Thursday, November 24, 2005

From the "It would be funny if it weren't so sad..." department

On the heels of the Kansas State Board of Education's embrace of pseudo-science, John Cole (via Donklephant) points to this hilarious item:

Beginning in 2008, public school students in Kansas will be tested under that state’s new science standards, which open the door to criticism of evolution. Here are sample questions — some new, some adapted from current biology exams — to help them get ready.

1. Some sources suggest the earth is approximately 4.55 billion years old. Others estimate the earth is 6,012 years old. Without favoring one estimate over the other, calculate the likely age of God. Show your work.

2. The presidency of George W. Bush is an example of:
a. Heredity
b. Parasitism
c. Survival of the fittest
d. Predestination
e. Judicial activism
f. Divine intervention

3. If male zebra finches are raised by foster parents of another species, the Bengalese finch, they will court female Bengalese finches instead of females of their own kind. Which statement best explains their behavior?
a. Birds are animals!
b. Imprinting
c. Gold-digging
d. What happens in Bengal stays in Bengal
e. Co-habituation
f. If you’d ever had the chance to court a Bengalese finch, you wouldn’t have to ask

Read the whole thing here.


vbspurs said...

Read the whole thing here.

First thing, tomorrow, for today, we dine!

Happy Thanksgiving, Cathy, and all the Y-Files readers. :)


Cathy Young said...

Thanks, Victoria. :)

Do you celebrate Thanksgiving too? I thought you were in England?

Ravens n' Robins said...

That's your work...
Keep up the good work! I love your blog.

reader_iam said...

Hi, Cathy.

Getting ready to read the article, but, real quick, Victoria is "from" England, but she lives in Florida.

reader_iam said...

LOL! That's priceless!

I lift my champagne glass in your general direction and wish you a very Happy Thanksgiving.

And I'm very thankful for you and the other thoughtful bloggers out there who really do perform such a service.


Cathy Young said...

Okay, reader_iam -- I wasn't sure about that. Thanks!

ravensn'robins, welcome to the YFiles. :)

Anonymous said...

Hello Cathy,

I 've read some of your columns on different issues, especially gender issues, and agree with a lot of what you say. Even when I disagree, I usually can see where you're coming from, and find your position a reasonable one.

On this issue, I have to disagree. That's not a bad thing, since I most enjoy tangling intellectually with those for whom I have a lot of respect. I propose that you are on the "wrong" side of this issue. No, I'm not trying to say you should be an IDer, and not a Darwinist. It's more your position of the meta-discussion that I disagree with.

I'll start with one point where I think you've missed the boat, and explore others as time permits. From a previous thread, you say this:

Meanwhile, the Kansas Board of Education has ruled in favor of teaching ID and has actually decided to rewrite the definition of science so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. There are times when Middle America strives mightily to live down to the worst stereotypes bandied about by the liberal elites.

You seem to be buying into the major media's portrayal of the issue, which is at odds with the reality. ID is not a part of the KS curriculum. And the change in the definition of science does NOT put KS in some "Middle America" out of touch with what science is in the rest of the country. The redefinition of science in KS puts it in compliance with 39 of the other 40 states which offer a definition of science in their curricula standards. You bought the stereotype, but didn't bother to check the facts.

That is at odds with what I see as your skepticism in checking out many of the stereotypes being peddled by the major media.

Anonymous said...

The redefinition of science in KS puts it in compliance with 39 of the other 40 states which offer a definition of science in their curricula standards. You bought the stereotype, but didn't bother to check the facts.

That statement has a strong smell of BS about it, roger - care to provide us with some links to prove that Kansas's definition of "science" is consistent with the rest of the Union's?

Cathy Young said...

All I can say is, if the educational standards in 39 states define science the way Kansas currently does (leaving the word "natural" out of the definition of science as "seeking the natural explanation of phenomena"), we're in worse trouble than I thought.

The new Kansas science standards can be found here (pdf file). While they do not mention intelligent design, and do in fact require students to understand the basic principles of evolutionary theory, they also assert that the evolutionary view of the development of the species "has been challenged in recent years" by a number of "scientific criticisms." These "criticisms" are not accepted as valid in the scientific community, and I think it's fair to say that this attempt to depict a scientific controversy where there is none is a pretty obvious attempt to create an opening for ID.

Anonymous said...

well, umm yeah… sounds like fun. what ever happend to teaching everything and allowing the students to have thier own debate? if they are old enough to know what “heterozygotes” is they can form an intellegent discussion. i was taught both creationism (intelligant design) and evoluion in a private school of course, but that is not the issue.

answer to question 1.

useing the thoery of expansion and contraction (allowing for multiple big bangs, while keeping true to newtonian science) you can say that matter is niether created or distroyed simply strecthed and compressed. this means even modern dating techniques are limited to this side of the last “big bang.” so we can give all matter (includeing God) the inifinty stamp. and who is to say God isnt created of matter? only those who dont believe he exists, but for the purpose of the question you have to assume he exists, therefore has to be made of matter, this does not mean he is neccessarily tangable. giving a numerical assignment to the age of events on this side of the big bang is not that difficult we just cant do it yet.


X times by the number of explosion retraction events minus the time remaining in this event.

but can i point you to another prominate scientific thoery “back in the day.” the earth is flat and is supported by turtles on top of turtles. sounding familiar?

- take care

Anonymous said...

Definitions of State Science Standards

The definition of science in the current Kansas science standards is unlike any other in the U.S. By defining science first and foremost as "seeking natural explanations," the current standards subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result. This shift is out of step with modern science education, which gives priority to the activity of formulating and testing hypotheses. The Minority's definition is consistent with science as an open-ended inquiry that follows the evidence wherever it leads. The Majority's definition, by contrast, shortcircuits this process of inquiry and encourages premature answers to scientific questions -- the sort of "just-so stories" criticized by scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould.

The only other state in the U.S. that explicitly limits science to naturalistic explanations is Massachusetts. In the Massachusetts science standards, however, this limitation comes at the end of a detailed description of the scientific enterprise that begins by defining science more generally as "attempts to give good accounts of the patterns in nature." Only Kansas currently defines science primarily as "seeking natural explanations." As the comprehensive survey attached shows, the Minority's proposed revision would bring the Kansas science standards back into the mainstream of the U.S. science education community.

The full report contains links and/or citations for each of the states that have a definition of science. My point now isn't to prefer one definition of science over the other, but to point out the blatant misrepresentation that's going on. If there is such a good case for NeoDarwinism on the facts, why engage in such blatant misrepresentations?

Cathy Young said...

Thanks for the link; I'll reply ASAP.

Revenant said...

but can i point you to another prominate scientific thoery "back in the day." the earth is flat and is supported by turtles on top of turtles. sounding familiar?

People believed the Earth was flat until scientists actually looked at the evidence and realized it wasn't. Similarly, people believed gods were necessary for the creation of things like life, and weather, and planets, until scientists actually looked at the evidence and realized they weren't.

But in any case, the notion that it was ever a *scientific* theory that the Earth is carried by turtles is, if you'll pardon my bluntness, incredibly stupid. It was a religious belief, nothing more.

Anonymous said...

Revenant, i was refering to how the ideas of social standards change over time, and just maybe someday we will look back and see how completely wrong and silly we all were.

Cathy Young said...

It's quite possible that some of today's scientific knowledge will be significantly revised, or even proven wrong. But science should be concerned with scientific challenges to scientific hypotheses.

Roger: I've looked over the attached document, and I think it's based on some serious sleight of hand.

Yes, it's true that the definition of science in the science standards of 49 states does not specifically define science as "seeking natural explanations" of phenomena, but I think a lot of the definitions presuppose exactly that. For instance:

New Hampshire: "Science is, above all, a problem-solving activity that seeks answers to questions by collecting and analyzing data in an attempt to offer a rational explanation of naturally-occurring events."

Ohio: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Michigan: "Science is a way of making sense of the natural world. Science seeks to describe its complexity, to explain its systems and events, and to find patterns that allow for predictions… Scientific questions can be answered by gathering and analyzing evidence about the world…The process of scientific investigations [includes] test, fair test, hypothesis, theory, evidence, observations, measurements, data, conclusion."

And so forth.

The old Kansas standards said:

"Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes."

It's pretty clear that this passage was inserted into the Kansas definition science standards in response to the ongoing battles between creationists and science advocates in the state's educational system. (At one point the state school board was taken over by creationists, then a pro-evolution majority took over and rewrote the standards.)

The absence of a specific reference to "natural explanations" in the definitions used by other states does not imply opening the door to supernatural explanations. But specifically deleting "natural explanations" from the standards certainly looks like a deliberate attempt to smuggle in supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Anonymous said...


You haven't pointed out any "sleight of hand". You just are reluctant to freely accept what are the facts, and admit that the "facts" on which you based your complaint were wrong. It is somewhat of a stretch to assume presupposition for that which one is attempting to define, but nevertheless, if that is the case, folks carrying that presupposition should reasonably apply it in the KS case, since the definition just adopted is compatible with those other states. But they don't seem to want to do that. That's the inconsistency.

I don't disagree as to why the KS BOE inserted the term a few years back. But I don't remember the outrage about the KS BOE changing the very definition of science to suit their agenda. Why is that, do you suppose? My inference is that the principle at play, "changing the very definition of science", isn't really a principle at all for many expressing faux outrage. The outrage is based on whose ox is getting gored.

Now, if we are talking about ID, the implications of the absence of "natural explanations" has zero to do with supernatural explanations. ID proposes none. "Non-natural" explanations include teleological ones.

I keep asking myself, if Darwinists have such a good case on the facts, why do they keep on making points that are peripheral and can easily be refuted?

There are clearly numerous scientific criticisms of neo-darwinism. There is indeed a controversy. That doesn't mean you can't continue to believe whole heartedly if you wish. But your fervent wishes don't preclude the reality that the controversy exists.

As far as as declaring ID to be a "pseudo-science", you are venturing into dangerous waters, intellectually speaking. I hear that claim from the Darwinist defenders almost every time the issue is discussed in the major media. Nothing wrong with them taking that position, and then going on to support that position. But they generally don't support it. It isn't an opening to the dialogue for them, but an attempt to close down the dialogue before it even begins. So they can claim there is no "scientific controversy".

If you are looking for instances of "sleight of hand", you might consider that. Or maybe you can propose a demarcation test for science that will resolve the issue.

Good luck.

Cathy Young said...

roger: the Kansas City BOE did not "change the definition of science" by adding that science seeks "natural explanations" of phenomena. It merely clarified the existing definition.

A good analogy can be found in the issue of gay marriage. Until recently, the laws in many states did not specify that marriage must be between a man and a woman. That does not mean same-sex marriage was allowed, only that marriage was presumed to involve the union of two people of different sexes. If a state has always had marriage laws that make no specific mention of gender, that does not necessarily mean it allows same-sex marriage. However, if a state revises its laws to specify that marriage partners must be of opposite sexes, and then a subsequent legislature revises the law again to drop that definition, surely it will be seen as opening the door to same-sex marriages.

Whatever one's position on SSM, it's pretty clear that it's the advocates of SSM who want to redefine marriage, not those who want to legally codify the heterosexual nature of marriage even if wasn't previously explicitly stated.

There are clearly numerous scientific criticisms of neo-darwinism.

Show me one that is not motivated by non-scientific considerations (i.e. concern that Darwinism is undermining traditional religion or moral principles), then we'll talk.

The controversy over evolution versus intelligent design is not scientific, it's religious and cultural.

That doesn't mean there aren't some scientists who reject evolution, but the existence of a few scientific crackpots does not a scientific controversy make. Should we also teach in high school health classes that there is a "controversy" about whether HIV causes AIDS?

Anonymous said...


the Kansas City BOE did not "change the definition of science" by adding that science seeks "natural explanations" of phenomena. It merely clarified the existing definition.

One person's "clarification" is another person's change. I can see any given person taking either position. But you seem to wish to take both. The addition of "natural explanations" isn't a change, but its removal is. If it's implicit in NY and CA, it is in KS as well. I find this typical of the meta-discussion of the issue. Darwinists seem to want special rules for Darwinian critics. That signifies to me a basic weakness in the logic of their case.

Your analogy to SSM fails, in my opinion. The SSM proponents focus on the fact that marriage is undefined in the statutes. But in the case we are talking about here, it is the 41 states that actually define science in their curriculum that we are talking about.

However, if a state revises its laws to specify that marriage partners must be of opposite sexes, and then a subsequent legislature revises the law again to drop that definition, surely it will be seen as opening the door to same-sex marriages.

Legally? I don't think so. As a political tea reading, maybe, since the second legislature is obviously more friendly to SSM than the first. One can also divine such leanings from procedural votes, such as cloture votes, but they don't change the legal realities. But the law would revert to its initial state, and I don't know of any State Supreme Court that has ruled in any other way than that the statutes vis a vis marriage mean between a man and a woman.

Show me one that is not motivated by non-scientific considerations (i.e. concern that Darwinism is undermining traditional religion or moral principles), then we'll talk.

Ah yes, the fallacy of Circumstantial Ad Hominem. I see an awful lot of this from the supposed voices for logic, rationality and intellectual honesty. One of the things I've noticed in my many years of discussing issues, is that no matter what the issue, or what side of any given issue, people tend to question the motives of folks who disagree with them, and not their allies. It is a highly subjective, and equal opportunity, game. Now if I had all the facts and logic on my side, I certainly wouldn't want to move the discussion to an arena where it is basically a matter of perspective.

Not to mention the fact that it is a fool's errand. You weren't impressed by Scalia the scientist, but Scalia the logician makes this point well:

But the difficulty of knowing what vitiating purpose one is looking for is as nothing compared with the difficulty of knowing how or where to find it. For while it is possible to discern the objective "purpose" of a statute (i. e., the public good at which its provisions appear to be directed), or even the formal motivation for a statute where that is explicitly set forth (as it was, to no avail, here), discerning the subjective motivation of those enacting the statute is, to be honest, almost always an impossible task. The number of possible [482 U.S. 578, 637] motivations, to begin with, is not binary, or indeed even finite. In the present case, for example, a particular legislator need not have voted for the Act either because he wanted to foster religion or because he wanted to improve education. He may have thought the bill would provide jobs for his district, or may have wanted to make amends with a faction of his party he had alienated on another vote, or he may have been a close friend of the bill's sponsor, or he may have been repaying a favor he owed the majority leader, or he may have hoped the Governor would appreciate his vote and make a fundraising appearance for him, or he may have been pressured to vote for a bill he disliked by a wealthy contributor or by a flood of constituent mail, or he may have been seeking favorable publicity, or he may have been reluctant to hurt the feelings of a loyal staff member who worked on the bill, or he may have been settling an old score with a legislator who opposed the bill, or he may have been mad at his wife who opposed the bill, or he may have been intoxicated and utterly unmotivated when the vote was called, or he may have accidentally voted "yes" instead of "no," or, of course, he may have had (and very likely did have) a combination of some of the above and many other motivations. To look for the sole purpose of even a single legislator is probably to look for something that does not exist. Scalia in dissent, EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD (1987)

And Scalia the Constitutional Lawyer predicted very well, from that nearly two decades old case what the likely consequences of the Lemon "purpose" test would be:

Our cases interpreting and applying the purpose test have made such a maze of the Establishment Clause that even the most conscientious governmental officials can only guess what motives will be held unconstitutional.

Witness the consensus reaction to the two 10 Commandment cases decided earlier this year, which was one of confusion by public officials.

Anonymous said...

Since I freely admit my inability to read minds, and therefore motives, I'll stick to evaluating arguments. You can feel free to question their motives if you wish. Let us start with Lynn Margulis:

The Woodstock of Evolution

Michod's talk was the perfect lead-in for the penultimate lecture of the conference by the acknowledged star of the weekend, Lynn Margulis, famous for her pioneering research on symbiogenesis. Margulis began graciously by acknowledging the conference hosts and saying, "This is the most wonderful conference I've ever been to, and I've been to a lot of conferences." She then got to work, pronouncing the death of neo-Darwinism. Echoing Darwin, she said "It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist." But, she quickly added, "I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point."

The problem with neo-Darwinism, Margulis concluded, is that "Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis--the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies, or species as a result of symbiont interaction--is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes--animals, plants, and fungi."

Missing links

In so doing, Kirschner and Gerhart say, they are tackling an issue evolutionists have often left unexamined. ‘’The question of how variation could be produced has been there from the beginning,” says Gerhart, referring to the publication of Charles Darwin’s ‘’On the Origin of Species” in 1859. By the 1940s, the so-called ‘’Modern Synthesis” of evolutionary theory powerfully buttressed Darwin’s insights on natural selection with the post-Darwinian discoveries about the mechanisms of heredity. But, the authors write, the Modern Synthesis was ‘’silent” about the way organisms generated variation. It is not coincidental, they add, that because ‘’variation is the least understood of the theoretical underpinnings of evolutionary theory,” it thus ‘’is currently the favorite target” of creationists.

Kirschner likes to invoke the much-quoted declaration of famed 20th-century biologist Theodesius Dobzhansky that ‘’nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (the title of a 1973 essay). ‘’In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself,” Kirschner declares. ‘’Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

A Third Way

Unfortunately, readers of Boston Review may remain unaware of this intellectual ferment because the debate about evolution continues to assume the quality of an abstract and philosophical "dialogue of the deaf" between Creationists and Darwinists. Although our knowledge of the molecular details of biological organization is undergoing a revolutionary expansion, open-minded discussions of the impact of these discoveries are all too rare. The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered. In my comments, then, I propose to sketch some developments in contemporary life science that suggest shortcomings in orthodox evolutionary theory and open the door to very different ways of formulating questions about the evolutionary process. After a discussion of technical advances in our views about genome organization and the mechanisms of genetic change, I will focus on a growing convergence between biology and information science which offers the potential for scientific investigation of possible intelligent cellular action in evolution. - James A. Shapiro

Then we have Michael Behe, an acknowledged IDer. We have Stuart Kauffman, a self-organization proponent. We have John Joe McFadden, a proponent of of quantum evolution. David Berlinski, a mathematician. There have long beens doubts about the modern synthesis from mathematicians.

There are numerous critics of neo-Darwinism within the scientific community. To deny such is difficult to defend.

Anonymous said...

The controversy over evolution versus intelligent design is not scientific, it's religious and cultural.

Oh, there is a scientific debate. But I agree there are religious and cultural components. On both sides. And that's a 1st Amendment problem mostly for the Darwinists. The govt is supposed to be neutral in these religious battles. So, when the Darwinists start using public monies to trumphet religions that are friendly to NDT, that seems a pretty clear cut violation of the neutrality constraint.

That doesn't mean there aren't some scientists who reject evolution, but the existence of a few scientific crackpots does not a scientific controversy make.

LOL. Another little habit of Darwinists I'm amused by. You want me to provide evidence of scientists critiquing NDT, but you've already assigned such folks to the little box you've labeled "crackpots". I guess I didn't get the memo where Darwinists get the right to label the boxes. If the point is that a priori scientific Darwinist critics are crackpots, then the tautology is complete, and there can be no valid scientific criticism of Darwinism. But doesn't that take it out of the realm of science?

Anonymous said...

From another thread:

The fact that Sternberg appointed himself to edit Meyer’s paper raised some eyebrows and suggested an absence of impartiality. The peer-review process has been reviewed, and apparently wasn’t obviously flawed, but it would be interesting to know who the reviewers were even if it’s unconventional. If Judy Miller can testify about Libby with his consent, the peer-reviewers can go public on their own.

Now this is funny. Darwinists predominate in the scientific community. The community makes the "rules" on peer-reviewing. If they wish to change the rules, Sternberg not withstanding, they can do so. But apparently, again, they don't want to change the rules generally, but just for people criticizing NDT. What's wrong with that picture?

The best comment I heard about this was a comment by a scientist who said that about a third of what was published in peer-reviewed journals was garabage. Why all the outrage about this one particular article? Not for scientific reasons, was the clear implication.

As James Shapiro said:

However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

More from that prior thread:

Richard Bennett links to a statement by the Biological Society of Washington, the publisher of the journal in which the Meyer paper appeared. The statement says that "contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor," solely at Sternberg's discretion. Richard believes this proves "Sternberg's abuse of the review process." Actually, this is more an issue of the editorial process at the journal; we still don't know the story behind the peer review. Did Sternberg stack the deck by cherry-picking pro-ID reviewers who'd be likely to green-light the paper? I, for one, certainly want to know more.

Gee, do neo-Darwinists not stack the deck with other neo-Darwinists, or people at least friendly to giving neo-Darwinism a forum, for reviewing their papers? Of course they do. I'm truly dumbfounded by intelligent folks so obviously oblivious to the logical flaws in their arguments. And that's assuming their suspicions are correct!

They like to blame their troubles on a "well-financed" PR campaign by the Discovery Institute. Methinks they might be better advised to listening to the wisdom of Pogo:

We have met the enemy and he is us.

Cathy Young said...

Roger: Your posts, now responding to earlier threads, are beginning to look a lot like spam.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess science isn't the only word on whose definition we disagree. I can add spam to that list. But it is your blog, and I'll honor your definition here by making this post my last on your blog.

My posts are not spam, as they are original responses to the issues raised. I didn't respond in the original thread, because blog threads, in my experience, tend to have a short half-life. That prior thread was only active for a couple of days. And I was looking for discussion.

Be that as it may, I feel no need to make a pest of myself here. There are plenty of places in the blogosphere, and on the internet in general, where I can make a pest of myself.

I still respect you and your opnions in general, by I do reserve to myself the right to disagree.

Best of Luck.

Revenant said...

Gee, do neo-Darwinists not stack the deck with other neo-Darwinists, or people at least friendly to giving neo-Darwinism a forum, for reviewing their papers?

Since "neo-Darwinist", as you use the term, is synonymous with "competent scientist", I'd say they probably do.

There's a world of difference between "stacking" a scientific review with scientists and stacking it with creationists who rely on faith instead of reason.

Anonymous said...

Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the athletic shoes.
cheap puma shoes
discount puma shoes
It has the advantages of durable, skipproof, flexible, elastic, extensive, stable and proper hardness.
nike shox torch
nike tn dollar
cheap nike shox
PU is a kind of macromolecule polyurethane materials which is offten used in the midsole
cheap nike shox shoes
nike shox r4
puma mens shoes
Sometimes, it is also used in the outsole of casual shoes.
PU is durable, strong hardness, upstanding flexbility and more important, it is environmentally
cheap nike max
discount nike shox
cheap puma ferrari shoes
The disadvantage is also outstanding. Strong hydroscopic property, break apart and EVA.
nike mens shoes
nike shox nz
discount nike running shoes
which is usually used in the midsole of the running shoes and casual shoes.
EVA is quite lightweight, elastic, flexible and suitable to a variety of climates.
discount nike shoes
nike shox shoes
cheap nike shoes
PHYLON. Phylon is the product of the EVA after the second processing. Just as the rubber
nike sports shoes
puma running shoes
puma sneakers
The midsole of running shoes, tennis shoes and basketball shoes in the world is made PHYLON.
nike air max tn
puma cat
puma shoes
The upstanding hardness, density, traction and extension make it favorite by the manufacture.
nike running shoes
wholesale nike shoes
nike shoes
Just as a coin has two sides, Phylon is nonrecoverable and easily shrink under high PHYLON.
nike shoes kids
nike women shoes

Anonymous said...

darwinis is a total mistake...

Unknown said...

nice share thanks a lot :)

download free pc games
affiliate review