Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A response to evolutionists
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 53 (18784)
10-02-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
09-25-2002 8:02 AM


Hello Delshad:
I have read your post and I understand what you are saying and it makes very good sense to me. A cursory review of the replies seem to indicate that no one has answered the question you have asked, namely, can mutations actually account for any major evolutionary transitions?
Of course they wouldn't know of any series of mutations that would actually cause such a transition. It's pure speculation on anyone's part that such a seriesof mutations are possible. Scientifically, they are extremely umlikely.
Your challenge with the reptile to mammal transition is an excellent choice, for that is the evolutionists crown jewel of evolutionary transition from the fossil record. They shifted the argument to the fossil record because this is all they have available to justify such a evolutionary transition.
My only objection to your post is that you posted it under the origin of life category.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 09-25-2002 8:02 AM Delshad has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 53 (18786)
10-02-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Andya Primanda
09-25-2002 8:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Hi Delshad.
I'll take up your challenge. The shift from reptilian oviparity (laying eggs) to mammalian viviparity (live birth) is not too great once you are able to appreciate that there are intermediates between the two extremes. Most reptiles lay eggs, but some retains it within their bodies (ovoviviparity); and there are some which have true viviparity, although not as elaborate as modern mammals. And the most primitive living mammals, the monotremes (platypus & echidna--both Australian natives). These living models are hints to the stages in the evolution of mammalian viviparity. Finally, mammalian embryos still develop an empty yolk sac, which is a vestigial organ inherited from their egg-laying ancestors

Any series of objects can be arranged in an evolutionary type of arrangement. It is illogical to conclude they share common ancestry based on the evolutionary order an intelligent mind arranged them. There is no established evolutionary relationship among the paraphyletic groups you mention above.
I also do not know why you believe the yolk sac is vestigial, it provides blood and stem sex cells and part of it helps forms the embryonic digestive tube.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-25-2002 8:23 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 10:26 AM Bart007 has not replied
 Message 31 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:00 AM Bart007 has replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 53 (18789)
10-02-2002 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Quetzal
09-25-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Andya gave an excellent synopsis. Just to provide a few more details:
A brief synopsis of the development of placental mammals from egg laying reptiles:
Theriodont (mammal-like reptiles; egg layers) -> pantothere (monotreme, or egg-laying mammals; c.f. echidna and platypus) -> metathere (marsupial, or pouched mammal; c.f. kangaroo, opossum) -> euthere (placental mammal; all others)
Going beyond this, we have to get pretty detailed on the differences between oviparity in reptiles/amphibians, oviparity in pantotheres where the egg (containing limited yolk) develops for a period within the uterus nourished by endometrial secretions, then the gradual development of choriovitelline placenta in the metatheres and finally true placentae in modern mammals. In addition, for it to make sense, you need to understand the trade-off in the maternal dependent growth model where duration and extent of intrauterine and post-natal care are variations that can be operated on by natural selection. Finally, you need to understand the role that may have been played by differential production of the hormone dehydroepiandrosterone in the gradual replacement of egg by placenta over the course of 175 million years, based on comparisons between modern monotremes, marsupials, and placental mammals.
If you’d like details, let me know.

There is no established evolutionary relationships between these groups. The platypus and echinda are mosaics that evolutionist would have alleged was an ancestor to many modern groups had it been found in the distant past rather than living in Australia at the present moment. A platypus/echinda are highly specialized creatures, with only the most superficial resemblance to anything but a mammal. However, they are not ancestral to anything. The fact that you can collect placentas from paraphyletic groups and arranged them into some kind of preconceived evolutionary pattern proves absolutely nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 09-25-2002 8:58 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 10-02-2002 12:23 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 53 (18791)
10-02-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Quetzal
09-25-2002 3:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Uhh, Delshad - what part of my post didn't you understand? I tried to keep it as simple as your apparent lack of knowledge required. If you really desire to know the answer to your question, the gist of the answer is in my post. If you have specific questions about any element in my response, please show you understand what was originally posted before asking for more - and more technical - details.
Oh heck with the science, let's just go with the ridicule, browbeating, and insults. Red herrings anyone.
----------
Adminnemooseus comment - After reviewing Q's message, in the context of what came before and after, I see no significant fault in it. "...your apparent lack of knowledge..." may have been a little indelicate, but it falls far short of "ridicule, browbeating, and insults". - Adminnemooseus (mnmoose@lakenet.com)
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-02-2002]
Okay Adminnemooseus, I'll save that one for a much more appropraiste posting. My apologies to Quetzal for having jumped the gun, so to speak.
[This message has been edited by Bart007, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 09-25-2002 3:24 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 10-02-2002 12:26 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 53 (18800)
10-02-2002 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Naldacon
09-25-2002 4:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Naldacon:
Delshad wrote:
quote:
Evolutionists claim however that the single reptilian earbone evolved into three, this theory has been disproved because no such fossils have been found(not even one that implies that that transitional bones are on theyre making),
This is a misrepresentation of what evolutionists claim as the origin of the three ear bones in mammals. Hopefully, the misrepresentation was not intentional.
Based upon a whole series of fossils as evidence, two of the bones in the mammalian ear are clearly modified reptilian jaw bones. Some of the fossils demonstrating the reptile to mammal transition show both reptilian jaw joint and mammalian jaw joint features simultaneously. Here is a summary of the evidence that addresses the origin of ear bones and many of the other features that distinguish mammals from reptiles:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1B

The therapsids are, by far, the closest evolutionist come to finding a transitional series in the fossil record. As one commentator has said, the reptile to mammal series is the crown jewel of the fossil evidence for Darwinism. There is no doubt that the large order of Therapsida have skulls with many mammalian features. However, there are real problems associated with concluding that a transitional series has been found linking the therapsid Dimetrodon to any mammalian creature.
To begin with, there is a major gap between the Therapsid alleged ancestors Pelycosaurs, and the therapsids.
Second, the order of the alleged transitions given above is not necessarily the correct order they appear in time in the geologic record. The arrangement of the order is based on evolutionary relationships and different evolutionary taxonomists have provided different arrangements based on their personal evolutionary biases. This problem holds true for most of the transitional series proposed by evolutionists.
Third, as can be seen from the above referenced Talk Origin alleged transitional list, The arrangement is that of groups of Therapsida species arranged in an evolutionary order, yet, evolution can take place only at the species level.
Evolutionist Douglas Futuyma confidently asserts that this transition
"is so abundantly documented by scores of species in every stage of transition that it is impossible to tell which therapsid species were actual ancestors of modern mammals."
Unfortunately for evolutionists, no one has managed to find, among the scores of therapsid species, a single line of descent leading to a mammal. Evolutionist Roger Lewin stated that the "Transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one, or at most, two lineages, is still an enigma."
There is no clear lineage between the two. The most convincing transitions presented in textbooks are lineages that combine more than one order of therapsida, with several species in the lineage which were contemporaries of each other and therefore cannot and do not form a progressive ancestry. In addition, one of the critical links is commonly shown out of order, as it is older than the link that ought to be it's ancestor. However, evolutionists can at least argue that this suggest a lineage.
However, all therapsida fossils clearly point to the fact that they are truly not mammals, not only by their jaw structure, but by their craniums, which are clearly not mammalian, but reptilian in nature.
A bigger problem in ever determining whether or not the therapsids can ever even be a true transition between reptile and mammals is the very nature of what reptiles and mammals are. Reptiles are cold blooded, they lay eggs with hard shells, they have scales on their skin, multiple bones in the jaw, and a single bone in the ear.
Mammals are warm blooded, they give birth to their young, have mammary glands, hair, and other significant soft body differences, besides a single lower jaw hinged with a single joint on each side, and three ear bones. The fossils do not tell us if these all important changes ever occurred even though the fossil record could have since many soft bodied fossils are recorded in the fossil record. There are no known living species of therapsida, so we are not at all certain as to their nature. Some evolutionary scientists have speculated that they may have been neither reptile nor mammalian, but perhaps entitled to a grouping of their own.
It should be pointed out that the so-called movement of the therapsid's two jaw bones, migrating toward the ear to become the other two ear bones in mammals, is highly speculative and improbable, and is one of those 'just-so' stories of evolution. There are no fossil transitions which actually show these bones becoming the ear of the mammal. There is no convincing scenario on how these bones would cross the Jaw joint, much less, how this creature will eat and hear while this happens.
Evolutionist Gerald Fleischer wrote a book entitled 'Evolutionary Principles of the Mammalian Ear" (1978, Berlin, Springer Velag), an authoritative treatment on the transition of the reptile to mammal transition of these bones to the ear. This book was reviewed by the magazine 'Evolution' (Vol. 33, #4, 1980) of which was written: "These general statements about evolution of the mammalian middle ear that appear are in the nature of proclamations. No methods are described which allows the reader to arrive with Fleischer at his "ancestral" middle ear, nor is the basis for the transformation series illustrated for the middle ear bones explained. ... Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed."
The story of how we arrive at the mammalian ear from reptile jaw bones is the best of the `just so' stories (plausibility arguments) that evolutionists tell to convince others, and perhaps themselves, that (macro-) evolution did indeed occur. And no one tells it better than Stephen J. Gould, as he does in his book; `The Eight Little Piggies.'
Nevertheless, it is still just a story filled with speculation and far from falling under the category of science, much less surviving the rigors of `hard science' for the following reasons:
1. A clear species to species lineage linking therapsids to mammals has not been established. Rather, the paraphyletic groups we call therapsids is very diverse in all of their characteristics, and some paleontologists pick and choose fossils from these paraphyletic groups to fit in with their Darwinian scenario of reptile to mammal evolution (While ignoring the fossil data that does not fit into this Darwinian scheme). However, Darwinian evolution can only take place at the species level!
This appeal to the mammal-like characteristics found in paraphyletic groups gives the illusion of an established lineage, but it should not be mistaken for one. Gould takes it one step further and appeals not only to the characteristics of the extinct paraphyletic groups of Therapsids, but to the characteristics of the modern paraphyletic group: reptiles (e.g the hearing of modern snakes). This is Ok to do when painting a scenario of `how it might have happened', as Gould does, but such scenarios should never be mistaken for `what did happen'.
2. This alleged transition involves creatures which are extinct and and have left little indication that they traversed from cold blooded, scaled reptiles to warm blooded hairy soft skinned mammals.
3. This alleged transition creates another problem for evolutionists. Since the fossil record is so rich for this ancient transition, why does it seem so sparse for all the others, even those much more recent.
4. How the jaw bone to ear bone transition occurred remains uncertain, contrary to Gould's assertion. That each part of this transition served some useful function is wild speculation. The demonstration of `how' must include the step by step change that must take place in the DNA code. Gould also alleges that the therapsid jaw bones keep moving steadily back toward the ear. One need merely visit a Natural History museum to observe that very specific therapsids were picked to create this illusion, that each therapsid in the series were highly varied from the others, that there jaw bones that allegedly became ear bones were themselves highly varied in size and shape. The very last therapsid in the series was the largest, several feet long and a few feet high with very large jawbones, and this is supposedly the nearest therapsid ancestor to the tiny alleged mouse size mammals like the Kuenotherium.
5. Further highlighting that there is no clear transition from Therapsids to Mammals is the fact that the Therapsids as whole have mixed fixtures of Mammal-like and non mammal-like features. There is no evidence of lineage from reptilian to mammal-like features over time. Fossil expert Edwin H Colbert states:
"It is not easy to determine the precise line of Mammalian ancestors among theriodont reptiles. Some theriodonts were far advanced toward mammals in some characters, but relatively primitive in others, and among all theriodonts the mixture of advance and conservative characters are so varied that it is not possible to point to any one group and define it as progressing most positively in the direction of mammals." (Colbert, "Evolution of Vertebrates", p 246 1980)
The NYS Board of Regents sent Luther Sunderland to inquire about evolution from leading Museum officials to aid in establishing criteria for the teaching of evolution. Mr. Sutherland inquired of The Natural History Museums Officials Dr. David Raup, Dr. Colin Patterson, and Dr. Niles Eldredge, concerning fossil evidence for the reptile-mammal transition, they each in turn admitted that they were not aware of evidence for this transition. (Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, 1987).
Evolutionist Dr. Tom Kemp, curator of Zoological collections at Oxford University Museum, England, in his report on 'The Reptiles that Became Mammals' (New Scientist, Vol. 92, March 4, 1982) writes:
"Each species of Mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by any species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later equally abruptly, without a directly descending species."
Finally, there are serious questions concerning the dating of mammal like reptiles. They are found in diverse locations in the world and if one reads Colbert, Romer, and others on the chronological dating of the therapsids, one would see the dating of the fossils is mostly based on evolutionists preconceptions of how the specimen fits into their evolutionary model of Therapsid to Mammalian evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Naldacon, posted 09-25-2002 4:48 PM Naldacon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 2:21 AM Bart007 has replied
 Message 30 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 10:44 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 53 (18803)
10-02-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nos482
09-26-2002 8:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Please Quetzal, dont misunderstand me, I understood very clearly what you were trying to express in your previous post and I`m sorry if you thought otherwise.
Its just that, and I hope you agree with me here, NO scientific evidence really proofs your theory to be correct, and ill try to explain why:
The same can be said of gravity as well.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-26-2002]

Your analogy is inadequate. Gravitational effects can be replicated repeatedly and observed and measured. It is operational science. The alleged Evolution (i.e. Common ancestry) effects are unobservable singularities, it is akin to forensic science (e.g. who shot Kennedy). The smaller the the possibility of replicating an experiment, the lesser is its scientific value. Gravity can be measured and examined over and over. Evolution (i.e. common ancestry of all creatures extant and extinct) has never been observed.
Newton's Theory of Gravity explained Kepler's laws, Galileo's and Copernicus's observation of planetary motions. Furthermore, Newtons Theory of Gravity is not exactly a Theory, it is a mathematical relationship between masses. In fact Leibnitz took Newton to task on this point, that Newton did not define what Gravity is. Just to say its a force does not cut it. What is the nature of this force?
Einstein's work on relativity refined Newton's mathematical relationship between masses to cover high velocity situations.
Einstein also rejected Newtons idea that Gravity was a force and instead called it a condition in space time created by masses.
Thus Einsteins mathematical formulation of Gravity has replaced Newtons', though we still use Newtons mathematical relationship between masses because it holds for low velocity masses, which covers most day to day situations.
However, we still don't know what "gravity" actually is.
[This message has been edited by Bart007, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nos482, posted 09-26-2002 8:55 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 8:20 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 53 (18806)
10-02-2002 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by wehappyfew
10-02-2002 2:21 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wehappyfew:
^Paraphrased/summarized/nearly plagiarized from Reappraising the "Crown Jewel" on the True.Origin Archive
It's considered good manners to at least reference something you copy in whole or in part. On this board, I believe there are additional rules about cutnpasting big chunks of text (bandwidth and copyright paranoia, I believe). Ask the admins if you are not sure what's kosher.
Be sure to write again when you have something unique or original to contribute.

You are wrong on both counts.
The similarities between what I wrote and the article you reference is that we share the same known science on this subject. I never read that True Origin article before and I assure you that I arrived at my own version on my own.
The question is not whether what I write is new original information, but whether it is relevant information to the discussion at hand. I may post this same information 10 different times on different threads because it clarifies the issues at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 2:21 AM wehappyfew has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 53 (18938)
10-02-2002 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Andya Primanda
10-02-2002 11:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
'Therapsids are paraphyletic'
Oh, stupid me. Of course therapsids ARE paraphyletic. If they are to be monophyletic, therapsids should include their descendants the mammals! Glad you noticed that first!
*you wouldn't be confusing paraphyletic with polyphyletic, would you?*

No, I meant "paraphyletic". That is, the Therapsids lack characters that their "presumed" descendants have.
The terms "paraphyletic", "polyphyletic", "monophyletic", were invented by evolutionists intent on organizing the data of the fossil record into patterns that look like evolution in their efforts to confirm Neo-Darwinism. As such, they give the illusion of evolution by the very implications of their intelligently assigned meanings. As a creationists, I do not use such terms. I find them and many other definitions used by evolutionists to be rather Orwellian, a newspeak that prevents people (especially students, but the unsuspecting public as well) from thinking in terms other than evolutionary.
I was going to write more and answer other posts as well, but am rather tired tonight.
O sleep, O gentle sleep, nature's soft nurse! W.S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:00 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 4:23 AM Bart007 has replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 53 (19117)
10-05-2002 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Andya Primanda
10-03-2002 4:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
quote:
No, I meant "paraphyletic". That is, the Therapsids lack characters that their "presumed" descendants have.
The terms "paraphyletic", "polyphyletic", "monophyletic", were invented by evolutionists intent on organizing the data of the fossil record into patterns that look like evolution in their efforts to confirm Neo-Darwinism. As such, they give the illusion of evolution by the very implications of their intelligently assigned meanings. As a creationists, I do not use such terms. I find them and many other definitions used by evolutionists to be rather Orwellian, a newspeak that prevents people (especially students, but the unsuspecting public as well) from thinking in terms other than evolutionary.
PARAPHYLETIC: In biological taxonomy, a grouping of organisms is said to be paraphyletic if it does not represent all the descendants of some common ancestor. Most schools of taxonomy advocate that groups reflect phylogeny instead, and so view the existence of paraphyletic groups in a classification as errors. Taxonomic groups that do share a common ancestor are called monophyletic.
Paraphyly - Wikipedia
Therapsids do lack some mammalian characters. That's why not all of them are mammals. Mammals are, phylogenetically, nested within therapsids.
Care to discuss about therapsid teeth? They have canines, incisors, etc., differentiated teeth. Mammals are the only other group with differentiated teeth.

Okay, I see where you get your definition for paraphyletic. I won't quiblle about it since, as with most terms used by evolutionists, their definitions are vague, unclear, and/or indeterminate. However, for paraphyletic, the following deifinition may be more exact.
"Paraphyletic groups are nothing more than groups of organisms (or subtaxa) that are characterized by the possession of primitive features and the lack of derived features (e.g., Ball, 1975; Eldredge and Cracraft, 1980; Lovtrup, 1973; Nelson and Platnick, 1981)."
Schoch RM p 87. (1986) Phylogeny Reconstruction in Paleontology. New York: Van Nostrond Reinhold Co.
However, the therapsids are definitely not monophyletic. It is the history and origins (from a comman ancestor) that is the essential point in distinguishing monophyetic groups from paraphyletic groups. There is no known common ancetor for all the Therapsids, and there may never have been one.
Have a nice day!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-03-2002 4:23 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-05-2002 4:13 PM Bart007 has replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 53 (19169)
10-06-2002 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Minnemooseus
10-05-2002 4:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
quote:
I won't quiblle about it since, as with most terms used by evolutionists, their definitions are vague, unclear, and/or indeterminate.
I'm saying this from the perspective of one whose biology knowledge is very limited:
I think there could be considerable disagreement with that statement. The definitions a probably quite clear and precise. The problem is, is that often these "clear and precise" definitions are "black and white" approximations of what are really "grey area" considerations.
Witness the problems of defining the boundries between species. It is really a gradational thing, but still, sharp divisions are defined.
That said, I must bring up the very "vague, unclear, and/or indeterminate" definition problem of "kinds".
Moose

"Kinds" (i.e. Baramins) is well defined. Its' meaning is identical to the evolutionists term "phylogenetic tree." If you understand the meaning of "phylogenetic tree", then you know what "baramin" means. The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists believe there is just one phylogenetic tree ( i.e. a sole baramin, so to speak), Creationists believe there is a forest of these trees, i.e. many Baramins.
However, I am not aware of any satisfactory non-vague or determinate definition for "species", do you?
[This message has been edited by Bart007, 10-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-05-2002 4:13 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 10-06-2002 6:46 PM Bart007 has replied
 Message 45 by derwood, posted 10-07-2002 11:34 AM Bart007 has not replied

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 53 (19186)
10-07-2002 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by mark24
10-06-2002 6:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:

"Kinds" (i.e. Baramins) is well defined. Its' meaning is identical to the evolutionists term "phylogenetic tree." If you understand the meaning of "phylogenetic tree", then you know what "baramin" means. The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists believe there is just one phylogenetic tree ( i.e. a sole baramin, so to speak), Creationists believe there is a forest of these trees, i.e. many Baramins.
However, I am not aware of any satisfactory non-vague or determinate definition for "species", do you?

You have defined "baramin", not "kind". If baramin=kind, then phylogeny must=species, right? Of course not.
If you had defined "kinds", we could tell them apart?
What evidence do you accept in support of baramins, & their associated radiations? Please be specific.
Mark

Baramin = Kind and does not equal species. There can be many species and/or subspecies in a baramin depending on how evolutionsists define "species".
Evidence for determining Baramins is the same type of evidence used by evolutionists for determing clades and phylogenies. For both camps it is an ongoing research program.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by mark24, posted 10-06-2002 6:46 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-07-2002 4:02 AM Bart007 has not replied
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 6:51 AM Bart007 has not replied
 Message 46 by derwood, posted 10-07-2002 11:40 AM Bart007 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