Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought
The Kansas City Star ^ | November 18, 2006 | Eric Hand

Posted on 11/19/2006 1:00:27 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

ST. LOUIS - Evolution happens. But it can also stop and turn on a dime.

A new study of lizards in the Bahamas shows that the natural selection pressures that drive evolution can flip-flop faster than previously thought - even in months.

"Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos, a former Washington University biologist who led the study. "In this case he was wrong. He thought that evolution must occur slowly and gradually."

The lizards and their changing leg lengths are yet another case of evolution occurring in real time. From finches that evolve longer beaks in a few years to bacteria that adapt to strange feeding regimens in days, evolution, as a science, has leapt out of musty museums and into the field.

Scientists say that, from a political perspective, the cases offer a vivid reminder of the continuous process that some people imagine proceeding only in fossilized fits and starts: First monkey, then man.

But for the scientists themselves, the cases show that evolutionary biology has, well, evolved into a predictive, experimental science like any other.

Losos had the perfect Petri dishes: 12 tiny islands in the Bahamas with small populations of insect-eating Anolis sagrei, six-inch long lizards that normally live on the ground but can adapt to life in trees.

On six of the islands, Losos introduced a predator, a large curly-tailed lizard that can gobble up the lizards. He theorized that at first, the fastest prey would survive as they ran for the trees. Natural selection would reward long legs. Then, as the little lizards adapted to life in trees, nimble twig maneuvers and shorter legs would be rewarded.

At the start of the experiment, the scientists, using dental floss nooses on the ends of 10-foot poles, caught all lizards and carefully measured their hind-limbs. After the first six months, their predictions held up. The average leg length of survivors was 2 percent longer than those that were killed. After a year, leg length was 3 percent shorter. The changes were small in absolute terms but statistically very large, said R. Brian Langerhans, a graduate student with Losos.

The study appeared Friday in the journal Science. Losos did the research while at Washington University, but left for Harvard University in June.

The lizard study echoes one of the classic cases of evolution-in-action: Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands. For more than 30 years, Princeton University biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant have measured changes in the finches' beaks. After extended droughts, small seeds became more scarce. In a few years, the finches evolved longer beaks to crack the larger, tough seeds that remained. Then as more plentiful times returned, the bird beaks got smaller again.

At Michigan State University, Richard Lenski is studying evolution in test tubes. For almost 20 years, he has reared 12 colonies of E. coli. They have divided more than 30,000 times - which, in terms of human generations, is longer than Homo sapiens has been around. Lenski has challenged the bacteria with strange feeding patterns - feeding them sugars, then starving them.

The colonies all adapted, quickly. But they used different genetic tricks to get there. Their DNA is now remarkably different: an example of parallel evolution.

It's difficult to know how an organism will adapt, and also how subtle environmental changes will kick evolution off in a striking new direction, said Ken Petron, a University of Cincinnati ecologist who worked with the Grants on their finches.

For example, on one trip to the Galapagos during a time of seed scarcity, the Grants expected to find the trend toward larger beaks. But a new, larger finch had colonized the island and was eating the larger seeds, Petron said. It was no longer an advantage for the smaller finches to grow larger beaks.

"It's very difficult to predict the outcome of evolution before it happens," he said.

But if biologists can get better at predicting evolution, it could have applications for areas in which humans are altering the environment and causing evolutionary pressures themselves, Langerhans said. Stanford University ecologist Stephen Palumbi has estimated a $50 billion "evolution bill" associated with the antibiotic and pesticide resistance that bacteria, weeds and insects have evolved in medicine and agriculture.

Had the experiment continued, Losos expected the lizard legs to get even shorter with successive generations. But two hurricanes in quick succession submerged the little islands. "All the living lizards were washed away. Bummer," Losos said.

Some eggs survived, however, and hatchling populations are growing. Losos plans to start the experiment over.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; naturalselection; religionisobsolete
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-992 next last
This was covered by a couple of different sources, but it should be made plain in the beginning. This is NOT the kind of "evolution" necessary to get from a chimpanzee to a human, zero to sixty, in 5.6 million years. These kinds of small changes within the species are the kind of "evolution" that is true, and with which creationists have no problem. It is dishonest to say this is evolution as evolutionists propagate it.

Moreover, such unexpectedly rapid change supports a young-earth creationist perspective. It shows that these minor changes do not take thousands or millions of years to occur. And this is further evidence against neodarwinian evolution. If this "microevolution" takes place quicker than it was thought, that means that the macroevolutionary changes would be more readily observable now, yet they are not.

See more coverage for this story on Creation-Evolution Headlines.

1 posted on 11/19/2006 1:00:29 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me

2 posted on 11/19/2006 1:00:52 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Get ready for the Typing Dogs.


3 posted on 11/19/2006 1:05:10 PM PST by PoorMuttly ("Character is Destiny" -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"Darwin was right about so many things," said Jonathan Losos

Mainly the birds and the provisioning of the Beagle. His book has been nominated as the most likely travelogue to put even the most pedantic philosopher of all time--Heideggger--to sleep in ten minutes or less.

4 posted on 11/19/2006 1:05:18 PM PST by RightWhale (RTRA DLQS GSCW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

How does the evolution described in this article exclude evolution from a chimp to a human? Also, "zero to sixty" is not an apt analogy - humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA. They are biologically indistinguishable except for a few (critically important) differences.


5 posted on 11/19/2006 1:06:56 PM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
How does the evolution described in this article exclude evolution from a chimp to a human?

Common ancestors, not chimp to human.

6 posted on 11/19/2006 1:10:24 PM PST by Wormwood (We broke it. We bought it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

You obviously don't realize that the age of the earth is not calculated based on the evolutionary timeframes but rather based on geological evidence.


7 posted on 11/19/2006 1:11:22 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
Hmm, what is protocol vis a vis evolution and DU?
8 posted on 11/19/2006 1:15:20 PM PST by padre35 (We are surrounded, that simplifies our problem Chesty Puller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Fine, I'll say it...

Evolution is genetic change within a population. Period. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.

This study is yet another study that confirms that evolution is a biological fact because it demonstrates genetic change within a population.

This study cannot be used as a measure of the age of the earth. You may as well use ice cream to measure the age of the ice that made it possible.

The age of the earth is an entirely different issue. Period. Its either very old or very young, and the answer to that question depends in no way whatsoever on the study of biology.

Flame throwers on...


9 posted on 11/19/2006 1:16:45 PM PST by navyguy (We don't need more youth. What we need is a fountain of SMART.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It hasn't evolved the staff at the Kansas City Star yet.


10 posted on 11/19/2006 1:19:32 PM PST by badpacifist (I want you, I need you. But there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you. So don't be sad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Is this evolution or natural selection? Basically, long-legged lizards survived and passd on their traits. A good example of natural selection. I think animal breeders rely on the tendency to pass on traits all the time. That's how we wind up with so many different breeds of dogs. But they're still dogs and these lizards are still lizards. Am I missing something?


11 posted on 11/19/2006 1:21:37 PM PST by TexasKamaAina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought

Oh boy, here we go again. I guess the scientists needed a new reason to obtain additional funding so now they make up new crap to continue their "scientific" work. Nice, really nice. It's not like there's a book (Bible) that tells us how the Earth, humans, plants and animals really got here (Genesis 1:1 - 2:25).

12 posted on 11/19/2006 1:23:42 PM PST by guestfox01 ("The only two things you can truly depend upon are gravity and greed." - Jack Palance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"Evolution moves more quickly than scientists thought"

They don't know the half of it! :-)


13 posted on 11/19/2006 1:24:03 PM PST by RoadTest ( He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. -Rev. 3:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I contend that a better example of a short species evolution is the Democrat of 1942 and the Democrat of 2006.
Their brains and spines have shrunk perceptibly. We soon believe they will stop breeding altogether.
14 posted on 11/19/2006 1:25:53 PM PST by Recon Dad (Marine Spec Ops Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I contend that a better example of a short species evolution is the Democrat of 1942 and the Democrat of 2006.
Their brains and spines have shrunk perceptibly. We soon believe they will stop breeding altogether.
15 posted on 11/19/2006 1:25:59 PM PST by Recon Dad (Marine Spec Ops Dad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
...humans and chimps share 99% of their DNA....

This is typical statistical manipulation. A 1% difference in DNA is actually millions of different DNA strands.
16 posted on 11/19/2006 1:27:53 PM PST by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
" These kinds of small changes within the species are the kind of "evolution" that is true, and with which creationists have no problem.
It is dishonest to say this is evolution as evolutionists propagate it."

In short, it is not evolution at all, but adaptability that was designed into the lizards from the beginning. The evolutionism camp is clearly grasping at straws, now that the revelation of the genetic code has demolished their hopes.

17 posted on 11/19/2006 1:27:58 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: padre35

Me think that Ducks Unlimited evolved from the Boy Scouts.


18 posted on 11/19/2006 1:28:09 PM PST by PoorMuttly ("Character is Destiny" -- Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: guestfox01

You're right. Jewish scholars from 2,500 years ago knew much more about how the earth evolved than modern scientists. Let's listen to them.


19 posted on 11/19/2006 1:28:47 PM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasKamaAina
Am I missing something?

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Natural selection is one of the driving forces of evolution.
20 posted on 11/19/2006 1:30:05 PM PST by somniferum (Annoy a liberal.. Work hard and be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger


Isn't this just more evidence for "Intelligent Design"? Increasing and greater complexity among life forms, etc. Confusing... my head hurts. heh, heh. [sarcasm/]

As an atheist, I just love 'South Park.' Even the recent episodes bashing atheist groups' zeal have been superb. What a great show! Go, South Park! I'm sure they are working on a new episode as we type.


21 posted on 11/19/2006 1:32:57 PM PST by 4Liberty (privatize don't subsidize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"If this "microevolution" takes place quicker than it was thought, that means that the macroevolutionary changes would be more readily observable now, yet they are not."

And that is why this story, like the long frog leg story, will quickly die. Neither had anything to do with evolution, but the use of the E word in the article will cause attrition.

22 posted on 11/19/2006 1:33:43 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
Not exactly dogs...


23 posted on 11/19/2006 1:34:11 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billybudd

Zero to sixty is just an expression.

As I've pointed out frequently, the 99% number is inaccurate and misleading, and even when it's just mildly distorted, was usually cast as 98%.


24 posted on 11/19/2006 1:36:02 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 4Liberty

The article is written for our dumbed down public school students and general population: no creationist would argue with it..it's just the spin and attributing this to a macro evolutionary spin.It's laughable if one knows the issues


25 posted on 11/19/2006 1:36:50 PM PST by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Yes. That is why creationists cover other reasons to doubt some old-earth numbers.1, 2, 3.

But my point still stands about how this should mean macroevolution should take place more readily.
26 posted on 11/19/2006 1:40:19 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

The lizard changed to a different species? If not, it's not evolution as the brain-warped Darwinists would have us believe.

If there's no increase in genetic information, it's not "evolution."


27 posted on 11/19/2006 1:41:01 PM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
This is NOT the kind of "evolution" necessary to get from a chimpanzee to a human, zero to sixty, in 5.6 million years. These kinds of small changes within the species are the kind of "evolution" that is true, and with which creationists have no problem.

So basically you're an evolutionist. You just believe that evolution takes place for a while and at some point somebody hits a giant red "Off" switch, preventing further evolution from taking place. A bizarre belief, certainly.

28 posted on 11/19/2006 1:42:32 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: navyguy
I fully agree with your statements about evolution. What I'm saying is, this is proven, while neodarwinian evolution is not. Yet we use the same generalizing term to describe it. Thus, this is "evidence for evolution" but not for molecules-to-man evolution. That's where it gets tricky, and where intellectually honest scientists would be sure to draw a line of differentiation.

I didn't say this was a way to date the age of the earth. I'm saying these changes don't take eons to occur, and should mean macroevolution takes place under our observation, as opposed to the "so slow we can't hardly observe it" line.
29 posted on 11/19/2006 1:43:43 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
In short, it is not evolution at all, but adaptability that was designed into the lizards from the beginning.

Yep. From the beginning of evolution.

30 posted on 11/19/2006 1:45:08 PM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: navyguy
Evolution is genetic change within a population. Period. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else.

That's a bad definition of the term.

Evolution, as Darwinists proclaim, is the increase in transimissible genetic information. It's not "evolution" to go from a dog to a worm -- that would be devolution or entropy or something.

We just don't see "evolution" as Darwinists preach it.

31 posted on 11/19/2006 1:46:08 PM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Given the election results, I'd be more apt to believe in devolution.
32 posted on 11/19/2006 1:46:47 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Moreover, such unexpectedly rapid change supports a young-earth creationist perspective....And this is further evidence against neodarwinian evolution.

No more than wanting a peanut butter sandwich today means you now hate hamburgers.

It only indicates that change can occur in the short term.

The natural extrapolation is that if the forces that influenced the change continue in the long term the changes will be set into a new evolutionary path.

33 posted on 11/19/2006 1:51:19 PM PST by higgmeister (In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; DaveLoneRanger
"You just believe that evolution takes place for a while and at some point somebody hits a giant red "Off" switch, preventing further evolution from taking place."

Obviously this is not evolution of any kind; its a creature adapting to the environment for which it was designed, within the limits prescribed by said design.

"A bizarre belief, certainly."

Its not a belief, but simply an incisive observation of real life.

34 posted on 11/19/2006 1:51:38 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

I contend that a better example of a short species evolution is the Democrat of 1942 and the Democrat of 2006.
Their brains and spines have shrunk perceptibly. We soon believe they will stop breeding altogether

They are much more clever than that, the ones that do breed will have abortions, and ones who might breed will join in civil unions, and the ones that avoid civil unions will think that they are homosexual and the ones that....

Well, being anti life does come at a price.


35 posted on 11/19/2006 1:53:39 PM PST by padre35 (We are surrounded, that simplifies our problem Chesty Puller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; DaveLoneRanger

Dave -- I'd have to agree with Alter Kaker on this one. You either believe evolution or don't. "Micro-evolution" is still evolution.

I, for one, don't believe in evolution (defined as an increase of genetic information transmitted through generations) at all.


36 posted on 11/19/2006 2:01:03 PM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TexasKamaAina

Yes, you are missing something.

When these little changes pile up over millions of years they can become big changes and they we get to call the resulting organisms by a different name.


37 posted on 11/19/2006 2:05:13 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
But my point still stands about how this should mean macroevolution should take place more readily.

And that is indeed an excellent point.

38 posted on 11/19/2006 2:06:32 PM PST by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: guestfox01

In favor of abandonding scientific research altogether then?


39 posted on 11/19/2006 2:08:13 PM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Theo

Sorry, but you don't get to re-define evolution in order to oppose it.

It is most specifically not defined as an "increase in trasnmissible genetic information"


40 posted on 11/19/2006 2:09:26 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
obviously don't realize that the age of the earth is not calculated based on the evolutionary timeframes but rather based on geological evidence.

Ya, like when the geologists described the Mount St. Helens eruption as causing 10,000 years of geologic action in one day. Just another set of unproven theories.

41 posted on 11/19/2006 2:09:43 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: navyguy
"Evolution is genetic change within a population. Period. Nothing more, nothing less and nothing else."

Thats what I understand about the way evo's would have us believe.

"This study is yet another study that confirms that evolution is a biological fact because it demonstrates genetic change within a population. "

This study yet again confirms that lizards and finchs basic genetic structure allows them to 'adapt' to their current biosphere.

42 posted on 11/19/2006 2:10:09 PM PST by Dust in the Wind (I've got peace like a river)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
Me think

methinks (mĭ-thĭngks')

43 posted on 11/19/2006 2:10:43 PM PST by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Theo

I wonder if you believe in a change in allele frequency over time.

If you play at redefining evolution in order to oppose it, you lose.


44 posted on 11/19/2006 2:11:41 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 4Liberty

Not necessarily, but it is evidence for a younger earth. Despite what was "previously thought," things like this are in conflict with neodarwinian evolution.


45 posted on 11/19/2006 2:13:02 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
evolutionary biology has, well, evolved into a predictive, experimental science like any other.

Guess what? The lizards are still lizards.

I agree whole-heartedly, so-called "microevolution" is not a problem for the young earth creationist

re: quote above...chance can not be predictive...it just can not happen

46 posted on 11/19/2006 2:20:54 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

So, we're being told that a previously non-existent gene, the one that causes the generation of longer legs, has appeared recently in the gene pool of this lizard species. Moreover, it seems to have appeared in several separate reproducing individuals among this species more or less simultaneously. Or did I miss something?
Who said we no longer live in the Age of Miracles??!!


47 posted on 11/19/2006 2:22:08 PM PST by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guestfox01; RadioAstronomer
The more I think about it, the more I believe and know that the Bible is infallible. That being said, I watched a special that aired on the BBC a few weeks back on the birth of the universe. The scientists described, even using some of the same wording found in several translations of the Bible, the birth of the universe. Yes, I think the Bible tells us how the Earth, humans, plants, etc. got here. In a terminology that was understood by the people of the day.

Now what does this make me? Don't ask me. I believe in God Almighty. I believe that evolution happened in some form. I believe He caused it to happen. I also know I don't understand it. I don't like Intelligent Design per se and I don't think this describes my belief on the issue either. But I think about what would be more fantastic, show more care, and frankly give more glory to God. A flip of the fingers six days, and the earth is six thousand years old? Or an evolving over hundreds of millions of years that man finally comes to the point to begin to understand all of creation and even their scientists use the terms found in the Bible from thousands of years ago to describe the beginning of the universe?

RA, I ping you because I'm still torn on the man thing but for me I am beginning to see God's glory in the process of evolution itself. But I can buy your view more. So thank you to you and David Lack.

48 posted on 11/19/2006 2:24:02 PM PST by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I've been consistent all along that evolution takes place on a small scale. That animals undergo physiological changes is a no-brainer.

That these changes lead to transition between monkey and man is absurd.


49 posted on 11/19/2006 2:24:02 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

Then why is this news? You're disagreeing with the authors, not my extrapolation.


50 posted on 11/19/2006 2:27:00 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Celebrating my two-year anniversary! Yehaw!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-992 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson