Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 303 (348261)
09-11-2006 10:40 PM


I'd like this to be more or less a continuation of the thread, What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?, on which I argued as usual for the mechanism of reduction of genetic diversity through selection and population-splitting processes, but I'd like to extend it to include the claim that mutations can overcome this barrier to macroevolution. But since it's apparently hard for the argument about the reducing processes to stick in anyone's mind, it needs to be reviewed.
On that thread at the very end, Percy said:
Percy writes:
I haven't participated very much in this thread, but since it is ending soon I just want to note that I don't think the topic of this thread has ever been addressed. There's been a lot of discussion about mutation, but as far as a mechanism preventing micro-evolution from becoming macroevolution, nothing.
I would say it's unfortunate that Percy didn't read more of the thread since he missed the whole argument that answered his walking analogy.
When the same doubt about the topic's being addressed came up earlier in the thread, Ben answered it quite well {edit: Pretty well anyway; not quite right on but close}:
http://EvC Forum: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
Ben writes:
I think Faith is proposing that speciation that we see is part of microevolution and is explained by allele frequency changes of isolated populations. She's denying that mutation necessarily have a role in this "microevolution", i.e. adaptation to new environments and species-specific changes due to isolation.
By doing so, she's trying to cut the bridge between such adaptation and large-scale "macroevolution". The bridge in evolutionary theory is mutation; Faith is saying microevolution won't accumulate and lead to macroevolution because microevolution can be explained by allele frequency changes ONLY and thus cuts out the bridge to macroevolution--mutation.Well, whether I can explain it or not, I think the discussion is on-topic.
Percy continues:
Percy writes:
If this topic comes up again I think the creationists need to better understand what they're claiming. An analogy would be micro-walking versus macro-walking. What keeps a micro-walk from becoming a macro-walk. Well, if you live in the continental United States, nothing prevents this. If you can walk to the store then you can walk across the country, it just takes longer. But if you live on a small desert island then the island's coastline is the limit of walking, and it makes macro-walking impossible.
This has been answered already many times by my argument. The only way the walking analogy would work at all, and then not really, is if you modify it to say that micro-walking is like a steep uphill hike in which baggage is periodically jettisoned from the backpack to make it easier, until you arrive at the foot of a sheer vertical cliff without any of the gear that would be needed to scale it (macro-walk it), because it has been jettisoned along the way. THAT is the boundary between micro-and macro-evolution, and the path to that point is the definition of the Kind.
Percy writes:
Just as an island's coast prevents macro-walking, creationists have to identify some boundary or mechanism that prevents macroevolution.
Defining that boundary is the whole point of my argument. The boundary is the fact that all the processes of evolution either maintain genetic diversity while varying frequencies of alleles, or reduce genetic diversity by eliminating alleles from new populations, the very populations considered most likely to lead to speciation, and the overall trend of this is slow reduction.
There is nothing whatever that could increase it except mutation.
Adding mutations to this is really more like interfering with a perfectly well-designed system than it is furthering anything useful, but on the assurance given by evolutionists that mutations do indeed provide useful alleles and increase genetic diversity enough and in the right direction to power evolution through to macroevolution, I've asked for evidence that this is so, and all I get is the usual short list of supposedly beneficial mutations. This does not meet the requirement, about which I'll say more in response to the following:
RickB in http://EvC Forum: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?:
RickB writes:
Your "logical conclusion" is, in this case, not shared by others. It is an opinion.
A logical conclusion is a logical conclusion. There is no other from the premises I have assembled, which you do not bother to mention, preferring to make an unsupported pronouncement.
RickB writes:
You reject evidence of benefitial mutation whilst providing no counter-evidence.
I've rejected the evidence as insufficient and therefore no evidence at all, if it's meant to demonstrate increase in alleles and genetic diversity after speciation. To do that you'd have to actually MEASURE alleles in a population after speciation, you can't merely assume that the occasional beneficial mutation in another species is sufficient to prove this. And the ball is in your court, not mine, because I've shown that all the other processes reduce genetic diversity, so it's up to those who claim mutation overcomes this to prove it.
RickB writes:
You have also failed to define the exact nature of of a "kind", from which said "degredation" supposedly takes place.
The whole point of the discussion about all the processes that reduce genetic diversity is that they come up against a brick wall beyond which no further variation or evolution is possible. Wherever this barrier is found is the outer edge of the Kind. You may want a definition, but a barrier should do as well instead.
But also, in another thread MJFloresta suggested that a Kind might be defined by all that could be interbred even artificially, assuming that some species simply stop interbreeding from lack of inclination rather than inability, and I thought that possibly a useful way to think about it. Then kuresu posted a list of hybrids that is quite extensive, and intuitively satisfying as a suggestion for what a Kind would include, which I thought would be a great start toward a definition of the Kinds. It's not that we haven't offered some thought along these lines.
Anything that clarifies the argument about the processes that reduce genetic diversity or supports the claim that mutations overcome this effect should be on-topic in this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 2:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 09-12-2006 4:19 AM Faith has replied
 Message 5 by RickJB, posted 09-12-2006 4:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2006 10:40 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 9 by fallacycop, posted 09-12-2006 11:16 AM Faith has replied
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 09-12-2006 8:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 137 by mick, posted 09-13-2006 9:48 PM Faith has replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 303 (348295)
09-12-2006 2:35 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 303 (348297)
09-12-2006 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-11-2006 10:40 PM


So far your arguments that mutation cannot keep pace with the loss of alleles have been:
1) Just ignore mutation. No further comment on the rationality of this argument is required.
2) A guess that the number of alleles lost (which will be almost entirely neutral and detrimental alleles) with a guess at the number of beneficial mutations. The guessing alone would disqualify this as a logical argument - but the fact that the numbers are not equivalent completely invalidates it. To that should be added the difficulty in conclusively identifying mutations and the fact that you were reluctant to accept even an example where there was good eveidence that the new allele was a mutation (one that seems to be evolutionarily neutral, but beneficial in other terms). Thius it must be said that your guess at the number of beneficial mutations is likely to be an underestimate.
So your asssertion is not the conclusion of a "logical argument". It is an opinion and the so-called "logical arguments" are fallacious post hoc attempts to support that opinion.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-11-2006 10:40 PM Faith has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 4 of 303 (348307)
09-12-2006 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-11-2006 10:40 PM


faith writes:
And the ball is in your court, not mine, because I've shown that all the other processes reduce genetic diversity...
...by flatly ignoring mutation as far as I can see.
There is evidence for mutation out there. The ball IS in the court, you just have to stop ignoring it.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-11-2006 10:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mjfloresta, posted 09-12-2006 10:44 AM RickJB has replied
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 11:40 AM RickJB has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 5 of 303 (348309)
09-12-2006 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-11-2006 10:40 PM


faith writes:
...which I thought would be a great start toward a definition of the Kinds. It's not that we haven't offered some thought along these lines.
"Starting" still means you don't have a useful definition! You sound like the kid at school who, not having bothered to do his homework, tells the teacher he's "started" it.
Before you even begin to think about a limit to speciation you have to define and then locate this "kind" barrier.
No such barrier is known to exist except as an ad hoc creation by your good self.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-11-2006 10:40 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 303 (348343)
09-12-2006 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-11-2006 10:40 PM


This whole line of argument boils down to presuming that some uncalculated rate of alleles excised from a population by speciation is somehow always greater than the uncalculated rate of alleles added to a population by mutation.
Since you don't have any metrics on anything you have no argument. The amount of alleles being lost is non-zero. The amount of alleles being added by mutation is non-zero. Therefore all you have is your hope that somehow somewhere scientists can calculate these things and that they would fit your scenario.
It is NOT "obvious" as you are probably going to claim that the loss is greater than the gain. You can keep asking for beneficial mutations all you want. I would suggest that some of the be turned around and ask you for examples of allele loss. This is being talked about like some common day occurrence while beneficial mutation is some kind of hyper rare event. So then show us how common allele loss is.
In fact we know that beneficial mutations can be not only common but often entirely predictable. Populations of bacteria will almost always develop resistance to anti-biotics for example. Not only are the mutations happening, the same ones are happening repeatedly.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-11-2006 10:40 PM Faith has not replied

mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5993 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 7 of 303 (348345)
09-12-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RickJB
09-12-2006 4:19 AM


Ignoring mutation? Or taking it for what it is...
..by flatly ignoring mutation as far as I can see.
There is evidence for mutation out there. The ball IS in the court, you just have to stop ignoring it.
Neither Faith, nor any creationist ignores mutations; they exist, that's accepted. You say there's evidence for "mutation out there", as if creationists deny the reality of mutations.
What you mean to say is that mutations are a sufficient mechanism to cause evolution, leading to all the diversity of life we see today.
This, however, is not so clear at all. You say there is evidence for this. But consider the scope of your claim. This goes beyond the mere speculation of a supposed beneficial mutation or even the accumulation of such mutations. This flat out requires that mutations lead to the formation of novel organs (I'll ignore body plans or increased complexity or information and any such arguments so we don't get bogged down there in this thread).
We're not talking about about mere reproductive advantage or increased survival which the supposed beneficial mutations are thought to confer. We're talking about fundamental physiological changes. Where has this ever been observed (at all, much less as a result of mutational mechanisms)?
Darwinianism has long over-valued mutation as a mechanism for change, DESPITE the absolute absence of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 09-12-2006 4:19 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 11:00 AM mjfloresta has replied
 Message 21 by RickJB, posted 09-12-2006 12:40 PM mjfloresta has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 8 of 303 (348351)
09-12-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mjfloresta
09-12-2006 10:44 AM


Re: Ignoring mutation? Or taking it for what it is...
Yes, ignoring mutation.
http://EvC Forum: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution? -->EvC Forum: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
The point is just that it is very hard to get across this fact of inexorable genetic depletion through the normal processes of variation and speciation, because mutation keeps being assumed to take up the slack of this depletion. In fact it simply doesn't.
But that has NOT been established as a fact. That is your opinion, and so far as I can tell it is based mainly on your desire for it to be true.
If you would just keep mutation out of the picture for the time being and just think through the processes I'm describing, which are all standard science that evolutionists refer to all the time, you ought to be able to follow it all to the logical conclusion I keep pointing out here, which is that genetic depletion IS the overall trend in all these processes. There's nothing of opinion in this at all, it logically follows from an understanding of what these processes actually do.
So Faith claims that it is a "fact" that mutation "simply doesn't" "take up the slack". She says that has a "logical argument" to that effect. But we have to "keep mutation out of the picture" i.e. ignore it...
But to be fair Faith has since moved to ignoring neutral mutations (i.e. the majority). Her argument is based on guessing the number of beneficial mutations - which, of course, is the wrong number when looking at allele diversity.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mjfloresta, posted 09-12-2006 10:44 AM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mjfloresta, posted 09-12-2006 11:53 AM PaulK has replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 9 of 303 (348356)
09-12-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-11-2006 10:40 PM


The burden is on you
There is nothing whatever that could increase it(genetic diversity) except mutation.
That's exactly right.That's why the subtitle of the theory of evolution is often taken to be "decent with modification". Modification is essential.
Adding mutations to this is really more like interfering with a perfectly well-designed system than it is furthering anything useful,
That's just your opnion
but on the assurance given by evolutionists that mutations do indeed provide useful alleles and increase genetic diversity enough and in the right direction to power evolution through to macroevolution, I've asked for evidence that this is so,
I think the burden is upon you to show that it isn't
and all I get is the usual short list of supposedly beneficial mutations. This does not meet the requirement,
only because you refuse to accept the evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-11-2006 10:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 11:53 AM fallacycop has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 303 (348366)
09-12-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RickJB
09-12-2006 4:19 AM


And the ball is in your court, not mine, because I've shown that all the other processes reduce genetic diversity...
...by flatly ignoring mutation as far as I can see.
What I actually said, if you will be so kind as to review it, is "all the OTHER processes..." meaning other than mutation. I am trying to keep the focus there, not deny mutation, just keep mutation from being blurred in with these other processes in such a way that it keeps this fact obscured, that all of them reduce genetic diversity. I'm pretty sure nobody faced this fact until I started hammering away at it, and some still haven't recognized it.
There is evidence for mutation out there. The ball IS in the court, you just have to stop ignoring it.
Evidence that mutation increases alleles after speciation has been promised but not delivered, and that is where the ball remains until it is delivered. All anyone has actually offered is some paltry examples of very iffy beneficial mutations. To prove that mutation increases alleles would involve, at a minimum, COUNTING ALLELES before and after speciation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 09-12-2006 4:19 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 11:53 AM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 303 (348368)
09-12-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
09-12-2006 11:40 AM


quote:
Evidence that mutation increases alleles after speciation has been promised but not delivered, and that is where the ball remains until it is delivered
What is there about speciation that would STOP mutation from producing new alleles ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 11:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 12:09 PM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 303 (348369)
09-12-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by fallacycop
09-12-2006 11:16 AM


Re: The burden is on you
There is nothing whatever that could increase it(genetic diversity) except mutation.
That's exactly right.That's why the subtitle of the theory of evolution is often taken to be "decent with modification". Modification is essential.
Unfortunately for your claim, "modification" has historically meant not just mutation but all the processes I've been showing to reduce genetic diversity, such as migration of small populations, natural selection, bottleneck and so on. Historically these have all been listed together with mutation as "evolutionary processes," not making the distinction I've been taking pains to make.
This has been a big confusion, because these processes do bring about a change in the phenotype, new traits, and appear to be "evolutionary processes" for that reason. The fact that all they do is select from among alleles that are already present in the population, often by eliminating some altogether, implies that there's no way such a process could be the power to fuel evolution, but historically it has been treated as such. Conservationists know better. They know that selection processes, even random selection processes like migration, and certainly bottleneck, can reduce genetic diversity to the peril of the species, not what you'd call a happy prospect for macroevolution.
So, that leaves ONLY mutation for the ToE to depend upon.
Adding mutations to this is really more like interfering with a perfectly well-designed system than it is furthering anything useful,
That's just your opnion
Let's say I'm waiting for some actual evidence on which to base a change of opinion.
but on the assurance given by evolutionists that mutations do indeed provide useful alleles and increase genetic diversity enough and in the right direction to power evolution through to macroevolution, I've asked for evidence that this is so,
I think the burden is upon you to show that it isn't
I've done a very good job of showing how most of the supposed evolutionary processes work against evolution, and now I'm waiting to see evidence that mutation could REALLY move the whole shebang in the opposite direction all by itself.
Showing me that mutations exist proves nothing. I know they exist. I also know most of them do nothing useful at all, and those that do also do something destructive at the same time. Very odd idea that these examples are the evidence that is required.
and all I get is the usual short list of supposedly beneficial mutations. This does not meet the requirement,
only because you refuse to accept the evidence
I don't accept it because it doesn't meet the requirement. You want me to pretend it meets it like you all do?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by fallacycop, posted 09-12-2006 11:16 AM fallacycop has not replied

mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5993 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 13 of 303 (348370)
09-12-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
09-12-2006 11:00 AM


Re: Ignoring mutation? Or taking it for what it is...
So Faith claims that it is a "fact" that mutation "simply doesn't" "take up the slack". She says that has a "logical argument" to that effect. But we have to "keep mutation out of the picture" i.e. ignore it...
But to be fair Faith has since moved to ignoring neutral mutations (i.e. the majority). Her argument is based on guessing the number of beneficial mutations - which, of course, is the wrong number when looking at allele diversity.
Yes, I see your point. But Faith is merely trying to establish the first point which is that normal speciation events result in stasis or loss of genetic information. Since the veracity of this concept is denied by most here, it is hardly possible to proceed to the second question - namely whether mutation is a sufficient mechanism to overcome the prior loss.
That, I believe, is the focus of Faith's argument.
On the other hand, I believe that the mutations can be looked at independently of the first concept (genetic loss). The question is whether or not mutation is a sufficient mechanism to account for all the diversity we see today.
The problem with this thesis lies in its ambiguity. Evos say that mutation is sufficient to account for all diversity, Creationists say otherwise.
The problem is that Evos don't seem to consider any criteria that would confirm such "upward" evolution. Creationists, for their part, have not been able to pin down specific criteria for what mutations can and can't account. The dividing line has been drawn in terms of complexity, or information, or body plans, or organs.
Body plans are intuitive (to me anyway) but can't be defined precisely (now, at any rate).
Information gain seems to head in the right direction but is not a perfect criterion either - since strictly certain mutations do add information, that is, they increase the physical number of nucleotides present in the genome.
Complexity deals with the high degree of organization seen in the genome.
Organs refers to the vast physiological differences between organs of the same function in organisms of different species (e.g. the drosophilia eye vs the human eye).
Without delving deeper right now into each of these four delineating criteria, let me just say that it seems to me the organs and the information criteria pose the most significant hurdle to the mutational mechanism.
Regardless of which criteria is best, it has been the evolutionists mode to couch the mutational mechanism in terms of "achieving all the diversity we see today" utterly ignoring the vast proccesses inherent in evolving a lineage from the primordial soup to the most complex creatures extant today.
To be fair, many Evo scientists recognize the need to actually factually validate the lofty claims of the potency of mutations. This has lead to significant genetic research, especially of the Hox genes, wherein the hope of validating the mutational mechanism lies...
The claims of the potency of the mutational mechanism are vast and audacious. Only in the last 5 + years has significant genetic research into these claims been undertaken. Early returns make me skeptical that such claims will be validated. Regardless, to religiously ascribe the Scientific Seal of Certainty while much research remains to be done, and current research casts shadows not brighter light on the theory, is to misrepresent the reality of it all..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 11:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 09-12-2006 11:59 AM mjfloresta has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 12:11 PM mjfloresta has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 303 (348372)
09-12-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mjfloresta
09-12-2006 11:53 AM


Re: Ignoring mutation? Or taking it for what it is...
... Faith is merely trying to establish the first point which is that normal speciation events result in stasis or loss of genetic information. Since the veracity of this concept is denied by most here, it is hardly possible to proceed to the second question - namely whether mutation is a sufficient mechanism to overcome the prior loss.
Yes, thank you. And worse than that, it's not even outright denied, it's sometimes seemingly tacitly accepted when it is agreed that mutation IS the power that drives evolution. But so far nobody has shown the slightest understanding or clear unequivocal recognition of this stasis and loss of diversity in everything but mutation. There is no ground for considering mutation's possible effect until that is done.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mjfloresta, posted 09-12-2006 11:53 AM mjfloresta has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 303 (348376)
09-12-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
09-12-2006 11:53 AM


Evidence that mutation increases alleles after speciation has been promised but not delivered, and that is where the ball remains until it is delivered
What is there about speciation that would STOP mutation from producing new alleles ?
It has to produce useful alleles
It has to produce more useful alleles than deleterious or useless alleles. Evolution can't possibly have been built on a trade-off between disease and health.
It has to produce enough of them to take a new species from a state of sometimes severe genetic depletion to genetic abundance, where its parent species started many selections behind it. The development of a new species, after all, is the point at which evolution is supposed to turn to macroevolution, so if in fact the new species has a lot fewer alleles per gene than other populations from which it speciated, mutation has to restore all that, and that would only get it back to where the original population is. So it has to provide a lot more than that.
And this is a very odd situation, since speciation itself is supposed to be this launching point for macroevolution. Why then are we having to add anything in at this point, a whole bunch of mutations to make up for the loss of genetic diversity, and note well, the very loss of diversity that makes the speciation happen in the first place. There is something wrong with this picture.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 11:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2006 12:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 09-12-2006 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024