Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
44 online now:
14174dm, Diomedes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Stile (5 members, 39 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,010 Year: 9,758/23,288 Month: 773/1,544 Week: 165/322 Day: 19/66 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 136 of 305 (52513)
08-27-2003 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Zealot
08-27-2003 10:29 AM


Re: Premises
Hi Zealot,

I guess first we have to agree on what an instinct is. To my mind, both the simple instinctive reflex to flee human contact and the complex behaviors of social insects like bees are instincts. They are instincts because they are ingrained in the organism rather than learned.

Because the tendency of many bird species to flee human contact is an ingrained behavior rather than one taught by parents, it is instinctive. Behavior passed on genetically rather than through some educational process is the very definition of instinct. This bird example is one of instinctive behavior changing in reaction to environmental changes (the arrival of man) in order to make the organism more successful.

You mention bees and spiders, and I might add ants to the list. Bees and ants are social insects (that's social in that they form complex social organizations, not that they're friendly and nice to each other). The behavior of bees and ants have been extensively studied, including how their instinctual behavior modifies in the presence of environmental changes. The same is true of the webspinning abilities of spiders. If you'd like references in the literation I'll have to enlist the help of Mammuthus.

I'd like to suggest again that you at least skim Darwin's chapter on instinct so that you have a better idea of the way in which evolution explains instinct as a modifiable quality.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Zealot, posted 08-27-2003 10:29 AM Zealot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Mammuthus, posted 08-28-2003 3:52 AM Percy has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 137 of 305 (52514)
08-27-2003 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Zealot
08-27-2003 9:51 AM


Re: Premises
Zealot,

Hi, from what I could gather, Darwin used the fossil record as evidence originally of evolution. I think he spent something like 27 years perfecting it (but I read that on some Christian site, so I cant verify it as unbias information). From what I've gathered, Darwin's original ToE has had its revisions and alterations to suit the evidence more, am I correct ?

Yes, on both counts.

My point was that if A,B,C,D,E,F,H,I point to evolution and 'G' does not point to evolution, then there would be an evolutionary theory to explain 'G' and thus 'G' would fit in with the rest of the alphabet and the ToE.

I agree completely. But all the evidence has to be within the same logical framework. That is; the falsifying evidence has to be 1/ logically valid, & 2/ Actually has to directly contradict the theory.
This is why fossil gaps don't falsify evolution. They aren't evidence at all, any argument based upon them against evolution is an argument from ignorance, because fossils haven't been found, they don't exist.

Mark

------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2003]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-27-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Zealot, posted 08-27-2003 9:51 AM Zealot has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 138 of 305 (52600)
08-28-2003 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
08-27-2003 3:17 PM


Re: Premises
Hi Percy,
I am no expert on behavioral genetics and certainly not in hymenptera..but I pulled up a few interesting references..

Behav Genet. 2002 Mar;32(2):95-102. Related Articles, Links

Confirmation of QTL effects and evidence of genetic dominance of honeybee defensive behavior: results of colony and individual behavioral assays.

Guzman-Novoa E, Hunt GJ, Uribe JL, Smith C, Arechavaleta-Velasco ME.

CENIFMA-INIFAP, Metepec, Edo. de Mex., Mexico. guzmane@inifap.conacyt.mx

The stinging and guarding components of the defensive behavior of European, Africanized, hybrid, and backcross honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) were compared and analyzed at both colony and individual levels. Hybrid and Africanized backcross colonies stung as many times as Africanized ones. European backcross colonies stung more than European bees but not as many times as Africanized or Africanized backcross colonies. The degree of dominance for the number of times that worker bees stung a leather patch was estimated to be 84.3%, 200.8%, and 145.8% for hybrid, backcross European, and backcross Africanized colonies, respectively. Additionally, both guards at the colony entrance and fast-stinging workers of one European backcross colony had a significantly higher frequency of an Africanized DNA marker allele, located near "sting1," a QTL previously implicated in stinging behavior at the colony level. However, guards and fast-stinging bees from a backcross to the Africanized parental colony did not differ from control bees in their frequency for the Africanized and European markers, as would be expected if large genetic dominance effects for sting1 exist. These results support the hypothesis that genetic dominance influences the defensive behavior of honeybees and confirm the effect of sting1 on the defensiveness of individual worker bees.

and

J Hered. 2000 Nov-Dec;91(6):474-9. Related Articles, Links

Genetic dissection of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) foraging behavior.

Page RE Jr, Fondrk MK, Hunt GJ, Guzman-Novoa E, Humphries MA, Nguyen K, Greene AS.

Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis 95616, USA. repage@ucdavis.edu

We demonstrate the effects of a new quantitative trait locus (QTL), designated pln3, that was mapped in a backcross population derived from strains of bees selected for the amount of pollen they store in combs. We independently confirmed pln3 by demonstrating its effects on individual foraging behavior, as we did previously for QTLs pln1 and pln2 (Hunt et al. 1995). QTL pln2 is very robust in its effects on foraging behavior. In this study, pln2 was again shown to affect individual foraging behavior of workers derived from a hybrid backcross of the selected strains. In addition, pln2 was shown to affect the amount of pollen stored in combs of colonies derived from a wide cross of European and Africanized honeybees. This is noteworthy because it demonstrates that we can map QTLs for behavior in interstrain crosses derived from selective breeding and study their effects in unselected, natural populations. The results we present also demonstrate the repeatability of finding QTLs with measurable effects, even after outcrossing selected strains, suggesting that there is a relatively small subset of QTLs with major effects segregating in the population from which we selected our founding breeding populations. The different QTLs, pln1, pln2, and pln3, appear to have different effects, revealing the complex genetic architecture of honeybee foraging behavior.

The second is probably more related to what Zealot is interested in..

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 08-27-2003 3:17 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 08-28-2003 9:49 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 139 of 305 (52741)
08-28-2003 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Mammuthus
08-27-2003 10:54 AM


Re: Premises
[Please read Message 143 (Forum Guidelines Advisory) before replying to this message. --Admin]

quote:
Regardless of what Darwin may or may not have posited about abiogenesis (though he was a Christian), it was not part of his theory of evolution nor is it part of the current theory of evolution.

1) Darwin was not a Christian. He renounced both Christianity and the Bible.
2) Evolution was long regarded as the naturalistic origin of life from non-life, but has since been re-defined (IMO for obvious reasons). See my article on this:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2003 10:54 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Mammuthus, posted 08-29-2003 3:43 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 140 of 305 (52748)
08-28-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Mammuthus
08-27-2003 11:13 AM


Re: Premises
[Please read Message 143 (Forum Guidelines Advisory) before replying to this message. --Admin]

quote:
The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in science with huge amounts of supporting evidence from diverse disciplines

This is called a mantra. The only thing true about “evolution” is genetic variation on a small-scale, but this variation is limited. There is no tangible evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

Last weekend in Colo Spgs I had the opportunity to witness a debate against evo-despised Hovind and a professor from Wyoming. What was the first line of evidence this professor presented? Lucy! Yet many evolutionists now admit that Lucy no longer fits so well in our family tree. His next line of evidence was the MtDNA clock, failing to realize that new data in 1998 forced evos to backtrack since the age for MtDNA Eve suddenly shrunk from 300K to 6K years old (I mentioned this to him aftward; I can’t recall Hovind’s response to this “evidence”). His other “evidences” included varves, and the petrified forests of Yellowstone, now easily explained by a catastrophe event, such as occurred at Mt St Helens (these later “evidences”, even if true, would not be evidence for evolution). Why is it so hard for you guys to present tangible evidence for evolution that you all can agree on? If the theory is so “robust”, with “huge amounts” of evidence, you would think that evolutionists wouldn’t be crawling all over each other and could universally agree on what is good evidence and what isn’t. Are there differing and conflicting theories of gravity? I submit that evolution is no better than a low-grade hyopthesis…

BTW, this professor also repeated the now tenuous claim that MtDNA is only passed down by the mother.

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Mammuthus, posted 08-27-2003 11:13 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 08-28-2003 9:41 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 145 by Mammuthus, posted 08-29-2003 3:54 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 147 by Quetzal, posted 08-29-2003 4:55 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 141 of 305 (52764)
08-28-2003 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Fred Williams
08-28-2003 7:42 PM


Re: Premises
Hi, Fred. Welcome back!

You mentioned a couple things that I've never heard of before. Could you say a little more about this:

Fred Williams writes:

...the age for MtDNA Eve suddenly shrunk from 300K to 6K years old.

And this:

...the now tenuous claim that MtDNA is only passed down by the mother.

Good to "see" you again! Send me some email, let me know how you're doing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Fred Williams, posted 08-28-2003 7:42 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 142 of 305 (52765)
08-28-2003 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Mammuthus
08-28-2003 3:52 AM


Re: Premises
Hi Mammuthus!

Thanks for the cites. Actually, I think they were both pretty good. The first reminds me of one of the fears of the killer bees (Or maybe ants? Wasps?) migrating up from Mexico. They were pretty sure that these bees couldn't come too far north, but they were afraid they might mix with native North American bee species and produce a new more aggressive race of bees with a more northern range.

I hope Zealot finds them helpful.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Mammuthus, posted 08-28-2003 3:52 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 143 of 305 (52767)
08-28-2003 10:05 PM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
Hi, all!

I'm issuing a pre-emptive Forum Guidelines advisory in case discussion becomes more heated. Please, anyone who sometime down the road finds their posting privileges have been suspended, do not take it personally. Just send email to Admin saying you'll follow the guidelines and your posting privileges will be restored.

This topic has been meandering through various evidences for evolution, with the lastest being the evolution of instinct. So far the vagueness of the topic hasn't been a problem, but Fred Williams has just introduced several new topics, and so it now becomes important to enforce the guidelines so we're not discussing multiple topics in a single thread. Please open new threads for new topics.

I recommend members take a quick look at the guidelines. When discussion is calm they're not much called upon, but when things become difficult or heated then they'll be more regularly enforced.

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 144 of 305 (52806)
08-29-2003 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Fred Williams
08-28-2003 7:15 PM


Re: Premises
quote:
1) Darwin was not a Christian. He renounced both Christianity and the Bible.
2) Evolution was long regarded as the naturalistic origin of life from non-life, but has since been re-defined (IMO for obvious reasons). See my article on this:

1) a false assertion but if telling a lie makes you feel good..whatever floats your boat
2) Why read your article? One can read the Darwin's work and see that you don't know what you are talking about on this subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Fred Williams, posted 08-28-2003 7:15 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 145 of 305 (52807)
08-29-2003 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Fred Williams
08-28-2003 7:42 PM


Re: Premises
quote:
This is called a mantra. The only thing true about “evolution” is genetic variation on a small-scale, but this variation is limited. There is no tangible evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

And what you have written is called an unsupported assertion. Variation of enormous scale has been observed i.e. cichlids and it does not necessarily require huge variation to get radically different morphological evolution

Nature 424, 1061 - 1065 (28 August 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01872

Cephalopod Hox genes and the origin of morphological novelties

PATRICIA N. LEE1,2, PATRICK CALLAERTS3, HEINZ G. DE COUET1 & MARK Q. MARTINDALE2

1 Department of Zoology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2538 McCarthy Mall, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA
2 Kewalo Marine Laboratory/Pacific Biomedical Research Center, University of Hawaii, 41 Ahui Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, USA
3 Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Houston, 369 Science and Research Bldg 2, Houston, Texas 77204, USA

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to H.G.d.C. (couet@hawaii.edu).

Cephalopods are a diverse group of highly derived molluscs, including nautiluses, squids, octopuses and cuttlefish. Evolution of the cephalopod body plan from a monoplacophoran-like ancestor entailed the origin of several key morphological innovations contributing to their impressive evolutionary success. Recruitment of regulatory genes, or even pre-existing regulatory networks, may be a common genetic mechanism for generating new structures. Hox genes encode a family of transcriptional regulatory proteins with a highly conserved role in axial patterning in bilaterians; however, examples highlighting the importance of Hox gene recruitment for new developmental functions are also known. Here we examined developmental expression patterns for eight out of nine Hox genes in the Hawaiian bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes, by whole-mount in situ hybridization. Our data show that Hox orthologues have been recruited multiple times and in many ways in the origin of new cephalopod structures. The manner in which these genes have been co-opted during cephalopod evolution provides insight to the nature of the molecular mechanisms driving morphological change in the Lophotrochozoa, a clade exhibiting the greatest diversity of body plans in the Metazoa.

I also see Fred is confusing abiogenesis with evolution..but actually you are the result of molecules to man Fred...you were once ultimately strands of DNA molecules wrapped around histones in your parents gonads and you developed into a guy who knows very little about evolution ..of course I did not observe this so according to your logic it did not happen and you therefore do not exist.

quote:
His next line of evidence was the MtDNA clock, failing to realize that new data in 1998 forced evos to backtrack since the age for MtDNA Eve suddenly shrunk from 300K to 6K years old (I mentioned this to him aftward; I can’t recall Hovind’s response to this “evidence”).

Ah yes, the Parson work that was shown to be wrong about a week later! Get with the program. Don't creationists ever read up on the fields they supposedly are so passionate about?

quote:
Why is it so hard for you guys to present tangible evidence for evolution that you all can agree on?

Um because that is how science works Fred...nobody agrees on the details i.e. rate of mutation etc....people constantly check each others work and look for holes...that is why science continuously advances and religious nuts stay stuck in the past.

quote:
BTW, this professor also repeated the now tenuous claim that MtDNA is only passed down by the mother.

Why tenuous? Because certain species of mussel have bi-parental mtDNA inheritance?...that has been known about for 10 years?

How about next time you post you give some references that can be discussed as opposed to "Kent Hovind and some professor said"?

cheers and welcome back

M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Fred Williams, posted 08-28-2003 7:42 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 146 of 305 (52813)
08-29-2003 4:29 AM


quote:
If the theory is so “robust”, with “huge amounts” of evidence, you would think that evolutionists wouldn’t be crawling all over each other and could universally agree on what is good evidence and what isn’t. Are there differing and conflicting theories of gravity? I submit that evolution is no better than a low-grade hyopthesis…

On further thought what Fred describes here as what he thinks would be robust science is actually the hallmark of fringe science or quackery. If you have universal agreement or enforced agreement i.e. the intelligent design movement or "creation science" w...hat Fred expresses is what you would see. Only agreement tolerated and when their views or so called evidence do not pan out, it is surpressed or more often not addressed. From the theory of gravity to the principles of genetics there are ALWAYS scientists trying to poke holes, criticize, find something novel...that is the only way for science to progress. The theories are those that have survived this type of scrutiny such as mendelian inheritance and the theory of evolution for example. The discovery of non-mendelian inheritance such as genomic imprinting did not destroy modern genetics. Horizontal transfer did not destroy the thoery of evolution...but it required both rethinking in both fields, explanations, and experimental evidence to incorporate them...to destroy the theories these phenomenon would have had to have been unexplainable by the theories and the evidence for them in complete contradicition to the possibility of say Mendelian modes of inheritance.

Contrast this with Intelligent Design. They have no testable hypothesis that is falsifiable. Their evidence is hypberbole. Several of the prominent members have overt religious agendas...and the kind of evidence they present is "the evidence for design is self evident" and other such logical fallacies. They also have to tow the ID line i.e. no dissent allowed.

A step down the ladder..or completely off the ladder into fringe-quack-pseudo science is creation science. The main organizations such as AIG expressly state that any evidence that contradicts the bible will not be tolerated! So a priori they dismiss any and all observations ,experiments, or sciences that conflict with a conservative Christian world view. They, like the IDists, have no testable or falsifiable hypothesis. They make no attempts at gathering evidence and are required to misrepresent the theory of evolution i.e. Fred's insistence that abiogenesis and evolution are the same. Creation science is pure fraud. It is not science. It does not operate under a single scientific principle.

Note that in all the debates on this site (and many others)creationists make claims about how the theory of evolution is not true because this or that...but when is the last time or when was there ever a time where a creationist has shown up with an attempt to devise a testable hypothesis of creation? Explain how it is falsifiable, provide evidence? ...by my last count..the last time was never.

And given the topic of this forum is Education and Creation/Evolution
this is why niether should be taught in a science classroom except to illustrate how science should never be done.


Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4428 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 147 of 305 (52818)
08-29-2003 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Fred Williams
08-28-2003 7:42 PM


Re: Premises
Hi Fred,

Welcome back. Long time no see. Are you still trying to convince people that information theory has some relation or bearing on population dynamics, population genetics, bottlenecks, etc? Or have you come up with a new argument?

I'm just curious as to whether it's worthwhile entering another round of discussions with you on any subject. If you're just here to take a couple of potshots, trade a few insults with SLPx, and then bail out again for another nine months or so it probably isn't. Let us know in advance this time, okay?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Fred Williams, posted 08-28-2003 7:42 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 148 of 305 (52828)
08-29-2003 8:54 AM


Forum Guidelines Advisory
Mammuthus and Quetzal:

You probably didn't see the previous forum guidelines advisory before replying to Fred. Hopefully this is 'nuf said.

To all:

In order to prevent this thread from becoming a grab bag of topics, the following topics should be discussed in other threads:

  • Evolution's original definition was "the naturalistic origin of life from non-life" (Fred).

  • Evolution can only cause small scale changes (Fred).

  • ...the age for MtDNA Eve suddenly shrunk from 300K to 6K years old. (Fred).

  • ... the now tenuous claim that MtDNA is only passed down by the mother (Fred).

  • There are different and conflicting theories of evolution (Fred).

  • Information theory (Quetzal). There's a currently open thread on this topic in the Evolution forum: Information and Genetics.

If necessary this thread will be temporarily closed in order to encourage discussion to move to the proper venues.

------------------

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]


Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Mammuthus, posted 08-29-2003 9:03 AM Admin has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Fred Williams, posted 08-29-2003 3:40 PM Admin has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 149 of 305 (52829)
08-29-2003 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Admin
08-29-2003 8:54 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
Hi Percy,

No problem...a few suggestions

quote:
Evolution's original definition was "the naturalistic origin of life from non-life" (Fred).

There are multiple threads on abiogenesis in the Origins of Life forum

quote:
Evolution can only cause small scale changes (Fred).

This could warrant its own thread in the Evolution forum

quote:
...the age for MtDNA Eve suddenly shrunk from 300K to 6K years old. (Fred).

I am already engaged in a discussion on this subject in general in the Human Origins forum in the Genetic Bottlenecks and the Flood thread with Alec...this discussion could be moved here...or Fred could pick it up in that thread.

[Changed thread title to a URL. --Admin]

quote:
... the now tenuous claim that MtDNA is only passed down by the mother (Fred).

This could go in the same thread on bottlenecks without really being off topic.

quote:
There are different and conflicting theories of evolution (Fred).

Perhaps a new Evolution thread?

cheers,
M

[Thanks for the suggestions. --Admin]

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 08-29-2003 8:54 AM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Zealot, posted 09-01-2003 9:37 AM Mammuthus has responded

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 150 of 305 (52876)
08-29-2003 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Admin
08-29-2003 8:54 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
Howdy all,

I apologize for popping in here without considering the guidelines and posting multiple topics in one post. I'll try to start a few new threads shortly (I'm still limited on time, but not quite as bad as the last several months have been). It seems to me the best Forum for most of the topics I raised should fall under “Evolution” as opposed to “Education and Creation/Evolution”? Part of the problem for me is going to be not knowing where things are already being discussed. I certainly don't mind having a thread closed or a post of mine moved to the proper forum if I start a thread that turns out to be being discussed elsewhere (as would have been the case with Mammuthus’ 'Genetic Bottlenecks and the Flood' example).

Anyway, it is good to be back! I look forward to providing another round of my freely offered therapy sessions to tackle this strange fairytale obsession y'all have with this silly evolution thing that is completely void of any real, tangible evidence. BTW, could someone in admin create a new Forum called “Place where Fred and SLPx trade insults”. Thanks!

[It's called the Free For All forum. --Admin]

Fred

[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-29-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Admin, posted 08-29-2003 8:54 AM Admin has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020