Kinds and diversification through microevolution and hybridization

Continuation of KINDS discussion from other thread (http://EvC Forum: My overall view from this boards. -->EvC Forum: My overall view from this boards.).Mammuthus1) Why kinds if families = kinds? Becasue kinds may not exactly be families. Why should they? Science is full of definitions that come from multiple angles and end up converged but different to both starting points. Genomics and microevolution has and will modify creationist conceptions of kinds. I personally doubt that sheep and cows are the same kinds but I could imagine that sheep and goats are. Are you saying that sheep and cows are in the same Linnean family? If that's the case that's one reason why creationiost say the kind is approximately at the family level. As you know, completely independently of my creationist interest, I am suggesting the redefinition of taxonomy using genomics. I am not alone on that.2) Mutations in promotor regions lead to macro. If that really is the case I believe in macroevoltuion. You tell me the pair of organisms where that is known? My point is that macroevoltuion requires new gene families becasue we can see them in the genomes!! I do not deny that point mutations also distinguish genomes. But that is the part we agree with! We are just saying that the changes that we think only God could do are the new protein families. I can agree with you that nature could switch on/off existing genes using promoter mutations. Note the Varki paper title - mutation generated the loss of the N-glycolylneuraminic acid pathway. Do you really think that is the only difference between man and apes? Most estimates suspect multiple new protein famiiles which is not discovered through the '98% similar' experiments. We'll see when the Pan genome comes in.3) BLAST? The good hits are proteins in the same families!4) Introns? I believe that introns were in us from day one of course. They serve a purpose as gene partioning for multiple splicing.5) Retroviruses? I can 100% agree we are gentically polluted and that the genome is extremely plastic.6) Finches? The finch issue is no differnt than any organism. We believe the genomes will be distinct at some level we call kinds. It is exactly the same issue as caused Gould to initiate PE. We just come from differnt angles.7) Broccoli, mustard etc genomically the same? They are the same but have differnet alleles. Just like dogs or humans. So genotypes do dictate phenotype to a 99.99% type level. Tell me about genomic imprinting? Is that the methylation issue? Yes I agree with epigentics but 99.99% of the story comes from genotype. I am interested in epigenetics, don't get me wrong.8) Molecular evoltuion? I am coming at it from a protein family/struc biol angle. This has less noise in it than just looking at sequences. This will/already is adding something to mol-evol. Comparative genomics already does look at presence/absence of protein families and that is the type of work I am doing on it. I read old mol-evol stuff, yes, but I'm not going to sit there pronouncing things about evolution from lists of homologous sequences! We have full genomes and can know look at the coming and going of new protein families - that is far, far more exciting whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist. There is no creaitonist agenda in this approach - it is basically the state of the art of mol-evol.9) Thin air? The data says that the genes 'came out of thin air' whether that is evoltuion from random or creation by God. The data does not particularly support your theory. You just have a religious dislike for our interpretaiton.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-12-2002]

MammuthusI'l respond point by point when I've got time but for now . . .I have defined kinds genomically - they are organisms with genomes characterised by distinct new sets of protein families. They are distinct clusters of protein famiiles - not distinct from all of life but life lower in the tree than themselves.You see, we agree with the standard tree of life as a way of organising life. The biochemsitry of life is made up of sub-systems. Simpler organisms have fewer of these sub-systems. You interperet this as common descent, we interperet it as the engineering of God.That is the key point in the whole homology arguement. We agree with the homologies! We agree that we are more like moneys. We agree that mammals are more related to reptiles than fish. But that is only an arguement against creation if you don't allow God to build organisms using common sub-systems.

Mammuthus - here's my point by point response:1) Defn of kind (See my first post today)
+ Pointless definitions? Our definition of kinds as being distinguishable from simpler kinds by unique clusters of genes is a completely sensible testable definition.2) Mutations and macroevolution.
I said that "My point is that macroevoltuion requires new gene families becasue we can see them in the genomes!!" and you call it nonsense. It makes complete sense. Macroevoltuion brings in genuinely new genes! You can pussy-foot around with mutations evident from alignements of homologous genes. I am taking you to the hard ask. I could define you as a different species from me on the basis of SNPs too but that would be ridiculous. It is many evoltuiuonists that misunderstand the differnece between mutaitons leading to variation vs novel protein families.I have seen a ref (and posted it here) that people expect novel protein families in humans. We expect it becasue we ahve always got it before. We have about 300 (?) novel proteins compared to mice I beleive.I use the term protien families becasue the mainstream term fits exactly with what I want to say.3) BLAST and human hits.
The point isn't that you get human hits to your query sequence it's that you get hits which have almost identical sequence. These clusters of genes are called protein families. There is nothing controversial here. The point is that one can't use this to work out where the first hemoglobin came from.4) Introns?
I have no problems with individual introns coming and going. I have no problem with any of the mechanisms of evolution!! I am simply making the point that these mechanisms have not been proven to lead to the evoltuion of anything genuinely new. You guys have simply assumed that the known plasticity of genomes etc can lead to the evoltuion of a heart from a system that didn't have one. You assume it simply becasue you see organims with increasingly complicated hearts. It is all one big assumption. We don't actually dispute your data one bit.5) Retroviruses argue against increased complexity?
Who says that life is now getting more complex? We beleive it is in a state of decay!6) Finches & PE? Every single anatomical paleotologist knows that ultimately things happen at the genomic level. The Gould/Dawkins arguements were not debating this. I am simply saying that genomic clustering into distinct groups would generate anatomical clusterings.7) Epigenetics
I am a genuine fan of epigentics. I just dpon't like peiople going overboard on it. A simple look at twins (sperated at birth if you require) shows intuitively that 99.99% of development is primarily genetic. I need no further proof than intuition here.I'd love to hear about the dosage compensation if you can do it in a non-condesecnding way. I can imagine it accounts for the fact that women have two Xs corrected for by epigenetic processes? All fascinating but what relevance does it have to C vs E?8) Struc Biol/novel families in molecular evoltuion?
Struc Biol and concentrating on clearly defined families has less noise for one basic reason: protein folds in 3D are more conserved than sequences. I agree at the plain seq alignemnt level protein is not much diff than DNA.Fundamentally why does comparative genomics concentrate on presence/absence of genes and not homolgous sequence aligenments? Becasue the former is far more interesting and enlightening!The researcher who says that humans have 15 base changes in hemoglobin relative to rat is going to end up in FEBS Lett. The researcher that shows that man has four brain proteins that rats don't have at all will end up in Nature. It is as simple as that. The gneomic era has made molecualr evolution a far more robust field.9) Thin air?
The data, not any theory, says that the genes 'came out of thin air'.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-15-2002]

SLPxIn general:We believe that seqeunces were created (in each kind) and have since drifted by microevoltuion. Almost any sequence alignment will have clusters of more closely realted sequences and we could identify those as kinds perhpas. But, now that we have genomes, it is far more enlightening to identify kinds based on presence/absence of protein families! There is much less noise in doing this.There is no agenda here, it is simply a matter of what is easier to reconstruct. If there are underlying kinds then genomes are far more informative than homologous sequences.Your sequecne alignment?Why don't you first tell us what organisms these sequences are from? I seem to recall they are primate seqeunces(?). We aren't all primate experts - especially biophysicists.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-16-2002]

Mammuthus1) Defn of kind no use?
I want to keep Linneus - I just suggest that genomics may yield a more objective taxonomy that ultimately may prove useful. I respect standard anatomical taxonomy.So I still have your two mouse species within a kind. What is there to disagree about if we put 'kind' at approximately the family level?I don't see how anything you said after your mouse example has anything to do with the issue. You seem to forget that I am making a testable prediction! I am predicting that a close study of hundreds of genomes over the next 10 years will demonstrate that there is a natural 'kind' concept that is distinguished by the presence of distinct genomes. To go to the next kind you will have to add X number of protein families. Within the kinds the differences will be allelic or pseudo-genes. This is a perfectly sensible prediciton of our model and so far does fit with the data.We had a big discussion before here about alleles vs new genes. I'm pretty sure you understand the difference but I'll explain it if you don't.My summary is that kinds are distinguished by alleles within and novel protein families without.2) Mutations and macroevolution.
I 100% agree that simple changes in HOX genes can yield dramitic changes that could even be beneficial. There you go - if that is macroevoltuion then we both believe in macroevolution. I'm simply trying to tell you the part of macroevoltuion that I don't beleive in! And I'll even agree 100% with your syncitin example although I still reserve the possibility that both the virus and humans were given this protein separately although I'll admitt the evidence probably suggests otherwise. It is highly likely, as the paper itself sugested, that humans used to have the non-viral gene. I agree with the plasticity of the genome but that does not mean that we evolved from fish.I don't expect new banks of genes naturalistically either - we can agree. But the genomes tell us that new banks of genes systematically appeared! We don't have to talk theoretically - we can talk empirically. We have the genomes laid out before us.3) BLAST and human hits.
Yes, so my point is that you wont systematically find what the first HOX gene evolved from.4) Evolution & proof?
What problem with the scientific method do I have? I am simply challenging a notion that you think is proved and I'm saying it isn't! You tell me what my problem spoecifically is if you like. All I'm saying is that you guys assume evoltuion is responsible for homologous proteins. We say microevoltuion diversified each kind but that the original proteins were created. What we are saying is completely consistent with the data - you just don't like it. We say you jumped the gun from microevoltuion and homology to macroevolution.5) Decay?
My claim of decay is essentially a Biblical proclamation - I don't have empirical data to prove it becasue I'm sure you don't believe the ages in the Genesis genealogies.6) Evoltuion at genome level?
We can completely agree that selective pressure occurs at the phenotype. This is recorded for the next generation in the genotype. I think we both know how it works. PS - Do you know what the Dawkins/Gould debate was really about?7) Epigenetics
We're talking extents. The point is that 99.99% of the features of the body of an organism develops essentially determinstically due to the genotype. The faces of genotypically identical twins look essentially identical.8) Struc Biol/novel families in molecular evoltuion?
The question still is if a phenotype is due to the same underlying molecular mechanism. If it is the protein folds will definitely be the same.I know phylogentics is done via homolgous seqeucnes but it doesn't prove anything but similarity. We don't have enough distinct genomes to systematically use protein family appearence yet. Most are bactrial. But comparative genomics is the way of the future. From a CvsE point of view we will always agree with everything you say about sequence alignements except that it proves macroevolution. Your alignements just prove similarity!I agree with your regulation comment.9) Thin air?
Collegues in offices and the origin of life are two very differnt things. The way you and I practise sceince would be exactly the same on almost anything we could talk about. But the origin of life is something inherently potentially miraculous.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-16-2002]

SLPxThe point is that although your molecular phylogeny work very clearly deomnstrates the plausibility of common descent it does not prove it. Mol-phylo is completely compatible with creaiton of kinds and diversification via mutations and natural selection. If all you want to do is demonstrate which species are more closely related then what you are doing is fine.For some reason you simply do not allow the possibility that God could have sat there and chosen initial seqeunces for each organism. The more physiologically similar the more similar the sequences.Becasue sequences can drift so far without changing function I do not expect to see the kind conept from homolgous sequences. But I do expect to see the kind concept from the complement of genes in the genome.The true quesitons of what genes originated when can be studied via comparative genomics where we find out what new genes are responsible for what new physiological features. And of course the new genes at each stage of complexity are a complete mystery.You are locked in a faith trap just as we are. The part of evolution which generates real novelty, that we say never happened naturalistically, is the part you have no evidence for. So you believe it happened.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-18-2002]

MammuthusI read it and never got back to it . . . OK, here we go . . .1) Defn of kind no use?
Becasue we can't prove the 'kind' concept exists, for now we define it seperately and see if it naturally aligns with some level of Linneanism. If it does, great. If not the Linnean system may be modified (if even mainstrreamers agree) or a parellel system may be developed. The point is inbetween we need to refer to the term 'kind' so that we do not pronounce something proven before it is. The term 'family', or any other Linnean term has no formal definiton genetically, let alone genomically and has not be shown by anyone to unambiguously agree with our/my definition of kind. It may, it may not.You say there are "non-shared alleles even between populations of the same species". What I said was that kinds are distinguished within (ie species in a kind are characterizable) by differnt allele sets. Non-shared genes between closely related species can usually be shown to be due to loss or horizontal gain. I just read some genomics papers on multiple Bascilus (spelling?) species genomes and the proposal was that all distinct protein families are due to either of these mechanisms. Horizonal transfer is fairly easily proven. Genomic loss may be difficult to prove in some instances (eg if pseudo genes have drifted to complete unrecogizability).2) Mutations and macroevolution.
Of course I know you are not proposing we came directly from fish! I'm familiar with biomednet although this is one of the only sites my instituion doesn't have rights to non-free stuff on-line. I'll check out that article although horizontal transfer is not somehting that distinguishes our views. I can accept it as a means of diversification. It does not explain the original origin of any protein familiy. Fascinating that Aradopsis has that much horizontal transfer. I accept that genomes are very plastic.3) BLAST and HOX.
Yes, but you still wont find out where the first HOX came from. It's not as if protein families can be systematically traced to each other.4) Evolution & proof?
Some theories do get 'proven' within reasonable doubt. It is semantics to debate this surely. You think (macro)evoltuion is more proven than I think it is. Multiple lines of eveidence - eg distinctness of protein families - suggest creation of kinds followed by evolution.I am not mixing evoltuion with abiogenesis although it may sound like it. I believe God created genomes at approximately the Linnean family level. But what I am saying is that I wont argue with you that paralog 1 could have come from paralog 2 (even though I don't believe it did typically). But I will argue that the distincness of protein families suggests creaiton of kinds and underlying protein families. I hope that clarifies my position."Where do you draw the line where microevolution stopped and the "poof bang" creation started? Kinds with distinct genomes comprising the thousands of protein families that make up all of the genomes.6) Phenotype/genotype?
Why do you say the stasis in phenotype isn't recorded in geneotype? Just becasue the genotype may look like it is changing to an untrained eye, a trained eye may see that it dicates an unchanged phenotype. A simple case proves the point: a base change does not necessarily change the amino-acid coded for as you know.7) Epigenetics
Yes if there is a lot of imprinting going then there may be more epigenetics than we may think.8) Struc Biol/novel families in molecular evoltuion?
I do understand what you said about phylogentics. But it is also consistent with common design with genotype (mostly ) dictating phenotype. Would God make animals with placentas have genes more similar to snails than to placentals? Of course not.9) Thin air?
I believe God would say to you that your origin is inherently potentially different to snowflake ordering.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-19-2002]

PeterI agree except . . .Genomically I think we are starting to see some problems for 'monophyletic' evoltuion, and not just due to horzontal tranfer. The 'mosaic' nature of genomes, including 'convergent' rehappenings at some point may show that (i) evolution is wrong and (ii) God's blueprints were a bit non-monophyletic. I think we have seen hints of this recently in wing genes in unrelated taxa (birds and flies) being 'too' convergent.Man is certianly most similar to primates. Man is biologically a very special primate from a creationit POV.

MammuthusAnatomical differnces are not spurious, sure, but, unless I am mistaken, it is not always clear what to call a genus vs a family. Whether there is also confusion at the order level I am unaware. The genomic kind concept of distinct genome may turn out to be a useful concept (even if only to molecular biologists) and may not perfectly align with a Linnean level. That sentence can not be debated surely?You ask how what I said is differnet ot macroeovltuion? Horizontal transfer is somehting no one would deny. The gene already exists it just moved. That is very differnt from a new enzyme family evolving that bears no resemblance to any other family! I hope yo can see tha tjust becasue you see jumping genes this has almost nothing to do with the original orgin of each gene family. (And I am not implying abiogenesis here - the simplest organims do not (and did not) have anything like all of the protein families and you know that!).2) Mutations and macroevolution.Yes, horizontal transfer of genes DOES explain the sudden appearance of genes or gene families within a lineage. But I am talking about where ethe first member of each family came from - very, very different.3) New protein families
There is not much work on the origin of new protein families because there is very little evidence for this.4) Evolution & proof?
Science isn't semantics but your use of 'good support' vs 'proof' is semantics. I will say any day that gravity theory is proven whether Netwonian or Einsteinian. We are using differnt definitons of words.Creation evidence (note - not proof, just evidence): the distinctness of protein families, distinctness of Linnean families, irreducible complexity of cellular systems (as well as the unlikelihood of abiogenesis)My position? Is based on considering the possibility that we are created. And the evidence is good that we were IMO (see above). Other evidence favours evoltuion.My definiton will work fine when we actaully have the chimp genomes with the proviso of horizontal gain/loss issue. Of course it is of not much practical use right now. The Bacillus genome analysis is an example of within kind study where even the evotutionists writing this 2002 paper chose themselves to accept that all gene family differences were expected to be due to horizontal transfer or loss.6) Phenotype/genotype?
Sure - large amounts of genotype change don't have to lead to large pheotype changes. What I am saying is that if this is predictable from the genotype then it is not epigenitic or a suprise to anyone.8) Restricting God?
Of course God gets 'restricted' by what he has left behind. If he exists and he created life as it is then that is how he did it! The pioint is that I am not eliminating he possibility that God created us as you do. You are the one restricing him. You are saying he couldn't create semi-monophyletically.9) Thin air?
If God doesn't exist then there is no dif between the origins of non-bio and bio. If God does exist then there potentially is a difference. God might have created just like described in the Bible - you can't rule it out!I'll get around to biomednet today. I'm 99.99% sure that it wont give me access to all pdfs. Perhaps you are linking to a free review article.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-19-2002]

SLPxYou asked about 'anything in my field proven'?* Protein folding is dictated by sequence. Chaperones did not change this.
* Certain amino-acids have certain preferences for particular secondary structure
* The ribosome makes proteins from an RNA template
* Phe is more hydrophobic than SerIf you can't use the word 'proof' for any of these things then you are taking relativism to new heights SPLx! It's just like gravity is an inverse square law. That is proven - Einstein didn't change that.You said "If the creation postulate is that the "kind" is about the same as the Family, then there should be some huge discrepency between the different families". But I already explained that due to sequence drift this may not be evident. If there were 5 created amino-acid diffs between man and pig hemolglobin what's the chances that bias is still visible? The phylogentic trend will still be there (as it is) but the distinctness will be washed out. That's why looking at distinct protein families is, depending on what one is trying to achieve, better for both evolutionists and creationists.And, correct, I have no problem with sapiens being very similar to other primates. Anyone can see that at a zoo.You can't compare 'winged monkeys in colons' with the simple possibility that we were created. (Well maybe you can). See above post for evidence of creation. I am not constraining my creator. But if he created he already constrained himself.Yes the mystery of the origin of life could be creation or macroevolution.You 'accept that it [evolution] happened via inferrence from what we do know'. But you ignore the possibility that God created kinds which have since diverged. They are both possible. It's not necessarily a reason or ignorance issue - it could be a common sense and conscience issue too. It does take faith to 'accept that someday, there will probably be an answer to these questions'. Maybe God created and you are wrong.

SLPxThe falsificaiton of those four things I listed is so fanciful that I would say they were proven 'beyond almost any doubt'.Old Earth creatoinist? Drift has not washed out the basic phylogeny but it may have washed out the finer 'quantization'. I don't even know if we have enough sequences to look for 'quantization'. So instead it is much easier to look at presecne/absence of new genes.Why 5 aas different? NO-one knows, but we can specualte that the environemnt of action of the genes and interaction parteners is different in different genomes (definitely true actually). It is even possible that all hemoglobins were created exactly the same and drifted in a phylogentic pattern due to the phylogeny of the genomic environment (way out theory).Pigs and people have placentas, mammary glands, warm blood etc etc. We are physiologically very similar. Yes God could have done it differntly but if he created he did it semi-monophyletically.I believe we are related to Pan just as pigs are more related to mice than fish - via God's building block genomic blueprints.Evoltuion explains my evidences for design? Not really - those points are the stumbling blocks for evoltuion. You show me a biochemical pathway whose evolution is well understood including the identificaiton of how the early members of the pathway funcitoned before the entire pathway was complete and where the new genes came from. Hard ask, sure. The point which distinguishes your theory and mine - yes.Extinciton explains gaps? I can show you a dozen mainstream paleontology quaotes which clearly state that extinct is as qunatized as extant. Your belief is possible - but the key aspects that differentiate our beliefs are simply hypotheses.You have contemplated our possibility? If you did then you never did very well. If you had you would have said from the start - OK the only thing that distinguishes us is the origin of the distinct kinds and the distinct protein families. You all start out thinking creaitonists don't believe in Darwin, DNA or speciation.If this is God's universe then conscience has a lot to do with it. You bleieve that your conscience is just a emergent property of your neurons. You may be wrong - it may be something given to you to help you judge all manners of things.

MammuthusI'm of on holidays for a week too - I'll respond when I get back. I might bump into you. Wear a big Darwin fish with legs T-shirt and I'll carry around my King James - we might recognize each other. Happy travelling.

PeterI agree that finding common genes in all limbed creatures is equally evidence for common descent as for common design. However when birds and winged insects share detailed genotypic molecular features that aren't in non-winged creatures then that is scarry for you and good for us. And I posted a link to a paper on this a while back.The mosaic nature of genomes is the 'cut and pasted' nature of genpomes with things appearing convergently along separate supposed monophyletic lines. The term is used with respect to genomic evolution only recently and I suspect has been carried over from organism level evolution.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-29-2002]

JoeThe point is that the current data doesn't distinguish between macroevotluion and design + microevolution. So, yes, we all need better data to distinguish between these scenarios. I am simply uncovering (as usual) the typical strawman of - ha, ha - look - frogs have hemoglobin too - so macroevoltuion is true! Not so.Darwin jumped from homology and microevotution to macroevoltuion. None of the data actually disagrees with creation of kinds followed by microevolution and hybridization. That is the point.

MammuthusI had a great sea-side break - how's the 'travelling'?1. Taxonomic ambiguity
Interesting about insectivores.1.5 Simple organisms
Reghardsless of losses, evolutionary genomics researchers definitely propose that genomes have got more complex over time. The anti-progression idea (was it ever more than just PC gone mad?) has died over the last 20 years.I only used hemoglobin as an example. Mammals have far more protein types overall than bacteria! Of course I can't prove that was the case in the past. But each protein family can be placed at a definite location on the standard evoltuionary tree of life! I really don't understand your resistance to standard concepts that transcend the C vs E debate.The ultimate origin of each gene type is NOT abiogenesis by any definition I have ever seen. I completely disagree with your statement that it is.If you believe in macroevoltuion of life on earth then you believe that new protein families with distinct biochemical functions have been evolving non-stop throughout the last 500 million years.2) Mutations and macroevolution.OK - if you define the origin of new genes as abiogenesis then it is! So now I see what we are arguing. We agree! I agree with all of the evoltuion that is not abiogenesis (by your definition). That is the point - I agree with all of the plasticity of the genome you believe in except that I believe each gene family was created by God.I am fully aware of biotech artificial evoltuion and combibnatorial chemistry - I just sent of a combi-chem manuscript for review. The point is that there is still a big difference between mutating a gene and coming up with a totally new protein fold!3) New protein families
"There is not evidence that the families are new or for there origins?" There is little evidence that the families evolved from each other.4) Evolution & proof?
Neither Newton or Einstein make any attmept to state how gravity works. Their theories can simply be thought of as empiricism if you like. But you can't deny that within the scope of the theory (generaing forces from mass distributions) they work perfectly (Newton for v << c). So both Newton and Einsten are proved as far as I am concerned.5) Creation evidence
(i) "There is no evidence for irreducibilty and complexity is not defined." Every biochemical pathway has IC components that need prior funcitons to explain their presence.
(ii) "Unlikelihood is not evidence". If we are talking about God vs nature then the unlikeliness of nature doinfg it is evidence of God. (iii) "How does your problem with abiogenesis have any bearing on evolution?" I have shown you that the same problems that plague abiogenesis plauges macroevoltuion. New gene families aising non-stop. Abiogenesis itself is just much harder again.Physical evidence of creation?
The organisms or their genomes.6) Horizontal transfer?
I have no problem with horizontal transfer. What I am trying to point out is that evoltuioonists skirt around the original origin of each protein family! And it is not abiogenesis except for wghatever the simplest creature was.8) Restricting God?

quote:

---

I said:
Of course God gets 'restricted' by what he has left behind. If he exists and he created life as it is then that is how he did it! The pioint is that I am not eliminating he possibility that God created us as you do. You are the one restricing him. You are saying he couldn't create semi-monophyletically.

​

You said:
That is a very strange position and would put you in conflict with a large number creationists.
So you are willing to limit your god and concede that he is a truly lousy engineer?

---

Now I say:
What conflict? What's wrong with semi-mono-phletics if designed well?[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-30-2002] Adminnemooseus changed end "/unquote" to "/quote", and put a blank line in there, no extra charge

​

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-30-2002]