Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
64 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,910 Year: 2,658/23,288 Month: 849/1,809 Week: 281/225 Day: 1/40 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Mud Theory (SocialEvolution and lyx2no only)
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 1 of 29 (547483)
02-19-2010 5:10 PM


Hello. This is my first post. I am not convinced of the typical creationism story or the theory of evolution so I suppose I am a skeptic of both sides. I am really interested in what the true history of man might be but at this point I am very undecided on a conclusion. So this looks like the place for me, I think.

The first thing I want to look at is the idea that life came about by accident because of some perfect combination of elements or basically that we came from mud. Is this part of the Theory of Evolution or is this a separate belief that most evolutionists hold? Is this asserted as a fact or a belief or a scientific theory? The reason I ask is that I haven't seen any evidence for it yet many people I run into act as though it is the proven beyond a doubt. Evidence of animals evolving in response to the environment and mutations and all that is great but it doesn't address the initial cause that brought us about in the first place.

I see it as entirely plausible that humans could create life. We may not have the technology currently, but I think it is logical to assume that it is a real possibility in the future. And if we did create a life form, the smartest thing to do would be to design it so that it evolves and adapts to a changing environment. So it seems entirely plausible that another intelligent species like us could have created us. I realize that this does not explain how those creators came about but neither does the big bang theory explain what made it come about. I am only addressing our own genetic line here, not all life in the universe.

So this scenario, to me, seems just as plausible as the idea that we came from mud. They both look too strange to be true. Many people seem convinced that we came from mud and that nothing else is possible. If there is no evidence for either, people could still come up with why they think one is more likely than the other but I don't understand why the idea of us being created by another species is basically ruled out from the beginning. Is there some evidence for the mud theory that I am missing?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the "(SocialEvolution and lyx2no only)" to topic title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lyx2no, posted 02-20-2010 12:14 AM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 4 of 29 (547730)
02-22-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by lyx2no
02-20-2010 12:14 AM


Sure, you can call me that
Okay, so it's not part of the Theory of Evolution, got it.

I don't understand how the word "accident" prejudices it but I don't need to at this point - I'll just say "by chance" like you suggest.

Now let me make sure I have a clear understanding of what abiogenesis means. It seems to be a field of study rather than a theory. Abiogensis seems to be about how life on earth in general could have arisen from inanimate matter rather than about how modern humans could have originated from inanimate matter. It seems like an important distinction since you mention that ToE has nothing to do with abiogenesis and if abiogensis was about how modern humans could have originated from inanimate matter then it would have to involve ToE to complete the link. So do I have that right?

"Mud theory" is obviously not a very accurate label. Is there an actual term for "the theory that modern humans originated from inanimate matter without intelligent intervention"? I just call it the mud theory because I figure people will know what I mean but if there's an actual term for this, let me know.

From what I've seen on abiogenesis so far, I see some evidence that it MAY have been possible for life to have arisen spontaneously or for the materials of life to have arisen spontaneously on earth. It is interesting stuff, no doubt, but that is not evidence that we did in fact originate in that way. Evidence for the possibility and evidence for the actual occurance are two different things. Is there any evidence that we did in fact originate in that way?

quote:
I’d think to properly call oneself skeptical one would need more then ”we can’t absolutely rule it out” as cause to claim “it seems entirely plausible that…” That we may some day be able to create life does not imply that we were thus created.

You're right of course: it doesn't imply that. But don't read too much into it. I only mean that the mud theory and my alternative are the most plausible, according to what I know at the moment. Plausible only means, "the appearance of truth or reason" so I'm not actually saying much.

quote:
Those would be called delusional people. We shouldn’t worry too much about what they think. If your statement is hyperbole for “Many people seem convinced that we came from naturalistic causes and that nothing else is remotely likely”...

It certainly wasn't meant as hyperbole. I think a lot of people do have that view. But I should be careful to avoid generalities at this point. What about you? Do you think that nothing else is even remotely likely or do you think that the mud theory is just more likely? For nothing else to be even remotely likely, it would take a lot of evidence that the mud theory actually occurred.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lyx2no, posted 02-20-2010 12:14 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Stagamancer, posted 02-22-2010 1:32 PM SocialEvolution has responded
 Message 7 by lyx2no, posted 02-22-2010 2:53 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 8 of 29 (547785)
02-22-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Stagamancer
02-22-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Sure, you can call me that
quote:
quote:
Abiogensis seems to be about how life on earth in general could have arisen from inanimate matter rather than about how modern humans could have originated from inanimate matter.

Yes, no one has ever claimed that modern humans arose from inanimate matter. Modern humans are descended from other living things. However, if you trace our lineage back far enough, you'll get to those initial bits of genetic code and protein that were replicating themselves at the beginning.

You are right that no one in the thread claimed humans all of sudden came forth in full complexity from inanimate matter all in one shot. Not even I said this so I am not sure why you brought it up. As to your second point, I would point out that it's according to the theory of evolution that our lineage, if traced back far enough, would lead to that. It is not a proven indisputable fact that that is the case so we shouldn't state it as though it is. This is a perfect example though of what I was talking about earlier.

quote:
quote:
Is there any evidence that we did in fact originate in that way?

Well, if you mean, is there fossil evidence on earth of acellular (nonviral) RNA or DNA replicating itself in mud? No. But, scientists have demonstrated that RNA can catalyze it's own replication on a clay substrate. They have found organics molecules such as amino acids on asteroids.
Unless we can invent time travel, it's most likely that we will never come to 100% certainty about how live initially arose. However, the more we learn about the history of life and the Earth, we can come up with the most plausible explanation, and that will have to do. But saying "god did it" because we can be 100% sure is ridiculous. In the same way, we cannot know anything from the past with absolute certainty. For example, assume we knew that Lewis & Clark went across the continent, but they hadn't taken such extensive notes on their journey. We could piece together their most likely route based on evidence left of their campsites and things left behind. We may not get it exactly right (maybe they went right around some falls instead of left) but we can come up with the most likely explanation. Would you think that just because we couldn't figure it out perfectly that God must have picked them up and moved them across the continent?

I'm not actually a fan of the God Theory.

quote:
quote:
For nothing else to be even remotely likely, it would take a lot of evidence that the mud theory actually occurred.

No it wouldn't. The possibilities of the alternatives are in no way dependent on the possibility of abiogenesis. Even if "life from mud" was wrong, it doesn't make "life from god" more plausible. There are many more naturalistic hypotheses and theories that are way more plausible than "a being of infinite power that does and does not exist in the universe and is able to affect it without leaving any evidence of action created life"

In the statement "nothing else being even remotely likely", there is an assertion about everything else so it directly concerns the possibility of the alternatives. Also, I'm not a fan of the God Theory. I'm not necessarily a fan of the "Alien Theory" either. I consider it a possibility but mostly I just presented it because I thought it would make for an interesting discussion of why naturalistic abiogenesis + ToE is given as much weight as it is over alternative theories. As unbelievable as it may sound, I actually do not know what our origin is and do not pretend to. Everyone around me though, whether of the scientistic variety or bible thumper variety seems to be completely convinced without a shred of doubt despite the gross lack of proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Stagamancer, posted 02-22-2010 1:32 PM Stagamancer has acknowledged this reply

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 9 of 29 (547786)
02-22-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Sure, you can call me that
quote:
This is the "Great Debate" forum. We have not been invited to participate in the debate, and so we are not allowed to present facts, no matter how relevant they may be.

The whole reason that the moderators made this a debate between "SocialEvolution" and lyx2no only is that "SocialEvolution"'s brain might explode if he was exposed to too much truth all at once.

Ssssh ...


Gee thanks. My brain does have a tendency to explode and it is a pain to clean out of the carpet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 2:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 8:43 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 12 of 29 (547814)
02-22-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by lyx2no
02-22-2010 2:53 PM


Re: From the Top
Seeking the bigger picture, epistemology is independent of what I think. (Though I hope what I think is not independent of epistemology.) For science to work at all it must work within the stricture of epistemology. Consequently, naturalism is a doctrine of science. It is a statement that science is unable to deal with non-causal phenomena. It does not rule out non-causal phenomena as impossibilities so much as recognize that they can not be reliably studied; i.e., to discover the cause it must be related to the effect; to predict the effect it must be related to the cause. The volition of an übermencsh is not predictable and, therefore, cannot be useful in the advancement of scientific, basal understanding.

Returning to the not-ruled-out rule, because of another assumption of science, the principle of parsimony, making an exception to naturalism is very difficult to do. Parsimony demands that explanations be gained with the fewest assumptions. Unfortunately for us, it is not a mere assumption that people are not only easy to fool but often willing participants. This means that when confronted with an observation of the feeding of five thousand with five loaves and two fishes we’re forced to the conclusion that our ignorance is the limit of our explanation: we have no experience to enable us to disentangle the will of the gods from a slyboots with a food replicator in the guise of a wickerwork basket.

Naturalistic abiogenesis is a paradigm of the biological sciences which too limits conclusions to the observable, repeatable, and inferable. And so far as has been demonstrated the abolition of übermen with übertech , yet alone magic, has not resulted in a cognitive choke point.

Parsimony is useful for developing theories in that I can use it to more simply present a theory. For example, "aliens created life on this planet" is better than "blue aliens created life on this planet". But parsimony is not an arbiter of truth. Often the truth is more complex than the simplest theory. Parsimony can perhaps give direction though on what to research next (with limited success) and can help a person to refine a theory but we cannot use it to determine truth by comparison and we can't use it to eliminate competing theories. We can use it to eliminate theories for the purposes of directing research but not for the purposes of establishing truth.

Also, just to add to your bit about assumptions. It is not just the number of assumptions that determine whether one thing is more likely than another. It is also the likelihood of each assumption being correct. It matters how much of a stretch the assumption is. On hearing my doorbell, I could assume it is a friend of mine or I could assume it is an evil robotic clown. Since I have only one friend who lives in Antarctica and am surrounded by evil robotic clowns, one is more likely than the other.

I'm going to address some of your other points in another post, it's just taking me awhile to type it up. I like where this conversation is going though, it's getting interesting and I've learned a few new things too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by lyx2no, posted 02-22-2010 2:53 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 13 of 29 (547815)
02-22-2010 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
02-22-2010 8:43 PM


Re: Exploding Brain and Ruined Carpet
We'll be gentle with you. That's why the moderators are only allowing one person (lyx2no) to debate with you. They don't think you could handle any more.

If you feel that this is patronizing, please take it up with the moderators. It wasn't my decision.

I probably can't. I have limited time to post and read. This might be better after all. Thanks for the suggestion though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2010 8:43 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 14 of 29 (547816)
02-23-2010 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by lyx2no
02-22-2010 2:53 PM


Re: From the Top
Theories are sometimes compared in terms of the degree that the details of each theory is observable or inferable and repeatable. This does not itself establish truth but can have some use in determining the likelihood of one thing being true over another if used properly and given the appropriate weight. This is not without its downsides though and so we must be careful when we do this.

This method of comparison can lead one to be biased towards theories that appear to have more things that can be observed and repeated (especially in strict laboratory conditions). This is called scientistic prejudice. If 60% of the elements of one theory are observable and repeatable and only 40% for a different theory, it does not follow that the first theory is 20% more likely to be true.

The weight you can give to this type of comparison depends on several factors:
1) The equality of: The amount of elements in each theory that can be observed and repeated
2) The equality of: The ease of which the elements in each theory that can be observed and repeated
3) The equality of: The amount of effort that has gone into observing and repeating the elements of each theory
4) The percentage of elements that have been observed and repeated overall (99% vs 50% is a lot different than 2% vs 1%)

While my above list may not be perfectly stated or include everything, the point here is that there are factors which determine the weight that this kind of comparison should get and ignoring those factors will lead to scientistic prejudice. This is because methods of comparison are as valuable as they are workable, no more, no less.

In addition to this, it is also important to know what the purpose of the comparison is. If the purpose is merely to find the best path to take on further research in the physical sciences, this method of comparison is extremely effective. Even if the comparison yeilds an incorrect result, you will still learn something and that in itself is valuable so you win to some degree every time. So there is more value in using it in that way than there is in using it as a method to determine which theory is more likely to be true.

We can also look at the value in terms of fields of study. In the physical sciences, there is so much that is observable and repeatable in strict laboratory conditions that this method works well. In the social sciences, there is much that is not observable and repeatable in strict laboratory conditions and even major fundamental things may not be very easy to be observe and repeat under very strict standards. So it follows that this method of comparison is less valuable in the social sciences than it is in the physical sciences. It doesn't mean it's of no use but it means that it's of less value.

So in comparing origination theories, I think we should keep these things in mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by lyx2no, posted 02-22-2010 2:53 PM lyx2no has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-23-2010 12:30 AM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 15 of 29 (547819)
02-23-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by SocialEvolution
02-23-2010 12:02 AM


Re: From the Top
One more thing I want to add here before I go to bed...

Just because something is not ruled out does not say much, this is true. But if something is a logical possibility, that says a lot more. For example, the god theory gets hung up on being a logical possibility while the alien theory IS a logical possibility. Big difference. Likewise, the MtM theory is logical and may be physically possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by SocialEvolution, posted 02-23-2010 12:02 AM SocialEvolution has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 02-23-2010 3:23 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 17 of 29 (547938)
02-24-2010 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by lyx2no
02-23-2010 3:23 PM


Re: Shipping Channels*
No, no hidden pet theory for this, I'm afraid. Give me some time though and maybe I'll come up with something ;-)

The key thing to establish here is how we compare theories and how much weight we give to each.

But let's be clear here. I am talking about the likelihood of the theory being true rather than establishing what should be researched next. Those are very different things. The argument that far more weight should be given to MtM for research could perhaps be won. But in the other context, the MtM theory is only slightly more likely than the alien theory if it is more likely at all. This is because we are only talking in possibilities here. The most we can say about MtM is that it may be a possibility. That's a lot different than being overwhelmingly more likely than any other theory we have come up with or will ever come up with. It is not overwhelmingly more likely, it is only a possibility at best at this point in time.

Edited by SocialEvolution, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 02-23-2010 3:23 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 3:32 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 19 of 29 (548019)
02-24-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
02-24-2010 3:32 PM


Re: To the Bottom
With your analogy, you are looking at evidence from the actual event itself. It's also a common event that we have statistical information about plus we know about human nature. There is actually a lot to go off of. Plus, no one is claiming we can't discover knowledge about past events.

There is a type of conspiracy theorist that strings together different facts and assumes connections between them and then says any other explanation is so unlikely that no other possibility should even be considered. If the conspiracy theorist instead presented it as a possibility and didn't go overboard with it, then there wouldn't be much to criticize.

I've already explained the weakness I see in MtM. It has the same weakness as everything else. There is no evidence that MtM is anything more than a possibility. LGM is a logical consideration. We exist and so it is a possibility that others may also exist. There is not much evidence to get, it is more of a logical consideration. It is a social interaction, not a chance physical process. So LGM too, is nothing more than a possibility. They are both just possibilities and as much as you want it to be more than that, it's not.

In anything else, if we had no evidence of something being the case and only some evidence that it may be a possibility, we would not be so confident that we have it all figured out. Yet in this area people are. Perhaps people cannot tolerate an unknown of this magnitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 3:32 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 11:00 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 21 of 29 (548075)
02-25-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by lyx2no
02-24-2010 11:00 PM


Re: To the Bottom
The assertion I made is that LGM is a possibility. This is not unsupported. This is derived from making logical considerations about facts that we have. The fact is that we exist. The logical consideration about that fact is that it may be possible that others exist. That is plenty to establish this as a logical possibility. Challenging the assertion that LGM is a logical possibility will not get you anywhere here.

You cannot deny that LGM is a logical possibility and that is all that I claim. Ask for whatever evidence you want but unless you are challenging the assertion that LGM is a logical possibility, it does nothing for your argument. The question is what evidence do you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM?

A theory can gain some evidence and then become more likely than it was before but that is in relation to itself. That same evidence is not necessarily evidence that the theory is more likely than another theory. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. So let's look specifically at what facts and accompanying logical considerations you have that makes MtM more likely than LGM. You should have something in order to support the bold assertion that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Show me. My assertion has already been established, yours has not.

If you don't have anything or come up with something minimal, then you cannot say that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM. Admit this and I promise I will leave you an out and attack my own theory before the end of this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 02-24-2010 11:00 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 02-25-2010 4:09 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 23 of 29 (548247)
02-26-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by lyx2no
02-25-2010 4:09 PM


Re: Onus
The assertion that LGM is only slightly more likely than MtM if at all could be supported by the fact that so far in this thread there is a nearly equal amount of evidence for the following two assertions:
1) MtM is more likely than LGM
2) LGM is more likely than MtM

My main drive throughout this thread has been the contention that confidence in MtM is so exageratted as to become a belief. That is the OP. That is the focus. The assertion that I must challenge in order to establish that is that "MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM". If little evidence can be shown for that and yet people still have extreme confidence in it, then my perception will have shown to be accurate. It's very simple. I sit back and watch as evidence is not provided, therefore verifying my perception and so far, my perception is shown to be accurate. BUT, you have in this last post attempted to show evidence for that assertion! Have my dreams come true? Well, not exactly...

You believe that evidence for your assertion that MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM is:

I can watch chemicals self-replicate.

Chemicals can also self replicate under the LGM theory so that is not evidence over LGM.

I can watch self-replicating molecules compete for diminishing resources.

This is no reason to think this also couldn't happen under LGM. Again, no evidence over LGM.

I can watch the percentage of some self-replicating molecules increase at the the expense of others.

This is actually something that makes sense under LGM. If nothing self-replicated, then the species may not last as long so why not have it self replicate. It fits LGM without a problem. This again is not evidence over LGM.

I can observe that DNA is a self-replicating molecule. I can observe that DNA contains sub units named alleles.

This is also something that fits fine with LGM. Additionally, just because an organism is not exactly the same from generation to generation does not mean that we evovle from species to species. My car has changed over the years due to the weather and rogue shopping carts on a mission to destroy my car but nevertheless it is still a Ford Taurus and it will die a Ford Taurus.

I can watch genes replicate.

This also makes sense under LGM. An organism that replicates ensures better survival. So this also is not evidence over LGM.

I can watch genes mutate forming alleles.

Again, there is no reason to think this couldn't happen under LGM. Not evidence over LGM.

I can watch alleles being sorted.

I do not know why you see this as evidence over LGM. You'd have to explain.

I can arrange fossils in chronological order. I can recognize morphological kinship. I can construct consistent trees of nested hierarchies through multiple, unrelated pathways.

You can and you will notice that you have to rely on wild guesses to get from humanoid to single celled organisms. This evidence actualls fits better with LGM since other life forms could have created humanoids and skipped all the earlier steps, explaining the lack of evidence. Also, to get from one species to another (like from erectus to sapian) this could be done gradually through genetic engineering or suddenly and so this also fits better with LGM than with MtM. This is the most obvious one that is NOT evidence over LGM.

I can reasonably claim MtM is overwhelmingly more likely than LGM.

No. But you can believe it. If we believe an assertion with extreme confidence (like the one above) even though we have little to no evidence to support it, explain to me how that is not belief?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 02-25-2010 4:09 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2010 3:24 PM SocialEvolution has responded

  
SocialEvolution
Junior Member (Idle past 3557 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 02-19-2010


Message 26 of 29 (548308)
02-26-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lyx2no
02-26-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Bona Fides
The reason LGM is not in contention is because there is absolutely no reason to invoke intervention.

So you are saying it is proven 100% that no intervention is needed? That would have to be the case if there were absolutely no reason to invoke interventionism. Of course, if that's the case then MtM is a fact, not a theory. But of course we know this is not the case. Earlier you said people that act like it is a proven fact rather than a theory are delusional.

So since it is NOT proven that no intervention is needed and because I only see two options: intervention or non-intervention; then we would be wise to come up with (i.e. invoke) some intervention theory so we have all our bases covered. Do you know of a more logical intervention theory than LGM? If so, please share.

As per the random guessing: You have the earliest human skeleton and then you have theoretical quasi-life forms from abiogenesis models. What do you have to link these together? Let's see just how big this hole is.

Also, the Spaghetti Monster sounds delicious. Hopefully he self-replicates so we can have unlimited spaghetti!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2010 3:24 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2010 7:13 PM SocialEvolution has not yet responded
 Message 28 by lyx2no, posted 02-28-2010 11:28 PM SocialEvolution 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