Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4488 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 181 of 530 (528035)
10-04-2009 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Otto Tellick
10-04-2009 12:29 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
If the actual number of differences is much less than the prediction, the null hypothesis has failed, and researchers may reasonably assume that selection has acted on the sequences in question
Notice that the null hypothesis fails when it doesn't match the prediction, Otto. Another example of the facts being shaped by the theory: "If this supports what we already believe, then our belief is confirmed; if not then it must be the result of selection".
The fact is that natural selection doesn't operate that way. As Kimura's work illustrated, it rarely wipes out "most of the mutations", rather it eliminates "the most mutated". This is because the majority of neutral mutations are actually slightly deleterious, so if you accumlate enough of them, you're done for. It follows that if the critters with 100 mutations are selected out, the critters with 95 mutations survive.
This process is therefore highly unlikely to give a wildly unreliable reading, with or without natural selection. But because it is so often at gross variance with the time-honoured principles of carbon dating and rock-strata-dated-by-fossils-dated-by-rock-strata methods, it's safest for evolution to sideline it as a "null theory".
Kimura drew graphs illustrating the effects of mutations on fitness. The graphs did not include the supposed "positive" effects of beneficial mutations. This cannot be explained away by the idea that Kimura wasn't concentrating on beneficial mutations. That would be bad science, and Kimura has never been accused of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-04-2009 12:29 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Otto Tellick, posted 10-04-2009 1:16 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 182 of 530 (528039)
10-04-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Kaichos Man
10-04-2009 12:27 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Let's put it another way. The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 41000-1/41000.
Which is really, really really close to 1 which is stone cold certainty.
I assure you that 41000 is a very long way from one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:27 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-05-2009 8:01 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 183 of 530 (528040)
10-04-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Kaichos Man
10-04-2009 12:14 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
Their problem lies in convergence. The same organ appearing in vastly disparate species.
Could you elaborate on what exactly you are talking about here? We share organs (and all the other common features) with other species because we have a common ancestor with them. These organs don't uniquely spring forth anew, they are conserved from that ancestor. Or was that not what you meant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:14 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 184 of 530 (528042)
10-04-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Peg
10-03-2009 10:13 PM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
anyway, regarding genetic research and its inability to prove ToE here is a research paper of Lonig
Well, I've read that paper which discusses how mutation breeding experiments behave. It discusses the unsurprising result that the number of novel mutations found is asymptotic with the number of experiments. This is a paper based on discussing a particular aspect of agricultural breeding; it is fantasy to think it has any impact on evolutionary issues.
Could you explain why you think it proves that genetic research is unable to prove ToE?
Edited by Mr Jack, : Improved clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 10:13 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 4:16 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 185 of 530 (528046)
10-04-2009 4:33 AM


Gday all,
I don't think Peg ever answered this -
Do you really think Carl Sagan supports design, rather than evolution, Peg?
K.
Edited by Kapyong, : Minor addition

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 4:37 AM Kapyong has replied

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


Message 186 of 530 (528048)
10-04-2009 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Kaichos Man
10-04-2009 12:27 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
The outcome that produces a fruitfly's wing is a miniscule fraction of acceptable outcomes.
If we're talking about outcomes over all creatures, then looking around at every creature upon the planet, I don't see many with fruitfly wings, so I can agree with you.
If you are talking about a single generation, with some hypothetical wing-less proto-fruitfly population suddenly developing wings overnight, I'd also agree with you. Is this how you think fruitflies got their wings in an evolutionary scenario?
Perhaps you need to define a bit more clearly exactly what you're trying to say?
The probability of a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at is 4^1000-1/4^1000.
Err, you may want to rethink that number
Seriously though, a fruitfly's wing not being arrived at from what? A fruitfly that doesn't have wings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:27 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

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


Message 187 of 530 (528049)
10-04-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Kaichos Man
10-04-2009 12:14 AM


Re: There is not a target mutation
The outcome that produces a gene relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this. For a 1000 base pair gene it is 1/41000.
No, what you mean is that *THE* gene, the observed gene, relating to a fruitfly's wing is a vanishingly small fraction of this.
Question 1) How many possible genes would lead to a working wing?
Question 2) Why do we even need a wing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 12:14 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 188 of 530 (528066)
10-04-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Peg,
Really you should do some research before you post things you read on creationist websites.
I can tell you know that Genetics does not help the ToE because the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations
It seems the 'law of recurrent variation' is the latest weapon for creationists. It also seems to be very prevalent among the Jehovah's Witness.
Here is the problem. There is no scientific law called this. It seems pretty presumptuous even unscientific for a scientist to unilaterally declare a law.
Some background
quote:
It seems that the "law of recurrent variation" is not a genuine law of science at all! It traces back to Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, a geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Germany. It appears that Lnnig was censored for using the official Max Planck Institute website to advance his personal belief in Intelligent Design. Given his Internet "crusade" for ID, it is not surprising that he authored a paper around 2002 claiming that natural selection cannot give rise to new species. Far from being supported by a scientific law, that view is rejected by the vast majority of biologists.
Source
Here are some examples of speciation from yoru new favorite website http://www.talkorigins.com.
quote:
1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:
* A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).
2. Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:
* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).
3. Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
* In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
* Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
* A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).
5. Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah's ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer "kinds" aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)
Source
Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:03 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Peg, posted 10-05-2009 6:11 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 189 of 530 (528068)
10-04-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Peg
10-03-2009 9:03 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
More info on the "law of recurrent variation"
As of yet I can find no instance of this being published in a peer reviewed journal. Here is a great rebuttal to someone that claims that it has been published in scientific literature
quote:
LordBright wrote:I did some research on that "law of recurrent variation". In fact it is published in scientific literature and was obviously put to discussion (see L‘nnig 1995) . References:
quote:
+ L‘nnig, W.-E. (1995): "Mutationen: Das Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation." pp. 149-165. In: Streitfall Evolution. Hrsg.: J. Mey, R. Schmidt und S. Zibulla. Universitas. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft. Stuttgart
Not scientific literature, but a popular book. The Edition Universitas books are published by a publisher that does publish scientific works, but this particular series is aimed at collecting essays from the fringe, with additional material presenting the ortodox view. Right now on sale in this series are books where people from the "faith healing science community" face off with actual MDs and one with Homeopathy versus Pharmacology. The series is pretty much "teach both sides" in technical jargon. You can check out what points the fringe makes and why the ortodox view says it’s bullshit.
quote:
LordBright wrote:+ L‘nnig, W.-E.(2005): "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation." In: Recent Research Developments in Genetics and Breeding (G. Pandalai, Managing Editor), Vol. 2, 45-70
Another book.
quote:
LordBright wrote:+ L‘nnig, W.-E.(2006): "Mutations: The law of recurrent variation." In: Floriculture, Ornamental and Plant Biotechnology: Advances and Topical Issues, Vol. 1, 601-607. J.A. Teixeira da Silva (ed.), Global Science Books, London
And another book.
And none of these are cited, in peer reviewed articles (which is another valid way of getting in).
Source
Wow. Amazing what you can find out when you actually do 10 minutes of research.
Edited by Theodoric, : Added source info

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Peg, posted 10-03-2009 9:03 PM Peg has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 190 of 530 (528097)
10-04-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Kaichos Man
10-04-2009 1:39 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
I'm like you, Kaichos Man, in the sense that I have no formal training in biology and do not practice that branch of science myself. I just read what biologists write and I try to understand. But it's in this last point that I think you and I differ, because I get the sense from your reply that you don't really understand, and you aren't really trying to.
Kaichos Man writes:
quote:
If the actual number of differences is much less than the prediction, the null hypothesis has failed, and researchers may reasonably assume that selection has acted on the sequences in question
Notice that the null hypothesis fails when it doesn't match the prediction
Notice what prediction it is that we're talking about. As I understand it (and I hope some real biologists here will correct me if I'm wrong), this sentence, just before the one you quoted:
quote:
The test compares the actual number of differences between two sequences and the number that the neutral theory predicts given the independently estimated divergence time.
is saying that Kimura's Neutral Theory predicts a specific rate of mutations in a lineage over time (and this prediction is based on carefully observed evidence). Given data from two distinct generations separated by a known period of time, if the difference between them is significantly less than the predicted difference, some other factor must have affected the process of descent with modification, and that factor is called "natural selection".
Another example of the facts being shaped by the theory: "If this supports what we already believe, then our belief is confirmed; if not then it must be the result of selection".
That's twisted to the point that you are making no sense. Belief has nothing at all to do with any of this. It's a matter of having an evidence-based prediction about the extent of difference between two stages in a lineage, and then comparing/contrasting that against the actual observed difference in order to understand the factors that account for the difference.
This process is therefore highly unlikely to give a wildly unreliable reading, with or without natural selection. But because it is so often at gross variance with the time-honoured principles of carbon dating and rock-strata-dated-by-fossils-dated-by-rock-strata methods, it's safest for evolution to sideline it as a "null theory".
More twisting of terms into tortuous nonsense. You seem to have some notion of how "null" is used in science that is completely at odds with how it's actually used. (Objective research uses the term "null hypothesis" to refer to one of two possible outcomes in a statistical study; there is no notion of a "null theory".)
You also seem to have some faith-based reason for rejecting evidence that supports natural selection, and this is something I don't understand, given the fact that there is no evidence-based reason for rejecting it.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor rewording for clarity

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-04-2009 1:39 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 191 of 530 (528126)
10-04-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Peg
10-02-2009 12:05 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
animals adapt to cold by growing thicker body hair. We are one of the animals, we are all linked, so why should we not be growing hair the same way as they do?
Oh, I get it now!
The theory says that all organisms must adapt to the same environment in the same way!
Wow, that is a spectactularly stupid theory, isn't it?
I'm hereby joining your cause, Peg. I will join my voice with yours in ridiculing the idiot theory that clearly cannot explain why monkeys don't have claws like squirrels, or dolphins don't have four fins like turtles, or bats don't have flow-through lungs like birds.
Any theory that requires all things to respond the same way to every environmental stimulus clearly fails to provide an explanation for why arctic spiders do not have fur to keep themselves warm, or why the sloth bear and the giant anteater have heavy, thick fur despite living in tropical regions.
Boy, what a stupid theory!
Sometime, I should tell you about this other theory that doesn't say any of that crap. It's called "the Theory of Evolution." I think you'll like this one, because, like I just said, it doesn't say any of the crap that that theory you were just arguing against says.
-----
Peg writes:
whats nonsense? that frogs are going extinct in australia because of climate change???
That's not the nonsense he was talking about: he was alluding to your apparent belief that extinction of some things disproves evolution. Evolution does not demand that all things be successful, and, in fact, works rather better in a situation in which not all things are successful.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Peg, posted 10-02-2009 12:05 AM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 192 of 530 (528145)
10-04-2009 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:11 AM


Mutations
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Welcome to EvC!
-----
Aside from the teleological assumption others have pointed out, your example also fails to address the effects of a population, which is the entity that ToE theorizes will evolve. All you have is one individual. Populations have many different sequences for the same region of the genome.
Reproduction is also a key here. Each time an organism reproduces, roughly half of its offspring will inherit its mutated version of a particular gene, and the other half will inherit the version of the mate. Many of the offspring will have added new mutation(s) to the gene, but many will not. Thus, each generation will have a range of sequences, some of which will surely be very much like the parents’ sequence(s).
So, each round of reproduction produces new variety for natural selection to work on, and often presents much of the same variety for mutation to try to work on again. So, your model needs to provide multiple opportunities for the same sequence to mutate in multiple different directions simultaneously, otherwise it is not meaningful for evolution.
Remember, if insects are going to evolve wings, all we need is one individual out of hundreds of thousands to accidentally acquire the right suite of mutations after hundreds of thousands of attempts, and to then pass the trait on to its offspring. Then, we will have successfully evolved insects with wings. So, your model would be more accurate if each round of mutations produced multiple options, and we got to select which one we want to mutate further.
But, remember, you cannot require evolution to produce something you want on demand, because that is exactly what we theorize that it does not do.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:11 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 193 of 530 (528177)
10-05-2009 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by pandion
10-04-2009 1:09 AM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
padion, i have already posted all this information, do i really need to redo the whole thread?
why cant you start from the beginning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by pandion, posted 10-04-2009 1:09 AM pandion has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 194 of 530 (528180)
10-05-2009 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Dr Jack
10-04-2009 3:54 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
MrJack writes:
Could you explain why you think it proves that genetic research is unable to prove ToE?
the law states that:
quote:
treating homozygous lines with mutagenic agents generates large, but clearly finite, spectra of mutants. This consistently occurs when the experiments are carried out on a scale adequate to isolate the potential of alleles causing phenotypic and functional invisible residual effects of changes in redundant sequences and/or of further chromosome rearrangements, the corresponding saturation curve is asymptotically approaching its limit for the micro-quantitative part of variation.
Evidence that mutations do not produce viable new species has been applied to the animal mutation experiements and Leibenguth describes the overall results of mutation breeding in his work Zchtungsgenetik (Genetics of Breeding) as follows (40):
quote:
In contrast to plants, animals are genetically more severely balanced. Hence, all kinds of mutations are even more frequently lethal and more strongly diminishing vitality and fertility in animals (40). Hence, according to all the evidence achieved so far by experimental investigations (and later also by careful considerations in theoretical genetics) there is absolutely no future for mutation breeding in animals
He also says on page 50 that "If one multiplies the proportionate number of disadvantageous mutations by the factor of 10, the result would already be some 100,000 to 400,000 negative (or unavailing or neutral) mutants to 1 useful for breeding research"
he goes on to explain that this is reason why almost all commercial breeding stations in the USA and Europe have deleted mutation breeding from their research programmes. Because they dont work! How can they be a basis for undirected evolution when even under laboratory conditions, mutations fail?
This is a huge reason to doubt the relevance of mutations as a road to evolution.
Now if you think about the sheer complexity of DNA, you cant possibly imagine that such a structure could come into existence without direction and intelligence.
Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20/100
The genetic code which is a requirement for cell reproduction could not have evolved for the reason that Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. And without the genetic code, there can be no reproduction in the first place. This fact makes the ToE impossible for without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.
this is another HUGE reason to doubt the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Dr Jack, posted 10-04-2009 3:54 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2009 4:39 AM Peg has replied
 Message 199 by Dr Jack, posted 10-05-2009 5:42 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 195 of 530 (528182)
10-05-2009 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Kapyong
10-04-2009 4:33 AM


Kapyong writes:
Do you really think Carl Sagan supports design, rather than evolution, Peg?
i have already seen the error of my way over this point and have apologised. I know Sagan is an evolutionist and not a believer in creation.
The quotes i used in msg 13 were to show that scientists findings are not also pointing only to evolution. When i used his quote i should have specified why i was using it.
he did say that nature gives the 'appearance of design'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Kapyong, posted 10-04-2009 4:33 AM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Huntard, posted 10-05-2009 4:42 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 198 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2009 4:50 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 227 by Kapyong, posted 10-05-2009 5:50 PM Peg 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