Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Significance of the Dover Decision
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 106 of 150 (452489)
01-30-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluegenes
01-30-2008 1:18 PM


Re: a general reply
Religions characteristically rely on the indoctrination of children to perpetuate themselves, which is why I.D. aims at the classrooms, and claims, like other forms of creationism, that the evidence based science taught at present is indoctrination.
The irony of this comment is rich considering it is evolution that is taught via indoctrination and ID that looks at the totality of the data and arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 1:18 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 5:01 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 150 (452490)
01-30-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by molbiogirl
01-30-2008 12:06 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Here's a few for starters.
Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285. (PDF, 1.13MB)
Meyer contends that intelligent design provides a better explanation than competing chemical evolutionary models for the origin of the information present in large bio-macromolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins. Meyer shows that the term information as applied to DNA connotes not only improbability or complexity but also specificity of function. He then argues that neither chance nor necessity, nor the combination of the two, can explain the origin of information starting from purely physical-chemical antecedents. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of the causal powers of both natural entities and intelligent agency suggests intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of the information necessary to build a cell in the first place.
Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302
Behe sets forth a central concept of the contemporary design argument, the notion of “irreducible complexity.” Behe argues that the phenomena of his field include systems and mechanisms that display complex, interdependent, and coordinated functions. Such intricacy, Behe argues, defies the causal power of natural selection acting on random variation, the “no end in view” mechanism of neo-Darwinism. Yet he notes that irreducible complexity is a feature of systems that are known to be designed by intelligent agents. He thus concludes that intelligent design provides a better explanation for the presence of irreducible complexity in the molecular machines of the cell.
Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.
Dembski argues that advances in the information sciences have provided a theoretical basis for detecting the prior action of an intelligent agent. Starting from the commonsense observation that we make design inferences all the time, Dembski shows that we do so on the basis of clear criteria. He then shows how those criteria, complexity and specification, reliably indicate intelligent causation. He gives a rational reconstruction of a method by which rational agents decide between competing types of explanation, those based on chance, physical-chemical necessity, or intelligent design. Since he asserts we can detect design by reference to objective criteria, Dembski also argues for the scientific legitimacy of inferences to intelligent design.
Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.
Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self -Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.
Lnnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. (PDF, 2.95MB; HTML)
Biology exhibits numerous invariants -- aspects of the biological world that do not change over time. These include basic genetic processes that have persisted unchanged for more than three-and-a-half billion years and molecular mechanisms of animal ontogenesis that have been constant for more than one billion years. Such invariants, however, are difficult to square with dynamic genomes in light of conventional evolutionary theory. Indeed, Ernst Mayr regarded this as one of the great unsolved problems of biology. In this paper Dr.Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig Senior Scientist in the Department of Molecular Plant Genetics at the Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research employs the design-theoretic concepts of irreducible complexity (as developed by Michael Behe) and specified complexity (as developed by William Dembski) to elucidate these invariants, accounting for them in terms of an intelligent design (ID) hypothesis. Lnnig also describes a series of scientific questions that the theory of intelligent design could help elucidate, thus showing the fruitfulness of intelligent design as a guide to further scientific research.
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.
Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that”if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
I think they list where the articles have been published.
Edit to add this one:
. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist yvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gdel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gdel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gdel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”
You guys can claim IDers don't publish and don't publish ID concepts, but it's just not true. Edit again to add a few more.
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315.
W.-E. Lnnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595.
Lnnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)
Granville Sewell, Postscript, in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (Springer Verlag, 1985). (HTML)
Maybe on a different thread someone can show me the seminal papers establishing Darwinism.....do evos do any research and publication or have they ever on the basic claims and assumption of Darwinism?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 12:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 3:11 PM randman has replied
 Message 109 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 3:18 PM randman has not replied
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 3:49 PM randman has replied
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 01-30-2008 4:31 PM randman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 150 (452497)
01-30-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-30-2008 2:34 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
To deal with the first list.
"Darwinism, Design, & Public Education" is a volume in the "Rhetoric and Public Affairs" series. An odd choice for scientific papers.
The Meyer paper has been dealt with elsewhere. There is good reason to suppose that the peer review process was rigged to ensure publication.
The Wells paper raises a hypothesis which has no clear connection to ID and has been falsified. It's venue of publication is a (very) low-quality journal with an anti-evolution editor. The other paper referring to it was at a conference mainly dedicated to applying ideas from biology to engineering.
It is not clear that any of these represents original research. Certainly the Meyer paper did not.
The Vle paper just sounds weird. I'd be interested in seeing it but I don't have high hopes that it contains anything really relevant.
THe second does include some research.
The Behe and Snokes paper is more anti-evolution than pro-ID (and not very successful at that). It is a theoretical analysis which was raised in the Dover case - again you should read the transcript.
The 2000 Axe paper is known for being mis-cited as support for ID.
I am less familiar with the remainder but at this stage I will point out that the postscript of a book is an odd place to find original scientific research !
This list seems to confirm that I was correct - the scientific literature about ID is very small - even if every item is correct (and I have doubts there, too).
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 2:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2664 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 109 of 150 (452502)
01-30-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-30-2008 2:34 PM


Fix your links.
Will you do everyone on this board a favor and LEARN HOW TO POST LINKS?
You are unbelievably inconsiderate. Not once, not twice, but three times in as many days.
Read the dbCodes help link. Is that so damn hard?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 2:34 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 110 of 150 (452503)
01-30-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
01-30-2008 3:11 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
you don't like the papers....big surprise there. Point is they are publishing, contrary to the claims by evos here on this site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 3:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 3:28 PM randman has not replied
 Message 112 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 3:29 PM randman has not replied
 Message 115 by Jazzns, posted 01-30-2008 4:15 PM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 111 of 150 (452506)
01-30-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
01-30-2008 3:21 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
quote:
you don't like the papers....big surprise there.
Most of my comments had nothing to do with liking them or not.
quote:
Point is they are publishing, contrary to the claims by evos here on this site.
But not contrary to what I said. And there are very few of them, fewer still that are original research, and most of those are more about evolution than ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 3:21 PM randman has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2664 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 112 of 150 (452507)
01-30-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
01-30-2008 3:21 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
you don't like the papers....big surprise there. Point is they are publishing, contrary to the claims by evos here on this site.
Putting something on a website is not "publishing".
Coughing up the moola to a vanity press is not "publishing".
Pawning off pseudoscientific books on a commercial publisher eager to strip gullible Americans of their hard earned money is not "publishing".
I specifically said: the scientific literature.
Oh. And one last thing. Anti-evolution ≠ ID.
I will ask again:
Please provide cites for ID (and ID only) papers in RECOGNIZED, REPUTABLE scientific literature.
Which of the above do you think meet that criteria?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 3:21 PM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22480
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 113 of 150 (452514)
01-30-2008 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-30-2008 2:34 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
Articles in a book called Darwinism, Design and Public Education are not peer-reviewed technical papers in scientific journals, nor do they appear to reflect any actual research.
The appearance of the Meyer paper in the BSOW journal was due to the shenanigans of then-editor Richard Sternberg and was disavowed in short order by journal's editorial board.
Dynamical Genetics is a book, not a technical journal. If you look at the article (Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity), it indicates that the book containing it was published by Research Signpost in India in 2004, and they no longer list the book at their website. A search returns the message "No Books found". Not a good way for ID to communicate its scientific "research" results.
The Rivista di Biologia is a journal of pseudoscience, and the Jonathan Wells citation is for when he spoke at their forum and is not for a research paper.
The Design and Nature II conference sponsored by the Wessex Institute of Technology was peer-edited, not peer-reviewed.
To summarize, the so called list of research papers at the Discovery Institute site, the link being more than sufficient, by the way, no need for the lengthy cut-n-paste, is for the most part not about any actual research, and the articles do not appear in any scientifically relevant peer-reviewed technical journals.
If ID wants to be science then they have to do science and present it in places where the relevant scientists will see it, which means peer-reviewed technical journals.
About the rest of your list, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals isn't a biology journal, and the paper itself doesn't address ID.
That cut-n-paste of peer-reviewed ID papers is posted all over the web at ID websites (Google found it on 188 different webpages). It's so common that TalkOrigins has a response at Claim CI001.4.
I'll just quote the first part of the response:
TalkOrigins writes:
  1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
    Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
    The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.
The rest is worth a read, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 2:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 4:16 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 126 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 12:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 114 of 150 (452524)
01-30-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by molbiogirl
01-30-2008 12:06 PM


Please Be Careful Talking About ID Papers
This thread is not the place to bring up if ID really has published.
Where this CAN be brought into the topic is to simply note that the defense in the Dover trial could not or did not produce any ID papers.
If they existed, why did the defense not use them. Did they simply not know about them? Could not Behe or any of the other defense expert witnesses informed the defnese team about them?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 12:06 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 115 of 150 (452526)
01-30-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
01-30-2008 3:21 PM


ID publications with respect to the dover trial
you don't like the papers....big surprise there. Point is they are publishing, contrary to the claims by evos here on this site.
Then why do you think the Dover defense team did not use the existance of so many ID publications in trial?
Why then did the expert testimony of the defense advocate for "affirmative action" for fledgling theories that currently have no scientific support?
If you had read the transcripts you may have know these things.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 3:21 PM randman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17825
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 116 of 150 (452527)
01-30-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Percy
01-30-2008 3:49 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
The Vle (or Voie) paper may be found online Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent
It is definitely NOT a research paper. It is evidence though - of how the list of ID "research" has to be heavily padded with poor-quality non-research papers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Percy, posted 01-30-2008 3:49 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2008 4:36 PM PaulK has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 150 (452531)
01-30-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
01-30-2008 2:34 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
randman writes:
Maybe on a different thread someone can show me the seminal papers establishing Darwinism.....do evos do any research and publication or have they ever on the basic claims and assumption of Darwinism?
Try searching "natural selection" on Google Scholar, and we'll see you in about ten years when you've finished reading all the peer reviewed papers concerning it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 2:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 7:21 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2128 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 118 of 150 (452534)
01-30-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by PaulK
01-30-2008 4:16 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
quote:
It is definitely NOT a research paper. It is evidence though - of how the list of ID "research" has to be heavily padded with poor-quality non-research papers.
The place to turn for ID research is the premier ID research establishment in the country, the Discovery Institute.
And what have they published?
Their staff seems to be mainly lawyers and PR flacks, with an occasional journalist and even one English major.
They do have a blog, which seems dedicated to whining about how picked on ID "researchers" are, but in reality they have published nothing of note since the Wedge Document was "informally" published. They certainly did not ride to the rescue in the Dover case with peer-reviewed scientific research and credible expert witnesses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 01-30-2008 4:16 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Jazzns, posted 01-30-2008 5:08 PM Coyote has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 119 of 150 (452546)
01-30-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by randman
01-30-2008 2:31 PM


Re: a general reply
randman writes:
bluegenes writes:
Religions characteristically rely on the indoctrination of children to perpetuate themselves, which is why I.D. aims at the classrooms, and claims, like other forms of creationism, that the evidence based science taught at present is indoctrination.
The irony of this comment is rich considering it is evolution that is taught via indoctrination and ID that looks at the totality of the data and arguments.
It's an evidence based comment. It explains why most of the children growing up in India consider themselves Hindus, and most in the U.S. Christians. Different non-evidence based cultural indoctrinations.
What extra data does I.D. look at? Invisible supernatural beings who do genetic modification? They must have damned good telescopes and microscopes at the Discovery Institute.
I'm aware that this is drifting off topic, and would be happy to discuss indoctrination elsewhere. The point arose because a Christian judge at the Dover trial came to the conclusion that I.D. is a religious movement.
No valuable new scientific ideas of the past were taught to children before the experts in the field were convinced, and their advocates never tried to put them in schools, but rather, to convince their fellow scientists with that dirty word for creationists, evidence.
Faith isn't evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by randman, posted 01-30-2008 2:31 PM randman has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3934 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 120 of 150 (452551)
01-30-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coyote
01-30-2008 4:36 PM


Re: ID research as it relates to Dover
They certainly did not ride to the rescue in the Dover case with peer-reviewed scientific research and credible expert witnesses.
Not only that, but they abandoned the Dover trial. Initially many big names from DI were involved.
The other thing that was interesting is that someone people like Behe remained. It suggests that the DI really isn't that monolithic in its influence among IDers. The did not have a concensus amongst the "big-wings" that Dover was not a good test of ID in court.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2008 4:36 PM Coyote 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