drastically reduce CO2 and save the world from ecological apocalypse.  You will find plenty of support for that view among TEs.  See the recent column by Hayhoe on this site.  Randy Isaac is another TE who is a vocal endorser of the AGW view.  TEs have a strong tendency to bow to “consensus science” (and more than bow to it; they often evangelize for it), and AGW is currently “consensus science.”  But AGW is not a major theme on this site.  If you want to find more vocal support for your view, you should join the American Scientific Affiliation; you can then contribute to discussions to their groups, where you will find many who are in agreement with you.  It is a waste of your energy to try to divert this site from its main focus, which is evolution and Christian theology, toward a major focus on AGW.  If you try, you will fail.  I’m saying this to save you from wasting your time and effort (and to save us all from listening to Al Gore commercials which, however spiced up with liberal theology, don’t belong here).  


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74716

November 26th 2012

Eddie,

Thank you for the confirmation and the lecture on ecology.  Things seem to have been changed from when I was over my head trying to understand science without an adequate background.  Now I’m mainstream.

However there are philosophical/theological problems that need to be resolved.  I have tried to discuss these with you with no avail. 

Maybe BioLogos just wants to debate ID, I suppose it can.  Do you speak for BioLogos? 

Again if ecology is an integral part of evolution as you say it is, then then it must be an integral part of the discussion.  If you think that the Logos is “liberal” theology, when has it been deleted from the Bible?

Let us stop throwing labels around and stick to the issues of today’s world.  Let us stop living in a pretend world and start living in the real world.    

 

   


Eddie - #74739

November 27th 2012

I did not say that Logos-theology was liberal theology.  Logos-theology, properly executed, is conservative theology.  I have nothing against Logos theology.  Indeed, for the past 3 or 4 years, the problem on this site has been that we have heard 99% about Bios and only 1% about Logos.  (I suspect this is because it is very hard to talk about the Logos within nature without, however unwillingly, admitting conceptions of design within nature, and design of a type that might well be detectable.)  

If one wants to discuss the relationship between ecology and evolution, one can.  One can discuss, for example, how certain crustaceans changed in form as they moved their operations from thermal vents to other ecological niches.  But I sense that such things are not what you want to discuss.  I sense that you want to discuss how to save the planet.  Well, saving the planet is important—who could dispute that?  But we won’t save it by bankrupting Western nations with ill-conceived regulatory regimes motivated by left-wing politics, and that’s what the AGW lobby is all about.


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74748

November 27th 2012

Eddie,

Look you seem to have been fighting me from the beginning, but you seem to agree with me on Logos theology.  To me this seems to show the importance of understanding some one before one criticizes that person. 

Ask anyone active on this forum and they will tell you that I have been pushing Logos theology for all its worth.  I do not know how you missed it.

Just because I am concerned about a problem does not give you the right to predetermine the solutions that I might favor.  The first step is to understand the situation, which we can’t do until the science is right.

Next, if you reject ill-conceived regulatory regimes, then you need well-conceived alternative solutions, which right now we don’t have. 

Again I would say that evolution and ecology are two sides of the same coin.  You cannot understand one without the other, and they are both crucial to understanding who we are as human beings and our future on this planet.

Providentially Logos theology is the Key to all this.  Logos theology can understand the universe without doing damage to Christianity and indeed it enhances our understanding of theology.  The problem of course is with those Christians who do not accept Logos theology and non-believers who do not think that theology has anything to teach science.  


Eddie - #74752

November 27th 2012

Roger:

I’m well aware that you have been pushing Logos theology all along.  I never criticized you for stressing the importance of the Logos.  I criticized you for a number of other things that you have said, and I specified what those were.  The fact that I agree with you about the Logos does not oblige me to agree with your ungrounded speculations about the history of ideas, your confused usage of terms like “dualism,” etc.  

I don’t know what you are talking about when you say we have to make sure the science is right.  Nor am I sure how you would determine whether the science was right, whether we are talking about climate change or evolution, as it appears to me that you have no training in either earth sciences or biology.  And I have an alternate solution to AGW—presuming, for the sake of argument, something I don’t agree with, i.e., that it is such an apocalyptic crisis as Al Gore says it is.  My solution is:  (1) No travesties such as Kyoto; emission standards should be binding on *all* countries, rich or poor; (2) Al Gore (and his entire class of privileged, educated, upper-middle-class climate change alarmists) should stop jet-setting around the globe making speeches (air travel leaves a huge carbon footprint!) and move out of their mansions [that use more energy than a whole neighbourhood of working-class homes] into modest two-stories with only one-and-a-half baths; and instead of talking on university campuses and making propaganda films, they should pick up a shovel and start building the necessary dikes, levees, etc. to protect valuable coastland from rising water levels, which will be a fact for the next 30-50 years, even if we stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow.

I would agree with you that we need to understand ecology in order to understand evolution.  But we do not need evolution in order to understand ecology.  If a Cambrian rabbit were found tomorrow, and evolution were destroyed as a theory, ecological studies would be every bit as important as they are today, and could be conducted without reference to evolutionary speculation.  I don’t need to know a blessed thing about evolution to study the food chains in the Atlantic cod fishery, or to understand the workings of the nitrogen cycle, or of the carbon cycle, or the state of the ozone layer, or the damage done to the Central Asian environment by the Soviet destruction of the Aral Sea, etc.  And I don’t need evolutionary theory in order to construct mathematical models of ecological relations in the present world.  It doesn’t matter at all what happened in the Cambrian; if an ecological model is mathematically valid, it’s mathematically valid.  Defenders of evolution overrate the importance of their theory to human knowledge generally.  You seem to be no exception.

If you really are serious about “Logos theology” why don’t you present some Logos theology here?  You keep talking about how important Logos-theology is, but you’ve never spelled out what Logos-theology teaches.  As Eliza Doolittle says:  “Don’t talk of love—Show me!”  Let’s hear the results of your textual research on the Gospel of John, on Augustine, on Pseudo-Dionysius, etc.  And let’s hear how understanding the bacterial flagellum or the nitrogen cycle as an expression of the Logos can help us to better handle evolutionary theory or our ecological problems.  Your contributions have so far been general and prefatory.  Let’s see a few paragraphs from your Chapter 1.  Grand visions are a dime a dozen.  Show us the beef.


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74755

November 27th 2012

Eddie,

If you are asking people to choose between the policies of Al Gore and those of George W. Bush, whose policies did more harm to the USA and the world than any other president, you are making a huge mistake.

I do not have to prove anything to you.  My writings on this site are clear and sufficient.  You claim to be the expert in philosophy so you show us what you mean by Logos theology/philosophy and we can discuss it.

At one time I explained to you that I felt that this medium does not lend itself to this kind of explanation and asked you to read my book.  You refused, so you chose to be ignorant.  That’s the way it is.     


Eddie - #74760

November 27th 2012

Roger:

Regarding Gore, what I criticized was his position on the AGW issue, nothing more.  Certainly I said nothing about choosing between Gore and Bush.  Your partisan remark, however, confirms my estimation of my own ability to predict people’s political allegiances.  I had you pegged correctly.


Roger A. Sawtelle - #74769

November 27th 2012

Eddie,

You still know how to avoid the issues.


Page 3 of 3   « 1 2 3