Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 4:05 AM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, Heathen, PaulK, Son Goku (4 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4143 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 46 of 107 (404155)
06-06-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


WS-JW writes:

And a self healing body with a brain that does a supreme diagnosis of whats wrong if you get a cut or something like that.


The brain has no role in cell regrowth and tissue repair - that is entirely chemical (cell-cell signalling and some hormonal influence). If it required a brain, then a plant wouldn't be able to repair a cut.

It also does a pretty lousy job too - haven't you seen scar tissue before?

WS-JW writes:

Well anything that can't be repeated, is not science.

Tell that to a forensic scientist trying to investigate a murder scene.

Edited by Doddy, : spelling


Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 9:20 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM Doddy has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 47 of 107 (404218)
06-07-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by dwise1
06-05-2007 4:07 PM


Nice Post
Nice Post Dwise1.

However, I fear you spent more time, consideration and effort than WS-JW has ever invested pondering the concepts of evolution. I suspect he will not return.

I have noticed a certain trend around.

Folks like WS-JW, highly intoxicated with creationist propaganda, blaze out into the world from their protected and unchallenged environment to expose the fallacies of the stoopid evilolutists; correcting the wrongs and setting people straight, like a shinning Don Quixote sitting high on their proud steed of "biblical truth".

They quickly initiate several wide offensive fronts, when they can't even adequately defend a single narrow front, and soon wither on the battlefield of reality confronted the first time with reason, logic and established facts. They are as you noted "armed with blanks". Typically they disappear after a few days never to return, sometimes with some parting comment like "I did my job and preached the truth but you do not have ears to hear or eyes to see ... you are hell bound ... your blood is not on my hands ... i shake the dust from my feet"

In this respect, the Creationist should really teach these eager beaver recruits of misfortune, your referenced quote from St Augustine and temper their enthusiasm with some sense of the magnitude and complexity of the questions at hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2007 4:07 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by dwise1, posted 06-07-2007 12:51 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3656
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 48 of 107 (404226)
06-07-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by iceage
06-07-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Nice Post
I do believe that you are quite correct that we will never again hear from WS-JW ("Jehovah's Witnesses"?). Did he learn anything from this experience? Doubtful, but perhaps a seed has been planted. And even though we won't hear from him, I suspect that he might be back in lurk mode and so may still have a chance to read the truth.

In the meantime, I had also rediscovered my quoting of Dr Jonathan Sarfati of Answers In Genesis in his feedback article (my quote at http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#AiG; I provide a link to the original, "AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002", but just now it wouldn't connect so I don't know if it mightn't be broken) responding to Kent Hovind's attack against them for their earlier article warning against certain arguments that creationists should not use (and which Hovind over-uses -- er, used, since he's now in the slammer). Part of my quoting:

quote:
But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?

...

We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.


Here we have a leading creationist saying the exact same things I've been warning creationists about for over a decade and for which I have been repeatedly viciously [verbally] attacked with the accusation that I was "attacking Christianity" (in one such case, all I did was to demonstrate that a Hovind claim was wrong and why).

Despite the other goals that have developed over the years, the primary goal of "creation science" has been to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools, something that the "monkey laws" had done for four decades but are no longer allowed to do (Epperson vs Arkansas, 1968). I believe that it is the worst folly for them to have that goal, just as it is the worst folly for them to rely on strawman attacks -- and not for the reasons mentioned above, but for the reason that I gave WS-JW.

If they really and truly want to oppose evolution and to disprove evolution, then they must know everything they can about evolution. They need to promote the truthful study of evolution and the truthful study of science among their children. That way, their children will be able to directly address the real problems with evolution and direct their attack based on truth and knowledge, instead of basing their attacks solely on lies and deceptions and ignorance.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by iceage, posted 06-07-2007 11:47 AM iceage has not yet responded

    
Damouse
Member (Idle past 3139 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 49 of 107 (404243)
06-07-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by iceage
06-06-2007 1:04 PM


Re: Fundies say the darnest things
Gah iceage, sorry. i was responding to WS-JW's post, but i had a moment of lazeiness and didnt want to search for the original post. Apologies.

What is confusing about my post? WS-JW claimed that the ideas learned in quantum theory disproved one of the patterns that evolution exhibits (gradualism). So i responded with a pair of counter examples, the geometry and the thermodynamics examples, and ended by saying that independant scientific fields/systems begin with different givens and so that the same question asked of both systems will yield a different, yet still correct answer.

lol the thermodynamics example probobly wasnt the best example, i had meant that (to one not looking at the whole picture) the law that said that all matter seeks its lowest energy level and the tendancies of certain reactions to seek stability in higher energy states would contradict.

Lay off the joe, eh? Sorry bout the confusion.


This statement is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 06-06-2007 1:04 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by iceage, posted 06-07-2007 3:53 PM Damouse has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 06-08-2007 10:43 AM Damouse has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4148 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 50 of 107 (404247)
06-07-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Damouse
06-07-2007 3:14 PM


Re: Fundies say the darnest things
No problem. Perhaps I am bit too twitchy, as someone pointed out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Damouse, posted 06-07-2007 3:14 PM Damouse has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 107 (404358)
06-08-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Damouse
06-07-2007 3:14 PM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
quote:
WS-JW claimed that the ideas learned in quantum theory disproved one of the patterns that evolution exhibits (gradualism). So i responded with a pair of counter examples

Well isn't *this* a can of worms??

If neo-Darwinism does not admit that there can be continuous motion in a discontinuous space or if the physical basis of quantum theory has not been detailed to molecular evolution then "anagensis" may be extripated but this does not mean process has been fully patterned out.

The seemingly unusual aspects of QM when related to evolution or post-NeoDarwinism depend on if it is obvious or not if geographic range is a property of the species or the individual, or if one is hyper reductionist, only on the information content of the code expanded.

I think there is some room for equivocation among the postingings and Freudian slips in postings in this thread.

Part of my own position can be gleaned from some recent correspondence with Dr. Gladyshev

quote:

>From: "Gladyshev Georgi"
>To: "Brad McFall"
>Subject: Thermodynamics of Evolution 2007
>Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 16:35:55 +0400
>
>Dear Brad,
>Have a look, please, at:
>http://www.endeav.org/?id=46&lng=eng
>http://www.endeav.org/?id=47&lng=eng
>Sincerely,
>Georgi Gladyshev
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Pavlovich_Gladyshev

Dear Georgi;

Thank you very much for the links.

It seems to me that the harderst part to getting other people to look further into your ideas is due to either a reductionist view, that somehow prevents the investigator from getting beyond the "analogy" to chromatographic columns or it is due to a latent regard for synergism (at the issue of being far from equilibrium).

In your own words the difficulty is getting readers to follow you completely between these two paragraphs

"Especial interest is the application of hierarchical thermodynamics to living systems which, as before believed, could not be investigated by Gibbsian methods. The reason of this was the statement that natural biological systems are open and that these systems are, allegedly, far from an equilibrium state.

However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed monohierarchical systems or subsystems within open polyhierarchical biological systems. "

I have gone through three stages of reading your works.

1) I was not sure it was theoretically true except in an isolated instance that would require a particular reading of Maxwell's physics.

2)I suspected it was true in the sense of 1) but it seemed regardless, certainly needed to resolve some issues in theoretical biology

3) Now, I am fairly confident that the structure should exist. Getting to this third stage required me to think harder about your comments on differentiation. After reviewing the existence of a differential equation that specifies the dynamics of the "powerball"

http://www.powerballs.com

(dyna-bee)

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1464611

I have come to a thought about using phenomenological linear thermodynamics in a monohierarchy of guanosine metabolism in conjunction with EITHER the centriole or a cellulose cell wall construction as being within Gulick and O’Reilly’s differential equation but a part of yours. The trick is/would be that the apparent 3-D is reduced to Euler angles. The notion of the centriole being like a gyroscope has been dismissed but if one adds a thought about aggregations obeying your law, it seems possible to resurrect the older idea. O’Reilly studied at Cornell when I was there.

I do not have the ability to decide if this differential equation is a subset of yours or not. If that could be proved there would be no doubt in my mind that the world needs to wake up to your notion. Often it is hard to decide whether or not to call attention to EvCers ever again to your work because many people there are either not that interested or else do not actually have a better/larger scientific background than me. I understand that you have made your work accessible to the average student of physical chemistry with biological interests but “synergism” and the probabilistic basis to the evolutionary synthesis(sic!) seems to be blocking those who would otherwise be sympathetic to your position.


And the results that as soon as someone posted a link
https://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/wws/arc/biogeography/2007-06/msg00003.html
to my website
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
over 60 people world wide have looked into the pages overnight.

Of course looks can be deceiving but there is just too much going on in this thread on EVC and related issues for me to think that there is nothing here. There is a concept of "temporal paraology" in panbiogeography where one may indeed think that calibrating cladistic branchings with phylogenetic inference is mistaken as this is a property of the node not the branch. Gould's insistence that species selection is like branching for demes but budding instead only confuses the four seasons of thought of the expansion of older "evolution" with any newer thought about the function of evolutionary theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Damouse, posted 06-07-2007 3:14 PM Damouse has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 06-08-2007 3:54 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 52 of 107 (404390)
06-08-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Brad McFall
06-08-2007 10:43 AM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
Brad,

Well isn't *this* a can of worms??

No, QM is in no way contradictory to RM & NS either gradualistic or punctuationary.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Brad McFall, posted 06-08-2007 10:43 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 06-08-2007 8:49 PM mark24 has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 53 of 107 (404428)
06-08-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by mark24
06-08-2007 3:54 PM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
I believe it was Damouse that used the possible word "contradictory".

I only said that QM has not been properly worked into theoretical biology.

If you can show me that I am wrong on this then I can show you that the notion of the adaptive landscape makes sense for both gene frequencies IN a population and for gene combinations within individual organisms.

It seems to me that lack of application is PRECISELY because, whether gradual or puctuated, the probabalistic syntax, prevents QM meaning to be dissected for gene DNA in an individual and a species AT THE SAME TIME (hence we can get QM at the notion of the molecular bonds but not at supramolecular temporality). This division becomes confused with space itself and will do so as long as logic is not better applied.

If one thinks that the only way humans can get information to change this state of research is by atoms then genes get short shrift but one only assumes genes then individuals get the same but in a bad way.

QM, if it implies some idea of empirical geometry that Reimannian math *may not*(if) may not support, may not necessarily support a different graudal approach to the space-time continuum, but yes I would not draw people in this direction as of yet. There are more fruitful ones based on simple linear extrapolations, no matter the philosophy. Besides, the number of visitors at my site is almost double what it was this morning now that my work was properly looked into.

"Contradiction" is one of logic. One would need to know more specifically what the "energy levels" being referred to are rather than what they may be.

I see no a priori reason why biology may not "contradict" QM if the data says so. Those who disagre prima facie are a kind of reductionist that I think would not even survive the gene as made of atoms actually counted/aggregated. I do not think that QM necessarily implicates puctuated/saltus biology but if properly continuous in a discontinuous space of genes it may implicate a different kind of plenum than that which went by anagenesis. I rather think that the continuity is such that anagenesis will trump any divisivity that QM can contribute, but my point was only we do not have this "science" as of yet.

Again, I did not say

quote:
contradictory to RM & NS either gradualistic or punctuationary
. I said the problem depends on if "range" is meant for individuals or species. This is not solved by simple use of the term "evolutionary individual" but DOES go back to origins. Thermodynamics of life's origin and the diversification of life need not be kept seperate necessarily.

This is why I have decomposed panbiogeography into "recapitulatory" and non recapitulatory parts (see my website's home page
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
). More than one origin of life may impute a different figure for the recapitualtory dissection irregardless of that which has no bearing on recapitulation either way, but there can still be 'recapitulation' (depending on information in the meaning of the code expansion(genetically)) even if life on earth all goes back to a single start. That would be hard to say without directly addressing the topic here as to if there really is the kind of meaning of life given by the codon relations or if there is some other kind of genetics extractable from future molecular biology research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 06-08-2007 3:54 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 06-09-2007 4:24 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3428 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 54 of 107 (404686)
06-09-2007 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brad McFall
06-08-2007 8:49 PM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
Brad,

I only said that QM has not been properly worked into theoretical biology.

Why does it need to be? Biologists need to understand the patterns of behaviour of atoms & molecules, of course, but understanding that a mutation occurred because X reacted with Y at Z stage of meiosis is good enough. Anything else is physics.

I said the problem depends on if "range" is meant for individuals or species.

I fail to see it as a problem for either. Understanding the chemistry that affects both is good enough.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 06-08-2007 8:49 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 06-09-2007 6:05 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Brad McFall, posted 06-09-2007 7:28 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 06-09-2007 5:45 PM mark24 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18813
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 107 (404690)
06-09-2007 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by mark24
06-09-2007 4:24 AM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
I don't know about the QM implications for biology, but there are clearly QM effects at the macro level. American football defenses that use the 2-gap system often have the problem that a tackle passes through both gaps and interferes with himself, which is why observers (usually called fans) attend football games in order to prevent this from happening, since tackles can never be observed passing through both gaps simultaneously. Still, it happens sometimes, and you will occasionally hear a tackle in a post-game interview bemoaning the fact that everyone must have been watching the quarterback, because after he passed through the gap he collided with himself and took himself out of the play.

Fortunately this never results in a two-many-men-on-the-field penalty, since if a referee is watching then the tackle only passes through one gap.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 06-09-2007 4:24 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Brad McFall, posted 06-09-2007 7:22 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2007 11:33 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 56 of 107 (404705)
06-09-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
06-09-2007 6:05 AM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
Come on Percy, Mark asked the correct follow-up.

When did sports become biology. I suppose holding the cricket bat to protect one's face is biology and not physics then?

As for your sillyness. When I grew up, I wanted First of ALL to be a football player. I never could. I did not grow big. I did play in Pop Warner. I played both sides of the field, right pulling guard (a useful position for the right end run, leading the offensive surg) and right middle linebacker, penetrating the center to get to the ball(player). As little players it was against the rules to *cause* fumbles but having seen that happen I TV, I just went against the rules. Once the ball got aggregated by players I would just enter the scurm and with no one on the outside being able to look in, I would knock the ball the to the ground. If I can come up with the ball I would have a penality but if someone else did, well that was on them.

Look, playing both offense and defense, I was on the field almost all the time, (only special team situations and ones when I was too tired to play did i not participate), and playing on the right side of the field all the time. I ran in a constant circle. The game however goes up and back in a line. This does not appear to be a circle because the ball spins and other players do not have the same routing. Your homology fails.

You seemed to have confused the gap in the line with the field itself,which ironically IS the problem for biology if the "gap" was not between the players but within the soma. For football it is not. It was in the laces spinning, the symmetrical shape of the Cuban cigar instead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 06-09-2007 6:05 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 107 (404706)
06-09-2007 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by mark24
06-09-2007 4:24 AM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
Dear Mark,

It has been a while since our mutually assurred collisioning on EvC had been averted. I will answer your question about QM and theoretical biology directly but first just tell me if you have any desire to see ANY kind of hierarchical expansion to evolutionary theory become reality in taught evolutionary thought?

Range changes are issues because they actually refer to space, this is not biological in se but refers to space. One in then left with how one relates space and time to form. I will explain, but first, if you can save me digging through your posts, are you fully for reductionism or not? I know you can listen, and write on clade logic, so I may just start from there, but I would prefer to initiate my response from a deeper physical (level of organization) layer, one where it would be more obvious that QM is applicable(Gould thought species selection real but not clade selection for instance).

If you think that chemistry is good enough for whatever this place is, then that is fine. I understand. The issue then is that the effect of atomic repulsions does not have a large enough share of molecular biology. Chemistry study goes to0 slow with regard to studying attractions (bonding) let alone the dynamic forms of repulsions within systems of attractions. Part of the reason is chemistry's fault. As far as I looked into that, the reason for those kinds of delays are that really only in all gas states are the physics (virials) seemingly workable.

Edited by Brad McFall, : you

Edited by Brad McFall, : I hope this helps

Edited by Brad McFall, : study too


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 06-09-2007 4:24 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4441
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 58 of 107 (404727)
06-09-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
06-09-2007 6:05 AM


Singletary And The Resolution Of The Double Gap Problem
American football defenses that use the 2-gap system often have the problem that a tackle passes through both gaps and interferes with himself...

Mike Singletary used to take advantage of this strategy from his linebacker position. Rather than interfer with himself in the backfield he would hold both positions behind the offensive line giving him the option of taking out the runner or slamming the quarterback as the play developed. On some occasions he has done both simultaneously. QM being what it is, however, in viewing the films you only observe the resolved Singletary in a single state, but everyone familiar with the man knows what really happened.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 06-09-2007 6:05 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3266 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 107 (404768)
06-09-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mark24
06-09-2007 4:24 AM


Re: disjunction can be continuous in discontinuous space
Here is "why" in Dr. Gladyshev's words he included in a post script today via EMAIL to me. There has to be one biological continuum (garnered by the nature of the diff. equations that does not use non-equilibria/synergism) no matter what the seperations/processes are unless there are more than one origins of life and then it is even more complicated (how then "range" is important).

quote:
P.S."In considering the thermodynamics of biological evolution it is convenient to examine subsystems where different processes of reaching corresponding quasi-equilibrium take place: molecular processes, chemical evolution, supramolecular evolution, and evolutions of higher orders such as genera, families, associations, and ecological evolutions, etc. Assuming that the corresponding quasi-equilibria are reached in the processes of general and particular evolutions of the biosphere and its subsystems one can use the Gibbs free energy criteria of equilibrium to predict the degree of the evolutionary development of each process."

OK?

I am not sure your characterization of Meiosis allows any relation of the Gladyshev's thermostat to interact at different times of development.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mark24, posted 06-09-2007 4:24 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mark24, posted 06-10-2007 10:42 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 60 of 107 (404783)
06-09-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 11:27 PM


Stronger IS better in every aspect of life

how long can you tread water?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 11:27 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019