Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 11:47 AM
345 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,586 Year: 29,192/21,208 Month: 1,258/1,847 Week: 181/452 Day: 55/126 Hour: 10/18

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Page's misuse of Haldane's Dilemma
Percy
Member
Posts: 16355
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 57 (13177)
07-09-2002 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 2:12 PM


Fred Williams writes:

You are actually doing me a favor here by supporting my claim that evolution is not falsifiable!

Glad to help!

Independent of whether evolution is falsifiable, the term "anti-evolution" is still a bit off the mark. You might want to try "evolution through loss of information", which you accept, and "evolution through gain of information", which you don't.

Percy writes:

For most evolutionists, the first discovered, strongest, and most obvious evidence for evolution is the fossil record. Primary evidence from which we draw opposite conclusions probably deserves significant further discussion.

Fred replies:

I actually started one here some time ago.

That would be Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand. It has replies waiting for you. In fact, if you click on your name you'll get a list of your most recent message across all threads - you seem to have tons of replies waiting for you. Lucky for you this is a slow period.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 2:12 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 47 of 57 (13251)
07-10-2002 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Fred Williams
07-09-2002 1:57 PM


Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Haldane's Dilemma boils down to the required number of deaths that must occur in a population to fix a new allele under positive selection (beneficial mutation).

Dr.Page: Clarification - the number of genetic deaths.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

No such clarification is required, “death” is apropos. The qualifier “genetic” is not needed.


The individuals with the wild type phenotype do not literally have to die, rather they just have to not pass on their genotype. An individual having the wild type, whether alive or dead, has nothing to do with the fixation of the new allele. If the new allele 'arises' while the possessor of the wild type is still alive, his existence is irrelevant. That individual does not have to 'die' to help fix the new allele, he just has to not pass it on.

quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: By slowing the pace over time, Haldane was able to reduce the reproductive cost to a reasonable level. He showed that cost was essentially independent of selection (p 524).

Page: So Haldane did this? By tweaking his mathematical model? Hmmm...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Page continues to demonstrate he does not have the foggiest idea what Haldane’s paper says. Page implies intense selection is a way out of the Haldane problem, and implies that Haldane ignored its impacts or was mistaken not to accommodate it.


I do all that? Wow. Of course, Williams and his ilk continue to simply ignore the papers providing 'solutions' to Haldane's model, as well as those documenting examples that defy it. Easier to stick to their story, that way. I don't imply any such thing - it is one way around the problem. Oh - I am still waiting for the evidence that you NEED to provide in order to make your application of Haldane to the human evolution question appropriate. Until you provide this, your inane prattling on regarding the issue is simply blowing smoke.

quote:

Yet Haldane recognized intense selection for what it was, an unrealistic and rare event that actually made matters worse for evolution! (specifically the cost of substitution).

Yes, Haldane also recognized that his numbers would need "drastic revision."

quote:

I again refer Page to page 520. Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness!

Does evolution always proceed via the fixation of only one new gene at a time? Hmmm....

quote:

To illustrate this, Haldane gave an example of n=7.5, which represents an enormous intensity of 4. This yields a fitness of .02, which Haldane calls “hardly compatible with survival” (it means that 100 offspring are needed just to get one without a new harmful mutation).

What is the purpose of 'needing' one without a new harmful mutation? This is all statistical, right? What if the first one is THE one?
Anyway, rather than harping on Haldane as is the shallowly educated creationists wont, try reading in stead of ignoring the papers that document some of the problems with Haldane and the fact that natural populations don't often fit the bill.

Try, just for one:

"Solutions to the cost of selection Dilemma." Grant and Flake (the papers by these authors should be especially intriguing fro Williams and his handler ReMine, as one of them - Grant, I think - is an electrical engineer, so he MUST be right!). 1974. PNAS 71(10) 3863-3865.

That is a great paper in that they outline Haldane's assumptions and explain how few of them are applicable to natural populations.

quote:

The relationship between intensity and substitution cost really only manifests itself as you start moving intensity above .1 (which is even considered atypically high selection by biologists). That is why Haldane said that cost and selection are essentially independent provided you don’t plug in ridiculously high values for selection. As I said earlier, intense selection is an enemy of reproductive cost.

Whatever you say, Fred. After all, you always know exactly what "informed evos" think, don't you?

quote:

Finally, Page confirms he is confused on the implications of intense selection when he takes the following quote from Haldane completely out of out-of-context:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: Of course, creationists, in my opinion purposely distort/ignore the real flip side, as for example where Haldane writes:
"Thus it is important that Kimura's theory and my own should not be extended to cover biological situations in whihc they do not apply."
(More precise expressions for the cost of natural selection. 1960.)
And what were some of those situations in which they do apply?
"...in a population of constant size... These expressions were not, however, precise unless the intensity of selection is weak."(same)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope I don’t have to scan the appropriate page (p 359) to prove Page is taking Haldane out of context. Early in the paragraph Haldane writes “The results given in 1957 are however accurate enough for most practical purposes.” Haldane then goes on to comment that Kimura’s “substitutional load” cannot be readily compensated by gene substitution, because it would require “100 of millions of years”. He proceeds to give an example of unrealistically intense selection, then notes in the sentence directly preceding Page’s quote: “Organisms which produce many offspring permit of rapid artificial selection only if they can be protected from natural causes of death.” What Haldane is saying is that in assumed scenarios of intense selection, it is unrealistic to ignore the impact of natural causes of death, which themselves incur a cost because they reduce the number of offspring available for beneficial substitution.

Page believes that Haldane is admitting that he used unrealistic assumptions, which is simply not true and actually is quite the opposite. Haldane is arguing that one should not apply his model to situations that are unrealistic (Note that Haldane actually used assumptions favorable to evolution, such as atypically high selection I=.1; What if he had used the more generally accepted value of .01? Then it would have taken 3000 generations per substitution!)

Its ironic what Page wrote regarding the above passage: “One should hope that the creationists that like to hang their hat on "Haldane's Dilemma" would have read and understood this at some point...”

Let’s hope Page finally read the passage and now understands what Haldane really was saying. I would hope a retraction from Page regarding his out-of-context quote is forthcoming…


Being accused of using quotes out of context by a creationist - especially one with Williams' reputation - is simultaneously laughable and disgusting. I shall first produce Williams' supposed quotes, I shall also provide the actual quotes, and a summary of his accusations, and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions.

First, Williams accuses me of taking some quotes form Haldane's 1960 paper out of context. The quotes I used:

"Thus it is important that Kimura's theory and my own should not be extended to cover biological situations in whihc they do not apply."

And

"...in a population of constant size... These expressions were not, however, precise unless the intensity of selection is weak."

I provided these in response to Williams statement:

"Small founder populations are the enemy of evolution because genetic drift will invariably work to *remove* information from the genome. In addition, genetic drift will move many of the low-frequency deleterious mutations toward higher frequencies."

The first quote can hardly be out of context. It is straightforward - indeed, ANY mathematical model should not be applied to situations in which they do not actually apply.

The first paragraph of Haldane's 1960 paper, from where I took the second quote:

"Haldane (1957) gave expressions for the "cost" of natural selection, that is to say for the total number of deaths, or their equivalents in reduced fertility, sometimes called "genetic deaths", which must occur in a population of constant size before a gene is replaced by one of its allelomorphs. These expressions were not, however, precise unless the intensity of selection is weak."

Now, Williams claims that I took Haldane out fo context. It appears that Williams cannot see how an individual can come to their own conclusions. Unlike the creationist, I do not require that some 'well known' charlatan creationist, more oten than not writing well outside of his field of knowledge, provide me with every thought that am allowed to think, and that these thoughts be traced to specific quotes from some document.

I conclude that Haldane's model as expressed in 1957 is largely inapplicable in many if not most circumstance for, among other things, the simple fact that as Haldane acknowledged, it requires a constant population size and weak selection. I have asked for you to provide example sof natural populations that remain constant in size. In usual creationist fashion, you merely omit such requests in your responses. In fact, if you cannot provide evidence that all pre-human populations were of constant size and always underwent weak selection, your application of Haldane to the human evolution scenario is unawarranted.

The quotes are not taken out of context because I am not claiming that my conclusions arew what Haldane meant.

Now, I am still waiting for the evidence that you NEED to provide in order to make your application of Haldane to the human evolution question appropriate...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Fred Williams, posted 07-09-2002 1:57 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 7:16 PM derwood has responded
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 7:21 PM derwood has responded

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2473 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 48 of 57 (13439)
07-12-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
07-10-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
If the new allele 'arises' while the possessor of the wild type is still alive, his existence is irrelevant. That individual does not have to 'die' to help fix the new allele, he just has to not pass it on.

Technically it does have to die, because technically for an allele to be fixed every organism has to have it. Non-technically speaking, we are both hairsplitting.

quote:

Me: I again refer Page to page 520. Notice that fitness is e^(-30n^-1), and intensity is I=30n^-1. As intensity increases, n (number of generations to fix one gene) decreases, causing a logarithmic decrease in fitness!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does evolution always proceed via the fixation of only one new gene at a time? Hmmm....


Nice strawman. Haldane’s 1 per 300 generations is an average over time.. Multiple genes can be moving toward fixation, but over time an average of 1 per 300 generations will become fixed.

quote:
I conclude that Haldane's model as expressed in 1957 is largely inapplicable in many if not most circumstance for, among other things, the simple fact that as Haldane acknowledged, it requires a constant population size and weak selection.

So do you agree that Haldane did not believe as you do, and would not claim that constant pop size and weak selection are “inapplicable in many if not most circumstance”? BTW, nowhere in Haldane’s paper does he think constant population size is a risky assumption for his model. Why do you think it is a risky assumption? Merel'y because in natural population sizes aren’t constant?

Another point worth repeating. Haldane showed that STRONG SELECTION ACTUALLY MAKES MATTERS WORSE FOR EVOLUTION. HE SHOWED THAT STRONG SELECTION PUTS TOO HIGH A BURDEN ON THE COST OF SUBSTITUTION! He later argues that strong selection is a rare biological situation, so don’t extend his model to it. He doesn’t want you to because evolution becomes even less tenable!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-10-2002 1:32 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:06 PM Fred Williams has responded

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2473 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 49 of 57 (13441)
07-12-2002 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by derwood
07-10-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
The quotes are not taken out of context because I am not claiming that my conclusions arew what Haldane meant.

I just saw this. Don't know why I missed it when writing my last response. This answers the question I asked in my last post.

After reading Scott's original claims, I can see how this could easily fit with what he wrote above, that his claims were not based on what Haldane believed. Therefore, I HEREBY RETRACT THAT SCOTT TOOK HALDANE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND OFFER MY APOLOGIES.

Fred


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by derwood, posted 07-10-2002 1:32 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:00 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 07-16-2002 6:52 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 50 of 57 (13568)
07-15-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
07-12-2002 7:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I just saw this. Don't know why I missed it when writing my last response. This answers the question I asked in my last post.

After reading Scott's original claims, I can see how this could easily fit with what he wrote above, that his claims were not based on what Haldane believed. Therefore, I HEREBY RETRACT THAT SCOTT TOOK HALDANE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND OFFER MY APOLOGIES.

Fred


Thank you, Fred. Apology accepted. Let's hope that any further exchanges (they will be few and far between - life is catching up and all that) will be of sufficient clarity that such misunderstandings can be avoided.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 7:21 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 51 of 57 (13570)
07-15-2002 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Fred Williams
07-12-2002 7:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
SLPx:
Does evolution always proceed via the fixation of only one new gene at a time? Hmmm....
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice strawman. Haldane’s 1 per 300 generations is an average over time.. Multiple genes can be moving toward fixation, but over time an average of 1 per 300 generations will become fixed.


Strawman just like the 40 offspring per couple sctick?

quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I conclude that Haldane's model as expressed in 1957 is largely inapplicable in many if not most circumstance for, among other things, the simple fact that as Haldane acknowledged, it requires a constant population size and weak selection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

...Why do you think it is a risky assumption? Merel'y because in natural population sizes aren’t constant?


"Merely"? How many models retain their accuracy when one of the important assumptions is inapplicable?

I do wish you would check out - rather than ignore - at least one of the papers I have cited.

quote:

Another point worth repeating. Haldane showed that STRONG SELECTION ACTUALLY MAKES MATTERS WORSE FOR EVOLUTION. HE SHOWED THAT STRONG SELECTION PUTS TOO HIGH A BURDEN ON THE COST OF SUBSTITUTION! He later argues that strong selection is a rare biological situation, so don’t extend his model to it. He doesn’t want you to because evolution becomes even less tenable!

And yet there are documented examples of populations exceeding Haldane's model's limit. Go figure - is it a model problem, or an evolution problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 7:16 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Fred Williams, posted 07-16-2002 6:42 PM derwood has responded

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 2473 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 52 of 57 (13659)
07-16-2002 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by derwood
07-15-2002 2:06 PM


quote:
Strawman just like the 40 offspring per couple sctick?

As you are aware, leading geneticist Dr Crow in a personal email exchange did not think it was a “strawman”, and in fact admitted it was a “serious problem” that deserves serious attention. It’s a problem that is clear to see, and has hard data to back it. If you think 40 offspring per couple is a reasonable possibility, I think the onus is on you to make a case for it.

quote:
I do wish you would check out - rather than ignore - at least one of the papers I have cited.

Ironically, this thread was started to refute two citations you made! I only have time to refute so much! Besides, the one’s you posted here were off-topic for this thread. Regardless, they are not that interesting to me. I have told you in the past that Haldane’s model being right or wrong has nothing to do with the mutation cost problem spelled out in my article. Find me an article that counters the primary thrust of my article (that DNA comparison studies are yielding too high a mutation rate to justify simian/man ancestry), and I’ll be more interested.

quote:
And yet there are documented examples of populations exceeding Haldane's model's limit.

Uh, I may be mistaken but I don’t recall a “limit” to Haldane’s model. In fact, his model works best as the pop size goes to infinity. The bigger the population, the less strain on substitution cost.

Regarding your constant size protest, I think you are grasping at straws. Scores of evolutionists since Haldane, including Kimura, Crow, and GC Williams did not believe it was a weak or damaging assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by derwood, posted 07-15-2002 2:06 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by derwood, posted 07-17-2002 10:57 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16355
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 53 of 57 (13660)
07-16-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Fred Williams
07-12-2002 7:21 PM


Fred writes:

After reading Scott's original claims, I can see how this could easily fit with what he wrote above, that his claims were not based on what Haldane believed. Therefore, I HEREBY RETRACT THAT SCOTT TOOK HALDANE OUT OF CONTEXT, AND OFFER MY APOLOGIES.

Kudos! I hope I can be as gracious the next time I'm mistaken...

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Fred Williams, posted 07-12-2002 7:21 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 54 of 57 (13705)
07-17-2002 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fred Williams
07-16-2002 6:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawman just like the 40 offspring per couple sctick?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As you are aware, leading geneticist Dr Crow in a personal email exchange did not think it was a “strawman”, and in fact admitted it was a “serious problem” that deserves serious attention. It’s a problem that is clear to see, and has hard data to back it. If you think 40 offspring per couple is a reasonable possibility, I think the onus is on you to make a case for it.


I am aware that you had an exchange with Crow. So did I, about your contact with him. As you know, his correspondance with me indicated that you had somewhat embellished yours. Nevertheless, it is a problem for the mathematical models, not the ToE.
Here again, I ask you to expand on this 40 offspring per couple scenario. I have asked on at least three occasions now for you to explain what exactly that means, and each timne you have either totally ignored the post (as on the BB) or simply dodged it (as you have done here). ReMine did the same thing recently, so I suspect that he can't explain it either, but it does make a good soundbite, eh Fred?

quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wish you would check out - rather than ignore - at least one of the papers I have cited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically, this thread was started to refute two citations you made! I only have time to refute so much! Besides, the one’s you posted here were off-topic for this thread. Regardless, they are not that interesting to me.


Klassic Kretin Komedy! Let's see -

Would be able to 'refute' it if I had time...
Already refuted other citations...
Not that interesting...

Fred, you are as transparent as ReMine is egomaniacal.

No, Fred, time is not the issue. Interest is certainly not the issue - the papers deal EXPLICITLY with one of your pet strawmen!
You just don't want to see your fragile foundations shattered. Of course, ignoring them does us all a favor. We do not have to read line after line of hand waving and obfuscating...

quote:

I have told you in the past that Haldane’s model being right or wrong has nothing to do with the mutation cost problem spelled out in my article. Find me an article that counters the primary thrust of my article (that DNA comparison studies are yielding too high a mutation rate to justify simian/man ancestry), and I’ll be more interested.

Hey Fred - maybe you didn't notice the title of this thread? the one YOU started?
I can understand how you would want to change topics. But come on...
Oh - I am still waiting for your article onhow 'directed mutation' can somehow solve this issue for creationism. I am espcially interested in reading all of the mainstream studies documenting this phenomenon in multicellular eukaryotes (which of course you absolutley without exception must demonstrate) and especially the studies demonstrating that 'the information' required to account for, say, the descent of house cats from the original cat kind is already in the genome.

quote:

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet there are documented examples of populations exceeding Haldane's model's limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh, I may be mistaken but I don’t recall a “limit” to Haldane’s model. In fact, his model works best as the pop size goes to infinity. The bigger the population, the less strain on substitution cost.


Uh, the limit I was referring to uh, should have been, uh, obvious? Uh, the 'speed limit' Haldane's model, uh, set for uh, evolution? The one that, uh, your hero ReMine used in his,uh, book to claim (with no support) that, uh, 1667 fbms are the max that could have, uh, accumulated in 10 million years?

Does that uh, ring a bell?

quote:

Regarding your constant size protest, I think you are grasping at straws. Scores of evolutionists since Haldane, including Kimura, Crow, and GC Williams did not believe it was a weak or damaging assumption.


Yes, grasping. However, I am still waiting for you to provide documentation that the population size of all populations remain constant over time such that Haldane's model is applicable.
Scores of others, including Grant, Flake, Felsenstein, Darlington, etc., did.

So I shall conclude that you will simply ignore the papers that run counter to your position. Common creationist tactic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fred Williams, posted 07-16-2002 6:42 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

  
GarretKadeDupre
Junior Member (Idle past 1123 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 05-23-2014


Message 55 of 57 (728112)
05-23-2014 10:23 PM


Where does Haldane account for sexual recombination in his 1957 paper, "The Cost Of Selection"?
Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2014 10:47 PM GarretKadeDupre has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19329
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 57 (728115)
05-23-2014 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by GarretKadeDupre
05-23-2014 10:23 PM


old thread old paper old question
Hi GarretKadeDupre and welcome to the fray.

You realize the thread is 12 years old yes?

Where does Haldane account for sexual recombination in his 1957 paper, "The Cost Of Selection"?

You realize that this paper is 57 years old yes?

Why would you think he needs to?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


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 55 by GarretKadeDupre, posted 05-23-2014 10:23 PM GarretKadeDupre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by GarretKadeDupre, posted 05-24-2014 1:51 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

GarretKadeDupre
Junior Member (Idle past 1123 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 05-23-2014


Message 57 of 57 (728126)
05-24-2014 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
05-23-2014 10:47 PM


Re: old thread old paper old question
Does Haldane account for sexual recombination in his 1957 paper, "The Cost Of Selection" and if so, where and how?

Thanks for acknowledging my question.

{This message has become a new topic - Haldane's 1957 Paper, "The Cost Of Selection"}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : New topic message.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2014 10:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017