How Comfortable is Naturalism with Highly Atypical Events?

There are numerous definitions of naturalism. Here is one definition with some additional observations from infidels.org:

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is “the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system” in the sense that “nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it.” More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.

As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/

For the purposes of this discussion, I’m not going to be too insistent on particular definitions, but it seems to me this captures the essence of naturalism: “More simply, it [naturalism] is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes.”

Personally, I’d be on the side of naturalists or at least agnostic if I felt the origin of life question were satisfactorily resolved. So although I have sympathy for the naturalistic viewpoint, I find insistence on it too closed-minded. I don’t think reality operates in a completely law-like, predictable fashion, it only does so mostly, but not always.

The word “natural” can be equivocated to death and is often equated with “ordinary” or “typical” when it should not be. So if someone insists that naturalism is true but wishes to also be fair with the facts and avoid such equivocations, when they comment on the origin of life, they might say:

The origin of life was an atypical and unique event far from ordinary expectation, but many of us presume it happened naturally since supernatural events are not observed in the lab.

That would be the an accurate way to characterize the state of affairs, but this not what is usually said by advocates of naturalistic origins of life. Most origin-of-life proponents insinuate that the origin of life event was not terribly extraordinary, that OOL fits well within “natural” expectation, even though by accepted laws of physics and chemistry and current knowledge, such an event violates the ordinary (dare I say “natural”) expectation that non-living things stay non-living.

Turning to evolution, if someone insists on naturalism, but is at least fair with our present day knowledge, they might say:

It is NOT typical for something as complex as an animal to emerge from a single-celled organism, but we presume it happened naturally since animals share some DNA with single celled creatures.

Again, that would be the an accurate way to characterize the state of affairs, but this is not what is usually said by advocates of naturalistic evolution of life from the first cell. Evolutionists insinuate that the necessary events to evolve an animal from a single cell must not have been terribly extraordinary because animals and single-celled creatures share some similar DNA — the idea is insinuated even though it is a non-sequitur because something can share DNA via extraordinary or atypical events, at least in principle.

Darwin and his supporters argue that most evolution of complex function proceeded via a mechanism which Darwin labeled “natural selection”. However, if Darwin’s claims actually entail highly atypical events rather than ordinary ones, then his label of “natural selection” for how things evolved would be a false advertising label. If major evolutionary changes require highly atypical events, then “highly atypical events almost indistinguishable from miracles” would be a far more appropriate label for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of evolution. Instead, Darwin’s label of “natural” is presumptuous and unproven at best and completely false at worst. For all we know, natural selection prevents major evolutionary change. Michael Lynch points out:

many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection

Michael Lynch
opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture

Many? How about most? No one knows for sure, and thus Darwin’s label of “natural” for “natural selection” is presumptuous. For all we know the correct theory of evolution could be “evolution of significant novel forms by highly exceptional events”.

Animals and single-celled creatures share some DNA, but from all that we know, the transition from single-celled creatures to something as complex as a multi-cellular animal is highly atypical and so far from natural expectation that something of that order of change might likely not happen again in the history of the universe.

If naturalism can accommodate any atypical or extraordinary event as a matter of principle, no matter how improbable, then naturalism can accommodate events that would otherwise be indistinguishable from miracles.

Whether there is a theological dimension with atypical events is a separate question. Can there be an event atypical enough that it warrants supernatural explanations? That’s a philosophical question with probably no formal resolution.

Proponents of naturalistic emergence of biological complexity desperately pretend the sequence of necessary events are not atypical, but rather within the realm of ordinary expectation. Hence they try to render the question of supernatural origins as moot as the question of whether supernatural causes are needed to make ice melt on a hot day.

But imho, efforts to characterize emergence of biological complexity as “not that out of the ordinary” are failing. The more we learn of life’s complexity the more it seems highly atypical events were involved to create them. Perhaps these events were so atypical that they are virtually indistinguishable from miracles of supernatural creation.

I’m certainly not alone in those sentiments:

If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation

Ernst Haeckel, 1876

Pasteur’s experiments and those followed from 1862 disproved spontaneous generation. Ernst Haeckel’s 1876 quote shows how false ideas like spontaneous generation die a slow death. Haeckel’s quote symbolizes how naturalism seems inherently uncomfortable with anything that suggests a highly atypical event actually happened somewhere in the past.

530 thoughts on “How Comfortable is Naturalism with Highly Atypical Events?

  1. Mung: Good thing trolling isn’t against the rules, I’d have to stop. Accusing someone of trolling isn’t against the rules, is it?

    Correct that trolling is not against the rules.
    Also correct that accusing someone of trolling is not against the rules, IFF they admit it. Heh.

    You don’t have a good reason for claiming I’m a creationist. Got it.

    Except for your statements here. Which, we both agree, are not dispositive.
    😉

  2. DNA_Jock,
    Its not possible for there to be a perfect replicator? Why does the replicator have to be the one we see now? You are declaring what is possible in all conceivable worlds?

    Its also not possible for water molecules to always contain two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Its not obtainable.

    And yet…

  3. DNA_Jock: phoodoo: DNA Jock is an atheist

    Actually, no.

    Ssshh, Don’t tell Neil!

    If you want to be able to call someone assholish here, you are going to need maintain your cover. They have already told you the secret handshake.

  4. Mung: Apparently, the cell has some way of “knowing’ whether and when the RNA molecule ought to be degraded.

    Yes, they do. The RNA synthesized by the cell itself comes in the form of mRNA, which is usually “tagged” with various forms of transporter proteins and other signalling molecules that recognize the sequences of the RNA molecules. This can also facilitate the RNA folding into a structure that RNases can’t recognize. All of this takes place post-transcription before the RNA is ever released into the cytoplasm. See for example: RNA-binding proteins involved in post-transcriptional regulation in bacteria.

    Many viruses carry parasitic RNA genomes that cells have evolved defenses against, it doesn’t have the same sequence or fold into the same structures, and doesn’t come with the same protein “tags” as cellular RNA (which is why viruses “hide” their RNA in various forms of protein-coats, liposomes and so on, so it can get to the cell’s chromosomes undetected). This is one of the reasons cells can distinguish between the cells own, and foreign RNA.

    Cells also regulate the expression of their RNase enzymes up and down, both depending on where they are in the cell-cycle (some stages require upregulated RNase activity, because the cell is producing lots of mRNA which in turn is translated into proteins, after which this mRNA needs to be degraded again), and they have ways of detecting foreign incoming RNA as it enters the cell with cell surface proteins of various sorts, which in turn cause the upregulation of defensive mechanisms (of which the production of RNases is one).

    Interestingly, a portion of this relationship between cells and foreign RNA is thought to be a byproduct of the RNA-world where (theory goes), there would have been a large amount of parasitic, selfish RNA, which in turn is also thought to be one of the reasons DNA would later evolve from RNA.

    It may sound magical and miraculous that cells have a way of distinguishing much foreign RNA from their own, but they do. And when analyzed in detail, it’s really not that miraculous.

  5. Mung,

    […] That’s three reasons right there to call into question the theory that it would just gobble up all the RNA.

    A fourth reason is, why even assume that all life starts in an RNA world in the first place?

    Why do you think the ‘competition/consumption’ idea only applies to ‘OoL events’ occurring during a putative RNA phase of life? Even if it did, why could (admittedly hypothetical) RNA organisms never be competent for heterotrophy? And if there was no RNA phase, why would that change the logic of my argument one iota?

    You seem to be determined to keep the OoL special. As far as I can see, your reasons are selective and rather spurious. You are saying that an OoL-event – another independent replicator lineage – could not have happened since the first one, otherwise we would definitely see it, come what may. The reason we would definitely see it being that primitive organisms from the first OoL would be, purely in the service of your objection, eternally incapable of heterotrophy, molecular defence or competition for organic and non-organic resources.

    You appear think there is no reason to suppose that circumstances on a sterile earth are different from those on a populated one, and that therefore ‘OoL events’ have independent probabilities. You’re wrong. I’ll mention molecular oxygen at this point, too. That’s also a game-changer.

  6. phoodoo,

    He has admitted, as presumably you would too, that IF the first replicator was perfect, what evolution would occur? So its ONE MORE of the many billions of lucky accidents needed for what we see today.

    It’s hilarious watching you try to make capital out of this one. The possibility of instantly perfect replicators is a problem for a naturalistic OoL? Chortle!

  7. Mung,

    Apparently, the cell has some way of “knowing’ whether and when the RNA molecule ought to be degraded. Miraculous!

    That’s right. But hardly relevant.

  8. Allan Miller:
    phoodoo,

    It’s hilarious watching you try to make capital out of this one. The possibility of instantly perfect replicators is a problem for a naturalistic OoL? Chortle!

    But instantly just imperfect enough replicators isn’t a problem?

  9. Rumraket: The RNA synthesized by the cell itself comes in the form of mRNA, which is usually “tagged” with various forms of transporter proteins and other signalling molecules that recognize the sequences of the RNA molecules.

    How did they get the signaling molecules that recognize the sequences?

    More luck?

  10. phoodoo,

    But instantly just imperfect enough replicators isn’t a problem?

    Sure it’s a problem – inasmuch as getting replication going at all has yet to be solved.

  11. Allan Miller: Sure it’s a problem – inasmuch as getting replication going at all has yet to be solved.

    Neither has perpetual motion but we continue to wait in eager anticipation. Any day now

    peace

  12. fifthmonarchyman,

    Neither has perpetual motion but we continue to wait in eager anticipation. Any day now

    Yeah, thanks for the sarcasm. If you’d actually asked what I thought, I would have told you that I am presently more pessimistic than optimistic that we will find the answer to that particular conundrum, regardless of the ‘real’ state-of-affairs that historically precipitated the origin. But you didn’t, so I’ll just applaud your abilty to leap to a conclusion.

  13. Allan Miller: I would have told you that I am presently more pessimistic than optimistic that we will find the answer to that particular conundrum, regardless of the ‘real’ state-of-affairs that historically precipitated the origin.

    At what point do we determine that a “solution” is probably not forthcoming?

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman,

    At what point do we determine that a “solution” is probably not forthcoming?

    I don’t see a particular requirement for that determination to be made at any time. One can never rule out the possibility of an unanticipated breakthrough – by either ‘side’ in this debate. Only one seems to be actively looking, though.

  15. Allan Miller: One can never rule out the possibility of an unanticipated breakthrough – by either ‘side’ in this debate.

    Pigs might leap to the moon as well but I’m just not holding my breath.
    That was the point of the sarcasm

    peace

  16. Mung: It has nothing to do with being inside or outside the cell.

    While I should have stated exogenous and endogenous RNAse it does have everything to do if the enzyme is inside or outside the cell especially given your proposed experimental parameters.

  17. Allan Miller: You seem to be determined to keep the OoL special. As far as I can see, your reasons are selective and rather spurious. You are saying that an OoL-event – another independent replicator lineage – could not have happened since the first one, otherwise we would definitely see it, come what may.

    No, I’m sorry. That’s no what I am saying. In fact, I believe I am saying the exact opposite. I’m arguing that in principle at least, we should expect the same processes to still be in operation in the present that were operating in the past.

    Isn’t that how science is done?

    You appear think there is no reason to suppose that circumstances on a sterile earth are different from those on a populated one, and that therefore ‘OoL events’ have independent probabilities.

    No, that’s not what I think. That would be silly. I’ve quite explicitly argued that circumstances would be different.

  18. Allan Miller: One can never rule out the possibility of an unanticipated breakthrough – by either ‘side’ in this debate.

    I’m curious

    If we eventually design and build a new replicator from scratch which side would that be a “breakthrough” for?

    peace

  19. Allan Miller: That’s right. But hardly relevant.

    I don’t understand why you think it isn’t relevant. We’re talking about degrading RNA, and that process is controlled and regulated. Right? It doesn’t just happen willy-nilly, or does it?

    And if it is controlled and regulated, then there is reason to question whether some “foreign” bit of RNA would be recognized and degraded. That’s a reasonable question, isn’t it?

    But I don’t think we’ve resolved the question yet of how this foreign RNA is going to get into the cell in the first place. I’d still like to understand how that happens.

  20. fifthmonarchyman: If we eventually design and build a new replicator from scratch which side would that be a “breakthrough” for?

    Such a system would have to be irreducibly complex. 🙂

    I keep waiting for Salvador to create a thread on the VNSR.

  21. Mung,

    No, I’m sorry. That’s no what I am saying. In fact, I believe I am saying the exact opposite. I’m arguing that in principle at least, we should expect the same processes to still be in operation in the present that were operating in the past.

    Including principles of ecology and adaptation, and the greed of organisms for each others’ molecules and energy. And yet you disagree with me that these would be in operation, and hence would change the game pre- vs post- the 1st origin.

    Me: You appear think there is no reason to suppose that circumstances on a sterile earth are different from those on a populated one, and that therefore ‘OoL events’ have independent probabilities.

    Mung: No, that’s not what I think. That would be silly. I’ve quite explicitly argued that circumstances would be different.

    And therefore the probability would be different, surely? Why have you been steadfastly disagreeing with my statement that the probability of life arising to appreciable concentration again, having arisen once, is most likely to be lower than it was when there was no adapted competitor?

    The only alternative is that the probability should go up, which is hardly in accord with any known principles of ecology, adaptation or chemistry. There are more organic molecules floating around, but there are also more, and better-equipped, organisms chasing ’em, and you.

    Once life is established, it should be easier for new lineages to arise. Is that your position? What principle in operation now is it based on?

  22. phoodoo: You have to be specific about who you are applying the rules to.

    DNA_Jock is one of those folks here who while often disagreeing is generally polite about it. I think he deserves an occasional pass.

  23. Mung,

    I don’t understand why you think it isn’t relevant. We’re talking about degrading RNA, and that process is controlled and regulated. Right? It doesn’t just happen willy-nilly, or does it?

    In modern organisms, after 3.8 billion years of evolution, it is tightly regulated. That is not relevant to the capacity of an early replicator, and does not support your case anyway. If evolved organisms can distinguish ‘foreign’ molecules from self, how does that help your contention that novel organisms can make themselves at home among them?

    But I don’t think we’ve resolved the question yet of how this foreign RNA is going to get into the cell in the first place. I’d still like to understand how that happens.

    Which cell? If a cell is capable of heterotrophy, it can get foreign organic molecules in. So the only way you can protect the putative novel replicators from predation is to assume a perpetual absence of heterotrophy – at least until recently, since it had to arise sometime in the past to be present now. We’d be knee deep in detritus if it was very recent.

    That seems an extravagant assumption, and there is always going to be a point at which it breaks down – the day heterotrophy arose. My bet is early. Very early. Though it hardly matters either way, since consumption is not the only threat.

  24. fifthmonarchyman,

    If we eventually design and build a new replicator from scratch which side would that be a “breakthrough” for?

    Oh, yours of course. You’ll be the ones putting all the work in, after all. Oh, wait …

  25. Try this one for size. Let us say (purely for the sake of argument) that the only thing which threatens a novel lifeform, on a populated planet, is the presence of predatory heterotrophy – the obtaining of nutritional energy and building blocks from other organisms. No heterotrophy, then as many separately-origined lineages as you wish can live happily side by side.

    In this Eden, one lineage develops predatory heterotrophy.

    3 billion years later, how many OoLs can we see?

  26. Allan Miller: Oh, yours of course. You’ll be the ones putting all the work in, after all. Oh, wait …

    I would say yes.
    Anyone who is doing this sort of work is an intelligent designer after all

    peace

  27. Allan Miller: And therefore the probability would be different, surely? Why have you been steadfastly disagreeing with my statement that the probability of life arising to appreciable concentration again, having arisen once, is most likely to be lower than it was when there was no adapted competitor?

    We know that the probability of atmosphere modifying life like we find on earth arising is at least less than 1 in 500,000 per 5 billion years or so.

    Because that is the number of lifeless objects in the solar system.

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman,

    We know that the probability of atmosphere modifying life like we find on earth arising is at least less than 1 in 500,000 per 5 billion years or so.

    Because that is the number of lifeless objects in the solar system.

    Huh?

  29. Mung: DNA_Jock is one of those folks here who while often disagreeing is generally polite about it. I think he deserves an occasional pass.

    Well, I am only impolite when people initiate impoliteness first, so I think I deserve a pass.

    As we know however, evolutionists initiate A LOT of impoliteness.

  30. Allan Miller,

    Want to take a stab at where signaling molecules that recognize RNA sequences came from? More luck?

    What does it even mean that “they recognize” something?

  31. petrushka: Someone has confirmed the absence of life in the universe.

    no we have not done that

    We have confirmed the absence of “atmosphere modifying life” like found on earth in the greater solar system though and we are getting close to being able to expand that confirmation beyond the solar system.

    peace

  32. Mung: Good thing trolling isn’t against the rules, I’d have to stop. Accusing someone of trolling isn’t against the rules, is it?

    Yes, it is, of course, while actually trolling is not, as you note.

    If I opine that I think you’re only trolling 50-80% of the time, do I need to move just 50-80% of my comment to Guano?

  33. Patrick: If I opine that I think you’re only trolling 50-80% of the time, do I need to move just 50-80% of my comment to Guano?

    You’re always free to say so if you think I’m trolling. I might even take it to heart if I think you’re right.

  34. Mung,

    You’re always free to say so if you think I’m trolling. I might even take it to heart if I think you’re right.

    Do you have a common definition of trolling?

  35. fifthmonarchyman: At what point do we determine that a “solution” is probably not forthcoming?

    This is a good question actually and one I’ve thought about myself, not just restricted to the origin of life, but basically any challenging scientific subject.

    Take cancer research. How many hospitals, universities and drug-companies the world over have entire departments dedicated to cancer research. To understand cancers, how they start, how they spread through the body, what drugs work on them, how they work and a million other questions. This research is probably one of the biggest, most well-funded and have been going for the longest time in all of the biological sciences. No other subject have (to my knowledge) taken up so many man-hours(in biology and medicine) the last 7 decades (as far as I can gather, research started already in the 1930’s) as research into the nature and origin of cancers. How many cancers have been cured? As far as I know, none. There are work-arounds (such as surgery to remove the cancer-prone tissue or organ where possible). But they’re not really cures in the traditional sense (women who have their breasts or ovaries removed, would probably rather prefer not to if it was possible).
    When do we stop looking for a “cure” for cancer? I don’t think we should.

    The origin of life is probably the least funded and researched of all the “big questions” in science, and is utterly utterly dwarfed by the amount of hours-spend on most medical research. It makes sense why medical research is seen as much more important, because to most people it really is. The origin of life is probably “just” a purely intellectual challenge. It is entirely possible that, even if it is one day solved, it will not produce anything societally or technologically useful, besides the satisfaction of having answered a big question. But are we really in a position already now to say it can’t be solved? Far from it. In fact, many of the researchers working in the field will say they feel like they’ve barely begun, there are still so many unanswered questions and possible avenues of investigation to take.

  36. Rumraket: But are we really in a position already now to say it can’t be solved?

    There is an ocean of difference between deciding that a “solution” is probably not forthcoming and deciding that it can’t be solved.

    It’s the difference between giving up entirely and not getting our hopes up.

    peace

  37. Allan:

    There is absolutely no contradiction between saying on the one hand that primitive life could have survived with fewer, and on the other that additional acids in the amino acid library provided selective advantage. .

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/how-comfortable-is-naturalism-with-highly-atypical-events/comment-page-5/#comment-154876

    Thank you for pointing out my mistake. You were most certainly right on that point, and I was mistaken to suggest having non-essential amino acids would necessarily have no selective advantage, at least in principle.

  38. From the Wiki Entry on ribosome there is a diagram of protein being synthesized by reading an mRNA depicted below.

    There are these tRNAs connected to an amino acid that make this possible. Until the right tRNA-amino-acid pair interact with the partially-made protein and then have the right amino acid appended to the partially-made protein, the reading of the next nucleoside in the mRNA is halted.

    So, supposing we have all these mRNAs with a codon that corresponds to an “inessential” amino acid, and that this amino acid does not have a fully functional amino-acyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) to make the “incoming-tRNA bound-to-an-amino-acid” pair? Does the ribosome mRNA reading head just hang until the aaRS poofs into existence?

    The aaRS gene I was speaking of referred to the genes that code these proteins. There are 20 aaRS genes in life presently that correspond to the 20 amino acids.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aminoacyl_tRNA_synthetase

    Many OOL researcher say not all 20 are needed. Fair enough, but like the problem of Rube Goldberg machines, the ability to make a Rube Goldberg machine with few parts is not the issue, it’s why something so extravagant exists in the first place. Is the construction part of ordinary chemical expectation or not?

    If we have mRNAs that have codons that require non-existent aaRS enzymes, it seems to me there is a problem — the ribosome just jams in reading. On the other hand in the unlikely event there are no mRNAs with codons that involve an existing aaRS enzyme, then there is nothing to confer selective advantage to a half-aaRS gene.

  39. stcordova: If we have mRNAs that have codons that require non-existent aaRS enzymes, it seems to me there is a problem — the ribosome just jams in reading. On the other hand in the unlikely event there are no mRNAs with codons that involve an existing aaRS enzyme, then there is nothing to confer selective advantage to a half-aaRS gene.

    Remember the idea of RNA world is that RNA could have acted as both replicator and catalyst. It avoids the problem of the chicken and egg. RNA could have been both egg and chicken. Protein synthesis did not need to have been an element in first life.

  40. From:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

    See this video of amio-acid-tRNA pairs (amino acyl tRNAs), and see why there would be a jamming problem if there are non-existent aaRS enzymes to create the right aaRS-tRNA.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PSwhTGFMxs

    Nature can’t select for non-existent traits since the organism would be die in this jammed situation. Selection can’t explain the evolution of half-aaRS systems, since dead creatures don’t evolve.

  41. Alan Fox:

    Protein synthesis did not need to have been an element in first life.

    Agree, but that’s not the problem that needs solving. It’s not even building a replicator. Salt-crystals replicate.

    The problem is how a replicator as complex as the ones we have in living organisms came to be.

    The false assumption is that if there exists an rRNA replicator, that it can evolve into a DNA-RNA-protein replicator. I pointed out how the translation/peptide synthesis machinery would jam.

    Seems to me, the Rube-Goldberg machines of life on this planet are constructed by God in such a way as to resist a gradual evolutionary interpretation. I pointed out a specific problem with a “natural” selection scenario regarding the yellow objects in the picture below. If they don’t exist, the reading of the “tape” (mRNA), jams and the systems halts.

    The yellow objects are described in detail here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aminoacyl-tRNA

  42. It should be worth mentioning, the reaction mechanism that creates amino acyl tRNAs is this:

    Aminoacyl-tRNA is produced in two steps. First is the adenylation of the
    amino acid, which forms aminoacyl-AMP:

    amino acid + ATP ↔ aminoacyl-AMP + PPi

    Second, the amino acid residue is transferred to the tRNA:

    aminoacyl-AMP + tRNA ↔ aminoacyl-tRNA + AMP

    The net reaction is:
    amino acid + ATP + tRNA ↔ aminoacyl-tRNA + AMP + PPi

    Not much good if there is no ATP!

    Some try to circumvent this problem by having it near a hydrothermal vent.
    http://www.nature.com/news/how-life-emerged-from-deep-sea-rocks-1.12109

    But as pointed out, at those temperatures, the RNAs have half-lifes on the order of seconds. The RNAs can’t simultaneously be brought to 0 celcius to keep them from breaking and simultaneously heated at several hundred degrees to try to desperately avoid the problem of missing ATP.

  43. More “Gee look at the complexity, must be GAWDDIDIT Design!”

    Yawn.

    Get a new clown act Sal, this one is past stale.

Leave a Reply