Many former evolutionary scientists....the experiment

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Quixotic
Apprentice
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:08 pm
Contact:

Many former evolutionary scientists....the experiment

Post #1

Post by Quixotic »

I have emailed a random person on the list asking them if they agree with the below statement.....
This is not excactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism:


The email to Martin Poenie
Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology.....

Dear Proff. Poenie,

I do not know if you are aware (I hope you are!) but your name is currently on a list of people who agree with the statement:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

Though I am not a scientist I do understand that all claims should treated skeptically and all evidence for (and against!) a proposition should be carefully examined, reported on and cross examined by piers. Therefore by default I also agree with the above statement and would happily have my name against it.

However it is my understanding that the fundamental tenants of evolution have in fact been tested, many times and back up with a frankly staggering amount of evidence, all papers supporting these claims have been criticized and critiqued by scientific peers going back to Darwin's revolutionary work. Though there is of course much research and study to be done however as far as I am are the is no single piece of evidence which contradicts the basic tenants of evolution. If there was, all biological understanding would change.

Unfortunately (and I am sure you will be horrified to hear this) your name is being used as a signatory to the above statement NOT purely in the name of good skeptical science but FOR the argument of intelligent design and even as far as Creationism.

I am a member of the forum 'Debating Christianity and Religion', the atheistic (of which I am a member) camp has challenged the opposition to produce a list of people to support the claim 'There are many scientists who use to be evolutionist and are now creationists. They have PhDs and are known for their work.' Before the list (including your name) was the sentence 'This is not exactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism: '

I chose you name at random from this list and decided to contact you to ask if it were possible to clarify your position on ID and/or Creationism. This is a good chance to set the record straigt either way, the above statement does not inherently support evolution/creationism/ID however it is presented as such.

I will be posting this email on the forum and with your permission I would like to post your response also.

Kindest regards

Richard Washington

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Many former evolutionary scientists....the experiment

Post #2

Post by Goat »

Quixotic wrote:I have emailed a random person on the list asking them if they agree with the below statement.....
This is not excactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism:


The email to Martin Poenie
Associate Professor in Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology.....

Dear Proff. Poenie,

I do not know if you are aware (I hope you are!) but your name is currently on a list of people who agree with the statement:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"

Though I am not a scientist I do understand that all claims should treated skeptically and all evidence for (and against!) a proposition should be carefully examined, reported on and cross examined by piers. Therefore by default I also agree with the above statement and would happily have my name against it.

However it is my understanding that the fundamental tenants of evolution have in fact been tested, many times and back up with a frankly staggering amount of evidence, all papers supporting these claims have been criticized and critiqued by scientific peers going back to Darwin's revolutionary work. Though there is of course much research and study to be done however as far as I am are the is no single piece of evidence which contradicts the basic tenants of evolution. If there was, all biological understanding would change.

Unfortunately (and I am sure you will be horrified to hear this) your name is being used as a signatory to the above statement NOT purely in the name of good skeptical science but FOR the argument of intelligent design and even as far as Creationism.

I am a member of the forum 'Debating Christianity and Religion', the atheistic (of which I am a member) camp has challenged the opposition to produce a list of people to support the claim 'There are many scientists who use to be evolutionist and are now creationists. They have PhDs and are known for their work.' Before the list (including your name) was the sentence 'This is not exactly a list of former evolutionists necessarily, but it is a decent size list of scientists that advocate ID and/or creationism: '

I chose you name at random from this list and decided to contact you to ask if it were possible to clarify your position on ID and/or Creationism. This is a good chance to set the record straigt either way, the above statement does not inherently support evolution/creationism/ID however it is presented as such.

I will be posting this email on the forum and with your permission I would like to post your response also.

Kindest regards

Richard Washington
I will post a letter Martin has on the web about that very subject

http://www.texscience.org/files/ut-austin-profs2.htm
State Board of Education
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78701

4 November 2003

Dear members of the State Board of Education:

We are two biologists at the University of Texas at Austin, in the sections of Integrative Biology (Hillis) and Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology (Poenie). We have been portrayed (by others) as being on opposite sides of the debates about biology textbooks that are up for adoption in the state of Texas. One of us (Hillis) testified in July at the SBOE hearings on textbooks, in favor of strong biology textbooks with thorough coverage of evolutionary biology, and against the inclusion of "intelligent design" ideas (and other ideas not supported by scientific evidence and analysis) in the textbooks. The other of us (Poenie) was listed by the Discovery Institute as one of the Texas scientists on their "40 Texas Scientists Skeptical of Darwin" list (although he did not authorize the DI to include him on this list). Poenie did write a letter to the state board arguing that Darwinian (hyperdarwinian) mechanisms are not the only ones molding the evolutionary history of life and that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change. However, that letter was not intended to oppose basic evolutionary biology or to support poor teaching or coverage of that topic. It was this apparent opposition that initially brought us together. Since we both know each other, and both believe that we want the same thing for Texas school children (namely, good, accurate books for biology classes), we decided to join together and jointly review the textbooks that are up for consideration by the state of Texas.

We found that we agreed on the strengths and weaknesses of most of the books that are up for consideration. None of the introductory biology books is perfect; they could all be improved in the details of their coverage. Nonetheless, we believe that all of the books conform to the TEKS standards and should be approved and placed on the conforming list of textbooks.

We have read that one of the SBOE members intends to propose one of the introductory books, namely Glencoe's Biology: The Dynamics of Life for the conforming list, and all the other introductory biology textbooks for the non-conforming list. We can see absolutely no basis for such a decision. We both consider Glencoe's book to be one of the weaker of the proposed biology books, so if it is judged to be conforming, then certainly all of the other books that have been proposed for adoption should also be placed on the conforming list as well. Certainly it would be an injustice to consider the Glencoe book to be the only conforming biology book. We consider its coverage of biology to be somewhat superficial compared to the other books. We differ somewhat in which books we consider to be the best, but we agree that all of the books should be placed on the conforming list and that the Glencoe book is not the best of the books on the list.

Perhaps the Glencoe book is seen as the only acceptable book by at least one SBOE member because it explicitly lists "Divine Origins" as an alternative to scientific hypotheses about the origin of life (on page 388). However, we both object to the presentation of religious and scientific explanations as mutually exclusive ideas, as if choosing one requires an individual to reject the other. We believe that a science book should focus on scientific explanations, and not present religious beliefs as an alternative to scientific analyses. This is offensive to many who hold those religious beliefs, because it implicitly suggests that to understand and accept the scientific viewpoint requires rejection of the religious viewpoint. Although we acknowledge that there are individuals who hold the view that scientific and religious ideas are mutually exclusive (in both scientific as well as religious circles), we see no reason to force this philosophy on the students of Texas in a science class. Although we see this presentation as objectionable in the Glencoe book, the book does nonetheless meet the TEKS objectives for coverage of biology and we recommend that it be included in the conforming list with the other books.

In summary, we recommend that the State Board of Education place all of the biology textbooks that have been submitted on the conforming list. We strongly object to singling out the Glencoe book as the only book to conform to Texas standards, as we believe it is among the weaker of the books that have been proposed for adoption, and comes close to promoting science and religion as mutually exclusive ideas. Although we differ slightly in which books we consider be the best biology books, we see all of the AP Biology books as having very high standards, and the books by Holt (Biology, by Johnson and Raven) and Prentice-Hall (Biology, by Miller and Levine) as among the better of the introductory biology books.

Sincerely,

David M. Hillis
Alfred W. Roark Centennial Professor in Natural Sciences Section of Integrative Biology
University of Texas at Austin

Martin Poenie
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Rathpig
Sage
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: The Animal Farm
Contact:

Post #3

Post by Rathpig »

The other of us (Poenie) was listed by the Discovery Institute as one of the Texas scientists on their "40 Texas Scientists Skeptical of Darwin" list (although he did not authorize the DI to include him on this list). Poenie did write a letter to the state board arguing that Darwinian (hyperdarwinian) mechanisms are not the only ones molding the evolutionary history of life and that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change. However, that letter was not intended to oppose basic evolutionary biology or to support poor teaching or coverage of that topic.

The Discovery Institute doesn't have a scientific clue. They are merely a front-group for superstition. Poenie should have sued them for civil damages. A biologist that doesn't accept the theory of evolution is not a "biologist".

Fisherking

Post #4

Post by Fisherking »

Rathpig wrote: A biologist that doesn't accept the theory of evolution is not a "biologist"
Incorrect! [-X
Biological scientists study living organisms and their relationship to the environment. They perform research to gain a better understanding of fundamental life processes or apply that understanding to developing new products or processes. Most specialize in one area of biology, such as zoology (the study of animals) or microbiology (the study of microscopic organisms). (Medical scientists, whose work is closely related to that of biological scientists, are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook.)

Many biological scientists work in research and development. Some conduct basic research to advance our knowledge of living organisms, including bacteria and other infectious agents. Basic biological research enhances our understanding so that we can develop solutions to human health problems and improve the natural environment. These biological scientists mostly work in government, university, or private industry laboratories, often exploring new areas of research. Many expand on specialized research they started in graduate school.

Many research scientists must submit grant proposals to obtain funding for their projects. Colleges and universities, private industry, and Federal Government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation contribute to the support of scientists whose research proposals are determined to be financially feasible and to have the potential to advance new ideas or processes.

Biological scientists who work in applied research or product development use knowledge gained by basic research to develop new drugs, treatments, and medical diagnostic tests; increase crop yields; and develop new biofuels. They usually have less freedom than basic researchers do to choose the emphasis of their research, and they spend more time working on marketable treatments to meet the business goals of their employers. Biological scientists doing applied research and product development in private industry may be required to describe their research plans or results to nonscientists who are in a position to veto or approve their ideas. These scientists must consider the business effects of their work. Scientists often work in teams, interacting with engineers, scientists of other disciplines, business managers, and technicians. Some biological scientists also work with customers or suppliers and manage budgets.

Scientists usually conduct research in laboratories using a wide variety of other equipment. Some conduct experiments involving animals or plants. This is particularly true of botanists, physiologists, and zoologists. Some biological research also takes place outside the laboratory. For example, a botanist might do field research in tropical rain forests to see which plants grow there, or an ecologist might study how a forest area recovers after a fire. Some marine biologists also work outdoors, often on research vessels from which they study fish, plankton, or other marine organisms.

Swift advances in knowledge of genetics and organic molecules spurred growth in the field of biotechnology, transforming the industries in which biological scientists work. Biological scientists can now manipulate the genetic material of animals and plants, attempting to make organisms more productive or resistant to disease. Basic and applied research on biotechnological processes, such as recombining DNA, has led to the production of important substances, including human insulin and growth hormone. Many other substances not previously available in large quantities are now produced by biotechnological means. Some of these substances are useful in treating diseases.

Today, many biological scientists are involved in biotechnology. Those working on various genome (chromosomes with their associated genes) projects isolate genes and determine their function. This work continues to lead to the discovery of genes associated with specific diseases and inherited health risks, such as sickle cell anemia. Advances in biotechnology have created research opportunities in almost all areas of biology, with commercial applications in areas such as medicine, agriculture, and environmental remediation.

Most biological scientists specialize in the study of a certain type of organism or in a specific activity, although recent advances have blurred some traditional classifications.

Aquatic biologists study micro-organisms, plants, and animals living in water. Marine biologists study salt water organisms, and limnologists study fresh water organisms. Much of the work of marine biology centers on molecular biology, the study of the biochemical processes that take place inside living cells. Marine biologists sometimes are mistakenly called oceanographers, but oceanography is the study of the physical characteristics of oceans and the ocean floor. (See the Handbook statements on environmental scientists and hydrologists and on geoscientists.)

Biochemists study the chemical composition of living things. They analyze the complex chemical combinations and reactions involved in metabolism, reproduction, and growth. Biochemists do most of their work in biotechnology, which involves understanding the complex chemistry of life.

Botanists study plants and their environments. Some study all aspects of plant life, including algae, fungi, lichens, mosses, ferns, conifers, and flowering plants; others specialize in areas such as identification and classification of plants, the structure and function of plant parts, the biochemistry of plant processes, the causes and cures of plant diseases, the interaction of plants with other organisms and the environment, and the geological record of plants.

Microbiologists investigate the growth and characteristics of microscopic organisms such as bacteria, algae, or fungi. Most microbiologists specialize in environmental, food, agricultural, or industrial microbiology; virology (the study of viruses); immunology (the study of mechanisms that fight infections); or bioinformatics (the use of computers to handle or characterize biological information, usually at the molecular level). Many microbiologists use biotechnology to advance knowledge of cell reproduction and human disease.

Physiologists study life functions of plants and animals, both in the whole organism and at the cellular or molecular level, under normal and abnormal conditions. Physiologists often specialize in functions such as growth, reproduction, photosynthesis, respiration, or movement, or in the physiology of a certain area or system of the organism.

Biophysicists study how physics, such as electrical and mechanical energy and related phenomena, relates to living cells and organisms. They perform research in fields such as neuroscience or bioinformatics.

Zoologists and wildlife biologists study animals and wildlife—their origin, behavior, diseases, and life processes. Some experiment with live animals in controlled or natural surroundings, while others dissect dead animals to study their structure. Zoologists and wildlife biologists also may collect and analyze biological data to determine the environmental effects of current and potential uses of land and water areas. Zoologists usually are identified by the animal group they study—ornithologists study birds, for example, mammalogists study mammals, herpetologists study reptiles, and ichthyologists study fish.

Ecologists investigate the relationships among organisms and between organisms and their environments, examining the effects of population size, pollutants, rainfall, temperature, and altitude. Using knowledge of various scientific disciplines, ecologists may collect, study, and report data on the quality of air, food, soil, and water.

(Agricultural and food scientists, sometimes referred to as biological scientists, are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook, as are medical scientists, whose work is closely related to that of biological scientists.)

Biological Scientists

byofrcs

Post #5

Post by byofrcs »

Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote: A biologist that doesn't accept the theory of evolution is not a "biologist"
Incorrect! [-X
Biological scientists study living organisms and their relationship to the environment. They perform research to gain a better understanding of fundamental life processes or apply that understanding to developing new products or processes. Most specialize in one area of biology, such as zoology (the study of animals) or microbiology (the study of microscopic organisms). ..........
...................
.......snip.......
....................
(Agricultural and food scientists, sometimes referred to as biological scientists, are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook, as are medical scientists, whose work is closely related to that of biological scientists.)

Biological Scientists
In all those cases, you would have to maintain an internal lie if you did not accept the current facts of evolution. That would be dishonest.

Theistic evolution and biology are not mutually exclusive and can co-exist but YEC style creationism and biology (as a whole field) are incompatible. Yes, I guess you could pick out a niche and get the DI or the Creation Museum or some other well funded trust to pay for your upkeep but that's servitude not science.

Fisherking

Post #6

Post by Fisherking »

byofrcs wrote:
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote: A biologist that doesn't accept the theory of evolution is not a "biologist"
Incorrect! [-X
Biological scientists study living organisms and their relationship to the environment. They perform research to gain a better understanding of fundamental life processes or apply that understanding to developing new products or processes. Most specialize in one area of biology, such as zoology (the study of animals) or microbiology (the study of microscopic organisms). ..........
...................
.......snip.......
....................
(Agricultural and food scientists, sometimes referred to as biological scientists, are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook, as are medical scientists, whose work is closely related to that of biological scientists.)

Biological Scientists
In all those cases, you would have to maintain an internal lie if you did not accept the current facts of evolution. That would be dishonest.
Many of the facts used to support the theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their theories. In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.
byofrcs wrote:YEC style creationism and biology (as a whole field) are incompatible
Biology does not equal evolutionism (biology=evolutionism) any more than biology=creationism. Biology=Biology. The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #7

Post by Goat »

Fisherking wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote: A biologist that doesn't accept the theory of evolution is not a "biologist"
Incorrect! [-X
Biological scientists study living organisms and their relationship to the environment. They perform research to gain a better understanding of fundamental life processes or apply that understanding to developing new products or processes. Most specialize in one area of biology, such as zoology (the study of animals) or microbiology (the study of microscopic organisms). ..........
...................
.......snip.......
....................
(Agricultural and food scientists, sometimes referred to as biological scientists, are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook, as are medical scientists, whose work is closely related to that of biological scientists.)

Biological Scientists
In all those cases, you would have to maintain an internal lie if you did not accept the current facts of evolution. That would be dishonest.
Many of the facts used to support the theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their theories. In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.
byofrcs wrote:YEC style creationism and biology (as a whole field) are incompatible
Biology does not equal evolutionism (biology=evolutionism) any more than biology=creationism. Biology=Biology. The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.
Except , of course, that many of the 'fact's the falsify the 'creationist' arguments are totally ignored by the creationists. They do bad science, purposely, or through total ignorance, to try to prove a predetermined conclusion, and throw out any inconvenient information that destroys their preconceptions.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

steen
Scholar
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Upper Midwest

Post #8

Post by steen »

Fisherking wrote:Many of the facts used to support the theory of evolution
That would be THE SCIENTIFIC theory of Evolution. If you don't know the difference, then you truly are to ignorant to have this discussion.
are the same facts that creationists use to support their theories.
False. (Except of the use of "theory" here as mere speculation.)
In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.
Nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the Scientific Method. pathetic.
Biology does not equal evolutionism (biology=evolutionism) any more than biology=creationism. Biology=Biology.
And Biology = the Scientific Theory of Evolution as well.
The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.
There is no such thing as evolutionism, your false witnessing none withstanding.
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!"

byofrcs

Post #9

Post by byofrcs »

Fisherking wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
Fisherking wrote:
Rathpig wrote: A biologist that doesn't accept the theory of evolution is not a "biologist"
Incorrect! [-X
Biological scientists study living organisms and their relationship to the environment. They perform research to gain a better understanding of fundamental life processes or apply that understanding to developing new products or processes. Most specialize in one area of biology, such as zoology (the study of animals) or microbiology (the study of microscopic organisms). ..........
...................
.......snip.......
....................
(Agricultural and food scientists, sometimes referred to as biological scientists, are discussed elsewhere in the Handbook, as are medical scientists, whose work is closely related to that of biological scientists.)

Biological Scientists
In all those cases, you would have to maintain an internal lie if you did not accept the current facts of evolution. That would be dishonest.
Many of the facts used to support the theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their theories. In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.
byofrcs wrote:YEC style creationism and biology (as a whole field) are incompatible
Biology does not equal evolutionism (biology=evolutionism) any more than biology=creationism. Biology=Biology. The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.
I never said they were. I said they were incompatible. There is no such thing as "evolutionism". There is a Theory of Evolution which is the modern evolutionary synthesis and it has so many threads that the field of Biology makes no sense (Ref:Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973)) without the Theory of Evolution to help explain.

The Creation is a myth. It is NOT science as it is not predictive in the scientific sense. Theistic Evolution on the other hand is another separate matter that resolves the problem for biology and the issue of God.

The way to keep God whilst accepting the facts of Evolution is to agree with the idea of Theistic Evolution. This is what Christians in Europe and the rest of the free world (Australian, New Zealand etc) have done and the US is an anomaly in Christianity in that it sides with Islamic countries in a bias towards creation. Strange bedfellows indeed.

Fisherking

Post #10

Post by Fisherking »

steen wrote:
Fisherking wrote:Many of the facts used to support the theory of evolution
That would be THE SCIENTIFIC theory of Evolution.

:yawn:
Many of the facts used to support the [scientific] theory of evolution are the same facts that creationists use to support their [scientific]theories......

sounds good.
Fisherking wrote:are the same facts that creationists use to support their theories.
steen wrote:False
Nope, same facts.
Fisherking wrote:In almost every instance, "biologist" can do their job without even thinking about the theory of evolution.
steen wrote:Nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the Scientific Method. pathetic.
Now, to be something more than an emotional outburst, please show why this statement is nonsense claptrap and a display of utter and complete ignorance of the scientific method.
Fisherking wrote:Biology does not equal evolutionism (biology=evolutionism) any more than biology=creationism. Biology=Biology.
steen wrote:And Biology = the Scientific Theory of Evolution as well.
bi·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: \bī-ˈä-lə-jē\
Function: noun
Etymology: German Biologie, from bi- + -logie -logy
Date: 1819
1: a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes
2 a: the plant and animal life of a region or environment b: the life processes especially of an organism or group;
evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1: one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a: a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b: the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d: something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing
4 a: the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Nope, biology and evolution are not the same thing.
Fisherking wrote: The incompatibility I think you are seeing is between creationism and evolutionism, not biology.
steen wrote:There is no such thing as evolutionism, your false witnessing none withstanding.
Sure there is:

evolutionism

NOUN:

1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.

Evolutionism - Broad Strokes

Post Reply