Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 271 of 385 (564785)
06-12-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
06-08-2010 8:21 AM


Re: a deeper understanding
quote:
Granting for the sake of discussion that the 47 shared mistakes between humans and guinea pigs occur at mutational hotspots, why are the mistakes the same? It isn't like copying down coin flips where there's only one way to be wrong. So in an ID context, how did this happen?
Based on Borger's baranome hypothesis, VIGEs (Variation Inducing Genetic Elements) would have operated with specific function at the point of creation and thereafter until partially or fully disabled by mutation. These VIGEs (which as mentioned earlier are transposons, insertion sequences, ERVs, etc.) worked to cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes.
Since common design is apparent in a YEC model it would make sense that guinea pigs and humans would have a similar if not identical GULO gene at creation. It would also make sense that VIGEs in both kinds would operation in a similar fashion - making similar changes to those genes. Selection then operated to preserve the forms we see today. This also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 06-08-2010 8:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:10 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 272 of 385 (564788)
06-12-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Taq
06-08-2010 4:21 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
So there is no mixture of characteristics, either in living or fossil species, that would falsify the YEC model? If not, then how do you explain the nested hierarchy? Other than evolution and common ancestry, what other mechanism would produce such a pattern of shared characteristics preferrentially over other patterns? Why do we see the exact pattern of shared characterstics that we would expect from evolutionary mechanisms if evolution never occurred? Is God trying to trick us into accepting evolution?
Not at all. Remember: nested hierarchy does not imply common ancestry. For example, I could build a nested hierarchy of automobiles. In one clade you'd have all the semi-tractors and in a distant clade on another branch you'd have the divergence between 2-door and 4-door sedans. This nested hierarchy could accurately model 95%+ of all automobiles - though there would be exceptions (like, where the heck do you put the El Camino? pickups? cars? maybe it's the result of convergent evolution ). However, just because the ontology could be created doesn't mean that all automobiles had common ancestry: some are Fords, some are GMs, etc.
quote:
You may want to check out this thread. I can understand that you are getting in over your head. If you want to discuss ERV's more you can either comment on the thread above or start a new one with questions not covered in the other thread.
I'll read up on that thread - thanks for the link. I've also been doing a lot of other reading on this subject as well.
quote:
And until such time the conclusions are solid. To bring us back on topic, you need to explain why the non-avian dinosaur baramins are only found beneath rocks with isotope ratios consistent with 65 million years worth of decay. If both evolution and radiometric dating are wrong, how does this happen? How does YEC explain this? Even more, how does the YEC model explain how post-flood survival correlates with the depth of ancestral fossils? For example, we only find trilobites deep in the geologic record and there are no surviving trilobites. Rhinos are found much higher in the fossil record, and they survive today. How does the YEC model explain this? How does depth of burial affect post-flood survival with respect to baramins?
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood. It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried. Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the fossil record according to YEC - so I doubt I can answer all your questions satisfactorily - but that is a synopsis.
quote:
And what happens when you apply this evolution based algorithm? Very accurate protein function predictions. The theory works. Baraminology doesn't.
I'm going to read through the SIFTER research - as I'd like to better understand it. However, my initial reaction is not surprise. Remember - your nested hierarchy is 95%+ accurate at categorizing creatures according to genetic and morphological similarities. It only makes sense then that by looking at proteins of closely grouped creatures you can predict the function of a similarly constructed protein for another creature within the group. This does not require common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Taq, posted 06-08-2010 4:21 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Coyote, posted 06-12-2010 5:01 PM BobTHJ has not replied
 Message 278 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:35 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 296 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 1:08 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 273 of 385 (564790)
06-12-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Taq
06-08-2010 4:28 PM


Re: Getting down to details
quote:
What features must a fossil have in order to be transitional between non-humans and humans in the YEC model? Or are such conclusions forbidden a priori? How can you claim to be reasonable if a specific conclusion is forbidden before even looking at the fossils?
Not forbidden - but since such a fossil would invalidate the model the evidence for transition would need to be very high before being accepted.
quote:
I will fully agree that no fossil can be shown to be an ancestor of any living human. Only DNA can show this, and hominid fossils don't have DNA in them. However, if humans did evolve from a common ancestor with other apes shouldn't we see fossils with a mixture of basal ape and modern human features? We should, shouldn't we? Isn't that exactly what we see with these fossils? If apes and humans were created separately then why do we see fossils that have a mixture of human and ape features?
Consider in a YEC model that baranomes contain a wide variety of genetic information - far more than modern genomes. Also consider how close primates and humans are morphologically. The baranomes (both pre and post flood) would have caused rapid speciation and variation - some of these species would survive and some would not. It only stands to reason that some primate fossils would be found showing some features more similar to humans than modern primates display. It also stands to reason that some human fossils would be found showing some characteristics closer to primates than modern humans display (neanderthal for one - which creationists successfully predicted to be an extinct race of humans).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Taq, posted 06-08-2010 4:28 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:46 PM BobTHJ has replied

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


Message 274 of 385 (564791)
06-12-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 4:45 PM


Re: Getting down to details
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood.
Aren't you the least bit bothered by the vast differences in age between those various sedimentary layers?
Or the huge amounts of time those took to form, compared to the 4,350 or so years since the date attributed to the flood?
Or that all dating methods show that you are wrong in your young age belief?
You claim to want evidence, yet you deny everything that contradicts your a priori belief.
To me that is nothing more than religious apologetics. It certainly isn't the way science works.
While this may seem off topic, the issues are related. The belief in "kinds" follows the exact same pattern. Kinds are a religious belief, and no amount of scientific evidence will make the least bit of difference to believers. We have already seen that demonstrated in this thread.
In both cases we see the antithesis of science.
Nowadays it seems fashionable in creationist circles to wrap their religious beliefs in scientific terminology, apparently in hopes of fooling those who don't know any better and to feed believers just what they want to hear.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:45 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 275 of 385 (564792)
06-12-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 4:19 PM


Re: a deeper understanding
BobTHJ writes:
Based on Borger's baranome hypothesis, VIGEs (Variation Inducing Genetic Elements)...
What is the evidence that there is any such thing as VIGEs?
...would have operated with specific function at the point of creation and thereafter until partially or fully disabled by mutation.
Where in the genome are these "partially or fully disabled" VIGEs.
These VIGEs (which as mentioned earlier are transposons, insertion sequences, ERVs, etc.) worked to cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes.
What is the evidence for "rapid adaptation and speciation" 4500 years ago (in other words, since the flood)? What is the evidence that they operated by "activating and deactivating various genes."
Since common design is apparent in a YEC model it would make sense that guinea pigs and humans would have a similar if not identical GULO gene at creation.
How many human/guidea pigs genes were identical "at creation?" You know what it means if too many of their genes were identical, don't you?
But the important question concerns evidence. Do you have any evidence that human and guinea pig GULO genes were identical at any time in the past?
It would also make sense that VIGEs in both kinds would operation in a similar fashion - making similar changes to those genes.
You've just added to the amazing thigns VIGEs can do. Not only can they "cause rapid adaptation and speciation by activating and deactivating various genes," but they can also make actual changes to genes. What is the evidence that anything like this has ever happened?
This also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates.
You have again managed to complete an entire post without providing any evidence. Your story has no more evidence than any other fairy tale.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:19 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2010 9:55 AM Percy has replied
 Message 310 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 4:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 276 of 385 (564793)
06-12-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 4:25 AM


Re: a deeper understanding
If I understand correctly Woodmorappe's conclusion is this - Since neither creationists nor darwinists would place guinea pigs and humans as closely related then one or both of the following must be true:
1) The similarities indicate common engineering/design.
2) Mutational hotspots - not common ancestry - account for many of the similarities in pseudogenes.
It could be, of course, mutational hotspots and common ancestry....
Other options you haven't considered are
3) Some other as yet unknown commonality.
4) common ancestry, and it is the rat's gene that has evolved.
5) something else.
You have to pick the explanation that best fits with all the other data and support your conclusion. The question I'd want to ask for your preferred hypothesis is why would a common designer commonly design things this way? Is there some reason proteins that don't impact external morphology should vary in a fashion that matches up with the patterns of external morphology?
That's probably not the best example - so I'll try and think of some better ones - I'll try and get back to you on this.
Indeed - we still haven't got a reasonable deep understanding of the big picture patterns we see. We agree on the smaller patterns indicate common ancestry (whether the ancestor is either the FIRST EVER (created kind) or not) - but you are just telling us what we knew: Common ancestry gives us explanations.
I agree that darwinists (specifically atheistic darwinists) have no reason to waste time looking for the 'invisible robber'. However, Christian creationists certainly do - and this is where religious beliefs come into play. As a Christian who has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of a Creator I have every reason to search for Him in science.
We have been discussing this hunt for the causes behind such circumstantial spiritual experiences over at Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)?. I've detailed my experiences - I'd be interested in hearing yours. But be warned, we're being flagrantly atheist in that thread
Modulous - I really appreciate the civil tone of your responses and your willingness to discuss issues without resulting to personal attacks or broad generalizations about your opposition.
The feeling is mutual. I've kept this one a bit shorter, since that being in the minority opinion results in a lot of demand for your time around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:25 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 5:07 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 277 of 385 (564794)
06-12-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
06-08-2010 8:44 PM


Re: Mutations and Information
quote:
The number of alleles was 3, which can be represented in log23 = 1.585 bits, and then it increased to 4, which is log24 = 2 bits, and that's an increase in information of .415 bits.
Yes, you are correct. My knowledge of genetics has grown considerably since starting this discussion - so I need to withdraw my earlier statement regarding evolution adding information to the genome.
It is clear that new alleles can be created via point mutation other mechanisms rather easily. This fits the baranome hypothesis - baranomes are designed to do exactly that - diversify the kind, partially through the creation of new alleles.
The traditional evolutionary model though is still riddled with problems. In order for the creation of a new novel gene there must first be a duplication of an existing gene (recent research has shown this to occur at much lower rates than originally predicted) - then than gene must undergo a number of non-synonymous mutations (of which very few are beneficial) to code a new novel protein. That protein must then provide some fitness benefit to the organism to encourage positive selection. Even if all this comes together this process must occur simultaneously in 50+ genes to form a new novel mechansim for a complex organism.
Yes, I understand there are other ways of obtaining new genes (frameshifts, activaiton of pseudogenes, etc.) but the above is the traditional best evolutionary model for the development of new features. Even given timeframes of millions of years it is highly improbable that even a few such new genes would be developed this way.
The evolutionary model also fails to explain the rapid variation and adaptation that has been observed in scientific experiments - such as the ability of bacteria to rapidly evolve and synthesize new nutrients. Baranomes explain this rather well - the VIGEs are there specifically to cause this rapid adaptation - but if it can happen so rapidly - then why are millions of years required to develop new traits?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 06-08-2010 8:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 6:15 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 278 of 385 (564796)
06-12-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 4:45 PM


Re: Getting down to details
BobTHJ writes:
his also neatly explains the similarity in the GULO genes of humans and other primates.
What else could it possibly imply?
For example, I could build a nested hierarchy of automobiles.
Sure, if you ignore the history of the automobile industry, just like you're ignoring the natural history of life on Earth. When you figure out how innovations like diesels and intermittent windshield wipers can cross between unrelated clades like ships, trucks and cars you let me know. Entire new car companies arise with no automobile background, like Honda which started in lawnmowers - the first Civic had a 2-cycle engine. With automobiles the evidence screams out that there is no common ancestry, no nested hierarchy.
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood.
Where is there any evidence that most of the world's sedimentary layers were laid down in a short period of time? Where is there any evidence that most of these layers are the result of a single flood? Where is there any evidence that these layers are only about 4500 years old?
It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried.
And how do you explain trilobite (not trilobyte) remains atop Mount Everest?
Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer.
And how do you explain both large and small creatures being found in both early and late layers? Why are clams found above mammals in some places?
Remember - your nested hierarchy is 95%+ accurate at categorizing creatures according to genetic and morphological similarities.
Where does this 95% figure come from?
Congratulations on another evidence-free post!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:45 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 5:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 279 of 385 (564797)
06-12-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 4:54 PM


Re: Getting down to details
Bob, there's no such thing as a baranome in the real world. Prove me wrong.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Remove cheeky paragraph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:54 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by cavediver, posted 06-12-2010 6:23 PM Percy has replied
 Message 315 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 6:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 280 of 385 (564799)
06-12-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 5:21 PM


Re: Mutations and Information
BobTHJ writes:
Yes, you are correct. My knowledge of genetics has grown considerably since starting this discussion - so I need to withdraw my earlier statement regarding evolution adding information to the genome.
Kudos for the concession, but is there at least a little voice in the back of your head telling you that you are reaching too many conclusions in the absence of evidence? Most of the other stuff you're saying is just as wrong as your original claim that new information cannot be created through mutation. Remember how you felt when you made that claim? I bet you made it just as confidently as you did your other statements about the YEC model, baranomes and VIGEs.
Could I suggest a strategy of "Inform self first, reach conclusions later."
The traditional evolutionary model though is still riddled with problems.
It is your knowledge of biology (and geology, for that matter) that is riddled with holes.
In order for the creation of a new novel gene there must first be a duplication of an existing gene (recent research has shown this to occur at much lower rates than originally predicted)...
What was the original prediction and at what rate do they actually occur? I only ask because I think you're repeating something that someone else made up.
Even if all this comes together this process must occur simultaneously in 50+ genes to form a new novel mechansim for a complex organism.
If by this you mean that many different genes are experiencing gradual change through generations of time, then this is correct. Reproduction is imperfect and neutral and positive mutation gradually accumulate. Because of imperfect reproduction it isn't a question of how speceis change, but how do they ever stay as much the same as they do.
Yes, I understand there are other ways of obtaining new genes (frameshifts, activaiton of pseudogenes, etc.) but the above is the traditional best evolutionary model for the development of new features.
The gradual accumulation of point mutations is the easiest process to describe and understand, but I don't know that anyone within biology would describe it as the "best." Evolution is more a "whatever works" type of process.
Even given timeframes of millions of years it is highly improbable that even a few such new genes would be developed this way.
Could we see the math? I'm curious how you calculated the probability of a process you so poorly understand.
The evolutionary model also fails to explain the rapid variation and adaptation that has been observed in scientific experiments - such as the ability of bacteria to rapidly evolve and synthesize new nutrients.
You have got to stop just repeating everything you hear. Possibly the only correct sentence in your entire post was about adding information to the genome. When we can actually sequence the DNA of the bacteria both before and after the new ability and know precisely what mutational changes occurred, what is it that you think the evolutionary model doesn't explain about bacterial mutations and evolution?
Baranomes explain this rather well - the VIGEs are there specifically to cause this rapid adaptation - but if it can happen so rapidly - then why are millions of years required to develop new traits?
This is great! Finally something that can verified in the here and now. So in these experiments where bacteria rapidly evolve new abilities right there in the lab where we can observe precisely what is going on, you claim that there are VIGEs we could supposedly see that are driving the process. So where is the observational evidence for VIGEs?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 5:21 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 7:29 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 281 of 385 (564801)
06-12-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Percy
06-12-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Getting down to details
followed by Wile's blog
Just as a brief aside, as Wile seems to have been referenced multiple times in this thread, I have been quizzing him over at his blog. To demonstrate the level of his intellect, here is his repeated argument for the impossibility of abiogenesis:
Wile writes:
Venter’s team was trying to create life according to their design. They couldn’t do it without the help of life — at three different points. Thus, it shows the impossibility of abiogenesis, as life is required for life.
I have repeatedly called upon him to retract this obvious non-sequitur and he has merely dug himself in. Complete waste of space and a danger to children who are exposed to his "educational" books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 5:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 3:25 PM cavediver has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 282 of 385 (564828)
06-13-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Percy
06-08-2010 11:36 PM


quote:
Well, that's wonderful that you've seen convincing evidence of a YEC model (how many models are there, by the way?). Care to share any of this evidence with us, especially for kinds or baraminology?
The first thing that comes to mind is neanderthal. YEC scientists predicted through baraminology that neanderthal was not a human ancestor, nor a separate offshot of the primate clade, but a extinct species of the human holobaramin. This prediction was found to be correct when recent testing of the neanderthal genome showed evidence of interbreeding with humans.
quote:
Okay, this is the second time you've talked about testing hypotheses, which is great, we agree about this, but now I'm really confused. So earlier when you said that theories don't need to be falsifiable, that was I guess a joke, right?
Just because a hypothesis can't be tested doesn't make it an invalid hypothesis. Of course, it doesn't make it particularly useful either. Thus it is wise to attempt and find falsification tests for your hypotheses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 06-08-2010 11:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 6:19 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 283 of 385 (564830)
06-13-2010 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Dr Jack
06-09-2010 12:29 PM


quote:
This is off topic here, but I'd like to discuss it in another thread if you'd care to propose the topic?
Certainly - I set up a topic here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2010 12:29 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 284 of 385 (564831)
06-13-2010 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Dr Adequate
06-09-2010 12:30 PM


quote:
Well, you usually do. The question of why you do so is up to your conscience. But of course you do.
If you lose your spectacles, then you pursue your search for them as though the idea that God sent a flotilla of angels to bear them up to heaven was completely ridiculous and could be ignored. You keep on searching for your spectacles as though there was a naturalistic explanation, and as though the explanation involving God and his angels could just be ignored.
When you understand why you behave in this way, then you will also understand why biologists ignore the "goddit by magic" hypothesis.
You make a point - and yes, if there is a clear naturalistic explanation then I sometimes don't consider a supernatural one (though I'm not convinced that I shouldn't). However, this is because of a firm belief that the natural (the physical laws that govern our universe) were set into place by the supernatural. I think we're off topic here though - theological debate should probably be saved for a different topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-09-2010 12:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4998 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 285 of 385 (564832)
06-13-2010 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Peepul
06-09-2010 12:32 PM


quote:
Have a look at some of the work of Szostak and Paegel - they have gone beyond Miller / Urey.
Szostak Lab: Home#
Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)
Thanks - I looked over both of these resources, but I don't have time at the moment to go into either in depth, nor am I certain I would fully understand (at least not without taking a fair amount of time to do so). Would you be so kind as to summarize this research for me? What are the implications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Peepul, posted 06-09-2010 12:32 PM Peepul 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