Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 11:51 AM
406 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,374 Year: 9,980/21,208 Month: 3,067/2,674 Week: 483/961 Day: 96/117 Hour: 14/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Peter & Rosemary Grant, Darwin's Finches and Evolution
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 76 of 131 (725876)
05-02-2014 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-02-2014 8:23 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Why do you keep talking about phenotypic diversity? That has nothing to do with my argument. Of course you can get traits popping up in a wild population from time to time that make it more diverse at that level. Mutation isn't required, just the occasional expression of a rare recessive allele will do it. That's has nothing to do with my argument.

Since you said that I am allowed to use mutations, I provided a mutation that created the new phenotype. Therefore I have by definition provided an example involving genetic diversity. And since you've asked nicely, I will tell you that the new allele I introduced is dominant, not recessive.

Nothing more is required genetically to produce a separate classification of wolf. You simply separate the curly eared wolves from the rest. Or you just name them in place after you've seen a few of them.

I invite you to reconsider your last post. At this point, even your fan Raphael must be wondering about the horse he's backed in the derby.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 74 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 8:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:00 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5655
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 77 of 131 (725878)
05-03-2014 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-02-2014 8:23 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Down any path where the changes I'm talking about are occurring there has to ultimately be an end where no more variation is possible becaue there is no more genetic diversity left in that population. And since it's these paths that are definitive of evolution this clearly shows that macroevolution simply cannot happen.

So you want to believe.

But, unfortunately for your belief, the evidence says otherwise.


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 74 by Faith, posted 05-02-2014 8:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24418
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 78 of 131 (725880)
05-03-2014 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NoNukes
05-02-2014 10:14 PM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Since you said that I am allowed to use mutations, I provided a mutation that created the new phenotype. Therefore I have by definition provided an example involving genetic diversity. And since you've asked nicely, I will tell you that the new allele I introduced is dominant, not recessive.

But what are you trying to prove by this? I'm really not getting your point. Yes a (putatively viable) mutation will add genetic diversity and if it's expressed also a new trait. There's nothing about that to challenge anything I'm saying.

Nothing more is required genetically to produce a separate classification of wolf. You simply separate the curly eared wolves from the rest. Or you just name them in place after you've seen a few of them.

This just seems like a semantic game to me, like Dr. A's examples. You get a new population that is distinguished by only one trait and call it a new breed or subspecies. OK, where do we go from there?

I guess I could point out that for the population with the curly ears, the alleles for other kinds of ears are reduced or eliminated, which is the pattern I've been talking about. And if you keep the curly-eared wolves reproductively isolated from the rest of the population over many generations of inbreeding, their new allele/gene frequencies will probably change more traits than the curly ears (depends on the genetic diversity of the species to begin with and I don't know in the case of wolves. If it's high enough you should get the new traits). This would occur simply because it IS a smaller reproductively isolated population. It will certainly have different allele frequencies from the mother population. And that's the basis of microevolution. And it would have reduced genetic diversity as a result. The curly ear becomes just one of the traits, and its allele may even become fixed over time, while all the alleles for other kinds of ears disappear from the gene pool, along with the alleles for whatever other traits are becoming characteristic of the group, which is the process of reducing genetic diversity I'm talking about.

I invite you to reconsider your last post. At this point, even your fan Raphael must be wondering about the horse he's backed in the derby.

I would if I knew what to reconsider but I'm not getting what you are trying to prove here.

If you want to try to prove that evolution continues even with increases in genetic diversity or that you can get distinctive new subspecies by such increases you'll have to come up with a few more examples.

ABE: If you bred together all the cats with the curled ears, which are a pretty motley crew at this point, keeping them all reproductively isolated from all other cats, while inbreeding completely among themselves, I think then you might get a very interesting new breed that really would be a new breed, with a distinctive character all its own plus the curled ear. it would take many generations of inbreeding to do that. It would be really interesting to see what traits would emerge from the pool that has already been created. Of course my principle would apply, the traits that do emerge and become characteristic of the breed would be created from their own alleles, all alleles for other versions of those traits gradually disappearing from the breed. That's the necessary genetic reduction for producing a truly new breed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2014 10:14 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2014 1:07 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:19 AM Faith has responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 05-03-2014 1:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15767
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 79 of 131 (725881)
05-03-2014 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:00 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
This just seems like a semantic game to me, like Dr. A's examples. You get a new population that is distinguished by only one trait and call it a new breed or subspecies. OK, where do we go from there?

Well, first you could admit that you were wrong. Then you could move on to learning the difference between "playing semantic games" and "speaking the English language". And then you could try a little harder not to be wrong about things in general.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 80 of 131 (725882)
05-03-2014 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:00 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
If you want to try to prove that evolution continues even with increases in genetic diversity or that you can get distinctive new subspecies by such increases you'll have to come up with a few more examples.

I don't need more examples. Since your claim is that it is impossible to generate new groupings without decreasing diversity, any single example is sufficient to show that you are in error.

At this point, I have provided two, extremely simple hypothetical examples, only to have you attempt to say, in effect, that the conditions I invented were not what I said they were.

On top of that Dr. Adequate cited real life examples; examples which you dismiss without saying that they are wrong. At this point I think you have more than enough to think about.

I guess I could point out that for the population with the curly ears, the alleles for other kinds of ears are reduced or eliminated, which is the pattern I've been talking about.

Yes, you could point that out. Our you could read from my post were I acknowledged exactly that point and then dealt with it.


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 78 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:27 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:31 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24418
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 81 of 131 (725883)
05-03-2014 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by NoNukes
05-03-2014 1:19 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
I don't need more examples. Since your claim is that it is impossible to generate new groupings without decreasing diversity, any single example is sufficient to show that you are in error.

Where did I say "NEW GROUPINGS?" You can create new "groupings" a lot of different ways. I am talking about creating a new SUBSPECIES with its own gene pool. That takes reproductive isolation over many generations. That you cannot create without reducing GENETIC diversity. Again you use "diversity" ambiguously which shows you are missing the whole point.

At this point, I have provided two, extremely simple hypothetical examples, only to have you attempt to say, in effect, that the conditions I invented were not what I said they were.

They are not what is required to deal with my argument. They almost seem like a silly simplistic parody. You are simply not understanding my argument although of course you think you are. I keep telling you its not easy to grasp. It isn't. It's simple enough but it's also tricky. You don't have a clue about it yet.

On top of that Dr. Adequate cited real life examples; examples which you dismiss without saying that they are wrong. At this point I think you have more than enough to think about.

Dr. A's examples completely miss the point too. Neither of you understands this argument.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:19 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:35 AM Faith has responded
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2014 1:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 82 of 131 (725884)
05-03-2014 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:00 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts and repeat
... Yes a (putatively viable) mutation will add genetic diversity and if it's expressed also a new trait. There's nothing about that to challenge anything I'm saying.

Except that it keeps happening: evolution never stops.

You get a new population that is distinguished by only one trait and call it a new breed or subspecies. ...

Or a new variety to be more precise.

... OK, where do we go from there?

So now we do it again -- add another new mutation\trait, add more genetic diversity.

Only Evolution, msg 12 (that loong post you couldn't "deal with" "right now"): ... evolution, it is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next. ...

One step adds new diversity the other step takes the worst (for survival or reproduction) diversity away, a stumbling walk, so the balance of traits is always shifting, changing, evolving:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This is what the Grants observed occurring.

Enjoy


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 78 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24418
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 83 of 131 (725885)
05-03-2014 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by NoNukes
05-03-2014 1:19 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Yes, you could point that out. Our you could read from my post were I acknowledged exactly that point and then dealt with it.

Kindly reproduce the part of the post where you believe you did that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:19 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:46 AM Faith has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 84 of 131 (725886)
05-03-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:27 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Where did I say "NEW GROUPINGS?" You can create new "groupings" a lot of different ways. I am talking about creating a new SUBSPECIES with its own gene pool.

You are making something out of very little.

I use the term "groupings" in lieu of using the term species because the term species is not defined well enough for this discussion. If a bird can be a new species or (sub species) simply because of having a different beak shape, then why in the world are you complaining about my using the example of ear shape.

For example, we consider all of the breeds of dogs to be of a single species, while breeds of cat having similar levels of variation are considered different species.

All that is required for speciation is variation + some type of isolation against cross breeding. The isolation can be geographical, or it may be that the variants are not inter-fertile. Trying to set some minimum limit on the amount of variation is a fool's errand.

And besides that, what is the point of your objection? If I provide an example that works for one trait, we can repeat the example for two traits or ten traits. But in the end, there is no requirement that the members of a species by homogeneous. Consider the variation among Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 81 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:27 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:48 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15767
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 85 of 131 (725887)
05-03-2014 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:27 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
Dr. A's examples completely miss the point too.

Yeah, your point is that you're right. And I completely missed the point by proving that you're wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9439
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 86 of 131 (725888)
05-03-2014 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:31 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
NoNukes writes:

Yes, you could point that out. Our you could read from my post were I acknowledged exactly that point and then dealt with it.

Faith writes:

Kindly reproduce the part of the post where you believe you did that.

Ouch. The place where I address the issue that wolves with curly ears were less diverse than the original population would be the line of my post in message 70 that starts as follows:

...And of course if a population of wolves having the curly ear and all of the wolves other variations gets isolated from the other wolves, then at that point they are necessarily less diverse than all of the wolves together, but ...

And since you have already acknowledged that a mutation adds diversity, it seems pointless to argue that a second mutation cannot do the same thing.

You can have the last word on this.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 83 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 5:01 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24418
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 87 of 131 (725889)
05-03-2014 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by NoNukes
05-03-2014 1:35 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
You get a curly ear, you get some more curly ears, that's enough for your "grouping." But it's not enough for what I've been trying to get across. Your grouping has to become an isolated inbreeding group over many generations to be what I'm talking about. The smaller number of individuals is going to create a gene pool of new allele frequencies for starters but those have to get worked through the whole population, and THAT is where the reduced genetic diversity shows up.

If that happens with your "grouping" then you will have a new breed or subspecies with the reduced genetic diversity that is inevitable to that formation. Your curly-eared wolves are at best the first stage of the process I'm talking about.

You really are just playing with words and missing the whole point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:35 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2014 5:09 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24418
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 88 of 131 (725890)
05-03-2014 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by NoNukes
05-03-2014 1:46 AM


I hope this is clarifying
And of course if a population of wolves having the curly ear and all of the wolves other variations gets isolated from the other wolves, then at that point they are necessarily less diverse than all of the wolves together, but nothing then prevents new mutations from generating spots, or bobbed tails, or an enhanced sense of smell etc. In time the grouping might be just as diverse as the original pool, and that is regardless of the fact that the new group lacks a gene for pointy ears.

You said I didn't acknowledge that you'd characterized my argument and dealt with it. I don't remember my answer to this but apparently it didn't suffice for you. So OK I'll try again.

And of course if a population of wolves having the curly ear and all of the wolves other variations gets isolated from the other wolves, then at that point they are necessarily less diverse than all of the wolves together,

Yes this is the crux of my argument. The curly ears that exist in individuals within the larger population do add to the phenotypic and genetic diversity of that population, but when they are isolated that is when what I'm talking about starts to happen. This is where you get new allele frequencies and the reduction of genetic diversity I've been talking about that inevitably accompanies the development of a new population-wide set of characteristics. This is where the formation of new species starts. (It COULD start within the greater population if for some reason the curly-eared individuals selected each other exclusively as mates too, just to say that.) This is, as I've said many times, THE situation I've been talking about and I'm not talking about any other such as the one you are now proposing. You can certainly get increased diversity within a larger population, both phenotypic (whether through mutation or simply new combinations of preexisting alleles) and genetic (assuming mutation really is a viable source of alleles) but this, as I've said many times, is not what I'm talking about and it doesn't affect what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about begins ONLY when you get a reproductively isolated daughter population that develops its own peculiar characteristics over time, such as the daughter species in a ring species formation. Really I HAVE answered this already in the last few posts although you keep saying I haven't.

but nothing then prevents new mutations from generating spots, or bobbed tails, or an enhanced sense of smell etc. In time the grouping might be just as diverse as the original pool, and that is regardless of the fact that the new group lacks a gene for pointy ears.

Leaving aside whether this really occurs, this is not evolution/microevolution. I'm only talking about what brings about microevolution. Some form of "selection" has to happen for that to come about, some form of reproductive isolation. In your scenario you'll have a motley population with individuals here and there that have spots or bobbed tails or that enhanced sense of smell and so on, but you won't have a whole population that is characterized by any of those traits unto itself, which would be a new subspecies, UNTIL the individuals with the particular traits get selected/isolated and inbred over generations. Your diverse group is not evolving in other words, it takes the selection or isolation of a portion of it to start the processes of evolution rolling. If it's just a population of wolves with curly ears for starters, OK, but if isolated that population is going to have a new set of allele frequencies because it's appreciably smaller than the parent population, and while the allele for the curly ears would be very high frequency in such a population, the allele for pointy ears would be rare to nonexistent, and over generations of inbreeding would become nonexistent anyway, because low-frequency alleles tend to eventually die out.

Meanwhile there is really no such thing as the evolution of a single trait in a new population. All the traits in the individuals have new allele frequencies in the population, all of them are subject to new expressions in this new population. Some of the dominant characteristics of the parent population could be completely overshadowed by a whole new set of characteristics in the daughter population, an entirely new look as it were.

You said in the case of Darwin's finches a species was defined by the single trait of beak type and yes they are defined that way but that wouldn't be the only characteristic of the finch to be different from the other finches, because evolution varies many traits as a package, the whole animal gets its own new look shared by the rest of the members of its clan. I was looking at pictures of some of the different types of finches, nut eaters, berry eaters, insect eaters etc., but it's hard to tell size differences, body-build differences etc from the pictures in order to make comparisons with each other, and just at a skim-through, I didn't identify any clear markings and other characteristics that differentiate them consistently either, but I might if I spent more time at it. Or it may be that there is enough gene flow to prevent a really distinct type from developing.

Again, you are focusing on what brings about increase in genetic and phenotypic diversity, but when this is occurring evolution (population-level change) is not occurring.

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 86 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 1:46 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 05-03-2014 5:20 AM Faith has responded

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


(2)
Message 89 of 131 (725891)
05-03-2014 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
05-03-2014 1:48 AM


Re: Beneficial mutations and other facts
The evolution of birds shows some problems with your argument, Faith.

Some traits aren't fixed. Size is the easy example. While a species has a relatively narrow range of size, the difference between a wren and an ostrich is huge. And there have been birds bigger, still.

Some traits open up a range of new possibilities. You can't have plumage patterns without plumage, there,s a huge range of shapes and colours and patterns. And the range of bill sizes and shapes is dependent on having a bill. Again, lots of new diversity.

And traits can be lost. A number of different lineages have lost the ability to fly. Penguins are adapted for swimming, ostriches and similar birds are too large for efficient muscle-powered flight.

There's no continuous narrowing down of traits, new variation is always coming in.

I know that you don't believe all this, but that isn't an argument. Nor is assuming that it couldn't happen. You need reasons why it can't. And we've been waiting for you to supply those for years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 1:48 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:16 AM PaulK has responded

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


Message 90 of 131 (725892)
05-03-2014 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
05-03-2014 5:01 AM


Re: I hope this is clarifying
quote:

Leaving aside whether this really occurs, this is not evolution/microevolution. I'm only talking about what brings about microevolution

But it is. More to the point even if it wasn't it is highly relevant to your argument. What you're really saying is that you are only interested in the loss of genetic diversity, so you can ignore gains. But that doesn't make an argument that loss must outweigh gains, it's just a refusal to even consider gain.

In short, you are choosing to blind yourself - and then accusing others of blindness for not doing the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 05-03-2014 5:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 12:31 PM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:46 AM PaulK has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017