Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 02:04am PT
|
'In other words, "There is NO evidence of whale evolution in the fossil record." Yet, whale evolution is touted as a shining example of how the fossil record shows evolution in action.'
given your views on the impossibility of verification.
Are you being serious? I mean that question.
I can well say that verificationism is invalid, yet assert that the fossil record provides no evidence of this or that assertion.
Let's say that you assert: "The fossil record shows evidence that trilobites transformed directly into dogs."
I respond, I sure don't see it. Where is this supposed evidence?
Then you respond with, "Oh, I thought you said that verificationism was dead."
Whether or not you can produce relevant evidence is a non-sequitur relative to verificationism/falsificationism. If you could produce some evidence that we would both agree was even "consistent" with your claim, the most both of us could say is, "Well, your theory hasn't been falsified yet."
How you are getting "verificationism" out of this exchange is mystifying to me.
The fossil record is what it is.
So is my left testicle. But you don't hear me making any sweeping and public assertions about what it "proves." You don't see me writing books calling other people stupid, ignorant, or wicked for not accepting (without seeing my left testicle) that it "proves" what I say it does.
The whole universe is what it is. What scientists claim to be doing is telling us THE TRUTH about WHAT it is and how to interpret "the evidence."
And the fossil record does not provide evidence for the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
The question at hand is very simple, does anything in the fossil record falsify evolution?
No, at this juncture, the real question is: What would the fossil record have to be like in order to falsify evolutionary theory?
There's a pile of evidence in the fossil record that SHOULD falsify the neo-Darwinian synthesis. But that evidence is ignored or minimized, although honest paleontologists repeatedly say things like, "Well that supposed series was a bust," etc., etc.
When you repeatedly, spanning far more than a century, state that "the fossil record shows this," or, "the fossil record WILL show that," and those predictions keep failing, at SOME point an intellectually honest person finally admits: "Wow, the whole fossil record isn't helping. In fact, how MANY predictions need to fail before we admit that the fossil record is a falsification of the principle that enough adaptations over time can produce genuine speciation?"
Where you're headed with this is that, even if the fossil record "doesn't help," it also cannot falsify.
Okay, then paleontology isn't much of a "science," because its predictions are too vague to BE falsified. What honest paleontologists should have seen in Gould's/Eldredge's work was a desperate attempt to AVOID the falsification that was really there to be seen.
So, now you hope to dump gradualism. Sorry, but it infests and is a core principle of evolutionary theory from the outset until now. If modern evolutionists would now prefer to dump that principle in favor of something else, well, what would it be???
Evolutionary leaps are even harder to explain!
The answer is no, and that is not a trivial answer.
As I said, you HAVE to insist upon that. But intellectually honest and well-educated creationists could make exactly the same claims, because now you are AGREED with creationists that the fossil record is so HEAVILY interpreted that you can map any theory you please onto it.
The reason that it's not a falsification of neo-Darwinism can ONLY reside in the FACT that paleontology is so vague and makes so few genuinely scientific predictions! But what you do NOT get from the fossil record by ANY interpretation is gradualism. You can insist all you want that that fact is not a falsification, but that's an old saw that's gotten really tired, dull, and rusty.
The fossil record is what we have of the history of life on the planet, it's diversity in space and time
Agreed, and totally consistent with creationism.
and the relationships of members of the record in space and time.
Ahh... no you don't.
THAT is the very thing that's under contention, and you don't get THAT from the fossil record itself. You map that perspective onto the fossil record.
The record is incomplete, it is undergoing revision as more work is performed,
That was a reasonable claim 150 years ago. But not today. Science has extracted countless fossils from every known strata on every continent and in every fruitful part of those continents. Science CLAIMS to now have a very complete understanding the the relationships between the strata, right down to very solid dates for those strata. And all around the world we see great consistency in the contents of the various strata. In fact, this is TOUTED by science everywhere the public turns.
What you can no longer credibly float is the assertion that "incompleteness" can offer hope of some grand discoveries that are going to fix it all up.
You said a mouthful when you said, "The fossil record is what it is." And what we know of it today pretty much IS what it is. "Ignorance" and "the missing link" sort of idea has worn threadbare at this point in the grand, public dialog.
and it presents challenges to the details of the theory.
No, it presents failed expectations. You can keep hoping for grand discoveries that will fix up the "challenges." But those hopes today really amount to the very thing that evolutionists accuse creationists of: Believing in something with no evidence.
However, evolution is a theory that can explain this record of life.
Not in the slightest. The only "explanation" is wishful thinking that is opposed to the actual evidence of the fossil record, and the only "interpretation" of the fossil record that is "consistent with it," is when you PRESUME, with no independent evidence, that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is true. And you have to cling to that PRESUMPTION when what few predictions the theory does make about the fossil record are not sustained by the actual fossil record.
The theory is certainly incomplete, but not in the sense that it is completely false.
Wow. I don't even know what you can mean by "incomplete" vs. "false" at this point.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis depends upon two primary principles:
1) Gradualism; nature does not make big leaps.
2) Enough adaptation over enough time produces genuine speciation (reproductive isolation).
We have exactly zero reason today to believe that either of those defining principles are true. Moreover, we have a pile of evidence to believe that both are false.
Empiricists MUST believe in something like the neo-Darwinian synthesis. And if it is finally admitted to be falsified, that will only be because, a la Kuhn, some other naturalistic theory will have sprung up to take its place.
People that do not think that the flavor of the empiricist Kool-aid is particularly good, however, do not NEED to be committed to something like the neo-Darwinian synthesis in order to maintain the HOPE of an adequate explanation of "all there is."
After all, the identity of genetic material (another of Darwin's predictions) is relatively recent
Darwin was not a complete idiot, so of course some of the things he said are going to be "verified," but even in this you are really stretching to say that Darwin "predicted" "the identity of genetic material" as we think of it today.
Bottom line is that the things he predicted that define the neo-Darwinian synthesis have not played out in favor of the theory, and there are plenty of falsifications that are seen by people not committed to reading the theory onto the evidence.
and the understanding of cell function still not complete.
Wow! That's the understatement of the year thus far!
Ed, I've read bunches of books on the subject of the origin of life and cellular function. Wow. The "understanding" of cell function has not even scratched the surface. The more researchers learn, the more they publicly admit that they are peering through a pinhole at a whole inner universe that thus far is beyond accounting for.
As Jan pointed out, evolution does not solely concern the fossil record, but is used to understand, explain and predict many other aspects of life, it is the organizing principle of biology.
And there it is! That inevitable ambiguity used for critical effect.
It just rolls off the tongues of evolutionary scientists "like" it's really true. But the "truth" is solely IN the ambiguity.
What you REALLY just said was, "Adaptation is the organizing principle of biology." What you IMPLIED, and what scientists MEAN when they float such statements to a gullible public is, "The neo-Darwinian synthesis's account of how adaptation writ large produces genuine speciation is the organizing principle of biology."
But that last statement is pure crap, because we have no evidence to believe that last statement at all. That last statement IS what evolutionists float to the public when they want to assert how "useful" the neo-Darwinian synthesis is to biology, when what they really mean is that genetics and the adaptation that it provides for is really useful to biology.
I've looked and looked. Perhaps I'm just missing it, but I've sure tried. So, perhaps you can show me where the inference from adaptation to reproductive isolation, that CRUCIAL inference, IS actually the basis of any significant predictions in biology that matter to the ongoing practice of biology. Because that inference predicts that, for example, we WOULD see actual ring species. We don't. That inference predicts that by now we WOULD see fruit flies that are genuinely reproductively isolated. We don't. Etc.
I don't believe that it exists. ALL I read concerns adaptation. And from that useful (and probably true) realization of the power of genetics, evolutionary biologists go ON to PRESUME that crucial inference that they do NOT have evidence for and that is NOT necessary to the practice of modern biology. It can't be necessary, because there's no actual evidence that it's ever happened, yet biology keeps making progress anyway.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 05:51am PT
|
MikeL, you're right, the oceans of the right chemicals plus lightning is the alternative theory of how it all began. I didn't mention it for the sake of simplicity plus it's a theory that has been proven possible in laboratories under highly engineered conditions, whereas the chemical building blocks of life have been found on meteors already existing in nature. It's an issue of parsimony in part.
As for what Werner will make of this, I always tell my students, most of whom are still religious or searching, that there is room for God but they have to work the theology out for themselves. My job is to explain evolution, particularly human evolution to them so they'll be informed believers in whatever. They also need to know that their ideas of how things came into being, whether life or the universe, needs to be expanded in space and time, which in no way diminishes the role of anything we would call God. I know Ed thinks we'll be able to figure out what existed before the Big Bang, and that God is not necessary for an explanation, but I'm pretty sure that will still leave some openings. For those who want to believe, there's reason. For those who don't want to believe likewise. I personally prefer mystery and ambiguity.
As for madbolter's preoccupation with neo Darwinism, it begins to sound like a dogmatic religious argument itself after awhile. The fact is, no modern biologist or biological anthropologist relies on just the fossil record. We've seen already that anytime there are two competing theories, genetics has won out, or in the exceptional case of some human fossils from China, the two ended up being complimentary but only after 100,000 DNA samples had been taken and a whole new species of fossil humans, H. denisova, had been discovered. Evolution is complex and still being discovered.
Denisova's closest relatives, based on analysis of their respective DNA, are neanderthals. Time and distance created speciation. Both neanderthals and denisova did however, interbreed with early Homo sapiens. Many people of European descent, including myself, carry DNA from neanderthals. People in New Guinea carry denisova genes still and perhaps other remote groups in Asia not yet tested. Chinese researchers have recently discovered that the unique adaptation of Tibetans and Sherpas to extreme altitude is a variant of DNA found only in themselves and denisova. My view is that real life finds are so interesting, why waste time trying to prove Darwinism or neo Darwinism wrong? What really is the motivation?
|
|
nafod
Boulder climber
State college
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 07:25am PT
|
Super insightful post, Madbolter1
Because that inference predicts that, for example, we WOULD see actual ring species.
Ring species would seem to be pretty tricky things to come up with in the first place. You have to maintain contact between all of the intermediates so they can share genes, but have the two end points be so far apart that none of the genes from the one side can diffuse to the other, and enough selection pressure across the continuum so that there's a big enough difference between the ends (but not so big that you don't break the chain). That requires a lot of 'just so' conditions, it'd seem to me.
Not a very good choice of things to hang the evolutionary hat on.
I started in Physics, and have always marveled at how the folks way back came up with the science of thermodynamics with concepts like heat and entropy, which were then tied back to first principles by statistical mechanics. Some smart people.
I see a similar but far more messy relationship between the macro Neo-Darwinism and the genetic stuff. WRT to genes, it's still like we just invented the telescope. Interesting times to live in!
Q: if we can now manipulate and create a new species in the lab through genetic modification, would this count as a 'natural process'? Since we ourselves are a part of nature?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 07:34am PT
|
As I said, you HAVE to insist upon that. But intellectually honest and well-educated creationists could make exactly the same claims...
I agree with that, on a lesser scale, many scientists have quibbles about the details, and some are quite large details, of evolution and natural selection.
As a scientist I'm not that interested in a theory in which a creator makes everything the way it is, it doesn't explain how things are, but the premise is hard to refute, because it agrees with everything by construction.
Conspiracy theories are the same, they don't disagree with everything that is known about the alleged conspiracy by construction.
So what does modern science bring to the table??
The possibility of learning new things that you don't know about at all, as a consequence of logical organization of what is known predicting the outcome of observation/experimentation. Science is not just a gathering of observational "facts", the organization of those "facts" is an essential aspect.
To do this science limits itself to understanding what is physical, that is, physical phenomena have physical origin. That turns out to be a rather strong limit, and one that Largo essentially launched this thread to discuss, at least with regard to mind.
But by this method a relatively amazing body of knowledge has been developed, evolution and natural selection having the power to explain a rather large number of observational fact, and provide predictions that could be tested.
And Darwin started it all, amazingly, recognizing that the particular theory he developed could be falsified by some accessible tests. Tests which his theory passed. The "modern synthesis" brings in genetics and a quantifiable science of heredity, and the discovery of genetic material, which Darwin knew had to exist if his theory were correct, opens up a very large field of study, and one that is continuing today.
This theory presents a coherent picture of life on planet Earth across billions of years (another "prediction" of Darwin's, that the Earth had to be old enough for evolution to have happened, he was right, Lord Kelvin wrong).
This theory is a physical theory and does not need to resort to extra-physical explanation.
As it pertains to "mind," it presents a very plausible framework for how mind comes to be. And given the success of the theory of evolution and natural selection to explain life on the planet, it is natural to continue to extend the theory to explain "mind."
Because we don't know what the answer might be, it is difficult to make strong philosophical assertions about the possible success of such a program. In the end, philosophers will have their day, criticizing "known science." What that science will be is beyond their reckoning.
"I know Ed thinks we'll be able to figure out what existed before the Big Bang, and that God is not necessary for an explanation, but I'm pretty sure that will still leave some openings."
I am surprised that we can formulate physically reasonable questions about what came before the Big Bang, but we can. There are openings, but as far as God, I am equally surprised that we have a physical explanation of the entire universe for the time of its existence without.
We don't know everything, and perhaps ultimately we could reach a limit of what we could know. But I can formulate a physical definition of that limit.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 07:40am PT
|
Ring species would seem to be pretty tricky things to come up with in the first place.
Apparently so. The Wikipedia entry on parapatric speciation seems to agree.
Still I like the way mountains enter the discussion of allopatric speciation.
And Jan makes a strong straightforward case for evolution, once DNA came on the scene.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 07:58am PT
|
As for madbolter's preoccupation with neo Darwinism, it begins to sound like a dogmatic religious argument itself after awhile.
LOL
Preoccupation? It's what you guys have got. Call it by any name you wish, but the scientific eggs are in that basket.
The fact is, no modern biologist or biological anthropologist relies on just the fossil record.
If you summarize my position that way, you do nothing more than help intellectually honest people see how quickly scientists dismiss arguments that don't fit their preexisting commitments.
What evolutionary theory (by any name) needs is to show that ANY series of adaptations produces reproductive isolation. It's never been done.
Evolutionists believe in a chimera.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 08:07am PT
|
And Jan makes a strong straightforward case for evolution, once DNA came on the scene.
Nobody denies "evolution" in the sense of adaptations.
But NOBODY makes a strong case for "evolution" in the sense of adaptation producing reproductive isolation, which is the only sense of "evolution" that actually matters to "evolutionary theory" and to "what is mind."
Furthermore, scientists aren't even in the general vicinity of "proving" that life can emerge from the standard-model of a warm little pool of the "building blocks" and lightening.
The famed experiments "proving" this require a reducing atmosphere, but the resulting organic material is extremely unstable in the presence of the reducing atmosphere, so to retain the material the atmosphere must be normalized immediately. So, according to these experiments, that perfect little pool would have to exist in a reducing atmosphere that was immediately normalized after the lightening strike. What's the plausible scenario?
And even then, getting from some organic sludge to a functioning cell is, shall we say, a stretch.
The present state of "evolutionary theory" amounts to, "Give me a car, and I can tell you ALL about how to change the tires." But the questions were:
1) How did cars emerge in the first place?
2) How does "enough" tire-changing produce totally different sorts of cars, buses, trains, airplanes, space shuttles, and so on?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 08:16am PT
|
Ed, actually I think that you and I are on the same page about this.
I wholeheartedly agree that science has no place in its method for a creator, and, honestly I have not the slightest problem with that!
I might not act like it in the heat of battle, but I have profound respect for science and for most scientists, and I do think that science has refined the investigative methods empiricism can employ to a very fine edge.
There's really no "end game" in this sort of overarching discussion. I mean, no creationist is going to convince a mainstream scientist to "abandon evolutionary theory" (cast in this or that way by this or that name). And there's no "proof" or even compelling argument to be had on either side.
I just grow weary of lines like "creationist = idiot" and "creationists have faith without any evidence."
I'm the first to admit that many/most creationists are pretty ignorant and not intellectually honest. And I really despise how sectarian and "doctrinal" religion is, with FAR worse inferences than I generally see in science.
I guess that my overarching point is that I just don't see the evidences for myself that empiricism can provide an adequate big-picture view. But filling in the "holes" left by empiricism is tenuous business!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 08:42am PT
|
I guess that my overarching point is that I just don't see the evidences for myself that empiricism can provide an adequate big-picture view.
I guess it is really what one thinks "the big-picture view" is... most scientists work with pretty tiny views, stringing all those together makes a mosaic that gives a pretty big picture, albeit with missing parts, some large, some small. When you look at its successes it seems a pretty good way to ask and answer questions, big and small.
The very thing I enjoy about science is the empirical part of it, and the surprise that that can bring to the theoretical side of it (call it the "rational" side if you will). I always say that the theorists are the organizers and the experimentalists the disorganizers, but my scientific growth was in particle physics where these two sides are distinct, the cultures are very different.
The empirical journey is one of discovery and intellectual adventure, where there are all the risks and rewards of any other adventure. And Vannevar Bush's legacy recognized that, "The Endless Frontier."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 08:45am PT
|
How did cars emerge in the first place?
the result of evolution... human technology is a behavior.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 08:55am PT
|
^^^ LOL. Good one, Ed.
Well, have a great day, all. I'm off to tweak our AI engine yet again. Sometimes it seems to be developing a mind of its own.
;-)
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 08:56am PT
|
I missed that too, but eventually figured out that those beautiful functions and all that has been built up around them could be used for the banal task of calculating the mundane properties of ellipses... who would have thunk!
Cool, I just saw this little bit about ellipses. Don't underestimate the "mundane" properties of ellipses! I know that historically, elliptic functions originally appeared as the (real-valued) inverses to the functions defined by the sorts of elliptic integrals used to express arc length in the plane. That part seems kind of easy. It's when contemporary mathematicians start using the natural extensions of these elliptic functions to a complex variable to do all kinds of geometric and number theory magic that I start to lose it. When I was younger this was one of those things I was always gonna learn about but I never got around to it. Well, I guess I'll grade my "Topologia II" exams, do a little moderate bouldering and leave the magic of elliptic functions to the masters!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 10:07am PT
|
Hey, so I do feel kind of bad that the evolutionists have taken over this thread. MB1 has provided a vigorous defense of his views and has been very forthcoming on exactly where he stands. I’d like to make one last (oh sure, Greg!) response.
With respect to the fossil record, I guess you would just have us take your word for it that the books upon books and studies upon studies of and analyses of the fossil record are all wrong while you are right. And not only are they wrong but they're actually being intellectually dishonest. Reminds me of Trump talking about the media. You sound like a conspiracy theorist, that’s for sure. I know a fair bit about paleontology, but I’m not a paleontologist. I do remember reading an account of a paleontologist who predicted exactly where they would find one of the intermediate ancestors to the whale based on reconstructing the continents and knowing the age of the rocks. I’d love to see Base104 jump in here.
To make a big point of gradualism in evolution is a red herring. There is nothing inherent in the theory that calls for gradualism per se. Gradualism in evolution is like uniformitarianism in geology. It is a guiding principle, but the fact is, catastrophic events, though few and far between, are hugely important in interpreting the geologic record (not to mention the fossil record).
Symbiogenesis is one example of how a bigger jump can occur during evolution. It’s always seemed to me that there are at least two ways in which evolution can “speed up”. One is very strong selection pressures. The other is when one piece of evolved machinery is “repurposed” to do something different. Dawkins, a really knowledgeable zoologist by the way, has several examples.
Finally, I would say that you are doing exactly what you say the empiricists are doing with respect to the word “information”. You have loaded the word to fit your purposes. You have not proved in any way to me that intention is needed for something to be information, especially information as it is relevant to biology.
Edit: With your strong indictment of paleontology and your background in education (I believe), do you have anything published in peer-reviewed journals on this subject? I mean, it's one thing to tell a bunch of climbers that you have all of this awesome knowledge about what you can and can't determine from the fossil record and that they should take your word for it. It would be quite another to defend your views to an audience of subject matter experts.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 12:13pm PT
|
Ed: . . . science limits itself to understanding what is physical, that is, physical phenomena have physical origin. That turns out to be a rather strong limit, and one that Largo essentially launched this thread to discuss, at least with regard to mind.
Good, useful summary.
. . . given the success of the theory of evolution and natural selection to explain life on the planet, it is natural to continue to extend the theory to explain "mind."
Not if MB1’s criticisms are reasonable and significant. (They seem to be to me.)
Max Weber characterized contemporary cultural modernity as a separation of the Three Pillars of Wisdom—each related to a specific kind of validity: truth from science, normative rightness or justice from morality, and notions of authenticity and beauty from art. (“The True, the Good, and the Beautiful”) Modernity differentiated and disconnected these wisdoms from each other when it undermined the worldviews of religion and metaphysics. Since the 18th Century, question of knowledge, justice, or taste are now put to experts in specialized cultural professions who appear to be adeptly logical in particular ways. Specialized cultures were supposed to enrich everyday life by harnessing natural forces and the self, increasing moral justice, and creating healthy environments so that human beings would be happier.
That’s not happening. One could argue that the Enlightenment and modernity have been failures.
“Modernity” has neutralized local community standards of morality and utility by freeing Man of his specific historical ties. It has done so through strict (procedural) rationality. Modernity opposes local community cultures through: standardizations, beliefs in the ability to “represent” reality *as it is,* formal affiliations over social affiliations, blinding orientations toward technical progress, unlimited personal self-realization, demands for authentic self experiences, capitalist growth, experts’ claims of authority and universalisms, marginal and repressed discourses, meta-narratives, rational administration, etc.
The three segments (pillars) are now each completely autonomous. Everyday communications between them (and their experts) do not exist because underlying unified traditions of any sort are now devalued and impoverished. The distance between the cultural experts and the public at-large is now very great. (You might see that here.)
What might be needed is some kind of cultural tradition to re-connect the three spheres. We might be able to use some kind of secular worldview that re-instates religion and metaphysics radically—maybe as Jan as envisioned a few posts up-thread.
|
|
JohnnyDontDoit
Ice climber
Bozeman
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 12:44pm PT
|
mind is an idea created by the brain to interpret the world and onesself. really just a sh#t ton of neurons firing in different ways to figure stuff out. not that much different than working on a calculus problem.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 01:53pm PT
|
Not if MB1’s criticisms are reasonable and significant. (They seem to be to me.)
Please tell us Mike what you mean by "seem to be"? It does not surprise me at all that you would say this, I just want to know why. I mean, MB1's views represent probably less than 2% of people who study in this subject space. It's kind of similar to human-caused climate denying (3%).
MB1 is good at rhetoric, primarily. They teach that in philosophy. He's also a very smart guy, I'll admit that. But smart guys are often wrong.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 03:44pm PT
|
So, MB1, I’m gonna get all philosophical on you from the logic category perspective. Here are my definitions of two of the terms that I have been throwing around.
Data All events in the Universe are data. Events include everything, the whole shebang. If you have to ask, don’t, it’s likely an event and data (events data).
Information Information is (ultimately) built from events data. However, information has this additional requirement of a sender and receiver of the data AND that the transmitted data is relevant.
I have no need for a definition of intention.
Btw, I have purposely refrained from reading Wikipedia articles and such about information. I decided that, in this case, I feel it in my bones because of my education, readings, and day-to-day work life and would rather not "infect" my thinking.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 03:44pm PT
|
One interesting question among many is why somebody periodically feels it necessary to castigate the usual members of this thread for coming to no concrete conclusions? That seems to illustrate some of MikeL's points quite well.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2018 - 03:48pm PT
|
You're right Jan.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!