Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8122 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2014 7:49 AM
100 online now:
NoNukes, Percy (Admin) (2 members, 98 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 736,209 Year: 22,050/28,606 Month: 1,137/1,410 Week: 339/524 Day: 6/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Author Topic:   Peppered Moths and Natural Selection
nwr
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 256 of 346 (362274)
11-06-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
11-06-2006 8:44 PM


Re: Too-long lines problem fixed
See Message 140 for an explanation of what was fixed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2006 8:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 257 of 346 (362281)
11-06-2006 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by MartinV
11-05-2006 11:48 AM


Back around again ... this has already been covered, eh?
Typica alleles should have been created by mutation during industrialization. I would like see if the pollution would have made green or blue sooths, it there would be also mutation in this color.

No mutation was involved in the natural selection of one variety of already existing moth over the other variety of already existing moth.

Environment does not cause mutations to match the environment.

But then ratio between heterozygotes without any selective predation after 100 years will be 1:0,36

Without selective predation pressure, the genetic equilibrium would be 25% homozygous carbonaria, 50% heterozygous carbonaria, and 25% homozygous typica, with 50% carbonaria alleles and 50% typica alleles.

With selective predation on typica varieties, the ratio of homozygous carbonaria to heterozygous carbonaria depends on a lot of factors that are not documented, including proportion consumed prior to reproductive success and on gene flow between adjacent populations always importing heterozygous moths into areas with depleted typica alleles (like water flowing downhill).

After 100 years\generations, it can easily vary from (37.1%/84.7=43.8% homozygous carbonaria) / (47.6%/84.7=56.2% heterozygous carbonaria) when only 1% of typica are consumed prior to reproductive success (with remaining 14.3% typica consumed after) ...

... to (96% homozygous carbonaria)/(4% heterozygous carbonaria) when 50% of typica moths are consumed prior to reproductive success.

The cause for the absence of typica moths from the samples collected is preferential predation by birds.

The cause for the shift in proportions of typica alleles from 50% of the population in one without any preferential predation pressure to either of those levels above is preferential predation by birds.

And we do not know when and where mating occurs and how are selection effective before/after mating.

And this really doesn't matter for us to know that (a) the cause for the absence of typica moths from the samples collected is preferential predation by birds, and (b) the cause for the shift in proportions of typica alleles from 50% of the population for one without any preferential predation pressure to either of those levels above is preferential predation by birds.

In any case selective predation seems to have no dramatic influence as to the typica, while it recovers own population in short time after change of environment, so selection seems to be incapable to reverse population into typica and vice versa.

Yes, changing from 99% typica 1% carbonaria to 1% typica 99% carbonaria and then from 1% typica 99% carbonaria to 99% typica 1% carbonaria is not dramatic at all. :rolleyes:

Again, the genetic equilibrium population proportions in the absence of any preferential selective mechanism is 25% homozygous carbonaria, 50% heterozygous carbonaria, and 25% homozygous typica, so any population that is NOT at those levels is being subject to preferential selection = preferential predation by birds in this case.

The recovery of typica variety to 25% of the population is all that can happen without the assistance of preferential predation -- no matter how many generations it takes, no matter what reservoir the typica alleles come from.

How rapid the recovery is initiated is a matter of how much typica alleles were still existing in the reproductive reservoir of the populations, ...

... and with the possibility of non-polluted populations moving into non-polluted environments the apparent recovery rate can be higher ...

... but the final result - typica variety moths at ~99% of the post-pollution population - is still due to preferential predation of (now) carbonaria variety moths by birds.

No matter how you slice the data, preferential predation plays a significant role in the observed proportions of typica and carbonaria moths in pre-industrial, industrial polluted and post industrial polluted areas.

In any case neodarwinism as to the selection would be right, no?

Those best able to survive and reproduce pass their genes to the next generation. That is all natural selection does - distinguish between those BETTER able to survive and reproduce and those LESS able to survive and reproduce. It does not matter WHAT that fitness feature is, just that it be existing within the population under selection pressure.

Yet mechanism of hidden alleles which were previously succesfull in heteroyzgotes seems to me be very good device how not to react headless to change of environment.

The genes don't even need to be that "hidden" - it depends on the degree of selection pressure involved: if only 1% were consumed prior to reproductive success there is still an effect on the population, and you would still have 15.3% of the preferential predation consumed typica moths in a generation after 100 years\generations. This is a drop from 25% for genetic equilibrium, or 60% of the equilibrium value: this is still natural selection.

Natural selection only needs SOME proportion of the population to be preferentially selected for it to have an effect on the proportions of alleles within the overall population/

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by MartinV, posted 11-05-2006 11:48 AM MartinV has not yet responded

  
JohnnyHads
Inactive Junior Member


Message 258 of 346 (362542)
11-08-2006 2:16 AM


So wait a minute here
Is the original post claiming that if the population of moths becomes mainly black, or mainly white because of natural selection (survival of the fittest) that its an example of evolution??

Surely black moth > white moth isnt evolution in any educated persons mind.

moth = moth

If so, questions must be asked to help the ignorant find common sense. Such as:

Can this moth create a non moth?

Did the white moth cohabit with the black moth before the population changes due to the industrial revolution?

If these questions beg for yes answers, then either Im not geting the point of the original post about peppered moths or I AM getting the point and its author is ignorant and brainwahsed for someones personal agenda.


Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Wounded King, posted 11-08-2006 4:41 AM JohnnyHads has not yet responded
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2006 8:03 AM JohnnyHads has not yet responded
 Message 262 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2007 11:00 AM JohnnyHads has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 526 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 259 of 346 (362556)
11-08-2006 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by JohnnyHads
11-08-2006 2:16 AM


Re: So wait a minute here
You're not getting the point.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by JohnnyHads, posted 11-08-2006 2:16 AM JohnnyHads has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 260 of 346 (362592)
11-08-2006 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by JohnnyHads
11-08-2006 2:16 AM


Re: So wait a minute here ... what, for someone who didn't read the thread?
Welcome to the fray JohnnyHads

Is the original post claiming that if the population of moths becomes mainly black, or mainly white because of natural selection (survival of the fittest) that its an example of evolution??

The OP clearly states that this is an example of natural selection. Natural selection is a part of evolution, but does not include all of the mechanisms involved.

Did the white moth cohabit with the black moth before the population changes due to the industrial revolution?

Yes, they were previously existing varieties of the moths, with the carbonaria (that's "black" for you, although "dark" is much more accurate) in much smaller proportions than typica (that's "white" for you, although "light" is much more accurate).

Natural selection operates on existing variations within a population, letting those better able to survive to live and pass on their genetic patterns to the next generation.

... or I AM getting the point and its author is ignorant and brainwahsed for someones personal agenda.

LOL. Nothing like starting your career here with an open ad hominum insult that is in violation of the board rules.

Surely black moth > white moth isnt evolution in any educated persons mind.
moth = moth
Can this moth create a non moth?

Speciation is evolution, and it has been observed. Species will always be members of whatever group their ancestors were members of.

Creating something unrelated from one species or another is an ignorant creationist straw man argument and has nothing to do with the theories of evolution.

If so, questions must be asked to help the ignorant find common sense.

Ask away, and we'll be happy to help.

Or you could start by reading the entire thread first, then go back and ask questions on parts you still don't understand.

Enjoy

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by JohnnyHads, posted 11-08-2006 2:16 AM JohnnyHads has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2826
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 261 of 346 (418448)
08-28-2007 8:23 AM


Differential bird predation "once again supported by empirical evidence"
That's the conclusion of a new study by Michael Majerus, specifically designed to test the bird predation hypothesis.

A PDF transcription of his talk about it at ESEB in Uppsala is available at The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution. Hopfully the PowerPoint slides will be available soon and, of course, we look forward to a peer-reviewed publication.

The Panda's Thumb has a blurb at Peppered Moths: We Told You So.


  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 346 (418469)
08-28-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by JohnnyHads
11-08-2006 2:16 AM


Re: So wait a minute here
Can this moth create a non moth?

Can a member of your family ever give birth to someone who isn't in your family?

We use words like "moth" to describe families of organisms. By definition, their decendants must always be a part of that family. What usually happens is that a word like "moth", over time, describes so many different shapes of organism that we begin sub-dividing the term.

That's what happened with the word "mammal", in a way. Originally, "mammal" described a certain kind of hairy lizard:

but as that organism had decendants, and those decendants were shaped by natural selection and random mutation - which we see going on now in moths - the word "mammal" came to describe many very different organisms:

Do you see what I mean? Originally there was one sort of mammal, one sort of insect. Over time, the number of different sorts of organisms expanded within those terms so that they became very broad categories of organism, but once they might have been as specific as "golden-crested wood finch" might be, now.

Once there was only one sort of moth. Now there are very many sorts of moths, via evolution. The number of sorts of moths might increase to the point where the term "moth" is so broad we stop using it altogether, and we describe some of those decendants as so distantly related that we don't even bother to call them "moths" anymore.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by JohnnyHads, posted 11-08-2006 2:16 AM JohnnyHads has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3249
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 263 of 346 (418571)
08-29-2007 1:06 AM


Peppered Moth at Panda's Thumb
There's a new discussion of the state of the art things Peppered Moth at Panda's Thumb:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/peppered_moths.html#more

For whatever it's worth, there's also another Peppered Moth topic at . It's Wells' Icons of Evolution - Peppered Moths.

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by JonF, posted 08-29-2007 7:53 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 2826
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 264 of 346 (418594)
08-29-2007 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Minnemooseus
08-29-2007 1:06 AM


Re: Peppered Moth at Panda's Thumb
There's a new discussion of the state of the art things Peppered Moth at Panda's Thumb

Beat'cha to it! Message 261.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-29-2007 1:06 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2826
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 265 of 346 (418937)
08-31-2007 8:57 AM


PPT file and data now available
Now both Majerus' script and PowerPoint presentation are available at Majerus Lab Evolutionary Genetics Group. Some highlights:

quote:
The additional experiment that has been done addresses the question of bat predation. This arose directly from Hopper’s book, for it reveals Hooper’s lack of understanding of Darwinian selection. Hooper (2002, p. 270) raises the question of bats as predators of peppered moths. She states that “Kettlewell himself admitted that they {bats} probably accounted for 90% of the predation of adult moths.”
By e-mail in 2000, she pointed out to me that Kettlewell had “said that this didn’t matter because it wasn’t selective—ergo, even if only 10% of the predation was by birds hunting by sight, that 10% is what makes the difference and drives evolution”. Hooper thought that there were flaws in this argument and asked me about this.
By phone I said I agreed with Kettlewell and explained why (Hooper, 2002, p. 270). But not understanding how selection operates, Hooper didn’t get it, and concludes, ‘Can we really be sure that bat predation is not selective….?'




Predation by bats

Form

Flew and lost

Did not fly

Caught by bats

a) Camb. 2003

carbonaria

114

35

51

typica

107

39

54

b) Camb. 2004

carbonaria

104

43

53

typica

117

36

47

c) New Forest 2005

carbonaria

100

39

61

typica

95

32

73

d) Leeds 2005

carbonaria

126

31

43

typica

132

31

37


quote:
From the data shown here, it is obvious that there are no significant differences in the predation of the two forms. Across the four runs, 208 carbonaria and 211 typica were taken.
So pipistrelle bats do not show differential selection of typica compared to carbonaria or viceversa.

quote:
During the main predation experiment, I have had occasion to spend time carefully scrutinizing the trunks, branches and twigs of a limited set of trees at the experimental site. During this time I have found 135 peppered moths, resting in what I have no reason to presume are not their freely chosen natural resting sites.
The position of each moth was scored for resting site (trunk, branch, twig); height above ground; on trunks, north or south half; on branches, top or bottom half. Sex and form of each moth was also recorded.


Where peppered moths rest by day (2001-2006)

Trunks

Branches

Twigs

Totals

Males

28

40

11

79

Females

20

30

6

56

Totals

48

70

17

135


quote:
Results (2001-2006) are that:
i) The majority (50.4%) of moths rest on lateral branches
ii) That of the moths on lateral branches, the majority (89%) rest on the lower half of the branch
iii) That a significant proportion of moths (37%) do rest on tree trunks
iv) That of those that rest on trunks, the majority (86.8%) rest on the north, rather than the south half.
v) That a minority of moths (12.6%) rest under or among twigs
vi) That there was no significant difference in the resting sites of males and females.
vii) There was no significant differences in the resting sites used by typica, carbonaria or insularia forms.

And here are some of the moths.
While the results may be somewhat biased towards lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique, I believe that they give the best field evidence that we have to date of where peppered moths spend the day.



Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge


Click to enlarge

quote:
When you see moths like this, they are fairly easy to see. However, I have, through this work, come to understand why Clarke et al. (1985) wrote, ‘In 25 years we have only found two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps and none elsewhere”. So, Can you see it?


Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

quote:
The basic results of the predation experiment are shown here, with the numbers of moths of each form available for predation and the numbers eaten given. The bottom line is that a significantly greater proportion of carbonaria were eaten than typica.
A number of species of bird were observed preying on the moths: These included: robins, hedge sparrows, a lesser-spotted woodpecker, great tits, blue tits, blackbirds, starlings, wrens and magpies.




Numbers of the two forms available
for predation and predated (2002-2007)

Year

Numbers available for predators

Numbers eaten

typica

carbonaria

typica

carbonaria

2002

706

101

162

31

2003

731

82

204

24

2004

751

53

128

17

2005

763

58

166

18

2006

774

34

145

6

2007

797

14

158

4


Predation (4) selection coefficients
selection coefficient against carbonaria compared to typica

Year

Expected selection against
carb. based on form frequency
differences between years

Observed selection against
carb. from selection
experiment

2001

0.239

Not done

2002

0.337

0.252

2003

-0.096

0.046

2004

0.435

0.469

2005

0.63

0.299

2006

0.13

-0.061

2007

predicti on

0.306


quote:
  • Average selection against carbonaria from form frequency data = 0.286
  • Average selection against carbonaria from predation experiment = 0.219
  • Correlation coefficient for expected compared to observed for years 2002-2006 = 0.75169

From the data, the selection coefficient needed to account for the decline in carbonaria frequency for each year between 2001 and 2007 can be compared to the selection coefficient observed in the predation experiment for each year 2002-2007. Here, were bird predation to be a causative factor of changes in carbonaria frequency, compared to typica, the observed frequency in one year should be a consequence of the predation the previous year. So, I do not have predation data to account for changes from 2001-2, and the predation observed in 2007, should be predictive of frequencies in 2008.
However, we can look at two things here. First, the average selection against carbonaria over the period is not very different between that gained from the form frequency data and that observed in the predation experiment.
Second, the correlation between these for the five years for which we can make the comparison (that’s 2002-2006) is rather high.
I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007.
So Tutt’s hypothesis stands, and is once again supported by empirical evidence.


Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : Slight table formatting cleanup


Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by MartinV, posted 09-06-2007 1:01 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 266 of 346 (420066)
09-06-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by JonF
08-31-2007 8:57 AM


Re: PPT file and data now available
The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case. I'll check the Majerus work on the issue later.

As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest.

In the previous Majerus research he presented a picture, where typica resting on some kind of lichens was unconspicuous in normal light, but very conspicuous in UV light.

On the other hand I dont know about eating behaviour of the birds. Do they noticing one piece of moth flies towards it from other tree immediately? Just to pick one moth from the tree-trunk? Or do they eat everything on the place they are sitting at? In that case the bird will notice all mimics and eat them too.

If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments". We suppose that predators selection is responsible for chaging of moth populations without experiments proving it. It' still the ad-hoc explanation that should prove natural selection as responsible of the phenomenon.

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by JonF, posted 08-31-2007 8:57 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Alan Fox, posted 12-02-2007 6:51 AM MartinV has responded
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2007 5:57 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Alan Fox
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 32
From: France
Joined: 06-14-2006


Message 267 of 346 (437962)
12-02-2007 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by MartinV
09-06-2007 1:01 AM


Re: PPT file and data now available
MartinV writes:

...Kettlewel started his "experiments".

Are the scare-quotes intended to imply that Kettlewell's (note spelling) data were invalid, rather than just illustrative photos being posed due to the difficulty of photographing live moths?

I fully understand you have an objection to evolutionary mechanisms, but I am having difficulty in seeing precisely what that is, in relation to peppered moths. Evolution is postulated to occur within a population of organisms when there is competition for scarce resources and variation in that population which is inheritable.

Is your objection:
1) that RM + NS never occurs,

2) that RM + NS can occur but is not happening in the case of camouflage in peppered moths.

This might conceivably reduce the amount of time various posters waste in discussing issues relating to one species, only to have you ignore their post and blithely move on to some other point. If your objection is fundamentally against the entire concept, I would consider it reasonable for you to say so.

I would also be interested, {presupposing 1)}, in hearing if you have any alternative mechanism, so long as you have more than the word "saltus".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by MartinV, posted 09-06-2007 1:01 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by MartinV, posted 12-03-2007 12:26 PM Alan Fox has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12745
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 268 of 346 (438085)
12-02-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by MartinV
09-06-2007 1:01 AM


Re: PPT file and data now available
The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case.

The title of this thread is not "MartinV whines about aposematism again".

As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest.

This is not true, and we know it's not true, and you know it's not true, and you know we know it's not true, and we know you know it's not true, and you know we know you know it's not true.

So why bother saying it?

If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments".

Actually, no. Majerus' results will continue to be meaningful whether or not you can be bothered to look up all the things you don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by MartinV, posted 09-06-2007 1:01 AM MartinV has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 269 of 346 (438213)
12-03-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Alan Fox
12-02-2007 6:51 AM


Re: PPT file and data now available
quote:

Are the scare-quotes intended to imply that Kettlewell's (note spelling) data were invalid, rather than just illustrative photos being posed due to the difficulty of photographing live moths?

Kettlewel observed resting positions of peppered moths on striped barell and noticed that carbonaria and melanica choosen stripes in accord with their wing coloration. It means melanica rested on white, carbonaria rested on black stripes. It means they choosen their resting backgrounds. I suppose industrial revolution didn't polute whole areas from one day to another. It took some time. So melanica having less places to rest moved to less poluted places. You know darwinian gradualism - they rested every day 10 meters more away from chimneys. After 10 years they were off and only carbonaria remain. Natural selection has nothing to do with it - melanica perhaps just relocated to clean areas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Alan Fox, posted 12-02-2007 6:51 AM Alan Fox has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2007 10:40 PM MartinV has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15881
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 270 of 346 (438320)
12-03-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by MartinV
12-03-2007 12:26 PM


Re: PPT file and data now available
I suppose industrial revolution didn't polute whole areas from one day to another. It took some time. So melanica having less places to rest moved to less poluted places. ... Natural selection has nothing to do with it - melanica perhaps just relocated to clean areas.

Even IF you were right about emigration, you would still be wrong about natural selection, for that would have caused the emigration -- the movement of the moths in response to the changing environment would have selected for their survival.

But you are also wrong (as usual) about the preferential selection by bird predation NOT being involved, documented, verified, replicated.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by MartinV, posted 12-03-2007 12:26 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by MartinV, posted 12-04-2007 3:41 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014