Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for Evolution: Whale evolution
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 157 of 443 (782104)
04-16-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Percy
04-15-2016 4:19 PM


Re: Japanese paper
Thank you Percy, I will send you the Japanese papers. I will host my own modified photos so that they won't get taken down sometime in the future.
But I suspect, and I think Blue Jay and Dr Adequate feel the same, that you're only deceiving yourself. For the atavistic view to be wrong would require multiple errors along multiple lines of analysis. You're being forced to retreat into more and more obscure (and thereby less and less significant) evidence, and you're ignoring all the strong evidence for atavisms, and this should be setting off alarm bells in your head that you're on the wrong path.
Well I suspect and know for a fact that none of you have ever actually read any of the Japanese papers and actually examined any of the Japanese evidence. They are sophomoric, anecdotal, and don't supply evidence of atavism at all. I also suspect that you and all the others have been fraudulently deceived and bought, hook line and sinker, that these are atavisms. I also suspect, that because of your faithfulness that you still will argue for atavism when the data shows otherwise. The data examination will begin next week. And I haven't retreated from anything. My previous positions will still be held when we all look at the actual evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Percy, posted 04-15-2016 4:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 04-16-2016 11:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2016 2:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 160 of 443 (782145)
04-18-2016 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
04-17-2016 2:21 PM


Japanese paper
here has been some evidence of atavism presented in this thread. What do you think will be gained from showing he insufficiency of some other evidence? Weak, sophomoric, anecdotal evidence won't contradict a current opinion that is not based on that evidence; only evidence contrary to atavism will do that.
Bingo, and that is exactly what you will see. The evidence for atavism is a "house of cards" The evidence against is strong. Be patient. It's coming! I will start today and tomorrow with Struthers 1881. Read up! This is good solid evidence that won't be refuted, but will establish the foundation for fraudulent misrepresentations later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2016 2:21 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 161 of 443 (782164)
04-18-2016 7:24 PM


The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
This post will establish just what is really inside of the whale / cetacean genitalia area.
Struthers, John. The Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). Journal of anatomy and physiology 15.Pt 2 (1881): i1.
John Struthers a professor of Anatomy took on the monumental task of dissecting ten baleen Right Whales. These dissections took over three years. Can you even imagine the task? We are indebted to his perseverance in this endeavor.
So what did he find?
These are the left side bones from several whales. Struthers refers to these as the pelvis bone (P), the femur bone (F), and the Tibia cartilage (T). I will refer to these as P, F,and T as we proceed through these discussions.
I will not cite everything unless challenged, so you will have to verify my claims from this paper. From this image we learn...
Fact 1: The anterior part of the P bone is smaller than the posterior part.
Fact 2: The bones lie in a lateral plane approximately parallel to the belly of the whales.
Fact 3: There is an acetabulum between the P bone and the F bone. (this will be important later)
Fact 4: Male bones are bigger than female on average and slightly different in shape to to differences in genitalia function.
Fact 5: The term "rudiment" meant vestige in this time period.
The second image shows more clearly the function of these bone in the males...
I took the liberty of adding Struther's image comments to the picture. We can glean these facts from the image..
Fact 6: The left right movements of the penis are controlled by this bony mechanism. This is strategically important for large cetaceans which have a penis up to 10 feet in length and one foot in base diameter. This mechanism helps find the sweet spot when there are no eyes and hands or reduced legs like on basilosaurus. I don't think any other mammals have left right control over the penis.
Fact 7: The bone arrangement is curved towards the centerline of the whale/penis. The angular part is away form the centerline.
Fact 8: The bones have substantial musculature, tendons, and ligaments attached which all control the pivot of the genitalia. The certainly are not functionless.
Fact 9: There is substantial functionality of this bone arrangement which is essential for evolution to even start to take place.
Fact 10: The P and F bones are ossified and the T is cartilage
FRAUD #1 REVEALED!
This image comes from the very museum that Struther's bones are housed. The bones are fraudulently misrepresented to deceive the viewer to envision these bones pointing away from the centerline as a normal pelvis and leg arrangement would be. This is a shameful misrepresentation and Struthers would probably roll over in his grave if he saw this. This image and variations, is scattered on evo websites across the web like the one Dr. A likes to reference.
Somehow it is much harder envision "legs" when the bones are in their proper orientation.
more to come......

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Blue Jay, posted 04-19-2016 8:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 162 of 443 (782171)
04-19-2016 10:23 AM


Struthers continued......
Fraud Corrected!
Now this is the way that the museum should have presented Struthers' bones, so that the they would be factually represented. It's a little harder to see the infamous imaginary legs this way. When they aren't legs at all functionally, they are genitalia control mechanisms.
However, I suppose that if you rotated these bones approximately 90 degrees so that the F bone was on the outside, then it could be possible that the F bone and T cartilage could grow towards the underbelly area of the whale. But that would leave one inconvenient fact...
Fact 11: If these bones rotate outward approximately 90 degrees, the F bone and T cartilage could grow towards the underbelly (genital opening area) of the whale. This would leave the angular part facing dorsally (this will be important later)
Homology....Struthers identifies these bones as homologous to prior ancestors and calls them rudiments or vestiges. I will not argue against this at this point, but I will provide more data later that calls the homology into question. I will note that Struthers recognizes this in the examination of the P bone to which he says...
quote:
The use of the terms ischial, iliac, and pubic, applied to the different processes of the pelvic bone, diverging from the acetabulum, would be convenient and would simplify the names of the muscles and ligaments, but, as there is no evidence that the pelvic bone is developed from more than one centre of ossification, these terms are apt to mislead. The term innominate for like reason is objectionable.
So I will abort the discussion of homology now until more data is sequentially and historically presented.
The next post will be about a "whale with actual legs". Oh goody. The evos have their evidence now! That's a house built with four aces! Lets see how this tornado blows on that house!
The next paper is :
Andrews, Roy Chapman. A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale. By order of the Trustees of The American Museum of Natural History, 1921.
Read up! The winds are starting to blow!

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 163 of 443 (782181)
04-19-2016 5:02 PM


more from Struthers...
I forgot a key fact...
Fact 12: The corpus cavernosum attaches to the posterior end of the P-bone. In establishing homology of this bone, this end could be the ishium, or pubis, but not the illium.
Figure 11 from Struthers shows this...

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 168 of 443 (782206)
04-20-2016 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Blue Jay
04-19-2016 8:03 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
First, I was expecting something a bit bigger than "a museum displays the bones the wrong way." It's not the first time a museum has gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last. Send them an email, and maybe they'll fix it.
Why were you expecting something bigger? This paper is foundational, and I told you I wasn't arguing against the paper. Regarding the museum fraud, the problem is much larger than that. If you go back to my first mention of fraud, it was because Percy posted this picture...
Letter c in the picture indicates the undeveloped hind legs of a baleen whale
Blow it up and see the fraudulent misrepresentation of the "hind legs". You've been duped. The genitalia bones do not orient this way in baleen whales. It's a Lie!
Features of a sperm whale skeleton
Percy also posted this one. It is not fraudulent, but I think the pelvis bone could have been better drawn.
Sperm whale skeleton. Richard Lydekker 1894
Percy also posted this one. Note how the bones face away from the centerline and outwards or downwards. This stuff is all over the web and in the Biology books. It's fraudulent misrepresentation.
It's not the first time a museum has gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last. Send them an email, and maybe they'll fix it. While you're at it, send these guys an email too, and explain to them that displaying humans and dinosaurs co-existing when there is no evidence of such co-existence constitutes "fraud."
Well I beg to disagree on this. The creation museum presents plenty of evidence that man and dinos coexisted. Non of this evidence would be considered "scientific", but there are many types of evidence including testimonial evidence. Look at the next paper I will be examining. It is mostly a "story" presented by some whalers. I will examine that story for credibility. I think you also will find it lacking when I present my evidence. And furthermore you have presented an argument basically saying "absence of evidence is evidence of absence'. That's not very rational especially considering there are a minuscule amount of dino fossils from the middle east as a whole.
Second, in response to your ongoing comments about the corpus cavernosum, I would like to draw your attention to the temporalis muscle of primates. In humans, the temporalis's origin is in the temporal fossa (on the side of the head). In most other mammals, however, the origin of the temporalis is at the sagittal suture (on top of the head). This example is only to make it clear that muscle attachment sites are not always conserved: they can move around between different taxonomic groups. So, you can't rule out an ilial homology just based on corpus cavernosum attachment sites.
I think you are full of bull on this one. The temporalis muscle is completely homologous in humans and primates ( in evo terms). I fail to see any analogy to the corpus cavernosum in cetacea. You will see the importance of this later

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Blue Jay, posted 04-19-2016 8:03 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-20-2016 5:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 181 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 169 of 443 (782209)
04-20-2016 4:19 PM


A Whale of a Tale!
Andrews, Roy Chapman. A remarkable case of external hind limbs in a humpback whale. By order of the Trustees of The American Museum of Natural History, 1921.
Remarkable indeed! First it is clear that this paper is basically an announcement paper from the museum. Note Blue Jay, you have already confirmed that museums sometimes get things wrong. No big deal! huh?
This paper is foundational to atavism argument in whales. It is the most remarkable evidence of whales with legs, if indeed it is trustworthy. So let's examine the evidence.
The year is 1919. Darwin published in 1859 and people all over the world are hunting for evidence to confirm his theory. Darwin hypothesized about whales descending from bears and people were now looking for whales with legs because of the amazing work of Struthers showing a P-bone, a F bone and a T cartilage deep within the belly of large cetaceans. Also, just a few years prior, Piltdown Man was discovered!
So here goes the story...
quote:
In July 1919, a female Humpback. Whale (Megaptera nodosa) with two remarkable protrusions on the ventral side of the body, posteriorly, was captured by a ship operating from the whaling station at Kyuquot, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia.
I added the arrow to the picture. Convincing, Isn't it? That's legs right there protruding from the genital area. Remarkable! ¿
quote:
One of the protrusions was cut off by the crew of the vessel but the other was photographed in situ by the superintendent of the Station.
Oh what a shame! We only have one of the "legs" ¿
quote:
Mr. Sidney Ruck and Mr. Lawson, officials of the Consolidated Whaling Company, appreciated the importance of the discovery and presented the skeletal remains of the attachment to the Provincial Museum,
Victoria, B. C.
So the whaling company bosses recognize the importance of this discovery, and they innocently present this to the museum which sometimes gets thing wrong as Blue Jay admits!
quote:
At my request, Mr. Francis Kermode, Director of the Provincial Museum, very courteously submitted the bones to me with permission to
publish upon the result of my examination.
Does anyone detect some anxiousness to publish this find of "whale legs" before examination of the evidence?
quote:
Under date of March 4, 1920, Mr. Ruck writes to Mr. Kermode as follows:
I enclose herewith three photographs showing the unusual development of the pelvic Rudiments in a whale captured at the Kyuquot Station last July, of which you have the bones. It is to be regretted that better pictures in evidence of this unprecedented development were not obtained.
I have been connected with the Whaling Industry for 22 years and during my time have come in contact with prominent Naturalists such as Professor True of the Smithsonian Institute, Professor Lucas of the Natural History Museum, Brooklyn,1 and Professor Andrews of the Natural History Museum, New York, and neither in their experience or mine have the protrusion of the pelvic bones beyond the body ever been seen or heard of.
This particular whale was a female humpback of the average length with elementary legs protruding from the body about 4 feet 2 inches, covered with blubber about one-half an inch thick.
As shown in the best photograph these legs protruded on either side of the genital opening; the left leg was cut off by the crew of the vessel and lost, and the point at which it was cut off is clearly shown in the photograph. The end of the leg seen in the picture terminated in a kind of round knob like a man's clenched fist.
The two bones of the leg which you have are connected by cartilage which I was informed had shrunk about 10 inches, and possibly more by this time. At any rate the total length of the leg before it was cleaned of the blubber and flesh was, as before stated, about 4 feet, 2 inches, from the body.
Now I have to go for today, but does anyone notice anything wrong with the picture based on the claims presented in this letter? Tomorrow, I will reveal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2016 5:15 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 192 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2016 8:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 170 of 443 (782211)
04-20-2016 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Blue Jay
04-20-2016 11:09 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
The point I was making is that the orientation of the bones doesn't make a difference: they look like legs no matter which way you display them, and that particular museum's display mistakes have no bearing on my appraisal of the evidence.
Enough said. As I said earlier, it's horrible to not see the trees for the forest. They don't function as legs, and they aren't an appendage by any definition, bu they will always be legs to you. I understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Blue Jay, posted 04-20-2016 11:09 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 173 of 443 (782214)
04-20-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
04-20-2016 5:09 PM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Percy writes:
You're still misusing the word "fraud." They're still a pelvis and hind legs, regardless of orientation. It isn't the orientation that tells us they're a pelvis and hind legs. Evolutionary change can affect structure and attachment points and size and orientation. A museum would have no motivation for purposefully misorienting the bones.
Percy, You must agree that I am not arguing anything about the homology of these bones in this recent excercise. In fact, I was clear that this argument was strictly about atavisms. I claimed that there is no scientific evidence of cetacean atavism. I can accept the homology of these bones and still make that argument. That is why I am using the designation p bone , f bone and t cartilage for clarity even though I don't agree with this inference.
In regards to the fraud, I am not misusing the term.
quote:
(1) a representation was made; (2) that was false; (3) that when made, the representation was known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth;
The museum presents these bones a findings from Struthers. The orientation is known to be totally different, because Struthers wrote the paper from which the museum is advertising. If they used the right orientation as I showed, no one in their right mind would be able to visualize "legs". Only an evo mind can comprehend this. You do have some non-evo minds reading this forum.
Even at full size the pelvis and leg orientation isn't obvious to me, but even if wrong, the orientation isn't a consideration in concluding that they're a pelvis and legs.
I repeat. I do not agree with the homology inference, but I am not arguing against it at this point. Later, I might when we have more evidence presented, but not right now. Atavisms are used as a main supporting evidence for the homology and vestigiality. The evidence of atavisms must be dealt with first, before I can effectively discuss the homology of these bones.
Do you notice anything wrong with the picture? Take off you evo glasses, and rationally access the claims of the letter. It's obvious if you are skeptical.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 04-20-2016 5:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 04-21-2016 7:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 174 of 443 (782215)
04-20-2016 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by New Cat's Eye
04-20-2016 5:15 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Shouldn't we expect more sexual dimorphism in these bones if they evolved to control the penis?
Well I don't accept the premise that they evolved, so I can't effectively answer your question. Figures 16,17,and18 from this paper show the female arrangement. There is quite a variation from the males, but a very similar function to anchor the muscles related to the genitalia.
Why would a female have them like this?
Because her designer knew that she would need muscles in this area of her body, and they would need anchoring points. My wife has muscles in this area. They are very useful! I thank God for them!
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added the God stinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-20-2016 5:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 10:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 176 of 443 (782217)
04-20-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Faith
04-20-2016 6:10 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
hi Faith,
Thanks for chiming in. That article is why I revived this old thread. I cited it in my first post Message 78
Yes, the function of these bones is clearly to support and function with the genitalia. However the function of a normal hip is also the same, (like yours and mine), but not the femur and tibia! They are for a different primary function and they are not used to support genitalia function.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 178 of 443 (782227)
04-21-2016 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
04-20-2016 6:47 PM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Faith,
Yes, eventually I will get back to the pubis bone. In the creo hypothesis God is the designer and He uses similar designs throughout nature. The cetacean genitalia bones are unique in nature. Evolution has to make many changes to the bones for the theory to work. They struggle with this. God however, does have other creatures with a similar bone which He used in the cetaceans. We'll talk about this much later after I wade though all the problems with these so-called "science papers".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 04-20-2016 6:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 04-21-2016 11:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 183 of 443 (782246)
04-21-2016 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Percy
04-21-2016 7:14 AM


Re: The Real Evidence of Whale Bones
Percy writes:
The word "atavism" does not appear in your recent string of messages that I replied to (Message 161, Message 162, Message 163 and Message 168), so no, you were not clear that your "argument was strictly about atavisms." And since your messages were about whales that normally have pelvis and limb bones, you are incorrect to claim those messages were "strictly about atavisms" because they obviously were not. You didn't return to the topic of atavisms until Message 169, when you shifted from discussing the Struthers paper to a different paper.
Percy, I hate to prove you wrong, but if you look at Message 132 the first lines are:
AOK writes:
Ok, so let me make my claim clear....
There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea.
I was out of the conversation from 3/18-4/12 and just returning. We were talking about the dolphin fin "atavisms". I complained about all of these papers including the Japanese, and then I decided I would have to show and debunk each paper in sequence to make my case rather than try and fight the elephant hurls against me. We are now on the first paper about atavisms to be debunked. Struthers paper was good science and was for building the foundation of the argument.
In regards to the word "fraud," you are using it "recklessly without knowledge of its truth." Perhaps you are mistaken that the museum display is incorrect. Perhaps it is an honest mistake. Perhaps they know about the mistake and do not have the funds to update it. Perhaps the mistake was made so long ago that the mistake itself has become a part of history that they are reluctant to alter. Until you know that the display was configured to mislead, your charge of fraud is itself fraudulent.
That's fine. I expect you and Bluejay to hold strongly to your "perhaps...." even though you provide no evidence for them. I on the other hand did provide evidence that the University of Aberdeen from which Struthers was from, cites selected quotes from his papers and misrepresents his bones. I also firmly believe that after Struthers presented some 18 or so extensively detailed drawings that he would be ashamed at the museums presentation. There have been many frauds in science over the years. Especially in this time frame. Perhaps..., perhaps..., perhaps... for all of those too.
The Struthers paper was not about atavisms. It was about hind limb rudiments that appeared in all ten right whales that he dissected. To him they were obviously hind limbs, quoting from On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of the Rudimentary Hind-limb of the Greenland Right Whale:
Granted, I never said it did. I said it lays foundational facts for future papers about atavism. If all of those atavism papers fall, then that throws homology back into question. The p-bone must be homologous to a terrestrial hip bone with ilium, ischium and pubis bones. Struthers punts on this in his paper. Later, other scientists address this, but they also use as evidence all the atavism papers. These are the papers that I claim don't pass the smell test. If there are no atavisms, the evos absolutely must show the homology of the p-bone to warrant the justified conclusion of "hind legs". Otherwise, they are unique, non-ancestral genitalia bones. In the end, I will show how their attempts fail. But I must do it one paper at a time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 04-21-2016 7:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 04-22-2016 8:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 184 of 443 (782249)
04-21-2016 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
04-21-2016 11:52 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
This is a bit confusing, AOK. These bones are "unique" but on the other hand there are other creatures that have a similar bone?
I'll explain this later after I debunk whale atavism. The assembly is unique, the pubis bone is not unique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 04-21-2016 11:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 185 of 443 (782250)
04-21-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2016 10:16 AM


Re: A Whale of a Tale!
Sure, but if penis control is the "purpose" of these bones existing in whales, then it really don't make sense for the females to have them.
Not to you of course. But if a male whale needs to manipulate his penis left and right just a little bit, wouldn't it make sense for the female to maneuver her vagina a little bit to accommodate her mate. It happens in a multitude of other organisms. The whales just don't have any real legs to do this...only the "hidden ones"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2016 4:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024