Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 5:09 AM
387 online now:
Dredge, Faith, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 382 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,448 Year: 10,054/21,208 Month: 3,141/2,674 Week: 557/961 Day: 19/151 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution
Faith
Member
Posts: 24427
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 46 of 131 (725800)
05-01-2014 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
05-01-2014 10:06 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
I don't recall reading anything you wrote about any of that except the American Curl, which is a completely different breeding process than the normal one, with different objectives. It doesn't produce just one single breed but a large variety of cats with curled ears. When enough numbers of cats with curled ears exist so that the trait is assured continuance, then the usual breeding process I've been talking about takes over, the process which requires the reduction of genetic diversity in the effort to develop a distinctive breed of cat with curled ears.

Remember, I'm talking about what happens in the development of a race or breed or subspecies, not a single trait.

ABE: HOWEVER, I would also point out that to get that curled ear in any population requires the suppression, reduction or complete elimination of the alleles for straight or any other kind of ear. So the same principle operates even here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2014 10:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 10:41 PM Faith has responded
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2014 10:53 PM Faith has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1345
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(5)
Message 47 of 131 (725801)
05-01-2014 10:19 PM


The irony of Faith's participation in this thread
The title says it all.

This topic that started with a story about the Grants and their remarkable work studying the evolution of finches on the Galapagos has ended up being a platform for Faith to spout her bizarre hallucinations again.

She swears that her completely erroneous fantasies about how life happens all over this planet are clearly there for everyone to see, but when anyone looks at what actually happens with real, live organisms, none of her dreams turn out to be true. Not one.

Meanwhile the Grants are showing the whole world how science and field studies are properly done.

True evolution (as Faith calls it) is exactly what the Grants are observing and reporting.

All evolution is microevolution that goes on and on as long as there are descendant populations. When a species splits, the descendant populations just carry right on accumulating mutations and the surviving members of the populations are selected to have more or less offspring, by the environment.

We humans look at this and label the split as speciation or macroevolution, but those are just labels. Evolution, the changes in a population from generation to generation and natural selection continue on without signposts or labels.

I am pleased that there are dedicated scientists like the Grants who are fascinated enough to do these studies of REALITY and tell us about them.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9442
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 48 of 131 (725804)
05-01-2014 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
05-01-2014 2:53 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
I don't think I understand the situation you think you are describing. What does this have to do with the reduction in genetic diversity that is necessary to the formation of a new supspecies?

I think the example I gave is explained in very simple terms. Cats, mice, whiskers, and colored fur is about as uncomplicated as it gets.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 2:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9442
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 49 of 131 (725806)
05-01-2014 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
05-01-2014 10:14 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
It doesn't produce just one single breed but a large variety of cats with curled ears.

Bingo!


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 10:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 10:46 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24427
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 50 of 131 (725809)
05-01-2014 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
05-01-2014 10:41 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Bingo!

?

Um, there is a large variety of human beings with brown eyes. They don't constitute a race which of course means this has nothing to do with the processes I am talking about.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2014 10:41 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 12:10 AM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 51 of 131 (725810)
05-01-2014 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
05-01-2014 10:06 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
That would be Message 262Message 267, Message 272, Message 282 and Message 287

Edited by RAZD, : corrected


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2014 10:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2014 11:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 52 of 131 (725811)
05-01-2014 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
05-01-2014 10:14 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
I don't recall reading anything you wrote about any of that except the American Curl, which is a completely different breeding process than the normal one, with different objectives. It doesn't produce just one single breed but a large variety of cats with curled ears. When enough numbers of cats with curled ears exist so that the trait is assured continuance, then the usual breeding process I've been talking about takes over, the process which requires the reduction of genetic diversity in the effort to develop a distinctive breed of cat with curled ears.

So we can imagine that in the future people might reduce the diversity of the breed. But unless they do so by making them all clones of one another, the diversity of the breed will still have undergone a net increase from the point at which it consisted of only one cat.

As to whether the process I've described is completely different from normal, I would point out that I've produced six instances of it happening, and you've produced no instances of a breed being produced the way you say must always happen.

Remember, I'm talking about what happens in the development of a race or breed or subspecies, not a single trait.

ABE: HOWEVER, I would also point out that to get that curled ear in any population requires the suppression, reduction or complete elimination of the alleles for straight or any other kind of ear. So the same principle operates even here.

And yet despite the words you have written, the six breeds I've instanced have in fact increased in diversity. It's almost as if your words don't magically make facts disappear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 10:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 12:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 53 of 131 (725812)
05-01-2014 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
05-01-2014 10:48 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Thank you. I've edited it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 05-01-2014 10:48 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 54 of 131 (725813)
05-01-2014 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
05-01-2014 6:07 AM


So what IS macroevolution Faith?
I can't deal with your extremely lengthy post right now. ...

Reality is hard.

... All I want to say here is that of COURSE they are observing microevolution, what they CAN'T observe is macroevolution, ...

Can you give me a definition of macroevolution and an example of what you mean?

... but when their work is presented as an actual experience of "evolution" with all that Wow stuff attached to it, it is properly understood to mean that it validates the ToE, which required me to say it does NOT.

You do realize that the science of evolution, the theory of evolution and the process of evolution are three different meanings for the word evolution don't you?

They most certainly did science and they most certainly studied the process of evolution with science, thus they did evolution science.

The article did not mention the theory of science once, but with your reading skills you see it dripping with references ... fascinating.

But again let's start with your definition of macroevolution ... should be easy to state and you should be able to provide examples ...

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 6:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9442
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 55 of 131 (725815)
05-02-2014 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
05-01-2014 10:46 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
They don't constitute a race which of course means this has nothing to do with the processes I am talking about.

Exactly so. Evolution is about creating new species and not about creating new races or breeds. Hence the title "Origin of Species" for Darwin's book. Did you really think evolution is about black people evolving into white people? Or vice versa? (Not trying to offend.) Or about creating wiener dogs from collies?

Evolution is about the creation of new species, and is about the processes by which that result is brought about. (for about the 200th time) If the curly ear creates an evolutionary advantage (and I don't believe that it does) then the mutation could lead to a new species of curly eared cats. And as you noted, that species might well be quite diverse. Breeds, on the other hand, are intentionally made, non-natural non-diverse groupings because we define any offspring that does not look right as not being part of the breed and because we deliberately mate similar looking parents.

So if you are talking about something else, like breeding then while some processes might be common to evolution, you are not addressing the theory of evolution (also for about the 200th time). And that means even if you were right, your point is irrelevant. You would instead be making the rather tautological and pointless observation that a collection of extremely similar animals is not very diverse. Yeah, I get that.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 10:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 12:53 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 1:06 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24427
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 56 of 131 (725817)
05-02-2014 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
05-01-2014 10:53 PM


You are talking about phenotypic diversity, not genetic diversity
So we can imagine that in the future people might reduce the diversity of the breed.

Black cats, calico cats, longhair cats, shorthair cats, all having the curled ear, do not constitute a breed. In a dog or cat show the whole animal is judged as to whether it is a good representative of its breed, not one single feature.

But unless they do so by making them all clones of one another, the diversity of the breed will still have undergone a net increase from the point at which it consisted of only one cat.

But you are talking about the diversity of the "breed" (which is not a breed precisely BECAUSE of its diversity) -- that is, the phenotypic diversity of the species, the cats themselves, which is NOT what I've been talking about. The diversity of the phenotypes may increase for many reasons in the wild too but this has nothing to do with the creation of a race or breed. The ONLY diversity I've been talking about is GENETIC diversity, and this gets reduced for the characteristic traits at least when an actual race or breed is developed, which ideally does NOT have phenotypic diversity but quite the opposite, a recognizable phenotypic portrait which is what MAKES it a breed. Or in the wild a race, a subspecies.

As to whether the process I've described is completely different from normal, I would point out that I've produced six instances of it happening, and you've produced no instances of a breed being produced the way you say must always happen.

I've produced a description of the normal way breeds have normally been developed, from a limited gene pool of selected characteristics, and by ELIMINATING those traits or characteristics that interfere with the breed. When you eliminate traits you eliminate the alleles for those traits.

This should be recognizable, I shouldn't have to produce a specific example, but I probably could if I read up on the various breeds of cattle or even the different subspecies of wildebeests. As I recall it took about a hundred years to develop a "truebred" Hereford. That's a cow with NO phenotypic diversity in its identifying characteristics, all Herefords, all genetically having the same identifying characteristics WITHOUT BEING CLONES. How did they do it? By eliminating cattle that had the "wrong" traits from the breeding pool. Of course this is eliminating the genes/alleles for those traits.

What you have produced on the other hand is an example of something completely different, not the production of a breed but really the opposite that came about through the pursuit of the preservation of a single trait. For that single trait there had to be the same kind of elimination of competing traits, but a single trait does not constitute a breed.

[qs] Remember, I'm talking about what happens in the development of a race or breed or subspecies, not a single trait.
ABE: HOWEVER, I would also point out that to get that curled ear in any population requires the suppression, reduction or complete elimination of the alleles for straight or any other kind of ear. So the same principle operates even here.

And yet despite the words you have written, the six breeds I've instanced have in fact increased in diversity. It's almost as if your words don't magically make facts disappear.

Again you are talking about phenotypic diversity which is not what I am talking about. I have not read anything you wrote about other "breeds" than the American Curl. If the other "breeds" follow the same pattern then they are all NOT what has normally been regarded as a breed, as a single trait is not sufficient to define a breed, the way brown eyes are not sufficient to define a human race.

If you don't understand my words you will continue to be in thrall to the wrong facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-01-2014 10:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2014 10:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24427
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 57 of 131 (725818)
05-02-2014 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
05-02-2014 12:10 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Exactly so. Evolution is about creating new species and not about creating new races or breeds. Hence the title "Origin of Species" for Darwin's book. Did you really think evolution is about black people evolving into white people? Or vice versa? (Not trying to offend.) Or about creating wiener dogs from collies?

This is pure nonsense that proves only that you don't have a clue about what I'm talking about. I said it is not easy to grasp, it requires THOUGHT, thought over TIME, a few hours over a few pots of coffee at least. All you are doing here is semantic juggling. You all DO call a new race of animals in the wild a "species" but that's really a tendentious term when you are merely assuming something based on your theory. The terms were not all that clear in Darwin's day. Darwin called his finches "species" but they were merely races or subspecies of the finch. Same with his Galapagos turtles. But you know what, it doesn't matter what level we're on, the processes that bring about a new population that is identifiably a new race or breed or SPECIES are all the same.

Just think, NN, stop blathering about your definitions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 12:10 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coyote, posted 05-02-2014 12:59 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 7:46 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 7:59 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12565
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 58 of 131 (725819)
05-02-2014 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
05-01-2014 9:29 PM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
quote:

It would if mutation had anything to do with creating viable alleles but even you all acknowledge that the vast majority are either neutral or deleterious.

Neutral mutations - by definition - must produce alleles just as functional (at least in the sense of fitness) as the pre-mutation version. Deleterious mutations often produce alleles that are still functional. Moreover the judgement of "neutral" and "deleterious" is relevant to an environment and can change if the environment changes. Equating "less helpful in the current environment" (deleterious) to "non-functional" is just wrong.

More importantly there is no theoretical reason why there should be a problem. Our knowledge of how mutations occur does not point to the existence of any mechanism that would prevent useful mutations from occurring. So, that observation is not very helpful to your argument at all.

In fact your argument relies heavily on the difficulty of making the observations that you personally require, not on anything that makes a real case against the theory. If you held that to be the basis of personal skepticism then it would still be a little unreasonable, I think, but that is your right. To try to make an argument of it, to say that other people should be convinced by it, is on the other hand completely unreasonable. A demand that other people should share your prejudice is not an argument.

quote:

think you extrapolate this from the observed fact of new mutations occurring from generation to generation, plus the theory that requires you to believe that they are the source of functioning alleles, although this is belied by their generally nonbeneficial nature. Unfortunately the result of the accumulation of these different mutations in any population is ultimately most likely genetic disease, not the emergence of new healthy phenotypes.

Of course there is nothing really unhealthy about neutral mutations (the majority) and even deleterious mutations can become beneficial or form the basis for future beneficial changes. And then there is the existence of beneficial mutations and the role of natural selection to consider. Considering the other evidence for evolution, at best you would have a weak case for an unknown source of beneficial genetic changes - and that would clearly fit the evidence better than your own views. And that is hardly what you want. (Michael Behe would be happy - but even he doesn't go that far. And he can't find the evidence he needs to support his own arguments).

quote:

Again, the observed divergence between populations needs no other source than the change in gene/allele frequencies that is the natural result of the splitting of the populations itself. The best you can say for mutations is that the built in alleles wre originally the result of mutations, because the new mutations would not be of any use in bringing about this divergence, since they would have to be passed on in the population, which is not too likelyl to happen to any given mutations in individuals.

This argument is just confused. Even if we accept that a particular mutation is unlikely to be passed on it does not follow that it is unlikely that any mutations are passed on. And natural selection will skew the odds away from deleterious mutations and towards beneficial mutations. Moreover, the observed genetic diversity requires additional alleles to enter the population whether using your YEC ideas of the history of life, or those of mainstream science. You have no observations which give us any positive reason to believe otherwise. So again it is seen that you are relying on assumption, against the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 05-01-2014 9:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 5:46 AM PaulK has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 59 of 131 (725820)
05-02-2014 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
05-02-2014 12:53 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution [yes we can]
But you know what, it doesn't matter what level we're on, the processes that bring about a new population that is identifiably a new race or breed or SPECIES are all the same.

The process is evolution. If it goes on long enough you get different critters.

There is no brick wall in the sky to prevent evolution from creating new species, no matter what you wish to believe.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 12:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24427
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


(1)
Message 60 of 131 (725821)
05-02-2014 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
05-02-2014 12:10 AM


Re: You can't get evolution beyond microevolution
Evolution is about the creation of new species, and is about the processes by which that result is brought about. (for about the 200th time) If the curly ear creates an evolutionary advantage (and I don't believe that it does) then the mutation could lead to a new species of curly eared cats. And as you noted, that species might well be quite diverse. Breeds, on the other hand, are intentionally made, non-natural non-diverse groupings because we define any offspring that does not look right as not being part of the breed and because we deliberately mate similar looking parents.

The difference is academic and irrelevant. The processes that create breeds or races or "species" which are really subspecies, are all the same. The cats with the curled ears are not a breed or species in the historical sense.

You are also of course emphasizing evolutionary advantage which I don't even mention. I figure if it exists as an extant healthy population we don't need to get into what advantages might or might not have brought it to that existence in order to discuss what I'm focusing on here. HOWEVER, I also dispute that tenet of the ToE, I think the idea of evolutionary advantage is completely unnecessary to the formation of new races, breeds, subspecies or SPECIES. Certainly it has to be able to survive in its environment but the theory posits a struggle that does not necessarily exist. There MAY be a struggle, there may be natural selection in some situations, but it is far from necessary in the development of new subspecies.

The blue wildebeest probably split off from the black wildebeest a hundred or so years ago and formed simply by some limited number of the beasts walking off into a new region where they were reproductively isolated from the former herd. Or perhaps a lion attack split the herd and they ended up in different locations. It doesn't matter. There is no reason to suppose the new region posed any special problems as to its food sources or anything else. So its own peculiar characteristics developed due to its own new gene/allele frequencies that differ from those of the original population. Nothing else is needed to get a new breed or race, or SPECIES.

ABE: That is, there need to be no adaptive advantage or disadvantage in the situation of blue or black wildebeest that affects their genetic expression, they simply display the fact that the genome of each Species (in the sense of Kind) is designed with many genetic potentials that allow it to form new races and breeds. /ABE

ABE: The idea that evolution comes about by adaptive pressures, or advantage in the environment, AND the idea that mutations are the source of viable alleles, are both pure unverified theory. These are assumptions accepted because that's what the ToE says. But in reality what is actually OBSERVED is the formation of divergent populations by reproductive isolation; NOT an assumption. And the very method of isolation of a limited gene pool as the cause of such divergence is well observed in breeding, which is just the conscious version of what happens randomly in nature. These things ARE observed, but the mutations and the evolution by struggle are just the theory, the ToE that is believed without proof. /ABE

So if you are talking about something else, like breeding then while some processes might be common to evolution, you are not addressing the theory of evolution (also for about the 200th time). And that means even if you were right, your point is irrelevant. You would instead be making the rather tautological and pointless observation that a collection of extremely similar animals is not very diverse. Yeah, I get that.

What you don't get, of course, is that I AM talking about the ToE, and these facts blow it to smithereens.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 12:10 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017