tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post8699212680314064096..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: My Darwin Day challengemregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-16139936728793160682012-02-16T18:36:21.558-05:002012-02-16T18:36:21.558-05:00Kent - I'm not going to bother defending "...Kent - I'm not going to bother defending "naturalistic macroevolution" any longer until you provide one definitive, irrefutable example of divine causation of any physical event. Until you do that, then "naturalistic" is the ONLY valid premise. Back to you.<br /><br />"Macroevolution" is irrefutable - there is more evidence that current species evolved from earlier species (and that current species are related) than there all the evidence presented in every courtroom in history. <br /><br />So, since macroevolution happened (and continues to happen, just too slowly to satisfy creationists), and natural phenomena have natural causes, we're stuck with "naturalistic macroevolution" until you produce the divine.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78444444098500355542012-02-15T20:10:24.355-05:002012-02-15T20:10:24.355-05:00Pepe,
You haven't answered my question. How ...Pepe,<br /><br />You haven't answered my question. How does ID explain evolution? The fact that over hundreds of millions and billions of years, life has changed. Species have changed or gone extinct to be replaced by other species.<br /><br />Parroting complex specified information doesn't answer the question.<br /><br />At least you didn't mention Behe's irreducible complexity, which was discussed decades ago by Herman Muller, and realized not to be a problem.<br /><br />ID proponents are great at praising themselves for their great new insights. Michael Behe's reckons he made the greatest discovery ever. He didn't. William Dembski reckons he's the Isaac Newton of information science. He isn't.<br /><br />They're great at self promotion. Not so good at reality perception.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63802108425656809492012-02-15T19:11:45.808-05:002012-02-15T19:11:45.808-05:00You don't know much about CIS, do you.You don't know much about CIS, do you.Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48629617001561535522012-02-15T18:29:18.239-05:002012-02-15T18:29:18.239-05:00Pepe,
OK, how does ID account for evolution, the ...Pepe,<br /><br />OK, how does ID account for evolution, the fact that over at least hundreds of millions of years, in fact billions of years, thousands and millions of species have gone extinct to be replaced by species that are either similar or radically different. God as a serial incompetent creator perhaps?<br /><br />Order is well known to occur spontaneously, not by chance though, but by following physical and chemical forces. If life as we know it today popped into existence in an instant, then that would be chance. But it didn't.<br /><br />Australia's wealth depends largely on order coming from disorder. The rusting of the oceans 2.5 billion years ago due to the oxygen poisoning from Cyanobacteria, resulting in the formation of massive banded iron deposits.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83016665015033320602012-02-15T18:01:25.793-05:002012-02-15T18:01:25.793-05:00If you think there is a better theory, then what i...<i>If you think there is a better theory, then what is it?</i><br /><br />It's ID!<br /><br />ID will replace darwinism (or naturalism, materialism, scientism, atheism) because none of these isms can account for the information of life.<br /><br />You can deny that there is information in the living, like you are free to wear a blindfold while walking. The only problem with this kind of behaviour is that you will hit many obstacles as you are hitting with your worldview vis-s-vis modern biological discoveries.<br /><br />The funny thing is that only darwinists, naturalists, materialists, etc… believe that order can come out of chaos!Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45118588163252598572012-02-15T17:24:38.969-05:002012-02-15T17:24:38.969-05:00"I also suggest you consult a psychiatrist or..."<i>I also suggest you consult a psychiatrist or a head-shrink, you really need it!</i>"<br /><br />You're the one who believes in magic fairy tales.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59354327885033530102012-02-15T17:14:44.510-05:002012-02-15T17:14:44.510-05:00"Since when do you believe in the 10 commandm..."<i>Since when do you believe in the 10 commandments?</i>"<br /><br />I don't. But you seem to. And yet you routinely lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-1791595097618555472012-02-15T16:42:30.445-05:002012-02-15T16:42:30.445-05:00Pepe,
Well, evolution is a fact. We know that li...Pepe,<br /><br />Well, evolution is a fact. We know that life on Earth has changed over millions and bilions of years, with thousands and millions of species going extinct and being replaced by species that are either similar or radically different.<br /><br />Darwinism can be summarized as; common ancestry, descent with modification, natural variation within breeding populations and mechanisms for changing the proportions of the natural variants (Darwin described natural and sexual selection and something similar to neutral drift).<br /><br />Scientists have been elaborating and extending Darwin's theory for the past 150+ years, accumulating more and more evidence in its favor. Nothing has invalidated Darwin's basic theory.<br /><br />Anyone who thinks Darwin's theory is random mutation + natural selection doesn't know much about science. Natural selection isn't the only mechanism. Darwin had no idea of genetics, nor of mutations. All he knew was that there was variation within populations (a fact that was much more apparent to Wallace, who as a collector went out and accumulated many individuals of the same species instead of just one or two index samples).<br /><br />If you think there is a better theory, then what is it? How do you think that you'd be able to support it with real evidence? Proving your favored theory would also be impossible for much the same reasons. It's only by finding evidence supporting it (and none that would refute it) that you'd be able to claim that your favored theory is worth consideration. Incredulity isn't evidence.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13914907656505995062012-02-15T16:24:29.883-05:002012-02-15T16:24:29.883-05:00Kent,
I don't think that Carl Zimmer's bo...Kent,<br /><br />I don't think that Carl Zimmer's book deals with the origin of life. That's not a question that evolutionary biology deals with. For that, you'd have to look at a book such as Nick Lane's 'Life Ascending', which won the Royal Society's best science book of 2009.<br /><br />Getting from a modern frog to a modern whale, no matter how much selective pressure you apply, is for all intents and purposes impossible. Frogs have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years and will have lost genes and modified most of the others.<br /><br />What might be possible would be to turn a chicken back into a dinosaur, or at least reactivate the genes for teeth, since birds and non-avian dinosaurs diverged around a hundred million years ago.<br /><br />Your talk of nodes reminds be of the joke about the tourist asking an Irish farmer for directions to village 'A' and was told that he can't get there from here, meaning there's no direct road and that he has to retrack his path and take another route. A modern frog to a whale means de-evolving to an earlier amphibian and then evolving to a whale.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49645185654079783072012-02-15T14:15:32.339-05:002012-02-15T14:15:32.339-05:00No, it wasn't. Your ability to read Supreme Co...No, it wasn't. Your ability to read Supreme Court opinions seems to be as limited as your ability to understand actual science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25402766649634861632012-02-15T14:13:22.906-05:002012-02-15T14:13:22.906-05:00"On the contrary, DNA is CSI (Complex Specifi..."<i>On the contrary, DNA is CSI (Complex Specified Information), whether you like it or not!</i>"<br /><br />No. DNA is merely a collection of organic molecules that interact in a particular way. "Information" is an organizing principle humans impose upon nature in order to allow us to understand it.<br /><br />And you still have no basis for your claim that "information" even if it did exist, can only originate from a mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-42431394146960171952012-02-15T13:20:01.565-05:002012-02-15T13:20:01.565-05:00@ Kent D
"If you truly believe that the grap...@ Kent D<br /><br />"If you truly believe that the graph of life is rooted in a single (distinguished) node (and you must, or it wouldn't be a tree), then you are operating on the working assumption that life arose only once, whether in fact it did or not."<br /><br />The single root refers to a common ancestor, not necessarily one and only one origin of life. Life could have arisen more than once but with only one initial life form being successful. Alternatively, life may have arisen more than once and there is more than one tree of life. In either case though, within a tree of life model all lifeforms spring from a single common ancestor. So far investigations into molecular biology, comparative anatomy, genetics, paleontology and several other fields which I don't have time to list corroborate such a model.<br /><br />"The question is whether non-life can produce life. Of course, even if it could, that would not prove that it did. This is simple, irrefutable logic; to deny it seems far more hazardous to science than denying evolution."<br /><br />AND<br /><br />"... even if the possibility [non-trivial change] had been demonstrated, it would not indicate that it had in fact happened in the past. Again, this is simple logic."<br /><br />What you are getting at is "the problem of induction". What hampers science is that we cannot make definitive statements based on the assumptions of the inductive method. The best we can do is find facts that either corroborate or falsify a hypothesis. The Miller-Urey experiments for example falsified the hypothesis that organic molecules could not form from inorganic compounds. The conditions Miller and Urey used do not comport with what is currently perceived to be initial conditions of the earth's atmosphere, but that does not alter their conclusions. <br /><br />"Has the possibility of non-trivial change been demonstrated experimentally, e.g. by incrementally coaxing the development of some new organism (say, a whale) on one node of the tree from another extant organism (say, a frog) on an ancestral node?"<br /><br />Does a <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45804325/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/dino-chicken-wacky-serious-science-idea/#.TzvuS3pc348" rel="nofollow">dino-chicken</a> count?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67824634807304077692012-02-15T10:06:18.625-05:002012-02-15T10:06:18.625-05:00@bachfiend:
I'd be ashamed if I were using a ...@bachfiend:<br /><br /><em>I'd be ashamed if I were using a 50 year old text on anything, let alone biology, which has made enormous progress in the past decades.</em><br /><br />I knowingly and unashamedly used a text that was 50 years old because I was making a point about 50-year-old assertions, so I went to the primary source. And the point I was making didn't depend on Kerkut's biological knowledge being up-to-date by current standards. Kerkut asserts that, at the time of his writing (ca. 1960), none of the seven propositions he enumerates rises above the level of an assumption; that none of the assumptions had ever been experimentally proven possible; and that furthermore, even if one had been proven possible, it would not necessarily imply that it did in fact occur. I then asserted that, to the best of my knowledge, Kerkut's assertions are still true today – i.e. all seven propositions are currently mere assumptions. So far, I have not seen a direct response to my claim.<br /><br />My point is not that any of the seven propositions are in fact false, nor that it is necessarily wrong to use them as working hypotheses. But since they are merely assumptions, it seems to me that naturalistic evolutionists ought to be a little more cautious, and a little less dogmatic, in their language. The fact that they often do not govern their dogmatic tendencies tends to decrease their credibility rather then increase it.<br /><br />Thanks for the Zimmer book recommendation. I'll check it out. Do you know if Zimmer covers the replication of pre-biotic organic molecules to which RickK alluded in an earlier post?<br /><br /><em>Expecting to be able to cause a frog to evolve into a whale is expecting far too much. Evolution is very slow.</em><br /><br />I was thinking more along the lines of tinkering with the process to significantly accelerate it: e.g. artificially increasing selective pressure, or doing some genetic tinkering, or something like that. Such acceleration may be beyond our practical abilities today, but to me (as a self-admitted scientific neophyte) such an experiment seems at least theoretically possible. According to the tree of life, the supposition that a frog has (for the sake of argument) evolved from node A to node B (the whale node) via a set of intervening nodes implies that a genetic pathway exists between the two profoundly different species. The fact that we have not experimentally traversed any significant edges between nodes in that genetic pathway (or any genetic pathway, for that matter) ought to be cause for concern.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77766828306757561562012-02-15T07:56:16.761-05:002012-02-15T07:56:16.761-05:00Nothing is ever proved in science.
Of course a th...<i>Nothing is ever proved in science.</i><br /><br />Of course a theory can never be proved and must be falsifiable. That is why mainstream science, the old materialist guard, calls Darwinism a fact since you cannot disprove a fact. That logic hoax does not work anymore and that makes the old materialist guard mad!<br /><br /><i>There may be a better theory...</i><br /><br />Regarding Darwinism, i.e. RM + NS, you can bet the farm there is a MUCH better theory!Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-36184002137615668792012-02-15T07:43:01.665-05:002012-02-15T07:43:01.665-05:00Chicken! Chicken!
:-)Chicken! Chicken!<br /><br />:-)Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-25437494455172984922012-02-15T06:50:30.848-05:002012-02-15T06:50:30.848-05:00Kent,
I'd be ashamed if I were using a 50 yea...Kent,<br /><br />I'd be ashamed if I were using a 50 year old text on anything, let alone biology, which has made enormous progress in the past decades. When I was a student in the '70s, in medical school we were taught that Plasmodium, the genus that causes for example malaria in humans and other mammals, was a protozoan. It's been recently discovered that its actually a plant (it has defective chloroplasts) and probably evolved from free living algae, which were taken up by mosquitoes and injected into mammal hosts when the mosquito fed on blood, and eventually adapted to become a disease causing organism.<br /><br />You need to read something more current. I'd suggest Carl Zimmer's 'Evolution. The Triumph of an Idea'. He lays out the evidence for evolution in a straight forward way.<br /><br />Expecting to be able to cause a frog to evolve into a whale is expecting far too much. Evolution is very slow. To do it experimentally would be asking for a repetition of something that took around 300 million years to happen. Frogs today don't look anything like the amphibians of around 300 million years ago. No scientist is going to put in an application for such research, because he'd be dead an extremely long time before the experiment was anywhere near completion.<br /><br />It has never been discounted that life could have arisen more than once. It's just it's never been disproved. Exobiologists are keen to discover a second origin of life on Earth, because it's too difficult to go to Mars or Europa to explore for extraterrestrial life there, let alone any extrasolar planet. The assumption being that if life arose more than once on Earth, then it must be easy, and hence probably has arisen elsewhere too.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33006129635885175772012-02-15T00:31:52.757-05:002012-02-15T00:31:52.757-05:00@RickK:
Before proceeding, let me be clear that w...@RickK:<br /><br />Before proceeding, let me be clear that what I'm questioning is naturalistic macroevolution, not microevolution.<br /><br />(1) <em>We now know that non-living self-replicating organic molecules evolve - they become better replicators. So we have empirical evidence that evolution can pre-date life.</em><br /> The question is not whether organic matter can pre-date life. All sorts of the building blocks of life can pre-date life, in theory. The question is whether non-life can produce life. Of course, even if it could, that would not prove that it <em>did</em>. This is simple, irrefutable logic; to deny it seems far more hazardous to science than denying evolution.<br /> This business of molecular "replication" is news to me. (But admittedly, I'm a scientific neophyte.) Can you point me to some reference material?<br /><br />(2) <em>Nobody assumes it [life] started only once - that's a fallacy.</em><br /> "The assumption that life arose only once and that therefore all living things are interrelated is a useful assumption in that it provides a simple working basis for experimental procedure." (Kerkut, p. 8) If you truly believe that the graph of life is rooted in a single (distinguished) node (and you must, or it wouldn't be a tree), then you are operating on the working assumption that life arose only once, whether in fact it did or not. So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, every adherent of common descent also holds the assumption (at least for experimental purposes) that life arose only once.<br /><br />(3)-(7) <em>We have vastly more evidence of common descent. And we have many examples of successful predictions based on our evolutionary assumptions about the "tree of life". You confirm a theory by testing it.</em><br /> But arguably you have tested nothing of significance. Has the possibility of non-trivial change been demonstrated experimentally, e.g. by incrementally coaxing the development of some new organism (say, a whale) on one node of the tree from another extant organism (say, a frog) on an ancestral node? The answer, to the best of my knowledge, is "no, it has not". And even if the possibility had been demonstrated, it would not indicate that it had in fact happened in the past. Again, this is simple logic.<br /><br /><em>Evolution denial is a solid indicator of ignorance. And when the denier is educated, it's a solid indicator of self-delusion or dishonesty.</em><br /><br />This is pure <em>ad hominem</em>, and does not merit a reply.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-62870553900007846082012-02-14T22:10:11.324-05:002012-02-14T22:10:11.324-05:00It is amazing how often creationists argue against...It is amazing how often creationists argue against data that is decades or centuries old. <br /><br />(1) We now know that non-living self-replicating organic molecules evolve - they become better replicators. So we have empirical evidence that evolution can pre-date life.<br /><br />(2) Nobody assumes it started only once - that's a fallacy.<br /><br />(3)-(7) We have vastly more evidence of common descent. And we have many examples of successful predictions based on our evolutionary assumptions about the "tree of life". You confirm a theory by testing it. ERV patterns, predicted intermediates, Theobald's statistical studies, and countless genetic studies have added thousands of confirming pieces of data and successful test.<br /><br />Evolution denial is a solid indicator of ignorance. And when the denier is educated, it's a solid indicator of self-delusion or dishonesty.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-28821749633540484192012-02-14T21:49:32.915-05:002012-02-14T21:49:32.915-05:00Species evolve - that's a fact. We have a lot...Species evolve - that's a fact. We have a lot to learn about details of historical changes, about how life first started, But asking what are the points against evolutionary theory is like asking what are the points against General Relativity, Atomic Theory or Plate Tectonics.<br /><br />What do you know about evolutionary theory?RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60639131659037354652012-02-14T21:37:14.570-05:002012-02-14T21:37:14.570-05:00@bachfiend:
The weakness is that of all scientifi...@bachfiend:<br /><br /><em>The weakness is that of all scientific theories; we don't know everything yet, and probably never will.</em><br /><br />Agreed -- science is definitely limited in what it can realistically ever offer as far as origins go. But I think that what evolutionists don't know is greater quantitatively, and of a more fundamental nature, than is generally admitted. G. A. Kerkut, in his book <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/implicationsofev00kerk" rel="nofollow">Implications of Evolution</a> (1960), makes the following observations:<br /><br /><em>There are...seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six assumptions and only consider the seventh. These are as follows.<br />(1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.<br />(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once. [But read Kerkut's context; he is aware of alternatives to common ancestry.]<br />The other assumptions all follow from the second one.<br />(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.<br />(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.<br />(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.<br />(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.<br />(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock, and so on.</em><br /><br />Now, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm open to correction), the situation is much the same as it was 50 years ago. We don't know if life arose from non-life by naturalistic means; furthermore, we don't know that abiogenesis is even <em>possible</em>. Assuming that abiogenesis did occur, we don't know if it occurred more than once, and given our present state of knowledge, it's not clear that we can ever know. We could go down the list. None of the seven propositions listed by Kerkut, from a strictly empirical standpoint, rises above the level of an assumption. Yet some proponents of evolution parrot them, in one form or another, as if they are established fact.<br /><br />Now it may be that naturalistic evolution will ultimately be vindicated. (Personally, I doubt it.) But to assert that "There are no telling points against evolutionary theory" seems patently absurd to me. Kerkut, in chapters 1 and 2, argues that such uncritical acceptance of evolution is sophomoric -- quite literally.Kent D (Omaha)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-48693179799533829952012-02-14T21:28:34.875-05:002012-02-14T21:28:34.875-05:00Pepe also doesn't understand science. Nothing...Pepe also doesn't understand science. Nothing is ever proved in science. The best that one can say is that something has been failed to have been disproved.<br /><br />A piece of information may be evidence in favor of a scientific theory, never a proof. There may be a better theory not yet developed for which the piece of information is also evidence too.<br /><br />Nebraska Man was never a 'proof' against evolutionary theory, because it never was part of it.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86716140061311030952012-02-14T21:27:02.845-05:002012-02-14T21:27:02.845-05:00I meant "here" in the fact-based, realit...I meant "here" in the fact-based, reality-based world where you and I live - where it is honorable to change your mind when presented with definitive new data. As opposed to Pepe's world, where the strength of your faith is measured by how many facts you can ignore or deny.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41494532138221086492012-02-14T20:53:55.137-05:002012-02-14T20:53:55.137-05:00Pepe,
'Debunked' by creationists, except ...Pepe,<br /><br />'Debunked' by creationists, except for Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man, which were debunked by scientists.<br /><br />Nebraska Man was a misinterpretation of a single porcine tooth by a non-expert who was hyping his discovery.<br /><br />Piltdown Man was a fraud probably carried out by someone wanting human evolution to have occurred in England for prestige sake, and was quietly ignored and filed away in the museum as an embarrassment, since human evolution was known to have started in Africa.<br /><br />All the others, except for the Miller-Urey experiment (which has nothing to do with evolution and little to do with the origin of life), are perfectly good evidences of evolution.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86783141298268763392012-02-14T20:43:32.288-05:002012-02-14T20:43:32.288-05:00Pepe,
No I asked you the question first in 'A...Pepe,<br /><br />No I asked you the question first in 'An atheist was walking in the forest' thread.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74298077984579124252012-02-14T20:13:51.329-05:002012-02-14T20:13:51.329-05:00Well, I can list a few telling points against Darw...Well, I can list a few telling points against Darwinism (not to be confused with evolution, the micro kind that is):<br /><br />1) Miller–Urey experiment<br />2) Darwin's tree of life<br />3) Homology in vertebrate limbs<br />4) Haeckel's embryos<br />5) Archaeopteryx<br />6) Peppered moth<br />7) Darwin's finches<br />8) Four-winged fruit flies<br />9) Fossil horses<br />10) Hominid evolution<br />11) Junk DNA<br />12) Piltdown man<br />13) Nebraska man<br />14) Tiktalllik<br /><br />to name the most obvious!<br /><br />All of these PROOFS of Darwinism have been debunked. Talk about falsifying a theory! Darwinism will not be dead by 2020 because it's been dead for more than 50 years. Only half-witted religious people still believe in Darwinism because that is what they were thought and were, at the same time, forbidden to think by themselves in order not to offend the great Charlie!Pépéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896283600100217146noreply@blogger.com