Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: a red herring?
EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 91 of 120 (382853)
02-06-2007 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by anglagard
02-06-2007 5:52 AM


Re: Blew it Already
Were you accepted to a doctoral program straight out of HS? This is the first time I have heard a PhD refer to their educational background in a singular tense
I don't know why you insist on playing these childish games. Is it because you cannot believe, in your arrogance, that someone with higher education than yourself could possibly not believe in evolution? I not only have a Bachelors and a Ph.D. in Chemistry but was at the top of my class as both a graduate and undergraduate. Now I admit that I am no longer in acedemia because I had to leave that behind to actually do something with my life. I now run a multi-million dollar company. You can see my resume here Essential Oil University (EOU) (although its not been updated in while because I have been my own boss for some time now).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 5:52 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 7:59 AM EODoc has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 92 of 120 (382855)
02-06-2007 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by EODoc
02-06-2007 5:55 AM


Re: Some questions for Limbosis
I was merely stating the facts concerning the experiments, not the intention of the experiments.
So in fact you were making a pointless argument that a whole set of experiments which had no intention of either doing what you were talking about or looking for what you were talking about see these things while they were looking for something completely different.
Compelling.
So in fact you might as well have said - In 100 years of breeding and mutational experiments on fruitflys none has ever produced a tortoise that could dance the Macarena.
Please cite one scientific reference of a genetic mutation experiment in which the mutation creates a new species that is more viable IN ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Only someone with no familiarity of either evolutionary theory or experimental genetics would expect such a thing. Which seems to fit in with everything else you have said.
You might be able to find new isolated traits which might in seem beneficial but show me the complete mutated organism that more viable in its natural environment than its predesessors.
Make up your mind, do you want a new species, like you said a sentence ago, or just a single mutational providing a benefit in the wild. Either way this isn't an experiment that could be performed responsibly, you can't just release a potentially more fecund form of a pest species into the wild for the sake of tracking that trait through the population. This also depends to a large extent what you consider to constitute the natural environment since most strong selective experiments use a heavy enviornmental stress, such as pesticide exposure. So in the wild a Methoprene tolerant fruitfly will not outcompete a wild type fruitfly unless they are exposed to Methoprene in the environment at which point a population of Methoprene tolerant flies will almost certainly outcompete the wild type (based on experiments in muligeneration population cage experiments where even a low level of Methoprene leads to 0% survival of a wild type strain (Minkoff and Wilson, 1992)). Does the natural environment have Methoprene based pesticides in it or not, the answer is of course yes and no at different times and in different places.
Once again you want something which no one works on and in this case which no one would be able to get past the ethics board if they did.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 5:55 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 6:52 AM Wounded King has replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 93 of 120 (382856)
02-06-2007 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Wounded King
02-06-2007 6:29 AM


Re: Some questions for Limbosis
. . . So in fact you might as well have said - In 100 years of breeding and mutational experiments on fruitflys none has ever produced a tortoise that could dance the Macarena.
Why do you say this? Even if mutations were studied for pure mutations sake, with no intent on looking for a specific outcome, does this invalidate the observed results? Isn't the sheer amount of data collected of some value? You seem to be saying that if we don't design an experment to find A, the fact that we find the opposite of A in all the random trials negates the usefulness of the data altogether.
....Please cite one scientific reference of a genetic mutation experiment in which the mutation creates a new species that is more viable IN ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Only someone with no familiarity of either evolutionary theory or experimental genetics would expect such a thing.
But isn't this the very thing that you expect from evolution? Perhaps I do misunderstand modern evolutionary theory. I was under the impression that evolution teaches that through mutations, nature creates new more viable species (more viable within the context of its environment). If this is incorrect then let me know. I came here to hear some valid arguments that would disprove my opinion that evolution is a belief system.
It seems that instead of getting honest debate about science that the people here mainly just want to make bigoted accusations and condesending remarks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 02-06-2007 6:29 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 02-06-2007 7:34 AM EODoc has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 94 of 120 (382857)
02-06-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by EODoc
02-06-2007 4:57 AM


Re: tiktaalik
Well, I happen to have a Ph.D. in chemisty
Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form. This breaks the biologist most fundamental law.
Please, please tell me the name of your supervsior... he needs to be shot for his own good!
Seriously though, how can you claim to be a scientist... and a chemist!!!!... and spout crap like this? Do you know what a LAW is? I guess that I as a relativist have spent my academic life working on nonsense as I have been breaking Newton's Law of Gravitation? Not to mention all of Newton's Laws of Motion... and in my work on quantum gravity, I guess I'm also guilty of breaking all three Thermodynamic Laws. Oh dear...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:57 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 7:25 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 96 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 7:27 AM cavediver has not replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 95 of 120 (382858)
02-06-2007 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
02-06-2007 7:09 AM


Re: tiktaalik
. . . Please, please tell me the name of your supervsior... he needs to be shot for his own good!
My SUPERVISOR was Ffancon William, he is from the UK, perhaps you have heard of him. We was the leader in his field of radical cation chemistry.
I really don't understand the communication methods of people in this forum. It seems that disagreement is just cause for insult. I don't believe I have resorting to insulting anyone in this forum and so I am just wondering if this is the kind of thing I should expect from here on? If so I guess I should just leave. If you don't have anything to add other than insult then I guess its just about making yourself feel superior and not about debating issues.
...Seriously though, how can you claim to be a scientist... and a chemist!!!!... and spout crap like this? Do you know what a LAW is? I guess that I as a relativist have spent my academic life working on nonsense as I have been breaking Newton's Law of Gravitation? Not to mention all of Newton's Laws of Motion... and in my work on quantum gravity, I guess I'm also guilty of breaking all three Thermodynamic Laws. Oh dear..
Are you saying that chemical evolution does not violate the Law of Biogenesis? If the Law of Biogenesis states that life ONLY comes from life then is it not a violation of this law to assert that the first organism had to evolve from non-living material? Or are you saying that the Law of Biogenesis is only valid after the first organism came into existence? If so then on what do you base this exception?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2007 7:09 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2007 7:39 AM EODoc has replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 96 of 120 (382859)
02-06-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by cavediver
02-06-2007 7:09 AM


Re: tiktaalik
Sorry, I made a spelling error in the last post. My supervisor was Ffancon WilliamS (not William).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2007 7:09 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AdminPD, posted 02-06-2007 8:09 AM EODoc has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 97 of 120 (382860)
02-06-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by EODoc
02-06-2007 6:52 AM


Re: Some questions for Limbosis
Why do you say this?
Because that is exactly as relevant to the vast majority of mutational and breeding experiments as what you want to see.
Even if mutations were studied for pure mutations sake, with no intent on looking for a specific outcome, does this invalidate the observed results?
You don't know what the observed results are in the context you are putting forward because no-one was looking for data that would tell us. No one in the Nusslein-Volhard mutational screen was taking flies that weren't embryonic lethal breeding them and releasing them into the wild, they were looking to see what the genetic basis of the embryonic lethal mutations were.
Isn't the sheer amount of data collected of some value?
Its of enormous value to our understanding of the genetics of metabolism, development and behaviour since those are the sorts of things that the experiments are designed to study.
You seem to be saying that if we don't design an experment to find A, the fact that we find the opposite of A in all the random trials negates the usefulness of the data altogether.
What I'm saying is that if we are only looking for the opposite of A in an experiment then the fact that we only the opposite of A is neither surprising nor informative as to the occurrence of A. Its not like flipping a set number of coins where you know that everything that isn't a head will be a tail. The amount of work required to identify a beneficial mutation is orders of magnitude more than those required to identify an embryonic lethal mutation, so unsurprisingly we have many many more examples of the latter than former, and maybe none which have been tested in the wild for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
I was under the impression that evolution teaches that through mutations, nature creates new more viable species (more viable within the context of its environment).
Well again this depends on what you consider to be its environment. What is normally though to occur is that speciation, in the only ways we can observe it, occurs between populations and usually between populations in isolated and ideally differing environments. Each population will over time become adapted to its own environment and the more different the environments are the more divergent we would expect these adaptations to be. But if you take a subgroup of the population adapted for one environment and place it in competition with a similar subgroup from the other population in an environment replicating ones home environment but not the others then we would expect the one whose environment is replicated to outcompete the other. In fact what we would more likely see would be a lot of crossbreeding unless the populations had been seperated for long enough for some form of reproductive isolation to be established. But were we to follow the genetic constitution of the population we would expect those traits adapted to the environment to prevail compared to those from the less adapted population. That is what you are suggesting by wishing flies experimentally selected for a beneficial trait in one environment to then outcompete a wild type population in a different environment.
While we might expect to see a continuous history of adaptive changes as environments fluctuate we don't expect a whole population to become a new better adapted species, rather we expect to see a diversification into several forms better adapted to exploit specific niches, such as the diversification seen in Cichlid fish in some of the African great lakes (Won et al., 2005).
It may be that were we to be able to take an individual from different time points along a species evolution we might find that they were reproductively isolated from each other, we might now be able to do this sort of thing with a cryogenically frozen genetic stock and a long term breeding program but previously it would have been impossible, the closest example in the wild would be ring species where we see a spectrum of reproductive isolation between populations.
It seems that instead of getting honest debate about science that the people here mainly just want to make bigoted accusations and condesending remarks.
If you want to start debating honestly then go ahead. Maybe you could start by defining information for us or by refraining from demanding people satisfy your requirement to hold up the strawman version of evolution you put forward and actually read some current literature showing what modern evolutionary theory would actually lead us to expect to see.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 6:52 AM EODoc has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 98 of 120 (382862)
02-06-2007 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by EODoc
02-06-2007 7:25 AM


Re: tiktaalik
My apologies for appearing (and admittedly being ) so insulting... BUT, I hold scientists and postdocs to a much higher standard than a casual observer at EvC. And you are being unbelievably simplistic for someone with your credentials. A LAW is essentially an overarching principle that helps someone not intimately connected with a field get a grasp of what is going on.
Do you think I give a damn about ANY of Newton's Laws? Do you think those working on existing biological systems that seem to exist on a continuum that straddles our usual definition of life give a damn about this Biogenetic Law? We have enough trouble defining life at the moment so how the hell can we have a Biogenetic Law that means anything sensible other than something to tell school kids?
Tell me, if you believe in an absolute Biogenetic Law, perhaps you would tell me what absolute definition of life you are using?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 7:25 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 7:59 AM cavediver has not replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 99 of 120 (382866)
02-06-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by cavediver
02-06-2007 7:39 AM


Life and chemical evolution (abiogenesis)
. . . Tell me, if you believe in an absolute Biogenetic Law
Whether or not I believe a law is of little consequence. I can say I don't give a darn about the law of gravity and refuse to believe it, but if I step off a 10 story building it will not matter if I believe in the law or not, I still will be forced to follow that law and fall to my death.
Same with Biogensis. Its a law for a reason. The reason is that its never been experimentally violated. To disbelieve this law is to believe in spontaneous generation, which has NEVER been observed.
. . .perhaps you would tell me what absolute definition of life you are using?
I believe its generally accepted that life exhibits the following:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2007 7:39 AM cavediver has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 100 of 120 (382867)
02-06-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by EODoc
02-06-2007 6:05 AM


Re: Blew it Already
I don't know why you insist on playing these childish games.
Yes, upon further research I see that you are one of the prime movers behind the aromatherapy pseudoscience.
From wiki:
Skeptical literature suggests that aromatherapy is based on the anecdotal evidence of its benefits rather than proof that aromatherapy can cure diseases. Scientists and medical professionals acknowledge that aromatherapy has limited scientific support but argue that its claims go beyond the data or that the studies are neither adequately controlled nor peer reviewed. If there can be positive effects, there can also be negative ones if used incorrectly or in bad combinations, especially with traditional pharmacology. Most medical professionals are concerned that people with maladies curable by contemporary medicine will revert to certain holistic medicines, such as aromatherapy, homeopathy and Ayurvedic medicine, and receive no benefit while their health could have been maintained with scientifically proven medicine.
The term "aromatherapy" has been applied to such a wide range of products that almost anything which contains essential oils is likely to be called an "aromatherapy product", rendering the term somewhat meaningless in that context.
So enjoy your millions based upon the gullibility of your 'marks.'
I can see why a holistic huckster would object to mainstream science as a threat to their pocketbook but I think you are overreaching here. Most peope here don't believe a 'smell doctor' carries much weight beyond their expertise in reliving the gullible of thier worldly goods.
Personally, I prefer professinal ethics.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 6:05 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by AdminPD, posted 02-06-2007 8:19 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 103 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 8:35 AM anglagard has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 101 of 120 (382870)
02-06-2007 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by EODoc
02-06-2007 7:27 AM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome EODoc,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.
A couple of comments:
quote:
Using one of the quote box forms makes it easier to discern your words from those you are quoting.
You can use the peek button to see how this was done.
Also since each thread is limited to 300 posts, we frown upon posts that don't further the discussion, such as your correction post. You can use the edit button to correct spelling errors.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well.
Please direct any questions you may have to the Moderation Thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple
Edited by AdminPD, : Directing questions

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 7:27 AM EODoc has not replied

    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 102 of 120 (382871)
    02-06-2007 8:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 100 by anglagard
    02-06-2007 7:59 AM


    Keep To the Topic
    Please argue the position or evidence, not the person or their livelyhood.
    Participants, please do not continue wasting posts on comparing or slamming degrees or intelligence.
    Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
    Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
    Thank you Purple

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 7:59 AM anglagard has not replied

    EODoc
    Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
    Posts: 23
    Joined: 02-05-2007


    Message 103 of 120 (382874)
    02-06-2007 8:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 100 by anglagard
    02-06-2007 7:59 AM


    Re: Blew it Already
    . . . The term "aromatherapy" has been applied to such a wide range of products that almost anything which contains essential oils is likely to be called an "aromatherapy product", rendering the term somewhat meaningless in that context.[/qs]
    What this has to do with evolution I don't know but for what its worth I agree with you. When I taught the for credit course at Indiana University I was mere the lead instructor and there where many guest instructors according their specific aread of expertise. The course was an intro course investigating what aromatherapy really is. I had nothing to do with the teaching of how to use aromatherapy or made any claims to whether or not it was a valid therapy useful for anything beyond making someone feel better.
    . . . So enjoy your millions based upon the gullibility of your 'marks.'
    I can see why a holistic huckster would object to mainstream science as a threat to their pocketbook but I think you are overreaching here. Most peope here don't believe a 'smell doctor' carries much weight beyond their expertise in reliving the gullible of thier worldly goods.
    Anglagard, what have I done to you to deserve your attacks? I do not object mainstream science, but try to defend science when it is science. You know nothing about me or my business. If you had bothered to read a little bit about our company you would see that we are a wholesale and bulk supplier of essential oils to mainstream industries such as fragrance manufacturers, flavor companies, soap makers, cosmetic companies, etc. Of course aromatherapy companies buy from us too but they are a minor portion of our customer base. We mainly supply raw materials to companies who manufacture finished products. How does that make me a holistic huckster? The fact is when a customer tries to get us to make claims about any therapeutic benefit of a particular essential oil we always tell them that this is outside the scope of our expertise. My expertise is in the chemical breakdown of essential oils and in flavor and fragrance duplication by using GC/MS analytical techniques. If someone asks about the chemistry of an essential oil I will share the information with them but I do not personally promote any medicinal use of essential oils. But regardless of this what does my current profession have to do with my educational background? You don't like my profession so you just discount the fact that I have a Ph.D. in chemistry from one of the top 50 chemistry departments in the country that worked in conjunction with Oakridge National Laboratory and was supported by the Department of Energy? I know you don't think much of a "smell doctor" but you obviously don't understand the science that goes into such a field.
    I am getting nothing from you but crazed insults. Don't you have anything productive to say? I am still waiting for the list of your degrees. I hope you will be as open about your educational background as I have been.
    OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 7:59 AM anglagard has not replied

    AdminAsgara
    Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
    Posts: 2073
    From: The Universe
    Joined: 10-11-2003


    Message 104 of 120 (382875)
    02-06-2007 8:45 AM


    TEMPORARY CLOSING
    Haven't had time to read thru this whole thread, but I see issues and am closing it until I have read it.
    AbE - Sorry PD, I started reading further back than your comment. After reading thru the entire thread I come to see that you have been handling it. Opening again and hoping that AdminPD will be listened to.
    Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

    AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]

    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 105 of 120 (382907)
    02-06-2007 11:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 70 by EODoc
    02-06-2007 4:23 AM


    Re: clarification
    Why would I simply rename my theory to encompass every new planet that I found life on.
    Because you found new evidence that prompted you to do so. Why wouldn't you? I still don't understand your objection.
    If I found life on mars after my initial theory of "life only on earth" why would I revise my theory to just add mars, isn't more logical to just start over with a new theory?
    What, start from scratch every time you learned something new? That sounds like a bunch of wasted time and effort. And what if portions of your old model were still accurate? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
    But we accept the observed laws of the universe as true laws (i.e. they are unwavering and always true for all time)
    I think you'll find that no scientist does that - the laws of physics are accepted as useful approximations of whatever principles truly underly behavior in the universe. There's a difference between the map and the territory, in other words.
    First, do you accept the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?
    I accept laws one through three, as a matter of fact, because they make accurate predictions about behavior of heat in the universe. But I doubt you even have an accurate understanding of what those laws say, because you're about to use them as a proof of God. That alone is sufficient evidence that you don't understand thermodynamics - the study of the movement of heat. What could heat possibly have to do with gods?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:23 AM EODoc has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 107 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 12:08 PM crashfrog has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024