Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 226 of 425 (541134)
12-31-2009 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by greyseal
12-31-2009 7:04 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
ICANT, I know you have trouble accepting reality, but...what?
I don't have a problem with reality. But I do have a problem accepting fantasy land explanations.
greyseal writes:
are you telling me that man can create a dog from a wolf?
I did not say that.
I did say mankind had interfered with the two kinds of animals. They have taken and produced a hybrid animal from the two.
I suppose the insemination was/is by artificial means as on a natural basis it would be difficult.
But if you leave them alone in the wild insemination will never happen as wolves have lifetime mates. The males will protect their lady to the point of killing an intruder. No one in the pack will bother another's lady.
Without mankind's intervention there would be no wolf dog.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by greyseal, posted 12-31-2009 7:04 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Vacate, posted 12-31-2009 10:54 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 228 by Asgara, posted 12-31-2009 11:39 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 242 by greyseal, posted 01-01-2010 11:09 AM ICANT has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 227 of 425 (541135)
12-31-2009 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ICANT
12-31-2009 10:42 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
But if you leave them alone in the wild insemination will never happen as wolves have lifetime mates. The males will protect their lady to the point of killing an intruder. No one in the pack will bother another's lady.
Without mankind's intervention there would be no wolf dog.
By these standards didn't you just make the ark explode with all kinds of kinds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 10:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 1:11 PM Vacate has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 228 of 425 (541143)
12-31-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ICANT
12-31-2009 10:42 PM


Re: Kind (Wolves)
I question your specific claim: (bolding mine)
...But if you leave them alone in the wild insemination will never happen ...
Without mankind's intervention there would be no wolf dog....
Wolf Dog Hybrids in the Wild
Rare but it does happen
If fact, wolf and dog are not the only canid hybrids found in the wild.
Other Canid Hybrids
It seems that some domestic dog breeds are inching towards non-interfertility.
Are all "dogs" interfertile?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ICANT, posted 12-31-2009 10:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ICANT, posted 01-01-2010 1:40 PM Asgara has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 229 of 425 (541146)
01-01-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Rrhain
12-31-2009 4:27 AM


Rrhain writes:
But then it became to difficult to deny the evidence staring them in the face. When you can achieve reproductive isolation in 13 generations, it becomes difficult to say that it is a biological impossibility.
does this happen in human populations?
Rrhain writes:
It's why you keep saying "cat kind" without explaining why lions and ocelots are somehow not the same kind while lions and tigers are.
but as i said earlier, genesis speaks of both domestic kinds and wild kinds, therefore, there would have been a domestic cat kind along with the wild cat kinds created. Genesis does not imply that only one kind of cat was created.
More evidence of this is with the birds. Noah had on the ark numerous birds of different 'kinds' and we know this because he was said to let our of the ark a 'raven' and a 'dove'
both birds but two different kinds of birds.
Rrhain writes:
If you can evolve a little, you can evolve a lot. There's nothing to stop it. There is no "kind" barrier. How on earth does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate anymore because that next one will result in a different "kind" compared to the original?
perhaps you should ask those who have tried to cross breed monkeys with humans and dogs with cats....the embryos do not succeed. Saying there is no species barrier is fanciful talk with no substance to it...its well and trully proved that there is a species barrier.
Rrhain writes:
That's why I keep asking you about ring species: Each adjacent species pair is interfertile, but the two species at the ends are not. The genome changes little by little, each time maintaining compatibility with the close neighbor but by the time the journey is finished,
Ok, and what are the examples in the human population of a ring species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Rrhain, posted 12-31-2009 4:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2010 12:30 AM Peg has replied
 Message 234 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 2:53 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 230 of 425 (541147)
01-01-2010 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Drosophilla
12-31-2009 5:53 PM


Re: Crash course on genetics??
Drosophilla writes:
Can you see that these mutated conditions arise in isolated individuals all the time? There is no "evolution seeing that something is needed" business at all. This is just routine mutation, happening all the time for the sole reason that the copying process simply is not perfect and millions of altered phenotypes happen all the time. Some die, some live and reproduce.
ok point taken.
so can you tell me if the bacteria are still bacteria?
and how long should it be before the see the bacteria going thru so much change that it is no longer a bacteria?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Drosophilla, posted 12-31-2009 5:53 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 3:07 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 240 by Drosophilla, posted 01-01-2010 10:58 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 231 of 425 (541148)
01-01-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by jasonlang
12-31-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Kinds
jasonlang writes:
You're not sure the Ark would need all the 'kinds' seen today, Peg ??
I though the point was that new kinds cannot be created ? Or are you forgetting the bounds of your Ark-certified "kinds" ?? Very convenient these "kinds".
i am thinking in terms of 'variety'
it was said earlier by nuggin: "You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".
I didnt explain it but in terms of the different breeds, which i'm told are different species, then any two cows could be taken on the ark and we could still end up with the same number of breeds we have today because all cows are the same 'kind'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 11:37 AM jasonlang has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2010 3:15 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 238 by greyseal, posted 01-01-2010 8:01 AM Peg has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 425 (541149)
01-01-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:00 AM


Huh?
Ok, and what are the examples in the human population of a ring species?
Why should there be ring species among humans?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:00 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 6:54 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 233 of 425 (541151)
01-01-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by jasonlang
12-31-2009 3:54 PM


jasonlang writes:
quote:
Sexual reproduction inevitably reduces genetic variation, regardless of whether you believe in natural seleciton or not (only 50% of the DNA from your parents is in you, the other half is lost).
Um, I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that only 50% of an individual parent shows up in any individual offspring? If so, that's true. But in a reproducing population, you have to remember that there is more than one offspring and the genes are continually being mixed among each other. So yes, 50% of your particular set of genes is lost, but chances are a good deal of them are present in your mate and thus your offspring will have most of them.
Other couples have different starting sets and thus the general population of organisms maintains the diversity of the genome. This is basic population genetics. Assume a simple dominant/recessive allele pair:
Let p be the percentage of the dominant allele in the population.
Let q be the percentage of the recessive allele in the population.
Thus, p + q = 1.
But here's the thing, the breeding square for the population is:
p2 + 2pq + q2
This is the percentage of organisms that are homozygous dominant (p2), heterozygous (2pq), and homozygous recessive (q2). But this equation also equals 1. That's because it is stable. It is only if there is a selective pressure regarding some morphology that the frequencies shift.
This was a question from my intro bio class when we hit population biology:
Suppose there is a dominant/recessive trait where the expression of the recessive trait is 1-in-1,000. Suppose no organisms who express the recessive trait reproduce. How many generations will it take before the expression of the recessive trait falls from 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-1,000,000?
This is where the "founder effect" comes from: If you reduce the population of breeding pairs sufficiently, you don't have a spanning set of the original diversity. Whereas the original set had a larger number of possible alleles to undergo mutation, the founding set has less. Thus, any mutations that do show up have an easier time becoming established in the population because there is less competition from other alleles.
quote:
Maintaining a continuous level of genetic diversity in the face of inevitable reduction requires mutation. Without it all species would end up as clones.
This isn't true. All you need is a sufficiently large population to maintain genetic mix. In a stable environment, there is little pressure to have allele shifts. It's how neutral drift works.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 3:54 PM jasonlang has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 234 of 425 (541152)
01-01-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:00 AM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
does this happen in human populations?
Why is this important? Surely you aren't saying that unless we see reproductive isolation right here and right now, then humans are somehow immune to evolution, are you?
But the answer to your question is yes: Humans and other apes are no longer interfertile.
quote:
but as i said earlier, genesis speaks of both domestic kinds and wild kinds
But you still haven't defined what a "kind" is. Instead, you always approach it ad hoc: Looking at what the evidence shows and then altering your definition of "kind" to fit. You are incapable of predicting whether or not two organisms will be of the same "kind" because you don't know what a "kind" is. It is a desperate clutching at straws specifically designed to maintain a preconceived idea.
quote:
therefore, there would have been a domestic cat kind along with the wild cat kinds created.
Huh? Lions are "domestic cats"? Ocelots are "domestic cats"? Domestic cats are a very specific species: Felis catus. It would help if you could tell us why lions and tigers are the same "kind" but lions and ocelots are not. What is the biological description that causes you to put one set of species together but exclude others.
quote:
Genesis does not imply that only one kind of cat was created.
Great. Now all you need to do is define what a "kind" is. And do it in such a way that you can predict where organisms will call rather than only ever doing so after the fact.
quote:
More evidence of this is with the birds. Noah had on the ark numerous birds of different 'kinds' and we know this because he was said to let our of the ark a 'raven' and a 'dove'
But why? Why are ravens and doves different "kinds"? And which raven are you talking about? Which dove? Do you realize just how many Corvids there are? How many Columbiformes? If a "kind" is that far up the taxonomic tree, then you run into the hyper-evolution problem where you necessarily require extinction after the first generation because the genetic change required to get from the original "kinds" to the outrageous diversity we see now would require every single individual to be incapable of breeding with any other individual due to the need to expand genetic diversity from those original "kinds."
quote:
perhaps you should ask those who have tried to cross breed monkeys with humans and dogs with cats
What on earth does this have to do with anything? The fact that the genome can evolve as much as you like doesn't mean every organism is gamete-compatible with every other organism. That would be a huge blow to evolution if that were true.
It is because the genome can evolve as much as you like that there is a problem cross-breeding wildly different species: Way back when, the ancestors of all those organisms were interfertile because they were all the same species. But over time, the genome evolved and populations split off from each other, becoming reproductively isolated.
quote:
Saying there is no species barrier
Huh? Where on earth did I say there was no species barrier to reproduction? What I said was that there is no barrier to evolutionary change. The genome can change as much as you like. In fact, it can change so much that it becomes incapable of breeding with its ancestral stock.
How does the genome know that it isn't allowed to mutate anymore because the next mutation will result in a different "kind"?
quote:
Ok, and what are the examples in the human population of a ring species?
What on earth are you talking about? Why does there have to be a ring species in humans in order for humans to have evolved? Surely you aren't saying that unless we see reproductive isolation right here and right now, then humans are somehow immune to evolution, are you?
You still haven't answered my two direct questions:
How does a ring species fit into your scheme?
Do you think the chromosome replicates perfectly every single time?
This is at least the third time I have asked you both of those questions directly. How many times must I ask them before you bother to answer?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:00 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 235 of 425 (541153)
01-01-2010 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:09 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
so can you tell me if the bacteria are still bacteria?
Hah! Just as I predicted!
Message 195
Rrhain writes:
And no, "But it's still a bacterium!" is not a rational response. This is not about speciation. This is about your direct claim that "mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism. They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now."
You're moving the goalposts again, Peg. First, you were claiming that it was impossible to have mutation. Now you're whining that the mutation we've shown you to actually exist didn't result in the equivalent of an ostrich being hatched from an alligator's egg, as if evolution predicted such a thing.
Of course they're still bacteria, Peg. This is an experiment that takes less than a week from start to finish. What on earth were you expecting? That Adam would emerge from the petri dish? The entire point of the experiment was to show you that your fundamental claim that there can be no mutation is absolutely and completely flawed. That your claim of "mutations have been shown to be harmful and damaging to an organism" is nowhere near true except in the most naive sense. That your insistence that "They dont produce anything new and this has been shown in experiments for many years now" is naught but a lie born of ignorance and fueled by zealotry.
This is precisely what I predicted you would do, Peg.
What do you have to say for yourself?
quote:
and how long should it be before the see the bacteria going thru so much change that it is no longer a bacteria?
We can achieve reproductive isolation in as little as 13 generations.
What were you expecting?
If you have to move the goalposts, Peg, it means your argument is wrong. If you want evidence of speciation, then that's a different question.
If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:09 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 236 of 425 (541154)
01-01-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:20 AM


Peg writes:
quote:
I didnt explain it but in terms of the different breeds, which i'm told are different species, then any two cows could be taken on the ark and we could still end up with the same number of breeds we have today because all cows are the same 'kind'
But you're doing precisely what has been predicted: Changing the definition of "kind" to suit your preconceived notion.
Why are lions and tigers the same "kind" but not lions and ocelots?
Exactly where is this "kind" break? You've been insinuating it is where gamete conjugation fails, but you have yet to explain how ring species fit into this scheme. Each adjacent pair of species is gamete compatible and thus there is no "kind" shift. But the species on the ends of the ring are gamete incompatible and thus are different "kinds" by your vague definition.
That's precisely how reproductive isolation happens, Peg: Small changes such that while you're in the thick of it, you don't notice it. But when you bother to look up to see how far you've come, you see that you've completely changed.
How does the genome know that it isn't supposed to mutate anymore because that next one will create a new "kind"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 237 of 425 (541164)
01-01-2010 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Coyote
01-01-2010 12:30 AM


Re: Huh?
Coyote writes:
Why should there be ring species among humans?
why would there not be?
Why would other animals experience the phenomenon of 'ring species' but not humans?
Do we not breed as much as any other creatures on the planet? (apart from insects of course)
Do we not have groups of people who breed in insolation from outsiders?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2010 12:30 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by greyseal, posted 01-01-2010 11:03 AM Peg has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 238 of 425 (541168)
01-01-2010 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Kinds
peg writes:
i am thinking in terms of 'variety'
and Peg, you're being asked to define "kinds", not "variety".
it was said earlier by nuggin: "You can NOT apply the word "kind" to both the supergroup "cow" and the subgroup "gernsey".
meaning, in your badly-put way, that a "gernsey" is of the "kind" known as "cow". Not a problem.
I didnt explain it but in terms of the different breeds, which i'm told are different species, then any two cows could be taken on the ark and we could still end up with the same number of breeds we have today because all cows are the same 'kind'
wait, wait, different breeds of cow are a different species? who the f*** said that? I don't think you'll find anybody to agree to that, and the cross-breeding that's more than possible between them would put the lie to that inside of five minutes.
However, are bison and buffalo "cows" ? they look pretty similar...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:20 AM Peg has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4717 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 239 of 425 (541170)
01-01-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2009 3:37 PM


You Know It
A kind is any group that we have become familiar with to the extent that we have given it a name (And generally as a one word name or name we treat as one word: groundhog, bullfrog).
Finches are a kind; as are warblers. Birds are also a kind. But a cedar waxwing isn't a kind (though in some parts a waxwing is a kind, but not in Massachusetts because they aren't common.) Frogs are a kind; as are toads. Amphibians are also a kind. But leopard frogs aren't a kind.
The method for determining kinds is quizzing the locals. Simply ask "What kind of animals and plants you got around here?", and strike all the answers that aren't introduced with the phrase "We got us some". As in "We got us some grubs, and some worms; and kissin' bugs. Lots of kissin' bugs."
I hope this clears it up for all involved.
Happy new years, y'all.

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 3:37 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3642 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 240 of 425 (541172)
01-01-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:09 AM


How long?.....well we've all the age of the Earth at our disposal....
Hi Peg,
so can you tell me if the bacteria are still bacteria?
and how long should it be before the see the bacteria going thru so much change that it is no longer a bacteria?
I think Rhain has done an admirable job of answering the first question re bacteria still being bacteria.
I want to expand on his question to you
If 1+1=2, why can't 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10?
As Rhain says, there is nothing whatsoever to stop a chain of mutating events carrying on. And species changes will occur as a result of such sequences.
There is one big difference between 1+1 and 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 (apart from the sum total of changes at the end) and that is the time needed for the sequence to run.
I believe therein lies your (and your creationist ilk) biggest problem. You only believe Earth (the universe in fact) has only about 6000 years to achieve change. If I also believed that, I too would have difficulty believing in evolution.
Did you know that before geology started to pin down the age of the earth more accurately, and physics sussed out nuclear fusion as the means of supporting the sun's longevity, most scientists of Darwin's age also seriously doubted the time available for evolution to take place.
Well we've moved on considerably. The age of the earth is supported by geology, both large scale (plate tectonics) and small scale (erosion of deep canyons etc). By cosmology (big bang and the degradation of background radiation temperature, age of sun via nuclear fusion). By palaeontology, biochemistry, immunology, genetics... The list goes on....
And what is the current best estimate of life on earth supported by all those methods? Well the earliest living things would have left no fossil evidence so the best we can go on is the life that did leave evidence.
I see from your avatar that you are from Australia so it's rather ironic that the oldest fossilised remains of life come from your continent. They are called stromatolites and the oldest ones known are approx 3.45 billion years old (Pilbara region, Western Australia)
Page Not Found
To maintain, against all the evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old means you have an error factor of at least 3450,000,000/6,000 = 575,000 error factor (this is a very low estimate since life would have been around well before the comparatively complex stromatolites).
I don't know which part of Australia you come from, but the distance from Sydney to Ayres Rock is 2150 Km.
http://www.ultimate-adventure-vacations.com/...ock-tour.html
This means Peg, in your creationist vision if we factor in the error factor, that you are saying the distance from Sydney to Ayres Rock is in fact:
2150/575,000 = 3.73 cm!!!
Now I've never been to Australia but I'm pretty sure Sydney Opera house is more than a fingernail stretch from that famous red rock.
Do you see the scale of error your kin invoke when using biblical data? Worse, because you insist on using it, it clearly throws out any sensible working from the world of science as meaningless.
How long to change from a bacteria to something else?
Answer: As long as the vast, vast stretch of time allows.....you really have no idea of the vastness of time available to do the job.
To quote Dawkins: "If you hold your arm fully outstretched to your side, and the centre of your body represents the beginning of earth and your fingertip is today.....then all recorded history over the past 2,500 years vanishes with a single pass of a nail file over your fingernail end!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:09 AM 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