Summations Only

From your source: Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths, by Jonathan Wells (click) -- quotes followed by comments. There is no reason to expect one form to be "completely replaced" and this was never observed in any area studied. Complete replacement would be more consistent with a speciation event and not just natural selection pressure altering the genetic mix within a population.There are no numbers given for the relative population sizes, so no real information is presented in this paragraph even though it is designed to appear that way. This comment is misleading and begging the question.I think we can safely say that the populations of the different varieties still showed a shift from typica to carbonaria within this study area, as if they didn't we would have been told such (especially given the source of this disinformation). This lack of correlation to lichens has also been reported before, and it is not controversial to say that lichens are not necessary for the selection process. All that is necessary is that typica variety have places of refuge where they appear better camouflaged in unpolluted areas and that those same areas are then darkened or otherwise changed by the pollution so that the carbonaria variety is favored.Note that in the heavily polluted areas the lichens had been killed but the typica variety was not eliminated, ergo they had places of refuge for daytime resting places where they were camouflaged sufficiently to survive predation by birds. It is not unreasonable that they would continue to have those same places of refuge as the pollution decreased.Decrease in pollution, however, would decrease the available places of refuge for the carbonaria variety, thus creating a stage for the reversal of the population densities to occur.It could even be true that the pollution had no effect on the refuge of the typica variety but just enabled the heretofor rare carbonaria variety to find sufficient refuge to thrive.All that is required is a differential in the hiding places of the moths. The moths do rest on surfaces with their wings spread flat (a characteristic of moths versus butterflies btw), so they do need relatively flat surfaces to rest on and still remain relatively unremarkable to the visibiity of any predators during the day. Mottled coloration is generally better for this than monochromatic, regardless of the surface used, as it tends to blur the outline more. and All this correlation does is replace "soot" with a more specific pollutant, SO₂, as the major player in the industrial pollution affecting the environment of these moths.Sulfur Dioxide (SO₂) and ionic Sulfate (SO₄₌) are by-products of coal-burning industrial pollution. They are particulate pollutants in the atmosphere and have also been linked with acid rain ... due to burning coal with high sulfur content. "Soot" would be a marker for the presence of this kind of pollution as long as the source of the "soot" was sulfurous fossil fuels.Measurements of Rural Sulfur Dioxide and Particle Sulfate: Analysis of CASTNet Data, 1987 through 1996 (click)Particulate sulfur also is well known to inhibit visibility in the air (haze\smog), and it can occur naturally as well as come from pollution. From Sulfur in the Southern Appalachians (click): What we don't know that would be of interest here, is the relative visiblity of these sulfur particles in the ranges that the birds can see in: ie would SO₂ and SO₄₌ particles change the visiblity of the trees and thus the visiblity of the moths?As a side note, I noticed the picture in the Wells article with the moths placed on a green algae covered tree, where both were quite visible ... to us. The question really revolves around what the birds see. Conclusion: we cannot judge what birds see based on what we see, we can only base what birds see based on their observed behavior to visible cues and tests. Thus the studies that showed preferential predation based on the visiblity of moths on different backgrounds is a valid test for what birds see in a natural environment.It may well be that the {presence\absence} of SO₂ and SO₄₌ particles changes the apparent color of the environment -- relative to bird vision and the apparent color of the different varieties of the moths -- and that this is all that is needed for the natural selection to occur.This {UV/color\sulfur} visiblity issue is speculation, agreed, but it is consistent with all the facts presented and does not introduce any new mechanism or process than those that have already been studied. It is also falsifiable (it can be tested).There are two other possible explanations for the correlation of the carbonaria variety with SO₂ and the typica variety with unpolluted areas:(1) the pollution causes the coloration to occur. This has been eliminated by studies (that tried to invalidate Kettlewell) where they tried to induce this color change in Biston betularia and were unable to do so. It was also confirmed that the cause of the color differences is genetic and not environmental, and that the carbonaria gene is, in fact, the dominant one of the two.(2) the pollution has a toxic effect on one variety and not the other. This is extremely unreasonable on two grounds: first that the moths are otherwise the same in diet and behavior (and a difference in behavior and ability would also be closer to speciation than just natural selection), and second that this does not explain the loss of population of the carbonaria variety when the pollution is cleaned up, well after it had become the predominant form, especially given that this form of the gene is the dominant one (and this kind of effect would only have a detrimental effect on one population and and would be much more likely to result in the total elimination of that variety in high concentration areas -- the way DDT totally eliminated some species from some areas).The only other valid explanation that I can see is that the selection process operates at the caterpillar stage instead of the adult. A far as I know this too has been eliminated by other studies (that tried to invalidate Kettlewell) and they could not determine any significant difference in the caterpillars -- the (confirmed as genetic) color differences were only expressed in the adults (and even if there were a {color\hiding} benefit to one form of caterpillar compared to the other that would only add another point of predation selection at the caterpillar stage to the already shown predation at the adult stage: the end result would still be the same). Thus all this discussion still leaves birds as the most likely source of differential daytime predation between two color varieties of moth under circumstances that favor one or the other based on the {presence\absence} of pollution and their relative ability to hide from the predators.

​

No other mechanism has been proposed that provides this level of explanation for the observed population shifts.This is one of Wells' final conclusions. Given that he is a critic of "icons of evolution" and given that he still cannot rule out selective predation means that there is still a very strong case for the evidence that has been observed in the studies -- and that the conclusions have not been invalidated, just questioned.Questions do not invalidate theories. Facts do. Occams razor says that the simplest explanation that covers all the observed facts is the most likely answer: that answer still remains that birds are the most likely source of differential daytime predation between two color varieties of moth under circumstances that favor one or the other based on the {presence\absence} of pollution and their relative ability to hide from the predators.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That still does not make the conclusion right. That just makes him even worse at not critically reviewing his material. It also calls ito question the validity of Clark's work, because it is a false conclusion from the work of Kettlewell. Kettlewell did not set out a proportion of response to levels of pollution, just that when sufficient pollution occured to favor carbonaria that they flourished at the expense of the then more visible typica.Once you cross that threshold adding more pollution does not necessarily increase the response. This conclusion is invalid from the get-go, and implying that it not only is valid but is a valid criticism of Kettlewells work is blatant misrepresentation of the facts.Still you don't answer to the question of what the actual proportions of the moths are, why they are not reported, and how not giving that information really contributes to misrepresenting the data.Let's assume several scenarios and see which is most likely:

• There are more typica moths than carbonarian in Manchester. If this were the case it would have been more invalidating than what is claimed and would surely have been mentioned: we can assume this is NOT the case.
• There are proportionately more typica moths than carbonarian in Manchester compared to other polluted areas. If this were the case it would also have been invalidating and would surely have been mentioned: we can assume this is NOT the case.
• There are as many or less typica moths than carbonarian in Manchester in about the same proportion as in other polluted areas. If this were the case it would not have been invalidating and thus would NOT have been mentioned if one were trying to {hide\slant\misrepresent} the facts: thus we can assume this is PROBABLY be the most likely case.

This is an error of ommission and, yes imh(ysa)o, it is probably intentional on Wells' part. Couple this with the false conclusion above and you have either someone who is either incompetent at reviewing science (doubtful given his PhD), or someone who is intentionally trying to mislead people with false information and with obscuring valid information.The fact that you accept this as valid unquestioned fact just shows you are operating on a double standard when you question other work that is more substantiated. I'll put this down to late night and rapid reading. We are still talking about Manchester and not some non-polluted area here. This is the same conclusion as I show above in greater detail. Here I notice that you completely ignore this comment: What the birds see was tested and it validated that dark moths on dark backgrounds (with or without SO₂) were more protected than light moths and that light moths on light backgrounds were more protected than dark moths. As far as I know there has been no test of the effect of the presence or absence of SO₂ or SO₄₌ on these results even by those who find a better correlation of moth color with these specific pollutants than with general soot.Are you going to insist the hypothesis is wrong no matter what the data says? No I don't think you can rule it out, heck even Wells doesn't think you can rule it out and says so.For one, as noted again above, the studies showed a direct and observed tendency for birds to preferentially select moths based on the presence or absence of sooty pollution.That is direct evidence for the trend you think you can "safely rule out" -- especially as NO OTHER MECHANISM IS PROPOSED TO REPLACE IT. A point you concede. You can't blythely rule out something that has been tested and validated without replacing the hypothesis with a better one that explains ALL the data better -- including why the preferential bird predation was observed. I haven't fully researched this particular anamoly yet and plan to. I do note that others have looked at it. There are a couple of factors that could be involved - migration, the fact that the carbonaria gene is dominant, and possible SO₂ and SO₄₌ contamination without {visible to human eyes soot}.There also needs to be validation that we are talking carbonaria and not a hybrid that still looks darker than typica due to the dominance of the dark gene, but which also exhibits a mottled appearance - making it better at camouflaging against darkish backgrounds.This could also be a surviving remnant colony of carbonaria where the effects of pollution have been washed away but which has not yet reverted to predominant typica population (they could still be in transition).Another possibility is that there is another factor causing a visible darkening of the environment, such as a natural blight in one area. After all, Wells says the "proportion of melanics in East Anglia reached 80% despite the absence of any apparent pollution (Lees and Creed 1975)" -- without stating that the area is otherwise similar to the areas where typica predominate, so this could be just another example of his misrepresenting the facts.There are many possiblities, and I don't know enough at this point to judge what this particular anomaly is and why it exists.Claimiing that this anomaly disproves the study when there is insufficient information on why it exists is just as intellectually dishonest as trying to ignore the anomaly.AND: given that bird vision is documented as substantially and fundamentally different from human vision, basing a conclusion on human vision alone is obviously invalid. That has actually been disproven by the information above. He is not objective, he slanted the evidence and misrepresented some facts on Manchester. Of course he also has a vested interest to promote the sale of his book, which is based in good part on this information being wrong.Your blanket approval of Wells given the huge holes in his evidence would be humorous if it were not just another example of blatant double standard application to the validity of the evidence presented. You are refuted by Wells' own words: "These findings do not entirely rule out a role for cryptic coloration and selective predation in industrial melanism ..."You are overreaching, even based on a biased and distorted source with a vested interest for comparison. All you need to do is come up with a mechanism that explains not only the correlations between pollution and moth coloration of all the current studies, but also explains the few anomalies ...You seem to think that all experiments and all science is devoid of anomalies, and while this may be the case for many it is not the rule, nor is it necessary for a theory to be the best explanation of the observed facts.Without any other theory to explain the observed trend of dark moths in polluted areas and light moths in non-polluted areas to be naturally selected by the preferential predation of the more visible (to birds) varieties Occam's razor doesn't even need to be applied.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not to say that the first description of current in wires assumed a movement of particles (with a + charge) within the wires in one direction (from + to - poles), while the evidence now shows that it is entirely different particles (with a - charge) moving in the opposite direction.This does not invalidate the conclusion that it is due to the movement of {at the time unobserved and unknown} particles within the wires.The fact that we still use the convention of "current" flow that is opposite to electron flow is regretable, but - especially given that everyone pretty well knows this is the case, especially those using the theory of current in wires - this can still be used to generate valid electrical systems, from national power grids to the way microscopic semi-conductors work. There are likely some systems where there are anomalies in electricity and current flow -- one involving "tunneling" if I am not mistaken.We have a theory of gravity, even though the evidence for it is scanty at best. There are some definite observed anomalies where observed behavior does not match predicted values, some involving satellites in the further reaches of the solar system.Nobody is suggesting that gravity is totally invalid, however, and that bricks don't fall when released from a small height over the observers foot, just that the behavior of the brick is mildly but consistently uncertain when it is at the current limits of observability.The validity of the conclusion is based on it's usefulness in predicting predominant behavior. Anomalies are allowed so long as they are not numerically close to being as significant as the predicted behavior. We are still able to land a satellite on Titan and send pictures back to earth, without considering or knowing the cause of the gravity anomalies of the pioneer 10 & 11 satellites (and others) as they reach the outer reaches of the solar sytem.AND so far the only conclusion we have that successfully predicts the predominant behavior in the differentiation of moths in polluted and non-polluted areas is preferential predation by birds based on relative visibility.Anomalies encourage scientists to investigate the reasons for the anomalous behavior, and we see this with ongoing studies of electricity, gravity and moths.Claiming anything less is not being fully honest.Enjoy.edited to correct the subtitle ... there is no claim that the trees are "white" just that they are not polluted.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*24*2005 12:57 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

First off the studies as quoted by Wells don't refer to "white" trees, just ones not showing evidence of pollution.Second, it doesn't look like sooty trees (not JUST trunks) were the ONLY causal factor, just the predominant one.Third, they are not invalidated. (you've already been taken to task for you "uproven" usage).Lets look at medical studies that find causal relationships between diseases and agents, and base cures on those relationships.A medicine that offers an 80% chance of full recovery from a disease that is 90% fatal without treatment is not discarded as "unprofessional and incompetent" because it does not fully explain and deal with the anomolies of the 20% that are not cured nor the 10% that survive without treatment. Nor does a rational person turn down such treatment when diagnosed with the disease and given the options ... even though there is a 5% chance the person will have an adverse toxic reaction to the medicine, possibly killing the possibly probable 1% (could be anywhere from 0% to 5%) within the 10% of the ones that would not be affected by the disease.This is your argument.I expect you not to take any flu shots or any medicine this winter, because the result of the studies are "unprofessional and incompetent" in their dealing with the anomalies that are closer to 50% ....Enjoy.{removed double negative}This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*24*2005 09:24 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

We have a large body of observational evidence of the effect we call gravity. We have {theory\on theory\on theory} built up from empirical data formulas to theories of how gravity acts and is effected. But as for evidence for how that {action\effect} actually {works\becomes\exists}, whether via space warping, gravity waves or gravitons or some other method, we have ... what? Theory. I take issue with this. Pointing out that there are many areas of science where we do not know all the answers is not playing into their hands, it is showing that science is consistent in other fields in dealing with uncertainty and the unknowns. This is just one example.Stating that science knows more than it knows does, imh(ysa)o, play into the hands of those that claim that science is dogmatic and not ammenable to change.And yes this is offtopic, and could be the basis of a good thread.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

thank you for moving it to another thread.

MartinV in Message 32 asserts: This is basically saying that the textbooks are perpetuating a fraud on the public and that the study is invalidated by the moths being glued to the trunks. This is a serious charge and either needs to be substantiated or withdrawn, publicly.If MartinV has any integrity.What does his link say about this aspect of his charge?

quote:

---

But as it turns out, the differences between staged and unstaged photos are minimal. Readers who wish to see unstaged photos of peppered moths are advised to look up Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action. Majerus says that all of the peppered moth photos taken by him in the book are unstaged.

---

It may come as a shock, but probably more than half of all pictures in textbooks are "staged" -- set up to show the concept being presented in a clear and unambiguous manner.Does that invalidate the concept that is being exemplified by the picture? Hardly.The issue of moths being glued to the tree trunks is addressed in Message 1 of this thread, and the fact that moths were glued in place -- in the initial study as well as in staged textbook pictures -- is indeed not in dispute, not by talkorigins, and not by me. What may come as a surprise to MartinV is that this does not invalidate the study.Why not? Two reasons:(1) The initial study was to show that predators preferentially selected to eat dark moths on light trunks and light moths on dark trunks. This was done.One set of tests was done in sooty polluted areas and one set of tests was done in clear unpolluted areas. In both sets of tests preferential predation was demonstrated and this was recorded by the data.This in essence was controlling for all other conditions of predation or death of the moths (ie pollution etc) and limiting the results to strict predation based on the difference in visibility of the moths (they were also dead and not moving so the only characteristic involved was visibility).The data is clear. Dark moths were seen and eaten more frequently than light moths on light tree trunks and light moths were seen and eaten more frequently on dark tree trunks. The data says preferential predation occurred.(2) The initial study does not have any bearing on subsequent studies that did not rely on glued moths for the data and which supported the conclusion of the initial study.In all subsequent studies preferential predation is observed, with dark moths being seen and eaten more frequently than light moths on light trees and light moths being seen and eaten more frequently on dark trees. Conclusion: preferential predation occurred and has been replicated and repeated, and that this validates the conclusions of the initial study.This is how science works, it doesn't rest on any one experiment done by any one scientist -- otherwise "cold fusion" would be accepted -- it rests on repetition and replication, on testing the variables to see what effect that has on the results, and on expanding initial findings into more general cases.You can think of the first study as assuming that predation was the cause of the different populations that were observed, and testing that assumption in a controlled manner to eliminate other possibilities.You can think of subsequent studies as extending that finding to more general cases and finding that the initial conclusions hold up.True, the moths don't naturally rest predominantly on readily observed tree trunks, but it is also true that (1) some do, and (2) birds don't restrict their predation of bugs to only readily observed tree trunks.The importance of tree trunks and the gluing are insignificant when it comes to the results of the tests.Text books with pictures of staged moths on staged tree trunks still portray this truth: differential predation occurred, it was due to sooty pollution, and the effect was reversed when the pollution was cleaned up for the same reason.MartinV can either

concede that this differential predation is in fact what happened, that this is natural selection in action, and that he was in error to imply anything different,
or

he can present evidence that does in fact show that fraud occurred (as in the data was falsified in all these studies),
or

he can toss his integrity to the side.

​

We'll see eh?

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Looks like the answer is in. In other words option #3. MartinV essentially admits he has no integrity. None. He just demonstrated that he's not interested in looking for the truth, he won't substantiate his claim or withdraw it.Sad. He doesn't even have enough integrity to post his answer here.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

MartinV -- welcome to the thread. The information is in the website you linked on this and in the opening post on this thread. I suggest you Read the information available and then see if you have any questions.See if you can find any evidence that natural selection is not in fact displayed by these moths as described.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yep. Exactly.This is pointed out in the opening post on this thread, where I show that everyone that has looked at the issue honestly comes to the conclusion that it demonstrated Natural Selection.For the record the results have been replicated by several studies and the worst you can say about the original study is that it wasn't run to the standards that would be used today. It may have used some bad or questionable techniques, but the results have been validated by later studies that did use good methodology. These later studies cannot be criticized on the basis of how the initial study was conducted. This is also why it is really very silly at best for a creationist to say that this is a fraudulent study -- it demonstrates Natural Selection and nobody is claiming that it demonstrated speciation.And the fact that natural selection is actually demonstrated by the moths is not disputed by anyone who has honestly studied the issue.Thanks.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thank you for concurring as well, that the peppered moths demonstrate natural selection, due to preferential predation of the moths, based on their relative appearance related to the backgrounds they inhabited. As noted, this topic is not about speciation. Nor is it about "kinds" -- kindly take such discussion to another thread.Thanks, and enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome back SomeOneWhoCares ... not. Still can't get it right can you? Yes, and if you read the opening post for content you would see that:{A} It was never claimed that moths changed into butterflies or even into a different species of moth, but that natural selection changed the relative proportions of the populations of existing varieties of peppered moth first one way and then the other in response to pollution and it's abatement: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?{B}It was never claimed that the genetic code "added" as all that happened is a change in the frequencies of alleles in the populations: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?AND{C} It was never claimed that "Macroevolution" was involved or observed (especially of the "kind" your really ludicrous and inherently false characterization of evolution involving sudden "new organs or tissues"): thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is a totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?Further, the moths also did NOT change colors -- each variety stayed the same colors they were before, they just changed in the numbers present\surviving within each variety population due to differential predation: thus your attempted characterization of it like this above is another totally false one, typical of your search for "truth" as you claim on your website eh?You not only get it totally wrong but you do it 4 times in 4 sentences (100% eror rate) and STILL didn't post a single thing relevant to what was actually included in the study or the conclusions.I checked your website recently btw, just out of curiosity to see if you had made any corrections to the falsehoods that have been noted about it. I saw you had added some material but had not made those corrections. This shows your dedication to truth and integrity eh?Still standing tall for misrepresentations and false characterizations eh?Perhaps you like to return to the LUCY thread and deal with your comprehension problems there as well ... Message 22We can ask for the thread to be reopened just for you to answer on it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

For saying someone had no integrity instead of saying that their posts demonstrated a lack of integrity.Like yours would seem to do. Kind of like you saying that I am lying. So you know I didn't claim something, but create an argument that I did, just so that you can refute the false argument I did not make?That is called a strawman argument, a logical fallacy. All the rest of you responses are of a similar false from the start error. Because that is the way science works -- validate the concept with evidence.The real question is why creationists like you seem to need to make it into something it isn't. Not to find the truth it would appear -- certainly not by putting false statements in my mouth.You do seem to be trying real hard to spread misrepresentations and falsehoods, with the pretense of spreading truth. What do you call someone who spreads misrepresentations and falsehoods and claims that they are {TRUTH}? Do you call that "standing tall" for misrepresentations and falsehoods? Don't you mean since the last time you ran away from the evidence that what you were posting was full of misrepresentations and falsehoods, including your "essay" (I think there was a thread that was started about it just so you could defend your misrepresentations and falsehoods -- and that was when you left, but hey - I could be wrong about that - you can answer this on A Critique of the "Evolution Essay")? Try {composite\Lucy\Little-Foot\Australopithicus} was bipedal for discussing this. It is off topic here as this has nothing to do with moths.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added link to essay discussion thread

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

We already have a thread to discuss "Somone Who Cares" and his "essay" on evolution at A Critique of the "Evolution Essay"The link to the "essay" is on the first post in that thread, and you will see numerous errors and false statements.It would be an excellent place for "Someone Who Cares" to show his comprehension of ........ (fill in the blank).

(shh, you'll spoil the fun ...)Seriously though, SWC had said it was "microevolution" not "macroevolution" so the better response would have been "no, they don't show macroevolution"Nor do they demonstrate speciation, just changes in the frequencies of alleles below the speciation level (so far).

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.