| |
|  |  |
| Discussion: Charles Darwin Thanks very much to Majorette for the Boston Globe articles. There are 2 points here from those articles that sum up some of my thoughts about discussions I have had on this board: 1) That when we discuss evolution we only consider ourselves – humans. What ever happened to the rest of the species???? 2) Who created our intelligent designer? Things can’t make themselves obviously according to ID…. (Classic comment wish I could claim it as my own!) Hume you were absolutely right with your comment on scientist vs. non-scientist arguments. However, I have a slightly different spin on it. I believe that the misunderstanding over evolution is down to us scientists alone, for being too arrogant to think we need to waste our precious time on explaining to Mr Man-on-the-street. It has to change otherwise it won’t only be evolution that we risk reducing to an impossible argument. So do you guys agree with me? Bethan >>By B.A.B.E.S An interesting article on the evolution/Intelligent Design "debate" in the US was published in the UK in Sunday's Observer, called "On the seventh day, God went to court", see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/ story/0,6903,1582943,00.html (space inserted in URL to get round the long words rules here) Richard >>By Happy chappy From Happy chappy's link: "'The scientific theory of intelligent design does not attempt to address religious belief questions such as the nature and identity of the designer, and thus it avoids untestable assertions.....'" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....... Well, that's ONE way of avoiding the issue. My question is this: if you can have a "scientific theory" that allows you to avoid the nature and identity of the designer, WHAT DO YOU NEED THE DESIGNER FOR? >>By Majorette Who were the designer's parents? If the most basic replicating molecules were too highly unlikely to occur naturally because of their complexity, isn't it more than reasonable to conclude that the designer must have been more complex? If that is so, then it follows that it too must not have arrived naturally but by means of a designer. Even if this type of supposistion is correct, can we ever satisfy our curiousity? How will we decide when we have reached the true beginning? A self designing God? But wait! The design required intelligence and the intelligence was a result of design. There is just no way to escape the circle. >>By Hume Ungus 2 links for you this week from one of my favourite reads New Scientist. The first for their look at evolution: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/ life/evolution The second a piece on the court battle in the US at the moment concerning ID vs evolution in schools: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/ life/evolution/dn8058 There was also an excellent piece by the fab Richard Dawkins a couple of weeks ago can't yet find link but can scan and send article if you're interested. If we had any creationists here I'd love to hear how the selfish gene theory fits in to their story. Okay it's not strictly charles darwin and evolution but you can let me off this once??? Beth >>By B.A.B.E.S Id love that Dawkins article...he's one of my favorite writers on the subject. >>By Hume Ungus Ahhh, Dawkins. Couldn't have said it better myself: <<If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs.>> From Guardian Weekly: Science & Technology: One side can be wrong: Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne debunk the idea of 'intelligent design' (September 9, 2005) PS- Thanks for the links, Beth.... I had not discovered that website. >>By Majorette Dawkins proves himself with every word, I think. His logic in this area is just undeniable. So for somebody to try and weasle their way out of the case Dawkins has put forth, they are showing me that they either know they have a weak case but refuse for some reason to budge, or that they are not intelligent enough to discuss the issue. One cannot have it both ways and any intelligent society or group of people ought to accept this. To fear the inevitable conclusion is a sure sign of intellectual and conceptual breakdown and science cannot ever afford to be run by intellectually weak minds. I hope that my statements are not taken to mean that a belief in God is inherently indicative of a weak intellect. I don't believe that at all. However, to fear any conclusion on a conceptual issue certainly is a sign of a weak intellect, as fear is no way to get to the truth of things. >>By Hume Ungus I agree, Hume; Dawkins is to evolution what Sagan was to astronomy. Here's his take on my personal pet-peeve (people who mis-portray natural selection in order to "debunk" it): <<Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution.>> ("2 Evolution" by Dawkins in New Scientist, September 17, 2005) For some reason, people insist on thinking of it as natural CHANCE instead of what it is- natural SELECTION. Selection implies that there is a bias toward or away from something. And that, of course, is anything but chance. If they don't understand this fundamental difference, then no wonder they are skeptical. ====== Beth: <<I'd love to hear how the selfish gene theory fits in to their story.>> Hahaha, they'd probably misinterpret the word selfish and say, "You SEE?? A "selfish" gene implies intelligence, as in an intelligent designer." And somewhere at Oxford University, a loud slap is heard as Prof. Dawkins brings hand to forehead and curses himself yet again for choosing such an unfortunate title. :-P >>By Majorette Well I think the whole argument is stupid really, since religion isn't based on science or rational thought at all, it's based on personal faith and personal needs, and any intelligent religious person will accept this and doesn't argue about it. But I agree with the last couple of posts, evolution is true but the important and overlooked part is that it's weighted in favour of life. Evolution is how life carries on, simple as that, there's no need to introduce a God to explain it. >>By Flagg Though religion is generally a faith based exercise, I believe that it requires, in a very general sense, a degree of rationality. Not that its conclusions are logical or empirical, but simply in the sense that it demonstrates a thought process which cannot be compared to a slugs thought process. It considers such things as origins, purpose, and the like, and the mere consideration implies that some rational thinking is present. But I understand Flagg's sentiment, and in the sense he means it, I do agree. Faith alone is not rational by definition. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, though it isn't rational, there is a reason tightly linked to my faith. Practical faith is not only acceptable, it is probably necessary for our cultural and social existence. Even in science we put faith in our claims, though honest scientists will admit that our claims should never be held as absolute. We should be careful in how we describe the concept of faith because it isn't half as bad as it may seem. In fact, I think it is, at the end of the day, all we really have. To understand and accept its limits without fear is a sign of wisdom. >>By Hume Ungus "Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence". Prof. Dawkins - the Selfish Gene. (Or should that be can debate it's existence????) Maj: I think the chance explanations came about because it's easier to visualise these changes as being a fluke than the whole biochemistry behind it. Certainly if you try explaining it to someone who doesn't understand natural selection, the 'chance' version sticks a lot better than the full or even partial mechanics. Although that isn't true in the case of IDism..... Still excuses aren't valid I'm guilty of chance myself to make life easier!! Hume - if you'd like a scanned version flork me your email and I'll do it for you. "science cannot ever afford to be run by intellectually weak minds" True but science is becoming increasing run by politicians and governments. Funding is greater in areas they consider important, and that isn't a good thing. To be downbeat, I fear science is becoming less boundary pushing and more election point scoring. Or maybe I've just had a bad week!!! Beth >>By B.A.B.E.S I don't disagree thats science is becomeing less boundary pushing for the reasons you mentioned. That is a concern at my university. We have merged almost completely with the government in our reseach and development departments. Funding is very competitive and as a result the direction in which we can take our interests is narrowed. Still, at the base level, despite our direction, I know many very qualified scientists who are doing good work. >>By Hume Ungus You can't argue logic with these people, people! It's like wrestling with pigs in the mud. You get dirty, and the pig likes it! "All attempts to describe humans before 1859 were pointless." The earth's immune system will eventually kill off the human virus. The problem is, in very politically incorrect language, that natural selection has not been allowed to function properly since societies became globally connected and/or 'civilized'. Our huge brains and reproductive prowess have ensured we will never let the 80% of the population who should not BREED, never mind survive, perish as imperfect specimens are so intended by definition. We protect the weakest and spend enormous resources on the imperfect among us, while the strongest and 'fittest' are ultimately saddled with the financial responsibility for doing so. The earth is 4 billion years old. Bacterial life began about 2 billion years ago. More complex organisms appeared 600 million years ago. Humans might go back 2 or 3 million, and complex societies only 15,000 years. Two billion years ago, the most prolific, most common and ONLY life form was bacteria. Today, the situation is mathematically identical. All other forms of life combined are statistically insignificant compared to bacteria. The general movement of evolution is upwards, toward higher complexity and communication. But it seems the quantum leap of these via the human brain has not been an especially successful survival strategy. While we progress at a logarithmic rate toward super intelligence with all human brains connected as one entity, we are at the same time weighed down with an ever expanding dead weight base of beings who will never 'get it', voting in politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator easily swayed with promises, gifts, religion, (witness the Bushes of this world), while the elite are hobbled and voiceless. The truth, it seems, is very hard to handle indeed! We are doomed, folks. So at the very least, please don't let us spend so much time with those that will not learn, even though the teacher has long since appeared. Please don't let us waste time with the 80% of us that would have been lunch on the Serengeti, all other things being equal. >>By Canadazeus Woah there, Canadazeus........ Your ego is on Automatic. You need to set it to Safe and take your finger off the trigger for a minute. From my take on your post, you've suffered a failure of logic, yourself. So now I have to wonder..... Should I invest the time trying to point it out, or should I not waste my time? Aw what the hell. Breakfast isn't ready yet......... In your post, you've done the exact same thing that creationists do but to the opposite extreme: you've attached undue weight to the human species. While they cannot accept that we are not necessarily here by devine decree, you seem to have difficulty accepting that we have just as much "right" to be here as any other species. (yeah, right is the wrong word, but for lack of a better one, there you go) You think natural selection has not had a chance to function properly thanks to us humans? Hahahaha, that's a little arrogant, don't you think? Don't worry..... It's well in place, I assure you. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean the process is broken, or even halted. If natural selection doesn't get you at the individual level, it'll get ya at the population or species level. As for those "imperfect specimens" that won't "perish as imperfect specimens are so intended by definition"..........*sigh* What's all this about "intended"?? If attribute X got them this far, chances are there's a survival or reproductive benefit conferred somewhere along the line. Whether that benefit operates at the individual, population, or species level is the question. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. <<We protect the weakest and spend enormous resources on the imperfect among us, while the strongest and 'fittest' are ultimately saddled with the financial responsibility for doing so.>> Dude, this is the Charles Darwin board, not the Ayn Rand board.... ;-) >>By Majorette <<The problem is, in very politically incorrect language, that natural selection has not been allowed to function properly since societies became globally connected and/or 'civilized'.>>>>By Canadazeus that is some crazy sht...plain and simple.. i think what ur trying to say is that the most 'fit' humans should be the ones reproducing in order to build a more perfect race...?/?/.sound familiar? the species is social. thats how we will continue to evolve. <<Our huge brains and reproductive prowess have ensured we will never let the 80% of the population who should not BREED, never mind survive, perish as imperfect specimens are so intended by definition. We protect the weakest and spend enormous resources on the imperfect among us, while the strongest and 'fittest' are ultimately saddled with the financial responsibility for doing so. >> all i have to say is diversity of species my friend.. i would guess u would be first in line at the gene altering corp. im sorry >>By voice of reason The earth has an immune system? I can understand this in terms of a poetic metaphor or loose analogy, but not in the concrete way I conceive of, say, the human immune system. The earth is dynamic, cyclic, and tends to undergo extreme changes over time. But there is no evidence of an underlying purpose or inherent function for such changes, whereas the purpose of an immune system in a living body is purposeful when taken from a biological perspective. It attacks pathogens in an attempt to keep alive the machine as a function of the machine) So if humans die off for some reason, we shouldn't assume that there must have been a purpose. Hurricanes don't make plans, afterall. It really bothers me that Canadazues has tried to link the concept of "perfection" to this discussion of natural selection. We should leave such idealistic and very abstract terms to the Creationists who rely heavily on its use. Perfection is by no means a goal, as far as we can prove, of natural selection. In fact, it seems like there is no apparent underlying purpose at all. It may be true that as time goes on and species evolve, more and more complex organisms may arrive. But the strength of any given organism is intimately connected to conditions at the time. In this sense perfection is a meaningless term because conditions change and it is clear that today's adaptation could be tomorrows reason for extinction. Perfection is one of those terms that is meant to transcend conditions, or if it isn't, then another term, such as derived meaning, should be used. Complexity is not implicit of "better" or "closer to perfection." It does imply that a typically long series of mutations and selection pressures have occurred along the way. Nothing, according to a strict definition of nature, can transcend the natural world, and so it is inferred that natural selection can never be hindered. The only instance I can conceive of is a complete absence of any living thing in the universe, and even then, according to accepted theory, there will most likely be another go around in due time. Human culture does not stop natural selection, as if we were the exception to what is natural. That line of thinking is arrogant and smacks of some kind of anthropic egoism that really hurts science. Human culture certainly has added new and interesting factors to the game of life, however. It perpetuates ideas, via minds, and these ideas play directly on the world we live in. It makes me sick to hear somebody contend that 80% of our species is "imperfect" and that the rest are being dragged down by them. That is simply an example of an oversimplified and attractive idea that manages to pass on and on to impressionable (and sometimes weak?) minds! Majorette is probably right on the ball when she asks, "What's all this about "intended"?? If attribute X got them this far, chances are there's a survival or reproductive benefit conferred somewhere along the line. " That is really the only way to measure the fitness in general. We are all here because our ancestors lived long enough to pop out some kids. Were they part of the 80% that was weak and imperfect? If they were, then it would seem likely that we should never have existed to consider it. >>By Hume Ungus Anyone that breeds has managed to fulfil all that’s asked of them – whatever they vote and wherever they live or even whatever species. Those that shouldn’t breed generally don’t, that’s why nature put get-out clauses like miscarriage in the frame. Harsh, but in evolutionary terms necessary. I agree we are probably doomed! Our biggest test will happen within this century. Think forward 60-70 years when oil is gone or rapidly going – will we survive? Can we survive or have we become to weak and dependent on our luxuries? It’s not just nature that tests us we set the hardest tests ourselves…. (If only oil was biological it might transcend into something usable again...) >>By B.A.B.E.S The last statement brings me back to Dawkin's "The Extended Phenotype." Not that oil is really and extension of our phenotype such as the inherent capability of a bird to build a nest, but it brings about a similar problem...when the supplies or resources we have come to depend on for our survival are suddenly gone, we are confronted with an immediate need to adapt. Fortunately we have the ability as human beings to consider this possibility before it happens and thereby work on plans for adapting. Certainly even those who have learned to live without such things as oil will have to deal with the millions or billions who have not. Will their knowledge translate into power or will their numbers be simply too small to survive? >>By Hume Ungus Their numbers will be too small. We, the tech cultures, will finish the job we started hundreds of years ago. We will stamp out all indigenous peoples, and the only way to prevent that is to risk prison or death. Life sucks, but at least, unlike Christians, I get to die. See ya'll in Hell. >>By Just Jon Will we adapt? Hand on heart do you believe that whole countries will adapt? Do we even want to while we don’t have to? Adaptation works superbly if you’re only concern is survival, when that concern changes to market forces and the economy suddenly survival seems less “right now”. Now that's something not even Darwin could have foreseen! Maybe the environmentalists need to over-reproduce now to dilute out the industrialist genes he he. >>By B.A.B.E.S Ha... That's where people who can think and write are! I knew Darwin was still an inspiration. But in the 'creationism' debate, I would use a concept explained by Castaneda's mentor Don Juan. Everything that can be named constitutes the 'tonal', the world as we get to know it. Everything that can't be named is the 'nagual', the unknown. Science deals with the tonal and considers the nagual as undiscovered tonal. Religion, at its best, deals with the nagual, pretends it's the sacred part of the tonal, and fails miserably on both counts... >>By Noudjali In those terms, many religions fail to meaningfully connect how they understand the "nagual" with the "tonal." This lack of meaning I use only to refer to an empirical or evidential connection. Clearly many find their own reasoning as meaningful, though it may never translate into clarity for others. Also, scientists typically don't presume the "nagual" as anything outside of the "tonal," as you have pointed out Noudjali, whereas in many theological metaphyisics, the two are distinct and the way to know the "nagual" is through some type of reasoning or direct communication with an Artificer. >>By Hume Ungus There is a great deal of confusion about humans and evolution here at the Darwin Discussion. While it is deeply appreciated that the well spoken and charming majorette deemed me worthy of her patronizating comment before breakfast, and the hume, although difficult to understand even though he says nothing, both miss the big picture. Humans are moral apes. (Robert Wright) We seek status and social position through combat and interpersonal manipulation. Our species recognises power by accumulation of this status, just as it has always been recognised in other social complexes. Apes are not born with this status. Duh. It is the biggest, smartest, shrewdest apes that dominate the pack. Y'all might know that 85% of mammals do not breed. That is because... repeat after me.... natural selection does not favor indiscriminate duplication of genes. Survival of the fittest ensures they don't even get a chance to compete for precious resources before failure. Fitness assumes dominance. Memes are the result of complex brains - in effect, a 'double X factor' - now being tested for survival. Memes and genes have similar tests and trials. Memes are just a few million times faster. Mankind is notable for two things. The ability to reproduce regardless of status, in numbers that any mathmatician will tell us is unsupportable, and a social conscience that prevents us from letting the weak perish. Something has to give. Humans are a blip on the larger, longer road of Darwinian evolution. We are a very young fitness morph the test of survival for the branch of biology we upward complexity. Of course we are a If status is measured in wealth and especially in the US - insular isolation and myopithy - (350 million really stupid people with big guns and guarantees to the retarded, the dangerous, the right to procreat) , and are ideas rather than biological entities. Religion, politics, even right and wrong in any society is a result of How the otherwise charming majorette managed to misconstrue everything I said to the exact opposite of what I believe was clearly stated is either a natural and understandible hostility to new friends of this forum (which in itself is meme selection), or the problem is mine. Perhaps I don't communicate well. Fitness is determined by the number of genes that survive their environment over a vast amount of time, which sort of negates any arguement for non-renewable resources. We have not adapted to plentiful resources, we have simply expanded on our natural social requirement toward power, dominance and status. >>By Canadazeus Sorry folks. I wasn't finished the edit, and wanted to do something else for a bit. I really hated to have to defend myself, because it must have been my own fault for not making my point clearly enough, but I sensed hostility here. Responses to my previous arguement were completely misconstured, and I wondered if I should participate further, or just go away. Then, I clicked the wrong button. >>By Canadazeus In order to not misconstrue you again before my next post, CZ, I'd like you to clarify something for me please. Who, exactly, are the elite that you speak of in this sentence?: <<we are at the same time weighed down with an ever expanding dead weight base of beings who will never 'get it', voting in politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator easily swayed with promises, gifts, religion, (witness the Bushes of this world), while the elite are hobbled and voiceless. >>By Majorette The elite is just a rather careless way of describing Alpha. If we were Bonobos (it was a stoke of luck we aren't!! We are 98.2% there anyway!) we would observe our Alpha males and females in a constant struggle to remain in the positions they earn through fitness. One slip up; one mistaken allegiance, and they are suddenly also-rans, just like on Survivor or the Apprentice. But taken a bit further, each of these excellent reality shows (kidding... easy girl!!) has several hundred thousand applicants that we never see. We know survival of the fittest is easy to see on any of Jane Goodall's specials. The not so fit, are not allowed to breed. It's the same everywhere you look in the animal kingdom. (But if they did, natural selection would fix it right quickly!) The least of any social pack do not organize special interest groups to elect Alpha leaders. They have to fight for the position, just like everyone else. Humans, however, do not fight. They DO organize. And they have weight and influence on society because of their vastly superior numbers. We are able to communicate better, faster, and more effectively than any other species, and we are aware of right and wrong, good and bad, and we do not allow our unfortunate, poorly raised, cowardly or slightly dim society members to starve. In fact, this 80% I refer to, ensure they get the most for the least, because that is how they vote. And, they get exactly that. Instead, those that otherwise would have to raise their paws to go to the bathroom in the wild, suddenly determine who will lead, how tax dollars are spent, which laws should be made, and even how long really broken humans remain in prison. (And who goes!!!) The elite, who are the definition of fitness, the impetus behind our light-speed advances in the sciences, are hobbled by self serving politicians (eg. stem cell research), elected by losers, because they are promised an easy life and a guaranteed existence doing less than would be required to survive a mere thousand years ago. There are no fat, lazy, slow moving gazelles on the Serengeti. There are no 500 pound human presidents either, but we have no problem with charming, attractive leaders who seek Alpha positions seducing those who would not survive a season in the wild. Our attractive leaders are seeking status and wealth, just as they should, but we do not require them to fight to the death, be environmentally responsible or even accountable. As long as they ensure our survival while we watch TV, they can have whatever they want at any cost. Some costs: Las Vegas and Palm springs emptying aquifers for lush green golf courses and terawatt entertainment. Destruction of fisheries on both coasts in Canada. (Probably elsewhere too, but I only read the local paper!) Sending human sacrifices to die in Iraq so the American people are not inconvenienced by annoying conservation methods. Encouraging religious expression for all, even though every intelligent, educated person alive suggests we read a book or two instead. (Start with Dawkins, who is quoted by Wright. All the lights come on with these two!) GDubya has not even once... not ONCE mentioned conservation of our natural resources to eliminate the dependence on foreign oil. (By increasing fuel economy of our cars by 2.5 mpg). I can't even think about it without raising my blood pressure!!! This is just not the Sufi way. Natural selection will eventually fix the mutation that is us, because large brains and super-duplication have proven to be godsends for genes, but at the expense of the hosts environment. Even though human genes may cover the earth before the robot gene protectors that we are can no longer breathe, Darwinians are still correct. Everything is working as it should, but humans are doing terrible damage to this planet before it has a chance to reject us. I believe humans therefore, will prove not to be a successful survival deviation from our ancestral roots. The earth will recover, but in millions of years. (That is the 'immune system' analogy.) Until then, we should be encouraging global governance, trade, education, human rights, renewable energy and an IQ score over 100 to be able to vote. Yes, it may be Ayn Randish. But jeepers... she's just right. >>By Canadazeus CZ, I've pondered your post for about a week now and I admit I'm not sure where to start. It's a little hard for me to tease apart your arguments as you have incorporated so many different themes into one post. Every time I try to fashion a response, I second-guess myself with the question, "Did he REALLY mean to say that?" I don't wish to put words in your mouth, so I'm afraid I'll have to ask for a little more clarification: Are you suggesting that the world would be a better place if all the non-"elites" were gone? Or are you simply lamenting the fact that those with elite-status are no longer those worthy of it in your opinion, according to a strictly traditional Darwinian sense (eg, politicians wouldn't survive two minutes in the wild). Although you suggest elite is the definition of fitness, I disagree. Fitness is a measure of reproduction, no? Bethan already said it earlier, but I'll repeat it here: "Anyone that breeds has managed to fulfil all that’s asked of them – whatever they vote and wherever they live or even whatever species." >>By Majorette Hello all, I've recently read all of this discussion board and have found it both entertaining and thought-provoking. I'm glad that I am not alone in being a little perplexed by CZs contribution to the debate. CZ I suspect we would all be inclined to agree that there is no obvious "morality" or discernable purpose (except self interest of various individuals and groups of individuals)to the manner in which wealth and influence and the benefits of living in a wealthy society (education, access to healthcare etc etc) are distributed among the available population. I am tempted to suggest also that the majority of idealogically based attempts to redistribute wealth and power seem to very rapidly manifest problems not significantly smaller than those they have sought to address. As far as I able to discern you are suggesting a redistribution of power (through participation in the democratic process ) on some idealogical basis to some notional elite whose defining characteristic appears to be above average intelligence (IQ in excess of 100) but earlier you have stated the "elite" are the uppermost 20%. At first glance your maths seems inconsistent according to my understanding of a "normal" or "Gaussian" distribution and before considering commiting myself to your "cause" I be grateful if you could shed a little light on this apparent discrepancy. BTW www.tickle.com has a fun and not overly time-consuming on-line IQ test I believe........ perhaps you could attempt it and tell us your score in your next post just in case you aren't entitled to vote under your proposed regime. In which event I presumably am entitled, or even perhaps morally obliged (?) to treat your views as irelevant.....;) >>By planet ear its interessting to observe how...we tend to rage a polemic and disputation at indivisisuals as if they commision the very views they express.A gifted scholar always manages to reduce any theoretician to ideas that precede their line of thought; and thus I wouldn't charge Hume for instance as arguing a moot-point without first indexing his topical lines anscestory, or declaring that he's opaque in his cause to enlighten and inform- tedious task..yes, but sure necessary! Once again if we confront a crossroad where we're presented with accepted generality or dry scholarcism...then the latter would best sustain the reputation of pure interllect in its unwavering posistion which is not pre-position! So what's my point, well it will have to pend the grey index seeking. >>By LINZ OF ASTRA |