Friday, February 25, 2005

In Defence of Darwinism: The Ignorable Berlinski part 2


First, a few points on style
In an episode of The Simpsons, Homer has the following exchange with Lisa, after she announces her intention to become a vegetarian.
Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal!
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, maaagical animal.

You know how cringe-worthy it is when you're discussing something with someone who, to put it as politely as possible, isn't very bright, and after they run out of arguments they resort to clumsy sarcasm instead? Painful, isn’t it?

Reading Berlinski’s article “The Deniable Darwin”, which appeared in ‘Commentary’ magazine in 1996, is a bit like that. He hasn’t got all that much to say and he knows it, so he pads what should be a brief article of a few hundred words into a long and tedious tirade by adding reams of sarcastic purple prose.

(The most grating of these passages being his little coda designed to ‘mock’ the idea that random natural selection can create complexity, where he imagines a conversation with “Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires café”: “I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.” And so on ad nauseam.)

All very well, and great fun for Berlinski I’m sure, but this bumf serves no purpose other than to obscure what little actual ‘argument’ he makes. Trim this fat to find the meat beneath, and the offerings are scrawny in the extreme.

The first five or so sections of the essay could be summarised thus:

1. The evidence for the Theory of Evolution is in some instances incomplete and open to more than one interpretation
2. Darwinists disagree with each other over certain things

Both true enough, but hardly earth-shattering. Of course you can interpret any evidence in different ways. The question is, which is the best explanation? Of course Darwinists disagree with each other about certain things. But they agree about some things, and those things are the content of the TofE which any opponent must address if he wants to undermine it.

Note that while Berlinski is held up as a leading light of the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement, none of these points are actually positive arguments FOR anything in particular. They’re just general attacks on darwinism.

The meat, such as it is, of his essay depends on the claim that darwinism’s account of ‘purely random’ mutation cannot account for the complexity and variety of life which we see in evolution and the natural world.

The Arguments
Berlinski argues for this in two ways, both of which appear in the sections “The Artificer of Design” and “The Head Monkey”.

(for this part of my article I am significantly indebted to H. Allen Orr, who is quoted by Berlinski as support, but who actually refutes ‘The Deniable Darwin’ in a letter to Commentary magazine)

The first argument, which I’ll call the ‘Language Jam Argument’, goes like this:

1) Darwinian evolution is based upon the notion of random mutation plus natural selection, at the level of DNA.
2) DNA is a discrete "alphabetic" language of A's, T's, G's, and C's that carries the code for all the phenotypes we find in organisms.
3) But random changes in languages, eg. English, creates gibberish.
Therefore, darwinism asks us to believe that evolution depends on random changes, when, by analogy with any other language, you should get gibberish – resulting in organisms being hopelessly ‘jammed’.

The argument is at least more sophisticated than the normal ‘how can random mutations create complexity’, in that he acknowledges that darwinism involves random mutations plus nonrandom selection for fitness.

But the flaw in Berlinski’s Language Jam argument is pretty obvious: it ignores the known facts. While random mutations which do render an organism so helpless that it dies are indeed common, so are all sorts of random DNA mutation which happen but simply do not ‘jam’ organisms. In fact, you need pretty sophisticated chemical science to find them at all.

As Orr puts it “The existence of subtle, functional, usable mutations in DNA is a simple fact that no amount of analogizing with computer programs can make go away. That random changes in computer programs -- but not DNA -- invariably jam things does not show that there is something wrong with Darwinism but that there is something wrong with the analogy.”

Actually, it’s worse than that for Berlinski. In another reply to the article, Karl F Wessel points out that numerous computer programs have in fact been run which replicate the processes of natural selection but do not ‘jam’:

The heart of David Berlinski's argument has been experimentally refuted, a result that is of more recent vintage than the obsolete mathematical metaphor he employs. In a 1986 experiment performed by Marshall Horwitz and Lawrence Loeb of the University of Washington, 19- base long messenger RNA promoter sequences were deleted from the genomes of E. coli bacteria and replaced by randomly synthesized sequences. Of the approximately 1011 possible sequences of the type, it turned out that many promoted the function of the deleted natural sequence (which confers resistance to tetracycline) as well as or better than the original. This was true even for a small subset of sequences randomly generated from two bases, i.e., from far fewer than 106 of the 1011. Nor did some of the most efficient sequences at all resemble the original.

Given this outcome and others like it, it is clear that something is radically wrong with Mr. Berlinski's analogy of biological genomes to computer programs. Either ge-nomes are nothing like programs, or else at least some programs are far more robust in the face of effects resembling natural selection than he imagines.

In point of fact, for several years people like John Koza of Stanford University have been using analogs of natural selection to evolve computer programs. Many of these evolved programs perform their optimizing tasks better than the best intentionally designed ones, providing the reductio ad absurdum of Mr. Berlinski's criticism.


So much for the Language Jam Argument.

The second argument against randomness producing complexity, which I’ll call the Monkey-Typewriter Target Argument, goes like this:

Berlinski starts with Dawkins’ famous analogy of the monkeys bashing at typewriters until they create an exact phrase from Shakespeare: “Methinks it is like a weasel”. The point of the analogy is to show that even though it would take billions of years for the monkeys to get this phrase if they were randomly hitting the keys, if you model it like evolution, saving each match and building upon it as in a recursive system, it doesn’t take that long for them to get it at all. So you have random mutation (the typing), plus natural selection (saving the matches to the original phrase each time, ie. once you’ve got the ‘M’ you save it and keep going til you’ve got an ‘e’, then save, then a ‘t’ and so on.)

Berlinski attacks this analogy by insisting that to have a ‘target’ of the phrase, you must have some kind of designer or monitor (a ‘Head Monkey’ ) who is overseeing the project, to make sure that all the time we’re getting nearer to our target of the phrase. Otherwise how will the monkeys know which letters to save? So in other words, darwinism, far from discarding a Designer, needs one to define the target and show how close we are to it.

So that’s the Monkey-Typewriter Target Argument. Can you spot the flaw? What is the original monkey typewriter analogy intended to show? It shows that, by saving favorable random changes, evolution can gradually build complex structures. So you do not need to wait for each part of a structure (all the letters in a phrase; the wings, eyes, feathers, digestive system etc of a bird) to appear miraculously at once. Natural selection is recursive: the output of the last generation feeds into the input of the next. It builds upon itself.

But, as Orr puts it in his response to Berlinski, the original analogy: “completely flubs another part of Darwinism: evolution does not, of course, work toward any "target." So how, then, does evolution know where to go? The answer is the most radical and beautiful part of Darwinism: it does not. The only thing that "guides" evolution is sheer, cold demographics. If a worm with a patch of light-sensitive tissue leaves a few more kids than a worm that cannot tell if the lights are on, that is where evolution will go. And, later, if a worm with light-sensitive tissue and a rough lens escapes a few more predators, that is where evolution will go. Despite all the loose talk (much of it, admittedly, from evolutionary biologists), evolution knows nothing of "design" and "targets."

So Berlinski ignores the non-teleological element of darwinism – which is absolutely fundamental and basic – and misinterprets the monkey-typewriter story as if it was meant to be a perfect analogy of all evolution, and not just a way of showing how natural selection builds upon itself.

I don’t think Berlinski is completely stupid, so I have to assume he does it deliberately, which is pretty poor show.


Balancing the scales
Let’s conclude with Berlinski’s own conclusion:




NO DOUBT, the theory of evolution will continue to play the singular role in the life of our secular culture that it has always played. The theory is unique among scientific instruments in being cherished not for what it contains, but for what it lacks. There are in Darwin's scheme no biotic laws, no Bauplan as in German natural philosophy, no special creation, no elan vital, no divine guidance or transcendental forces.


On the contrary. In lacking a recourse to divine guidance and transcendental forces, and in trying to work out the physical mechanisms for how something works without relying on magic, myth or mumbo-jumbo, darwinism is exactly like every other scientific theory worthy of the name.

What's unique is that darwinism is the only theory that is vilified for lacking these things. Nobody has an Intelligent Design theory of plate tectonics or diamond formation. If darwinism was limited only to explaining the natural history of plant-life, for example, I doubt there would be any such thing as an 'ID' objection.

ID exists because some religionists (not all) feel that darwinism threatens their beliefs. ID, with its false veneer of 'scientific enquiry' and its dressing of technical language, exists because Creationism has become an impossible position to hold and be taken remotely seriously. But ID is not a theory with any evidence from the natural world. There is only one source of positive evidence for it, which it shares with Creationism: the Old Testament.

To paraphrase a famous comment Salman Rushdie once made:

On one side of the scales is the Theory of Evolution: a massive body of incomplete, imperfect, but nonetheless considerable and ever-growing knowledge, painstakingly acquired from in-depth study of the natural world and constantly reappraised and tested. On the other is the Book of Genesis.

Only in Cloud Cuckoo Land, Kansas and Berlinski's head do the scales balance.

38 Comments:

Blogger Peter Burnet said...

Brit:

First of all, thank you very much for directing us to the correspondence that followed the article. Again, a star-studded cast of evolutionists rises to challenge Berlinski just as it did with his essay on the eye a few years ago and also the one on evolutionary psychology a few months ago. Damned difficult to ignore, this ignorable Berlinski!

I fear you have passed far too quickly and simplistically over the Monkey Typewriter Argument. Let me share a few concerns, although I must warn you that, as I don't think I am completely stupid, you may assume I am doing this deliberately. I apologise in advance for the poor show.

Surely Berlinski is trying to challenge the mainstream evolutionary position that biological change occurs through a combined, non-teleological process of natural selection and random mutation. Random mutation is the process (or the "fact", to keep it pure) of constant changes--some are useful and some are not, even to the point of being fatal. No pattern (i.e. repetition), rhyme or reason or direction and no necessary correlation to the surrounding environment. Right so far?

So, how does complexity result? Enter natural selection, which preserves mutations conducive to fitness and survivability. These somehow "hold" and become a kind of constant upon which randon mutation builds. Thus life passes inexorably from the simple to the complex with no design or foretelling what form that complex will take. Still right?

Berlinki's problem is with the "hold". What is it holding for, given the environmental variations all around, not to mention the variations in combinations caused by ceaseless random mutation? Evolutionists answer: "Nothing", because they have to, but it is impossible to believe they actually believe this. Surely at a minimum they must answer: "They are holding for greater survivable complexity."

Now "greater survivable complexity" sounds natural and non-theistic enough at first blush, but what is there in darwinism that explains this uni-directional process? We never hear of any species shedding unnecessary complexities and evolving towards the simple. What species can you name that evolved from bi-ped to quadri-ped in order to ease up the birthing process? Or anything at all analogous? And if you did, would you recognize the change as from complex to simple or would it just look like another order of the complex?

The fallacy in Dawkins' analogy is that, under darwinism, there is no way you can define the Shakespearean phrase as qualitatively different or even more complex than the gibberish the monkey types the first time, unless you posit a goal and direction defined by an intelligence outside the monkey. So what can you possibly mean when you say in defending the analogy "It shows that, by saving favorable random changes, evolution can gradually build complex structures."? What is more complex about the Shakespearean phrase to a simian creature lost in a collective of monkiness? You have inadvertantly supported Berlinski's critique by suggesting that things are "saved" in order to progess to a certain complexity while at the same time offering absolutely no reason why this should happen, and particularly no conceptual basis upon which natural selection would "hold" a random mutation to increase survivability millions of years in the future. How the heck can you define a random mutation as "favourable" when it's relation to survivability is far in the future and dependant on millions of other random mutations that, by definition, can't be predicted or forseen?

Your only way out is to keep juggling random mutation and natural selction in different ways to fit the results while humming: "Que Sera, Sera" and using increasingly disdainful language to describe those of us who object that this all offends reason. (Your second line of defence is to sneer: "Got a better suggestion? Do ya? DO YA?) This puts you in Berlinski's sights again when he says that a theory that claims to explain everything ends up explaining nothing. I continue to note how reluctant evolutionists are to confront that point. I would have thought that, as men and women of science, they would recognize they are now analagous to a certain kind of old time literal fundamentalist who answered "It's God's will" to everything that happens, or a dogmatic Catholic who says: "Divine Mystery" whenever he is tired or his intellect fails him. Oh, well, I guess imitation really is the highest form of flattery.

February 26, 2005 4:30 AM  
Blogger Peter Burnet said...

While anxiously awaiting your learned reply, I realized I may have left you an opening at the end of my second to last paragraph to argue that the mutations that are "held" by natural selection are simply held in response to immediate survival pressures that exist at the time of the mutation, that there is nothing to keep them "held" beyond that and that only a very few are of the billions of these are actually "held" for a long time. In other words, billions are held, but few are chosen.

Well, in the first place such an argument would make a complete hash of Dawkins' analogy. If the monkey hit the first "M", there is no rational basis that would "hold" it to the end unless there was an ultimate direction that someone or something recognized at the time it was first held. The "M" might hold for a few more letters by chance, but then it would surely fall off and be replaced unless the monkey had some inkling of where he was going. I hope you won't argue that random chance can explain the "holding" of letters all the way from gibberish to Shakespeare.

Secondly, this simply defies reason unless you start to attribute mystical qualities to the notion of survivability. To posit two theories or processes (random mutation and natural selection) as distinct intellectual constructs either means something or it doesn't. To argue that natural selection "holds" mutations for survivability but can't see even one nano-second into the future as to what will or will not favour survivability is really to say nothing and to remove all meaning from the concept. They then all become random mutations, some of which survive randomly, and you have removed all meaning from the words "natural selection". You are then left saying that life in all its mind-boggling complexity evolved in response to an infinite number of chaotic random mutations of no particular usefulness or direction. Pull the other one.

February 26, 2005 7:10 AM  
Blogger Brit said...

Peter:

The problem here stems from a quite simple mistake that Berlinski and you make:

You take Dawkins' Monkey-Typewriter analogy out of context, and read too much into it.

The analogy is only designed to show that in a recursive system of mutation and natural selection, each new generation is not entirely randomly generated from afresh. The last generation is the input of the next generation.

It is written to answer a naive objection to darwinism: 'how can random mutatuion lead to complex organisms that work when the chances are infinitely remote?', and show that though mutation is random, selection for fitness is actually nonrandom. Because of this, you can get complex structures relatively quickly.

This is not controversial in terms of this is how the system itself works: you can set up computer programs to demonstrate it (obviously it is controversial in terms of whether evolution is a system of this kind).

If you read the original book 'The Blind Watchmaker', the analogy is in its context and it is quite obvious that it is there to show just this one point, and is not meant to be a complete analogy for evolution.

You make another mistake:

In rel life, mutation is not 'constant changes' in each generation. Most organisms resemble their parents pretty closely. Mutations can be rare. Most mutations are neutral - they don't affect the phenotype one way or the other. Some are harmful. Very rarely a mutation might be beneficial, it will be consistent with survival long enough for the phenotype to reproduce, and over the succeeding generations it might become prevalent in the population.

The famous finches show this to be an observable fact. Even Orrin admits it: his gripe is not with this, but on the specific issue of speciation.

This process depends on fitness, nothing else, so doesn't necessarily mean greater complexity. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it means greater simplicity.

(Incidentally, the Berlinski article and those replies are nearly 10 years old - it's not a recent objection, and darwinism has survived Berlinski's 'attack').

February 26, 2005 8:33 AM  
Blogger Duck said...

Peter,
I'll second Brit's comments and add a few examples where I believe evolution has reduced unnecessary complexity.

Snakes are descended from lizards that had four legs. Once the snakes's ancestors happened upon their unique form of locomotion, the legs became unnecessary and, over time, disappeared.

Likewise with tails for the apes, and ourselves.

Although it may not have involved any decrease in compexity, the evolution of dolphins and whales, from sea-dwelling fish to land-dwelling mammals, then back to sea-dwelling creatures certainly should put to paid the notion that there is any direction to evolution.

February 27, 2005 7:50 AM  
Blogger Hey Skipper said...

Brit:

First off, you are an unusually good writer, and including that cite to the letters in Commentary was a great addition.

While I am being somewhat OT here, I have noticed that virtually everyone frequenting BroJudd Industries [clearly this blog's sire] is an unusually good writer--Peter, I am looking at you--a skill that is not particularly widespread.

As anyone who has looked at the comments sections of many blogs will quickly realize.

Peter:

You wrote:

We never hear of any species shedding unnecessary complexities and evolving towards the simple. What species can you name that evolved from bi-ped to quadri-ped in order to ease up the birthing process? Or anything at all analogous?Actually, we do. Flightless birds on oceanic islands devoid of predators are one example. Another is the loss of eyes in cave dwelling fishBut that is a relatively minor point.

Brit's comment about the fundamental mistake Berlinski makes with regard to the Monkey-Typewrite analogy is exactly on point, however I would like to add one thing. Imposing some particular work of Shakespeare on "success" is a ridiculous, and unrealistic constraint, because it takes for granted that which isn't required.

In evolution, the only thing that counts is successful parents. So, to avoid using the analogy incorrectly, and thereby imposing unsupportable conclusions, the correct filter to typing Monkeys is not Shakespeare, but whether the resulting character string is meaningful, where meaning is any syntactically correct sequence within the chosen language's rules.

So the sequence "Monkey briar cliff din 2004 lawyer" is meaningful, but "Monkey biar cliff din 2004 lawyert" is not. Also, note that "Monkey briarcliff dan 2004 lawyer" is also meaningful.

This is not a nonsensical distinction--not only does life exist in a multitude of forms, but the blueprint may get changed anywhere, not just at the end. What's more, using Shakespeare as the criteria--rather than mere survival and reproduction--is to impose an end-state design that evolution does not require, then accuse evolution of requiring it because of the analogy.

Finally, his continual evocation of a Head Monkey is also disingenuous. The Head Monkey, that he insists is the source of design, is nothing more than the sieve of life and death, where life is defined solely by the passing on of genes to the next generation.

Berlinski is clearly very intelligent, and within mathematics, at least, extremely knowledgeable. My objections to the analogy as he uses it are basic grammar theory. That he fails to acknowledge the inappropriateness of his analogy I find disturbing.


Changing gears, in reading Berlinski's response I noted this sentence:

"... the elaboration of the human mind, an organ unlike anything else found in the animal kingdom..."

Oh, really. Completely unlike? Wholly without any parallel to, say, the Chimpanzee brain? It doesn't have any structures even remotely similar to reptiles? Its organization doesn't bear any resemblance to other mammals?

I suspect the answers do not support his assertion; given that he relies almost wholly on appeals to incredulity, this is not a minor point.

February 27, 2005 7:51 AM  
Blogger Hey Skipper said...

On a separate note.

Unfortunately, given my interest in this subject, and how various motivations manifest themselves in the arguments, I probably won't be posting much, if at all, for the next month.

I head to Minneapolis tonight for a month requalifying in the DC-9, and other than getting a chance to say Hi to Duck, will probably be incommunicado for the duration--despite being something of a techno-geek, I don't yet have a laptop.

February 27, 2005 7:56 AM  
Blogger Harold Myers said...

Hey, thanks for the cool exercise info. I also have some additional exercise resources at my site.

October 15, 2005 4:55 PM  
Blogger Gene Berry said...

I found your fitness article site to be really informative. Keep up the good work! I also happen to have a fitness article site too...if you have a chance take a look ;)

October 15, 2005 5:02 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

This site is great, nice job!!

I have a SEO info site. It is about seo news articles and stuff.

Drop by when you can, nice site here!

October 18, 2005 7:47 PM  
Blogger bigbear777 said...

**UPDATE! FREE SHIPPING FOR A LIMITED TIME!**

Better than klear action whitening and ION whitening systems! Half the
price too!

Welcome to PerfectlyWhite.com,

PerfectlyWhite.com is proud to present to you the first ever at home
laser whitening treatment. We are bringing you the most popular in
office treatment at home for the fraction of the cost! One laser
treatment at a doctors office can run around $600 as shown above. This
is very exciting news for anyone who is looking into whitening their
teeth professionally in the comfort of their own home. Best of all you
can have this plasma light technology for much less! The light is yours
to keep and can be used as many times as you like! You can achieve
professional results in less than 7 days! Our method also works in
between your teeth and deep down below the enamel. This procedure will
not damage or wear away the enamel.

How does it work?

Its very simple. The Plasma light will increase the breakdown speed of
Carbamide Peroxide, in turn releasing more oxygen which speeds up the
bleaching process. The oxygen acts as a bleaching agent that whitens
your teeth safely and effectively. This is why you can pay as much as $600
to get your teeth whitened professionally.

Plasma Laser Light Technology!

Never before seen in any at home whitening kit! Just Like at a real in
office visit, all our deluxe kits have the plasma light tool to
accelerate the whitening process. No one else offers this authentic at
home tool. Its Very easy to operate and safe to use. Accelerate your
whitening by as much as 300% with this method! This means whiter teeth
in less time!

At last, you no longer have to visit your dentist for that
white bright smile you have always wanted!

Our professional dental whitening kit is the same product used by many
of the top cosmetic dentists. Why consider paying up to $600, when for a
few short minutes per day, you to can achieve the exact same results in
the comfort of your own home. Best of all, it will cost you a fraction
of the price!

40% stronger than an in-office visit...

To provide you with superior results, our fully licensed line of
products is one of the industry's strongest and most effective tooth
whitening formulas. The main active ingredient is 35% Carbamide Peroxide.
This concentration is 40% stronger than most dentists use during an in
office visit!

A little more about our 7 day plasma treatment:

* This procedure will NOT harm or damage your tooth's enamel.

This system can't be found in stores!

We are the only internet site who sells this new product!

We are the exclusive seller of this NEW at home treatment!

You and your friends can take advantage of this treatment with just one
plasma light!

Plasma light treatment only takes on average 7 days to complete!

Results are 100% guaranteed and 100% safe! for more informationCLICK HERE

October 22, 2005 9:21 AM  
Blogger hassan said...

Hi :)

You have a great blog! I'll make sure to visit regularly.

If you want your blog to get higher in search engines, why not try Link Metro, you can over 100 new links to your blog every single day, for FREE!

October 22, 2005 9:55 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a really greatSEO site. It pretty much covers advice seo spain related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

October 23, 2005 3:19 AM  
Blogger brian said...

dietary supplement is a great resource for this type of thing dietary supplement

October 24, 2005 1:12 AM  
Blogger brian said...

potassium supplement is a great resource for this type of thing potassium supplement

October 24, 2005 2:33 AM  
Blogger Paul said...

Blogs are a blast....So is my niche philosophy site. Check it out for yourself niche philosophy

October 24, 2005 1:09 PM  
Blogger WDM Info Services said...

I am very impressed by your blog, It is full of great information. I found it by searching for " rank seo traffic " on Google.

I have started a blog directory and would like to personally invite you to post your blog. Its free and will help you in your search rankings.

if you have any questions email me at admin@big3post.com and I will get back to you within a 24 hrs.

October 25, 2005 8:51 AM  
Blogger thebigsearch said...

I've seen so many sites about msn seo, but your and this msn seo are the best.

October 25, 2005 12:49 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this computerbrat.com email matrix seo tool site, it's pretty awesome too!

October 28, 2005 1:40 AM  
Blogger Johnjon said...

Wow, I really like this one. I have a website that talks mostly about link seo suggest You should check it out sometime.

October 30, 2005 1:04 AM  
Blogger Pat Martin said...

Bravo for a well versed post. If you would like to market your blog visit my website for free training on topics such as ad banner code html training and ad banner code html training

November 05, 2005 4:49 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a best internet advertising site/blog. It pretty much covers best internet advertising related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

November 05, 2005 11:43 AM  
Blogger Roberto Iza Valdes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 05, 2005 3:07 PM  
Blogger Roberto Iza Valdes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 05, 2005 5:49 PM  
Blogger TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another abortion policy in china Resource... LifeLaw.org . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as abortion policy in china .

November 07, 2005 1:44 AM  
Blogger content1 said...

hello, your blog is interesting to read, I have a website about search engine indexing optimization it should be helpful to you. thanks to share your blog.

November 07, 2005 2:33 PM  
Blogger Roberto Iza Valdes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 06, 2005 9:37 PM  
Blogger Roberto Iza Valdes said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 15, 2005 3:21 AM  
Blogger sihrnguwhe0rh said...

Search engine optimization, submission and highly-targeted traffic can be found exclusively at www.TheOnlinePromoters.com

January 09, 2006 1:35 AM  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

Hello I am the traffic man, zip, zip, zip. make a new resolution to get a flood of traffic to your website this year. Let me show you how to get FREE traffic to your site. Yes I said FREE, FREE, FREE!!! Don't delay.

To find out more, visit my mlm site. It successfully covers FREE information exposing FREE traffic and mlm related stuff. Don't forget - FREE, FREE, FREE. You have nothing to lose!

January 13, 2006 1:17 PM  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

Are you tired of getting nice compliments on your blog, when really your not makeng the kind of money that you deserve? Now you can join a completely FREE program. No buying and No selling. FREE to join. All you do is refer customers. To get started fast, click here: multi level marketing site. It pretty much covers multi level marketing related stuff and it's FREE to join.

January 14, 2006 2:57 AM  
Blogger BlogMaster said...

surfaholic here, stumbled in, thought i'd say thx for that info, good read.
Find A Dentist Naperville

January 19, 2006 3:43 AM  
Blogger Build Page Rank said...

Link Trading and 3 way link trading. Now it is hard enough to figure out who you traded with, did the site you trade with count for you or not, then you add in 3 way linking. I think this requires a partnership of sorts. Finding 1 other person to do this with you. Even with 2 people it can get confusing. If you find a great site to add your link to who gets the link posted, etc. seo

January 23, 2006 11:26 PM  
Blogger alberthaanstra said...

HI Blogger! Have you heard of the wonders of vitamins and supplements ? Feel better instantly! GET YOUR FREE TRIAL NOW

January 27, 2006 5:49 PM  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

As a special token of my appreciation for all your kind help and the wonderful business you have sent my way---I want to give you a free gift.
It is called the "$25000.00 Idea". It will help you in all your endeavors.
Click here: FREE GIFT

February 11, 2006 5:01 AM  
Blogger Scott A. Edwards said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! You really are very talented and deserve an honest compliment, congradulations! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a pursuit of a great web based income site/blog. It successfully covers pursuit of a great web based income related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time, Scott.

February 11, 2006 5:16 AM  
Blogger kakasanu123 said...

http://best-weight-loss.biz/The Beginners Guide to Losing Weight
weight loss exercise
http://best-weight-loss.biz/

March 11, 2006 7:39 PM  
Blogger Kate said...

I liked our blog. I�ve found an interesting guide for singles looking for online dating - http://top-personals.net. single lever bath faucet Adult Singles

June 10, 2006 10:04 AM  
Blogger Iza Firewall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

August 23, 2007 5:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home