Secular Humanists for Intelligent Design.

A karass headed up by Kurt Vonnegut:

MR. VONNEGUT: [ . . . L]ook, my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.

INSKEEP: Does that mean you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Look, if it’s what we’re thinking about all the time; if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher, it’d be on my mind all the time as to how the hell we really got this way. It’s a perfectly natural human thought and, okay, if you go into the science class you can’t think this? Well, alright, as soon as you leave you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion. [ . . . ]

Mr. VONNEGUT: [My] ancestral tribe [ . . . ] were immigrants from north of Germany who came here about the time of the Civil War, but anyway, these people called themselves free thinkers. They were impressed, incidentally, by Darwin. They’re called Humanists now: people who aren’t so sure that the Bible is the Word of God.

INSKEEP: Who are denounced by some religious people as secular humanists?

Mr. VONNEGUT: Well, that’s exactly what I am. The trouble with being a secular humanist is that we don’t have a congregation. We don’t meet, so it’s a very flimsy tribe, but there’s a wonderful quotation from Nietzsche. Nietzsche said, Only a person of deep faith can afford the luxury of skepticism. Something perfectly wonderful is going on. I do not doubt it, but the explanations I hear do not satisfy me.

From Wittingshire.

Comments

[realpc]

Well I am very impressed with Vonnegut for acknowledging ID isn't just a right-wing conspiracy. Genuine skeptics question all culturual myths, including scientific materialism. Dawkins, James Randi, etc., are not skeptics. But it looks like Vonnegut is -- I didn't read the whole interview yet but I will.

[amba]

Yeah, how cool is that?!

[reader_iam]

So it goes!

[sleipner]

I saw him on The Daily Show where he made a similar comment about ID - but frankly his arguments still sound to me like, "I don't like the idea that the world is mechanistic, so therefore it must not be." Obviously the man is a deep thinker and a philosopher, but equally obviously he is no scientist.

[amba]

Sleip, you're assuming that the world IS mechanistic! I hope to post some stuff about cutting-edge genetics that pretty much blows THAT out of the water. There's some very weird stuff going on there that pretty obviously has a kind of intelligence to it.

[karen]

Is Vonnegut an old, wild man? Like, he's in his 80's and has ants in his pants and hates W and this war and hasn't much good to say about the politics I support?

If that's him- I think i saw an interview once on PBS w/him.

I love him. Thought he was brilliant. I'm glad he's not down on ID.

[sleipner]

Amba - I'm sure all sorts of weird, whacky and wild things happen with genetics, but until and unless we get to the point where we have determined we are unable to derive scientific explanations for those anomalies, Occam's Razor demands that the assumption MUST be that mechanistic processes underlie those data.

Considering that genomic analysis is a field still in its infancy, and proteomics is comparatively still a fetus, I strongly object to the idea that just because we do not yet understand some arcane aspect of genetics that it is not explicable via anything but a supernatural "Intelligent Design" theory.

This argument is exactly the same as the "God in the Gaps" creationist ploy - just restated on the molecular level.

[amba]

Who said it's "not explicable via anything but a supernatural 'Intelligent Design' theory"?

What about a natural intelligent-process theory?

Supernatural creationism and mechanistic materialism are not the only two alternatives, and science itself is outgrowing the latter.

Occam's fucking Razor -- I wonder whether half the people brandishing that, like Sweeney Todd, even know what it is. Doesn't it decree that the simplest explanation must prevail? When you hear some of the contorted "survival of the fittest" explanations people contrive for phenomena like altruistic behavior, they are anything but the simplest explanation. Much of evolutionary psychology is about as faith-based as it gets.

[amba]

Sleip, to be accurate, "mechanistic" went out with Newton. Catch up with quantum physics, willya?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Its a granfalloon anyway.

[sleipner]

The main reason I keep objecting to the usage of the term "Intelligent Design" is that 99% of the people hearing that term assume *external* intelligence, not some sort of internal genetic programmatical response that weights development towards adaptation faster than natural selection could by itself.

However, I would still maintain that such a process is subject to scientific inquiry, analysis and eventual explanation, and that the use of the term "intelligence" to describe it is misleading, similar to calling an expert system computer program intelligent because it is programmed to seek out the best solution to a problem (some of which are capable of self-reprogramming similar to what might occur within the genome)

Doesn't it make sense that of all the genetic mutations in the past, one that would be most likely to survive and propagate, especially through multiple mass extinctions, is one that enables rapid response to environmental pressures? And that said mutation would have occurred fairly early in biological history, hence would be present in most life forms today?

I think in some ways we're pretty much saying the same thing, I don't believe that survival of the fittest explains all evolutionary adaptation. Currently, there are several other supplementary theories which are commonly accepted as additional drivers of evolution. These theories combined may explain all of evolution, they may not, it is nearly impossible to definitively analyze.

As you suggest, we should stay open to consider whether additional contributions occur from as-yet unknown processes, but we should also make sure we are deciding that those new processes are valid based on scientific evidence rather than on desired perceptions of reality.

Certainly none of those possible new processes are likely to negate the well understood and documented theories the form the core of evolutionary science, though they may develop or temper our understanding of those theories, much like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity did not obviate Newton's mechanics.

Whether or not you believe that "Intelligent Design" is caused by some not-yet-understood process within the genome, by conscious or subconscious mental direction of one's own genetic legacy, by God, by space aliens, or by some sort of energy field surrounding living organisms, the reason I invoked Occam's Razor is that of the list of possible options, the most likely at this time seems to be genetically based.

Again, though, I object to the terminology and the implications thereof far more than the actual concept as you describe it. The term Intelligent Design has been hijacked by religious whackos, and thus any purported scientific endeavor that uses that label immediately gets doused with a load of skepticism.

[realpc]

"Supernatural creationism and mechanistic materialism are not the only two alternatives, and science itself is outgrowing the latter."

Very true.

"Occam's fucking Razor ... When you hear some of the contorted "survival of the fittest" explanations people contrive ... "

The original point of Occam's Razor was that, given several equally plausible theories, we should prefer the simplest. Not that we should always prefer the theory that supports the current bias, no matter how far-fetched.

"Certainly none of those possible new processes are likely to negate the well understood and documented theories the form the core of evolutionary science"

No sleipner, evolutionary science has no plausible explanation for evolution. It's just verbal sleight of hand to pretend evidence for natural selection counts as evidence for neo-Darwinism.

[amba]

Charlie: yeah, I know. I was going to correct myself but you beat me to it.

[amba]

Sleipner: Science is beginning to understand some of those processes, and they're mind-boggling. I hope I get permission to post the e-mail in which someone explained it to me. I understood about one-fourth of it.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It doesn't make a lot more sense to say "evolutionary science has no plausible explanation for evolution" than to say chemistry has no plausible explanation for combustion. Science is about observing andf modeling what happens. If you put carbon and oxygen together and raise the energy level enough, the carbon and oxygen combine and yield CO2. There are certain rules we can deduce about this, and as time went on, we learned deeper reasons for it (electron energy levels, quantum chemistry, and so on.)

Pretty much exactly the same way, we know that if you take a bunch of living organisms and let them propagate themselves over time, they will mutate, ie, various (not very well understood) processes wikll cause them to change their appearance or physiology. A lot of those changes will kill them off, some of them are benign, and a few will turn out to make it more likely the organism will mate and produce offspring.

Darwin built that hypothesis from observation; now we can actually point to cases where it happened (for example, moths in England that turned darker as it got sootier). That's all "evolution" is, and it happens with about the same certainty that charcoal will burn in oxygen if heated.

Now, if what you're talking about is *why* evolution happens, just like *why* carbon burns, that's a whole 'nother question. Science can't answer either one of them.

[realpc]

"we can actually point to cases where it happened (for example, moths in England that turned darker as it got sootier). That's all "evolution" is ..."

No Charlie, the moth example actually just demonstrates adaptation. Normally, the word "evolution" means progressive development but some neo-Darwinists have re-definied it to mean any kind of change, adaptation.
The color change of the moths is not what we normally mean by evolution, and did not require any major genetic changes.

[Elyas Bakhtiari]

Here's Vonnegut's quote from the Daily Show:

"I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I cant help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That’s why we’ve got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap."

Be careful. Vonnegut is easy to misinterpret.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

No, realpc, there is no difference between adaptation and evolution. Same process, same results. The dark soot-adapted bugs bred reasonably true; the lighter ones do also. Go down to the genetic level, and you can map the branches in the tree of genetic changes. And don't wave "speciation" or "major genetic change" at me unless you can define them, in technical terms, in a testable fashion.

But in any case, so what? If the universe is built in such a way that organic chemistry does that, isn't that sufficiently miraculous in itself? It turns out that the universe wouldn't work at all like it does if a few little things like the fine-structure constant didn't have exactly the values they do. Isn't that miraculous? And the string theorists suggest not that there may be 10^500 different universes with different values of those constants: isn't it pretty amazing, miraculous even, that the multiverse is so widely and wildly varied?

The whole Intelligent Design thing is practically blasphemous, if that term has any meaning at all. Somehow, an Omnipotent, Omniscient Diety needs to do something more than that conceive of the universe, or multiverse? Why insist that Diety is a half-assed basement craftsman that can't make the universe work without fiddling with it?

[michael reynolds]

Charlie:
You have crystalized something I've thought for a long time. The notion that God, if he exists, needs to be defended or explained by humans is lese majeste. In the process of defending their narrow vision of God, people reduce him to their level, rendering him small, manageable, tractable.

If there is a God, and if he created the universe, then h. sapiens has nothing whatsoever to add or subtract, no clever comments, no meaningful praise, no capacity for explanation. Might as well ask an ant to comment on Shakespeare.

[realpc]

"Somehow, an Omnipotent, Omniscient Diety needs to do something more than that conceive of the universe, or multiverse? Why insist that Diety is a half-assed basement craftsman that can't make the universe work without fiddling with it?"

That is NOT what ID theory says. It merely says that random errors plus natural selection is not sufficient to cause progressive evolution (which has obviously occured). It does not say anything about god meddling or fiddling. If the universe is intelligent and creative, in other words divine, we might expect it to unfold in some amazing ways.

As for the narrow vision of God -- that's what kids learn in Sunday school, and many adults never question the simple vision they first learned. Many think they must choose either the human-centric view of god or atheism.
But that is not true, and not what you would find if you study theology and comparative religion, and look more deeply into the whole subject.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

That is NOT what ID theory says. It merely says that random errors plus natural selection is not sufficient to cause progressive evolution (which has obviously occured).

Well, then it's simply loony. There is some perfectly lovely mathematics showing how unexpected complexity can arise from a set of simple rules (see Steven Wolfram's book) and we can simulate it in baby steps rather nicely (see any of the stuff on "artificial life").

If the universe is intelligent and creative, in other words divine, we might expect it to unfold in some amazing ways.

And this conflicts with evolution as a mechanism how? I think it's purty durn nifty that simple rules applied many times can turn out such cool stuff. (Octopi. Boston ferns. Cats. That's so cool.)

Oh, and don't mess with me on "comparative religion", lest I start quoting Sanskrit and literary Chinese at you.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Michael, I only differ from you in "meaningful praise". As I've gotten older, and more deeply into Buddhism (with forays into my Indian ancestors' animist religions and Shinto), and in parallel learned more maths and more biology, I've noticed that my religious inclinations have moved more and more to just a general feeling of "Wow! Ain't this COOL!"

Really, can we offer any more meaningful praise than this to the Author?

[karen]

"The most beautiful thing
we can experience is the
mysterious. It is the source
of all true art and all science.
He to whom this emotion is
a stranger, who can no longer
pause to wonder & stand rapt in awe- is as good as dead: his
eyes closed." *Albert Einstein*

God is science :0)

[amba]

Can I quote all you guys in my book???

[sleipner]

Though many of the comments above seem to dismiss survival of the fittest and environmental adaptation as completely inadequate to explain anything, I would (obviously) have to disagree.

Whether or not intricate genetic or divine processes enhance this process or not, and to what degree, it is not logical to say those methods have nothing to do with evolution and speciation.

I particularly like the combustion example above - basically we know species "burn", as it were, and only now are we beginning to understand the fuels and the chemical reactions that make that transformation possible.
That does not necessarily mean that survival of the fittest and environmental adaptation are invalid concepts, it just means there are additional, underlying mechanisms that we are only now learning to detect, which make them do what they appear to more rapidly than chance mutations alone would allow.

[amba]

I only wish that I could reprint the e-mail from a correspondent on a Feldenkrais Method group list who knows a lot about current findings in genetics. Instead, he gave me a bunch of links so I'll have to read and try to understand it myself, which will take a while (since I have so much else to do). But a mechanism that produces useful variation at a higher rate than chance -- it starts to sound intelligent in and of itself. Survival and competitive advantage is, of course, the acid test.

[karen]

At TenNapel's blog- a *Survival of the Fittest* example was the Nazis over the Jews. I didn't read that post, I bet i could ask the guy for it- There was a breakdown of an e-mail on it, though.

So, is that kind of agression and lack of compassion and absolute moral deficiency considered *Fit*?

Must be, too, the triumph of women who opt to abort- choosing their own survival over that of the unknown? Would that be evolution- or... what is the opposite of evolution?

[realpc]

"many of the comments above seem to dismiss survival of the fittest and environmental adaptation as completely inadequate to explain anything"

No sleipner, that is NOT what ID is saying. Survival of the fittest, or natural selection, is obviously a central factor. Though it is more likely a stablizing, conservative, factor, than an engine of progress.
Natural selection and adaptation are certainly NOT what ID theorists are criticizing. They are criticizing the assumption that progressive changes are generated entirely from random genetic errors.

"Whether or not intricate genetic or divine processes enhance this process or not, and to what degree, it is not logical to say those methods have nothing to do with evolution and speciation."

We know that random errors occur, and that so does natural selecton. Of course these methods influence evolution, and ID theorists in no way deny that.

[amba]

Since "fitness" is defined as reproductive, the abortion decision would on the face of it be unfit, since it reduces the woman's number of offspring. On the other side, some would argue that fewer children will be provided with more resources each and will survive, thrive and reproduce better themselves. (Which is not to say that abortion is the only way to have fewer children.) Then again, on the whole in the world, poorer and uneducated people have many more children, though a larger proportion won't survive . . . Then there's the argument whether a woman who can abort is cold and will be an unloving mother, thus hurting her children's fitness; or conversely, whether an overburdened mother with too many children might neglect or abuse some of them. You could argue either way. This is why I finally think "surival of the fittest" arguments are so pointless.

[realpc]

The theory of natural selection really just says that those who are better at surviving will survive better. It doesn't mean very much. It is often assumed it refers to competition between individuals, with the most violent individuals prevailing. But actually it could be anything at all that gives an individual or group some kind of advantage within its environment. Being good parents will give a species a survival advantage, for example. Being attractive to the opposite sex gives an individual a reproductive advantage. The ability of a social group to cooperate and care for each other can give the group a survival advantage.

And natural selection in modern civilization is all out of wack. In any case, our species is not evolviing biologically (only technologically) so even if natural selection were the cause of evolution (which it isn't), the disabling of natural selection would not influence evolution.

[Pastor_Jeff]

I don't want to wade into an ID-evolution discussion except to point out that peppered moths as an example of evolution have long been discredited by scientists.

The only thing peppered moths prove is the ability of the scientific method to correct itself. So why are they still touted decades later as evidence of evolution? I think realpc had the answer at 12:04 am.

[amba]

Ooh, Pastor Jeff, thank you so much for posting that link to the article on the peppered moth. I noticed a couple of years ago that a book came out on this subject -- Judith Hooper's OF MOTHS AND MEN. I really wanted to read it, because I'd known and even referred to the example of the peppered moth for years, and I was fascinated to hear that it wasn't the slam-dunk example of natural selection that it had appeared. I never got around to reading the book, so I was particularly glad to read this article Although it is written by an ID advocate, Jonathan Wells, it appears quite objective and tells, I believe, the same story Hooper's book does.

However, another can of worms is opened up by one Amazon.com reveiwer who faults Hooper's book for not covering "subsequent experiments which demonstrate natural selection fairly well. Endler's work with guppies in Trinidad . . . and the work of the Grants with Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos . . . . Both (rigorously and convincingly < if they aren't out and out lying > ) demonstrate natural selection in action." So now we need to follow that up.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Annie, absolutely.

[realpc]

amba,
Natural selection is proven, as far as I know. And artificial selection (breeding) has gone on for thousands of years, so we know that variation can be created by selection, in general. But selection does not result in major genetic changes, and has never created a new species, that I know of. According to critics of neo-Darwinism, there is a difference between selecting from minor variations within an existing species, and actually adding new genetic information.

[Pastor_Jeff]

Amba - You're welcome.

Realpc - Well put.

Remember stuyding fruit flies in biology? They're used for artificial selection partially because they have such quick reproductive cycles; you get many generations in little time.

Scientists have played around with fruit fly genes and selected for all kinds of adaptive changes - bigger wings, better eyes, etc.

IIRC, there was a limit beyond which the adaptations would not reproduce. The more changes introduced, the less healthy the fly and the less likely to be able to reproduce. And I think that none of the changes lasted more than a generation or two before "regressing" back to a species norm.

And in the thousands of fruit fly generations studied in the last century or so, I don't think anyone has produced anything other than a fruit fly.

I may be wrong in my recollection. If so, I'd be very interested to hear of contrary results.

[amba]

IIRC, there was a limit beyond which the adaptations would not reproduce. The more changes introduced, the less healthy the fly and the less likely to be able to reproduce. And I think that none of the changes lasted more than a generation or two before "regressing" back to a species norm.

IIRC = "If I Remember Correctly"?

Pastor Jeff -- this suggests that all the genes in the genome of a particular species work together in some necessary way, and you cannot change just one part of it to the point where it's out of balance or out of synch with all the others. Is this not what's meant by "irreducible complexity"? That we're talking not just about point mutations, but their integration into a whole?

[Pastor_Jeff]

Amba - Yes, IIRC = If I recall correctly. Sorry for the oh-so-hip and ultimately purpose-defeating shorthand.

My understanding of IR would cover what you've said. It raises challenges to the development of complex systems - ones where all parts are necessary but no part is useful on its own. I hadn't thought of it at the genetic level in those terms. Maybe you're on to something?

At a former, larger church I helped pull together a scientific inquiry team composed of a molecular biologist, a couple of research chemists, a physics prof, and an MD. We had a great time digging into things like this and helping explain them to laypeople (like myself). If only I had the time to do this more...

[sleipner]

Speciation has indeed occurred from selection, can you imagine a Great Dane being able to reproduce with a Chihuahua? I don't think so...and they originally were the same species, perhaps 5 or 10 thousand years ago.

I knew fruit fly studies could cause fairly extreme results via natural selection, but I had not heard that it *always* caused unhealthy results or that the resulting new species reverted to the norm after a few generations - any biologist types out there care to confirm or deny? Of course the former result could be due to inbreeding in an insufficiently large gene pool. The latter result could be due to some sort of "genetic memory," which would keep track of recently or even anciently achieved adaptive traits in a species and allow them to quickly readapt to the normal environment when whatever stresses that had been applied are removed, similar to that recent plant study that reinserted genes from grandparents that were missing in its parents.

I vaguely remember reading some science magazine article recently about animals that became geographically separated at some point in the recent past due to a river changing course and have become genetically incompatible, but I can't recall the details, so speciation in progress due to geographic isolation has been documented.

Viruses are a great example for speciation - I read an article about the HIV virus that said only 1 in 11 of the copies it makes are viable, due to the large number of mutations that occur during its replication process. That is the reason why retroviruses (influenza, the cold) mutate so rapidly, and why new "species" of them can become drug resistant and avoid the immune system of creatures that have built up immunities to previous iterations.

Of course viruses do not have the mechanism of sexual reproduction, so mutation is pretty much the only way they have of remaining viable, and the sheer volume of copies they produce makes this strategy an effective evolutionary development.

[amba]

Sleip -- Great Danes and chihuahuas are still the same species. Their gametes can unite and produce fertile offspring. The problem of reproduction between them is strictly physical: a male Chihuahua couldn't impregnate a Great Dane, and a female Chihuahua couldn't survive carrying or birthing half-Great Dane puppies. I imagine you could inseminate a female Great Dane with Chihuahua sperm, though. God knows what you'd get, but they'd be dogs.

Similarly, extreme variations in fruit flies are not new species. It seems that as they approach the boundaries of still genetically being fruit flies, they become nonviable. (Maybe they became nonviable because they couldn't breed with each other? Or because the mutations forcibly selected by scientists changed the flies too fast for the whole genotype to adjust?) To the best of my knowledge, we have not observed a crossing of the species barrier in the laboratory. Allegedly it has been observed with finches in the Galapagos - ? (Does anybody here have time to follow that lead right now? The Grants. And Endler's guppies.)

Is at least some "junk" DNA actually a backup library?

The guy who didn't want me to reprint his e-mail about current leading-edge genetics sent me a lot of links. I wish I had time to go read them. I'd post them here raw, but that doesn't feel like responsible blogging to me.

[amba]

And besides, a large part of the point of blogging is to be learning yourself.

[eteraz]

we have the right to reject any scientific theory when it comes hand to hand with ideas that demean or try to do away with the separation of church and state.

if tomorrow, group X became 40% of the electroate and said that their religion teaches X, I would say, start teaching ID and other creationisms as well.

It's not ID, on its own, that's the problem. It's the people it represents.

[eteraz]

ok i sound like a moron in that post:

let me rewrite it b/c i mis-spoke:

we have the right to reject any scientific theory when it comes hand to hand with ideas that demean or try to do away with the separation of church and state.

if tomorrow, group X became 40% of the electroate and said that their religion teaches DARWIN, I would say, start teaching ID and other creationisms as well.

It's not ID, on its own, that's the problem. It's the people it represents.

[lopushok]

http://www.squidoo.com/buy-meridia-z ">buy meridia
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-tramadol-z ">buy tramadol
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-carisoprodol-z ">buy carisoprodol
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-tenuate-z ">buy tenuate
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-ambien-z ">buy ambien
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-levitra-z ">buy levitra
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-prozac-z ">buy prozac
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-zoloft-z ">buy zoloft
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-ultram-z ">buy ultram
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-allegra-z ">buy allegra
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-cialis-z ">buy cialis
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-diazepam-z ">buy diazepam
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-adderall-z ">buy adderall
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-adipex-z ">buy adipex
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-vicodin-z ">buy vicodin
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-vaniqa-z ">buy vaniqa
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-viagra-z ">buy viagra
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-soma-z ">buy soma
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-fioricet-z ">buy fioricet
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-didrex-z ">buy didrex
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-alprazolam-z ">buy alprazolam
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-lasix-z ">buy lasix
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-hydrocodone-z ">buy hydrocodone
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-valtrex-z ">buy valtrex
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-paxil-z ">buy paxil
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-xenical-z ">buy xenical
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-propecia-z ">buy propecia
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-phentermine-z ">buy phentermine
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-valium-z ">buy valium
http://www.squidoo.com/buy-ephedra-z ">buy ephedra
http://www.squidoo.com/lg-ringtones-z ">lg ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/mobile-ringtones-z ">mobile ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/rihanna-ringtones-z ">Rihanna ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/verizon-ringtones-z ">verizon ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/beyonce-ringtones-z ">Beyonce ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/real-ringtones-z ">real ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/cellular-ringtones-z ">cellular ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/movie-ringtones-z ">movie ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/mosquito-ringtones-z ">mosquito ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/funny-ringtones-z ">funny ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/mp3-ringtones ">mp3 ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/nextel-ringtones-z ">nextel ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/nokia-ringtones-z ">nokia ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/cingular-ringtones-z ">cingular ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/tracfone-ringtones-z ">tracfone ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/phish-ringtones-z ">phish ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/polyphonic-ringtones-z ">polyphonic ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/eminem-ringtones-z ">eminem ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/motorola-ringtones-z ">motorola ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/music-ringtones-z ">music ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/sprint-ringtones-z ">sprint ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/samsung-ringtones-z ">samsung ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/kyocera-ringtones-z ">kyocera ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/gratis-ringtones-z ">gratis ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/yahoo-ringtones-z ">yahoo ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/phone-ringtones-z ">phone ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/shakira-ringtones-z ">shakira ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/fergie-ringtones-z ">fergie ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/tv-ringtones-z ">tv ringtones
http://www.squidoo.com/24-ringtones-z ">24 ringtones