1. Comment #215411 by Tom Coward on July 21, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Hitch does it again! Yet another interesting take on a point of fact that has been 'seen' before many times, but now shows another facet.

Other Comments by Tom Coward

2. Comment #215413 by Roland_F on July 21, 2008 at 8:42 pm

The entire evolution tree is teeming with 'stupid design' so why is an eye 'designed' from an almighty creator backwards and then disabled for creatures living in darkness.
But of course God moves in mysterious ways.

And the end of the solar system when the sun blows up as a red giant, the accelerating expansion of the universe and the utter waste of nearly the entire universe to create extremely small pockets of environments suitable for life all doesn't make any sense for an almighty creator.
But theist will have still some excused up their sleeves and promise eternal salvation even from the heat death of the universe , you only have to following their specific cult and give power and influence to their priests and even the end of planet earth is no problem for the faithful.

Other Comments by Roland_F

3. Comment #215421 by Fire1974 on July 21, 2008 at 9:11 pm

It's amazing how you can show these salamanders to creationists and they will still persist in their indignant foolishness.

You'd think THEY were the ones with the useless ocular cavities!

Or perhaps it's their cranial cavities that are vestigial?

Other Comments by Fire1974

4. Comment #215424 by belacaleb on July 21, 2008 at 9:20 pm

I wonder here why we would consider vestigialism to be a "backwards progression"? Seems to me that it's another case of selection according to environmental change...When an organism doesn't need to see, it's energy can be used better elsewhere in the organism so those using less energy to support an unnecessary eye mechanism thrive a little better and so evolve that way. Trying to rely on eye-sight in a dark environment could be a bane as well etc...ciao

Other Comments by belacaleb

5. Comment #215432 by Roland_F on July 21, 2008 at 10:20 pm

4. Comment #215424 by belacaleb : I wonder here why we would consider vestigialism to be a "backwards progression"?

Of course the energy saving of not investing into useless eyes in the dark is a selection advantage, otherwise it would not be the path of evolution.
The point is here against the all-knowing perfect designer/creator, who creates a rudimentary eye instead no eye at all when there is no need for an eye.

Other Comments by Roland_F

6. Comment #215433 by King of NH on July 21, 2008 at 10:27 pm

The mistaken view of 'backward' evolution does disprove the hand of god, but explaining the error also helps those who are eager to understand evolution see it for what it truely is - unguided with no goal. Humans are not an apex of evolution, but a unique roll of dice, and as Einstein argued, god couldn't have rolled them (I know I am misquoting Einstein with that). The next step in human evolution could resemble Lucy, as today it seems the stupid people breed in much larger numbers than smart ones.

Another example of 'reverse' evolution is the domestic dog. While it evolved further along the timeline than it's wild ancestor, it has less strength, stamina, and intelligence. New research points to these adaptations beginning before becoming fully domesticated, making it evolution by natural selection, a selecting for dogs more able to mingle with humans, and then live with humans (in other words, unlike most domesticates, dogs and humans domesticated one another, so to speak, for mutual benefit). Evolution can Select for a dumming down when that is part of the genetic package that best suits the needs of the species.

Other Comments by King of NH

7. Comment #215435 by Roy_H on July 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm

There are dozens of examples of "backwards progression" e.g. flightless birds.Why would a god create a bird with useless wings?

Other Comments by Roy_H

8. Comment #215439 by debaser71 on July 21, 2008 at 11:07 pm

It's "explained" by creationists because salamaders, even blind cave dwelling ones, are still salamanders. They are of the same "kind". "We don't see salamanders turning into bats!"

Other Comments by debaser71

9. Comment #215440 by SteveN on July 21, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Ronald_F wrote in post #5:

Of course the energy saving of not investing into useless eyes in the dark is a selection advantage, otherwise it would not be the path of evolution.

This is undoubtedly true, but an even stronger driving force is probably the fact that the eye is particularly susceptible to injury and infection.

Other Comments by SteveN

10. Comment #215443 by Roel on July 21, 2008 at 11:24 pm

4. Comment #215424 by belacaleb : I wonder here why we would consider vestigialism to be a "backwards progression"?

Why would we consider evolution to be progression in the first place? Progression is a value judgement, not a scientific concept. Only conscious, intelligent beings judge. Nature doesn't.

Other Comments by Roel

11. Comment #215448 by nalfeshnee on July 21, 2008 at 11:53 pm

This is undoubtedly true, but an even stronger driving force is probably the fact that the eye is particularly susceptible to injury and infection.

Thank you! I had often struggled to see how the selection pressure of "not investing resources in a useless appendage" could really produce such a drastic reduction in an organ - even allowing for long time scales.

But bring in the picture of fully-eyed salamanders bumping into things in the dark and then dying horribly as their (useless) eyes become infected and the selection pressure ramps up quite considerably.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

12. Comment #215449 by beanson on July 22, 2008 at 12:11 am

re the last paragraph of Hitchens' article

I don't see that the question "why is there something rather than nothing" is a theistic one at all actually (certainly not in it's interesting form).

It seems to me one of the most humanly baffling things there is to ponder and if one wants a purely non-theistic numinous thrill one should muse upon it like a Zen monk would a koan

Other Comments by beanson

13. Comment #215473 by bluecastle on July 22, 2008 at 1:39 am

And what about the appendix (blind gut). What is it good for? Does anybody know of some benefits?
And the intervertebral disc is really a weak point, doesn't look like intelligent design. Hope this will evolve in the next million years to something more reliable

Other Comments by bluecastle

14. Comment #215478 by ridelo on July 22, 2008 at 1:47 am

The getting rid of eyesight will have been a very gradual process. Gradually they would rely on other capabilities to find their way and food in ever darker caverns. It would be interesting to investigate what they use for that. But I suppose that is already been done. Somebody knows about that?

Other Comments by ridelo

15. Comment #215482 by Szymanowski on July 22, 2008 at 2:09 am

This isn't macroevolution, it's adaptation


:D

The salamanders haven't given birth to eagles, they're still salamanders!!!!1111one!

Other Comments by Szymanowski

16. Comment #215487 by j.mills on July 22, 2008 at 2:29 am

Limerick Summary News Service!

That the cave salamander is blind
Shows the merciful turn of God's mind,
For who'd want to see
Creepy-crawlies for tea?
Keeping Sal in the dark is so kind!

Other Comments by j.mills

17. Comment #215494 by nickthelight on July 22, 2008 at 2:47 am

I had thought along similar lines after watching Planet Earth. However I thought it so blindingly obvious (no pun intended) that it was not worth stating.

Other Comments by nickthelight

18. Comment #215498 by Apathy personified on July 22, 2008 at 2:58 am

During an 'animated' discussion of religion and god last night, i came up with a vague new definition.

god - 'The limit on imagination that humans create'

Existence is far more interesting than it would be if there was a 'magic hermaphrodite sky elf'.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

19. Comment #215500 by ridelo on July 22, 2008 at 2:59 am

nickthelight:

Reading the text on your avatar is impossible and I'm dying to know what Tintin says.

Other Comments by ridelo

20. Comment #215501 by DamnDirtyApe on July 22, 2008 at 3:02 am

1 to the long list of Short snappy comebacks...

'So how do you explain the eye then? How'd that come about?'

'I'll go one better. Why are there blind cave salamanders that have eye sockets but no eyes?'

'aah god must have punished the salamanders like he did the snakes!'

... I still think there are people we are never going to convince. They are basically mad.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

21. Comment #215505 by Sconnor on July 22, 2008 at 3:09 am

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Of course, this quote is always taken out of context. Darwin was making a rhetorical comment, saying, yes this is odd, but indeed, it happened and then concludes with the rest of the quote, how it's possible for light-sensitive cells could become eyes over time.

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility." --Darwin

Other Comments by Sconnor

22. Comment #215515 by Jamie V on July 22, 2008 at 3:35 am

I'm always pleased to see a new article by Christopher Hitchens, and this one doesn't disappoint.

Whoever benefits from this inquiry, it cannot possibly be Coulter or her patrons at the creationist Discovery Institute. The most they can do is to intone that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty.

I'm not so naive as to think that hardcore creationists won't disagree, but if one looks at the above article dispassionately on the whole issue of evolution versus design, surely this point is CONCLUSIVE in favour of evolution.

Existence is far more interesting than it would be if there was a 'magic hermaphrodite sky elf'

I am proud to associate myself 100% with this comment.

Other Comments by Jamie V

23. Comment #215519 by Hellene on July 22, 2008 at 3:39 am

Tadpoles.

It's all there.

Egg, gills, legs, lungs.

From "Fish" to "walking" animal.

I point that out to the YEC's and say;

"there's your transitional species, right under your nose"!

Other Comments by Hellene

24. Comment #215526 by Vaal on July 22, 2008 at 3:52 am

Hellene

Not to mention the overwhelming fossil evidence of transitional species of the Homo genus. Several trees of Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalis, Archaic Homo Sapiens etc etc..

17. Comment #215494 by nickthelight

I had thought along similar lines after watching Planet Earth. However I thought it so blindingly obvious (no pun intended) that it was not worth stating

Totally agree. Evolution doesn't go backwards or forwards, it fits itself best to the environment it finds itself in. In NZ birds became flightless, as they had no natural predators. Flying is expensive, so why have it, if not necessary. The flightless birds in NZ were very successful (until the advent of man), and the flightless Moa grew to 12 foot tall. Man, I would have LOVED to have seen a Moa. What a tragedy they were hunted to extinction, and so recently. It makes me nash my teeth in frustration!

EDIT: I hope future generations will not be equally as angry when they say "WHY did we not do more to stop this massive extinction event we are responsible for"

Other Comments by Vaal

25. Comment #215528 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 22, 2008 at 3:58 am

Nice bitchslap of Ann Coulter by the Hitch *grins* Admitedly, this is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope, but it's still fun.

As regards evolutionary progress, I do agree with Richard Dawkins that there is a kind of progress, a tendency towards ever greater complexity, total. That is, once cyanobacteria produced Oxygen as a waste product, the basis for oxygen-breathers was laid. The deaths of plants created the topsoil from which new forms could grow. They also provide a new niche for grazers, who in turn provided a niche for predators, and all of them are niches for diseases and parasites, and these are food in turn - and so the structure schaukles upward.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

26. Comment #215531 by bachfiend on July 22, 2008 at 4:04 am

I regard vision to be more easily explained than olfaction. Humans, after all, only have three types of colour receptor cones and one type of photoreceptor rod, whereas there are about 1000 different smell receptors (comprising 3% of the genome, most of which are inactivated, explaining partly why humans have such a puny sense of smell). Dolphins and whales have no sense of smell; they still have the genes, but all have mutated and none are active (which would be expected from the evolutionary history of cetaceans). Vision and olfaction (amongst other functions) rely on a G-protein coupled receptor, which is just a way of getting information across a cell membrane (in these cases) to generate an electrical stimulus along a nerve ending to the brain. The different sorts of receptors would just arise through duplication of the original gene followed by mutations. Presumably eucaryotes have simpler versions (after all, even bacteria need to "know" what's happening in its enviroment too).

Other Comments by bachfiend

27. Comment #215542 by AdrianB on July 22, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #215519 by Hellene

Tadpoles.

It's all there.

Egg, gills, legs, lungs.

From "Fish" to "walking" animal.

I point that out to the YEC's and say;

"there's your transitional species, right under your nose"!

Agreed.

Watch an animated sequence of the fetal development of an embryo from fertilization through pregnancy to birth. And then watch an animated sequence of the evolutionary development of a species of animal.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q55z6EsL8M&feature=related

Quite frankly, I find little difference except time. In fact the very idea of fetal development would be much harder to believe if it wasn't for the fact that we can observe it.


.

Other Comments by AdrianB

28. Comment #215551 by jaytee_555 on July 22, 2008 at 5:43 am

Like 'nickthelight' (see comment 250494), I was rather surprised that someone as well-informed as Hitch had not previously known about this.

I've always thought the existence of cave dwelling blind salamanders (and shrimps, fish, etc) was one of the more obvious demonstrations of the fact of evolution. That some animals changed their modus operandi, and began to make their living in total darkness and stopped wasting their resources on redundant eyes, is an easy-to-grasp concept. Indeed I have used this example in many conversations with creationists for over 50 years. More recently, I have used it with good effect in discussing evolution with my grandkids.

I'm quite surprised that such a basic concept has only recently occured to Hitchins.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

29. Comment #215552 by Dhamma on July 22, 2008 at 5:45 am

I just skimmed it through, so I'll re-read it soon.

I just wondered if it's not supposed to be in the "featured"-section? I thought everything from the Four Horsemen were to go in that section.

Or maybe they found Hitchens to be a little too overwhelmed for no good reason?

Other Comments by Dhamma

30. Comment #215559 by KRKBAB on July 22, 2008 at 6:03 am

The very first thing that struck me was- How is this a revelation to Hitchens? Yes, I know, literature is his thing, but even I don't find the eye socket salamanders to be surprising NEW evidence. Very strange, almost as if Hitch is losing his wit. Alzheimers? Lets hope not. I think the illusion that humans are progressing in their evolution towards perfection is simply because we are slowly adapting (perfecting, if you will) to our environment that hasn't changed all that much in 3 or 4 million years. No?

Other Comments by KRKBAB

31. Comment #215563 by Apathy personified on July 22, 2008 at 6:12 am

I think the point that 'the Hitch' is making is that this is the first time it dawned on him that the salamanders are evidence AGAINST an intelligent designer - for a nature that abhors waste, why design with vestigial eyes?

Don't be surprised if other people who are experts in their own field don't have perfect knowledge of other areas - he could have read up a lot about evolution, but never about these salamanders - so it shouldn't be surprising that 'the Hitch' doesn't know every detail about all things in evolutionary biology.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

32. Comment #215574 by Dhamma on July 22, 2008 at 6:30 am

So I didn't misread. He's just saying life can evolve "back", or in a different shape that doesn't seem progressive. Sure, here you can actually see that the salamanders clearly have had eyes, but how could that logic ever be something new?

Is his point much different from the classic example of the whale? First it was on land and then walked back and now you can clearly see they're mammals from the way they swim, similar to the way we walk?

I know exceptionally little about the evolution, but I'm about to receive a copy of the selfish gene in a few days. I hope it'll teach me lots.

Other Comments by Dhamma

33. Comment #215575 by squinky on July 22, 2008 at 6:32 am

Hellene: nice argument. I like it a lot.

As much as I love Hitch and devour all of his essays, he is way behind the curve on this one. It's harly a new argument that the evolution of once functioning organs into vestiges isn't an ass-kicking argument against design.

Some snakes drag tiny, unfunctioning hindlegs and others only have a spur where they once were. Flightless birds, caveblind fish and salamanders, blind mole rats, hind limb bones in whales, etc...

This is to say nothing about exaption which is perhaps an even more powerful evolutionary mechanism that is devastating to Creationists' shitspeak.

Other Comments by squinky

34. Comment #215590 by Hellene on July 22, 2008 at 6:55 am

Ok.

You all have inspired me.

New Avatar.

Other Comments by Hellene

35. Comment #215607 by David J on July 22, 2008 at 7:30 am

King of NH (#6 above): where did you read all that on dogs? I'm intrigued.

Other Comments by David J

36. Comment #215611 by AmericanGodless on July 22, 2008 at 7:40 am

I think Hitch does have a point that differs from that of Richard and of most here that are commenting. Hitch's background is literature, which is rooted in storytelling. Religion is also rooted in storytelling. Hitch is making a point about the story, not the science. Richard sees it as a question rooted in material inheritance: "Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?" Hitch sees, rather, the Coulter point: "The interesting question is: How did the 'light-sensitive cells' come to exist in the first place?" What he understands is that from the creationist point of view this is not a question of material mechanism, but an important plot-point of the story. The cells are light sensitive because the Divine Intelligence understands that animals (and more importantly, human beings) will need sight in order to observe and appreciate God's Creation and so to glorify God.

Hitch's point is that the "story" of creation is one (written by human beings) that wishes to see everything as a progression toward human beings, and their progress toward God's glory. He asks the creationist to explain why it is that God has created light-sensitive cells and eyes, only to then wipe them out. Going on from that, he asks those who would wish to write the history of life on Earth as a glorification of an all-seeing intelligence, to explain "Why will our brief 'something' so soon be replaced with nothing?" Why create stars that support small pockets where life can form, only to have those stars explode and wipe it all out? Why create a world of brilliant glory, and living beings to be awed by that glory, only to have that "glory" burn those beings to ashes? The point is, it's a lousy story, but makes perfect sense as a series of material events that just happened to happen.

I like Steven Weinberg's way of putting it. The story of life is a tragedy, but our ability to know and understand that real story, through science, helps to elevate it to at least the level of farce.

EDIT: Actually, just the opposite (elevates it FROM the level of farce): "The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things which lifts human life a little above the level of farce and gives it some of the grace of tragedy."

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

37. Comment #215618 by ThomasB on July 22, 2008 at 7:54 am

Well it's great that Planet Earth helped Hitch connect a few dots. I hope this immensely popular programme will do the same for many others. I also thought RD was appropriately generous in his written reply.

I can't see how this example could illuminate the world view of a blinkered creationist, when other examples of bad design abound.

When asked why a loving god would create poison ivy, a creationist in Kansas answered thusly:


On poison ivy etc, in the Judaeo-Christian context, we should note the Apostle Paul's remark in Rom 8:19 - 25, i.e creation now is not as it should be -- we live in a fallen, sin-cursed world -- but in God's due time, God will restore all things. And, God's motive is MERCY: giving us a chance to turn back from wrong and rebellion to good and love.


If poison ivy can be seen as evidence of a fallen, sin-cursed world, then lineages of secondarily blind salamanders should be even easier to explain.

Other Comments by ThomasB

38. Comment #215636 by bugaboo on July 22, 2008 at 8:15 am

23. Comment #215519 by Hellene

Pedant Alert:

Please take care. These are not transitional forms but stages of development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#cite_note-Gilbert-0

Other Comments by bugaboo

39. Comment #215652 by Border Collie on July 22, 2008 at 8:30 am

Althogh I'm a normal, healthy, straight male, and even though she's an attractive blonde, just the mention of Ann Coulter makes my skin crawl.

Other Comments by Border Collie

40. Comment #215664 by Hellene on July 22, 2008 at 8:39 am

23. Comment #215519 by Hellene

Pedant Alert:

Please take care. These are not transitional forms but stages of development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory#cite_note-Gilbert-0



While this is true, I'm thinking of the phrase;
"Ontology recapitulates phylology".

It's an analogy.

You know.

Something simple minds can relate to.

Other Comments by Hellene

41. Comment #215679 by ThomasB on July 22, 2008 at 8:50 am

Hellene,

That phrase "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" certainly is catchy.

Indeed my undergraduate vertebrate anatomy professor liked it well enough and we all dutifully scribbled it into our notes. You can certainly be forgiven for repeating it in this thread.

Alas it's not true and worse, it's misleading. I can't see how it can do better service as an analogy.

Bugaboo's (comment 38, above) link provides a concise explanation.

Other Comments by ThomasB

42. Comment #215681 by bugaboo on July 22, 2008 at 8:52 am

Hellene

Its just that the whole phylogeny ontology recapitulation theory of Haekels has really bugged me for years. Its wrong, and it had some nasty adherents.

Other Comments by bugaboo

43. Comment #215687 by Clan/Rewired on July 22, 2008 at 8:57 am

Attractive? Seriously?

Other Comments by Clan/Rewired

44. Comment #215701 by Nathanial_BB on July 22, 2008 at 9:08 am

To comment 13 Bluecastle - #215473

Regarding the appendix and its uselessness...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-appendix-does-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277.html

Not sure if this has be corroborated but interesting, non the less...

Other Comments by Nathanial_BB

45. Comment #215703 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 9:09 am

Creationists will never accept any such arguments. At least not the really deep seeded ones. The problem is with their original premise "goddidit". So this means that it is impossible that he didn't do it. So no matter the absurd, ad hoc'd ludicrously ridiculously improbable and idiotic explanation they come up with for why god did it that way, it will always be (in their minds) more probable than the impossiblility that god didn't do it.

It is like the idea of "irreducible complexity" which postulates that there is a level of complexity that could not come about naturally. So they find things that they deem to have this level of complexity in nature. Instead of this falsifying their original premise, they deem it supernatural. Because of their original assumption.

It isn't like their position is illogical, starting from their premises, but they are completely unsound, and unjustified premises.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

46. Comment #215705 by Buckle.of.the.Belt on July 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

Hey guys,
First Comment for me Woohoo...
I've been just reading on this site forever and figured if I was actually going to learn anything I better start interacting.
I especially love catching little articles like this. I'm very young in my studies of evolution. In my high school growing up, we actually had disclaimer cards in the science text books warning against the theory of evolution.
I really should read some of Dawkin's writings on this subject. I only recently accepted that I didnt believe in a God let alone the Christian God that I spent 7 years in ministry serviing.
I have a lot to learn and catch up on.
So I look forward to some good convo's with you guys.
Thanks for the knowledge Mr. Hitchens.

Other Comments by Buckle.of.the.Belt

47. Comment #215729 by severalspeciesof on July 22, 2008 at 9:31 am

Buckle.of.the.Belt,

Welcome to the ride. If you are really interested in finding out more about evolution go no further than 'Unweaving the Rainbow' and 'The Blind Watch Maker' Both written by Richard Dawkins. And if you've got any friends who might be slightly interested but afraid to look into evolution because of their belief system, lead them to Ken Miller's 'Finding Darwin's God' as sort of a buffer from the thought that belief in evolution will automatically bring you to atheism. Hope this helps, and good luck.
[EDIT] 'The Ancestor's Tale' (also by Dawkins) is another good source, but it is very long.

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

48. Comment #215735 by kkelly on July 22, 2008 at 9:35 am

Am I missing something? What is so clever about Hitchens' realization? Vestigial organs have been seen as evidence of evolution since before Darwin.

Other Comments by kkelly

49. Comment #215736 by BicycleRepairMan on July 22, 2008 at 9:35 am

Losing the eyes is not a step backwards, its just natural selection, it is "costly" to produce perfect eyes, and in a pitch black cave there is no environment that punishes those with less-than-perfect eyesight, therefore "losing" their eyes is actually a form of progress, rather than a loss.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

50. Comment #215737 by Mitchell Gilks on July 22, 2008 at 9:35 am

47. Comment #215729 by severalspeciesof

Yes, indeed, not automatic. It sneaks up on you. muahahahaha.

49. Comment #215736 by BicycleRepairMan

I believe they only mean "backwards" in that they have reverted to ancestrial traits, or morphologies.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks