Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:41 AM
39 online now:
Aussie, JoeT, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
575859Next
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 826 of 871 (697224)
04-22-2013 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 12:03 PM


Denying cherry picking is like denying "that water is wet". Because there is such a large variety of apes to choose from, its pretty easy for homologists to create an ordering that resembles transitional sequences. So you are right , in such a fossil record that we have (revealing large numbers of extinct species), it would be impossible not to be able to create an artificial ordering that resembles transitional sequences.

Ah, so you acknowledge the similarity. I thought you were claiming the skulls in the hominid sequence weren't even similar when you said, "The AUSTRALOPITHECUS is an ape," as if the entire sequence wasn't apes. So you do understand that Australopithicus was an ape, and Homo Erectus was an ape, and Homo sapien is an ape?

And the ordering isn't artificial. They're ordered by time.

On a related point, you don't seem to understand the definition of cherry picking. Cherry picking is when you pick a subset that isn't representative of the entire set, and then present that subset as if it *were* representative. If there's some hominid species you'd like to see considered that weren't on the list then just ask. For example, here's a diagram showing one possible reconstruction of our ancestry, and if you're interested we can probably produce skulls and dates for all of them:

It is evolutionists that need to see that their theory has no empirical advantage over the baramin concept, but the blindness comes through indoctrination.

The indoctrination is all on the religious side. You know, the side who believes in talking snakes and baramins? Science minded folks all believe the same basic things about the universe because their beliefs are founded upon evidence from the real world. Creationists believe in all kinds of different things because their ideas are based upon a variety of religious beliefs, not evidence.

Anyway, it would be nice if you could stop the "argument by made up accusations" approach and start dealing with the evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 12:03 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 827 of 871 (697232)
04-22-2013 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by mindspawn
04-13-2013 5:25 AM


Re: Hi mindspawn. New topic coming up.
mindspawn (04-13-2013) writes:

getting to your post on genetics

When you get there (Message 751 is already three weeks old), I'll be expecting you to agree that duplication and point mutations are perfectly plausible ways to increase the number of protein coding genes on genomes over time. I think you must understand that by now. The other stuff (far too much genetic diversity in humans and elephants to fit your model) is best dealt with on my new thread, Message 1, which starts off with a reasonable falsification of your model based on research into diversity on the human Y-chromosome. You'll like it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by mindspawn, posted 04-13-2013 5:25 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:27 PM bluegenes has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 828 of 871 (697234)
04-22-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 818 by Granny Magda
04-22-2013 11:59 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
1) Gibbons are not fully bipedal. They're more bipedal than other modern apes, but they are far from fully bipedal.

2) Gibbons do not have a "bipedal pelvis", their pelvises resemble those of a chimp far more than a human and they resemble a chimp's pelvis far more than an Australapithecine's pelvis

True, they are not fully bipedal, I feel you are nitpicking here, rather than just admitting the obvious, gibbons do have a bipedal pelvis, its broader to account for bipedal motion, even if not quite human-like, and even if not as specialized as humans for bipedal motion.

http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4522
"Gibbons closely resemble humans in many features, including having no tail, a semi-erect posture, the shape of their vertebral column, sternum and pelvis, the adaptation of the arm to turn palm-side upwards, similar small intestinal features, and the size of the cerebral hemisphere and number of convolutions."

The fact remains that gibbons are not very similar to humans. Even in this specific point of comparison, they are not anywhere near as similar to us as Lucy

I'm not sure how true your comment is, as listed above, gibbons also have many characteristics similar to humans. Sure, maybe the pelvis is even more bipedal than the gibbon, but that is just one facet. Lucy was fully suited to tree motion, and its pelvis also shows uniqueness as does the human and the gibbon. If there were 100 apes , now we have about 6, yes there would be some unique features in that variety of apes not found in the limited species of today. To cherry pick Lucy based on a wide pelvis is just speculation, not evidence of anything except the discovery of a new species. Lucy's pelvis was even WIDER than humans, which demonstrates its uniqueness as a species, rather than being in any natural progression. It was clearly an ape, as pointed out earlier in this thread, its limb ratios, shoulders suited to trees, brain capacity, brow ridge, jaw shape, all ape-like. There was nothing in the brain capacity that showed any progression:Wikipedia:
"The skeleton shows evidence of small skull capacity akin to that of apes"

I already provided you with links to that effect. Here is one of them again; http://www.nabt.org/...2010/February%202010/FebABTonline.pdf It goes into some detail on the morphological comparisons between Australopithecines and modern humans.

Oh yes. I did already deal with the fallacies of logic in that link in my previous post.

You might think that, but it is not a prediction of the ToE.

There has long been debate about which would arise first, brain capacity or bipedalism. The evidence is currently in favour of bipedalism arising first, but this is not a requirement of the ToE.

Yes, evolutionists had to adjust their theory from brain capacity to bipedalism owing to all the apes showing small brain capacity (relative brain capacity as per the EQ ratio), and all humans showing large brain capacity, and some apes showing bipedalism. So due to a lack of missing links, re brain capacity, they had to regard the bipedal apes as the missing link, even though some apes today are bipedal. Lovely logic, its a case of make do with what we got.

You cite only a single human-like feature, and even that is not supported by my reading;

quote:
Proconsul's monkey-like features include pronograde postures, indicated by a long flexible back, curved metacarpals, and an above-branch arboreal quadrupedal positional repertoire. The primary feature linking Proconsul with extant apes is its lack of a tail; other "ape-like" features include its enhanced grasping capabilities, stabilized elbow joint and facial structure.
Source
According to that its facial structure was ape-like. Looking at the photo's on that page, the skull is clearly ape-like. Certainly, it is more ape-like than any member of the Homo genus. So you are wrong about this one.

I just said it has the one human feature of lacking a prominent brow ridge. You could just admit that and move on.
http://theevolutionstore.com/...ll-replica-ss1702/"Proconsul africanus lived in East Africa during the Miocene era around 22 million years ago. They inhabited a variety of environments, from rain forests to woodlands, and their teeth indicate that they ate primarily fruit. The skull is characterized by the ABSENCE OF BROW RIDGES and a protruding jaw."

Your tendency to disagree with nearly every point, even when I'm right, doesn't make for a constructive discussion.

No. That is the prediction of your argument; that Lucy is merely an upright ape, not an intermediate. The article tests both hypotheses, evolutionist and creationist. If the evolutionary hypothesis were true, we would expect "a point-by-point comparison will reveal in Lucy a mixture of apelike features and humanlike features in which some of the humanlike features are not necessary for upright bipedal locomotion." And that is exactly what we see. If the creationist hypothesis were true, there's no reason we should expect to see human-like features in Lucy that are not linked to bipedalism, or, as the article puts it "the comparison will reveal no humanlike features in Lucy that are unnecessary for upright bipedal locomotion". That isn't what we see though. The predictions of the ToE are vindicated and your "just an ape" predictions are not. Score one for the ToE.

Hmmm you are just emphasizing the strawman argument of the article. Please try to understand what my view is: I am arguing for random mixing of many features of the large apes, including the human, in ancient fossils, and in modern extant apes, including the human. Thus the wording ape-like and human-like are ambiguous concepts, because most of the so-called human-like features are already shared by non-human apes of today. For example, just in the modern gibbon, it shares many features with humans:" it has no tail, a semi-erect posture, the shape of their vertebral column, sternum and pelvis, the adaptation of the arm to turn palm-side upwards, similar small intestinal features, and the size of the cerebral hemisphere and number of convolutions". During periods when 100 apes existed, there would be a larger variety of features (Lucy) than periods when there are only about 6 apes (nowadays)

So its a complete grey area what are "human features" and what are "ape features". My logic says the basic difference is tree dweller anatomy (even though gorillas are terrestrial, their anatomy is that of tree dwellers) and brain capacity (as adjusted by the EQ ratio), and use of complex tools at fossil sites. Lucy is an ape, a dumb tree dweller that didn't use complex tools, no matter how you match her features with other apes, including humans, she remains an ape.

That would be absurd. The ToE does not predict close similarity between humans and dolphins. The point is to test the ACTUAL Theory of evolution, not the one you just made up.

LOL! You completely missed my point. The dolphin has a relatively large brain, that's all I referred to. If you could find a chimp that has a relatively large brain, that would help your case. Only humans have such large brains, dolphins are more than halfway though if you see a list of EQ ratios.

God dammit mindspawn...

quote:
Of 36 anatomical characters examined on AL 288-1, 14 (39%) exhibit the apelike state and 22 (61%) exhibit the humanlike state.
Fourteen. Out of the thirty-six features looked at in that paper, fourteen were human-like. Not two.

You could have saved yourself a bit of high blood pressure and profanity if you had just tried to understand why I said two features by looking at the section of that link that I quoted. You see , he is using the strawman argument that creationists believe Lucy only had one human like (Gibbon-like??) feature of bipedal motion. Yes, as you so correctly pointed out, this ONE feature entails many anatomical "characters", according to the author precisely twelve of them are related to bipedal motion. The writer then, using his strawman argument, feels that if there are any more human features than the bipedal motion of a gibbon (sorry I meant a human) this would prove that Lucy is in fact an intermediate between gibbons (oh sorry humans) and apes. That is why I mentioned he requires at least two features, because he has the misconception that creationists are only willing to admit the ONE feature of bipedal motion. So of the 22 SO-CALLED human like qualities (of these 22, many are actually gibbon-like, not necessarily human-like but yes they differ from the chimp) only ten are NOT related to bipedal motion, of these remaining ten, many of them resemble a human as much as they resemble a gibbon. ie they are characteristics of non-chimpanzee large apes, yet not exclusively human characteristics. I am referring here to, for example, the molar direction, the relative molar sizes, the shape of the lower jaw, the lack of gap between molar and incisors etc etc. There is no reason to believe this isn't an intermediate gibbon, rather than an intermediate human.

No. None of those links is reputable. One of them is from Graeme-fucking-Hancock for god's sake! Fuck Graeme Hancock! The man's a cretin and a fraud. Another is to a message board post written by someone calling himself "Anonymous Coward", a display of self-awareness with which I fully concur. He writes some tosh about "human" bones being found at Kanapoi, but fails to note that they are actually from an Australopithecine. All of these links are by crackpots and the claims they make all seem to be based upon misunderstandings, out of date info and plain old fraud. So no, I'm not impressed. Still, if you think that any of these links contains evidence that has been unfairly overlooked, feel free to bring them up. Just don't post a list of nutty links and expect me to waste my time refuting them all.

I was hoping you would look at the CONTENT with an open mind, but I didn't expect that.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2013 11:59 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 853 by Granny Magda, posted 04-23-2013 11:43 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 829 of 871 (697236)
04-22-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 818 by Granny Magda
04-22-2013 11:59 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Sorry! Duplicate post.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2013 11:59 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 3:35 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 830 of 871 (697237)
04-22-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 3:25 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
I'm not sure how true your comment is ...

Well, is it not crucial to the substance of the debate that you should find that out?

You can hardly base your argument on the grounds that you personally don't know whether modern humans are more similar to australopithecines or orangutans. Either you should accept the expert views of those who have studied the question, or, if you are still skeptical, you have it open to you to study the question yourself. But instead you seemingly want it to be an open question on the grounds that you personally won't do either.

So due to a lack of missing links, re brain capacity ...

Again, the things you don't know are hardly the basis of an argument.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 3:25 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 833 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 831 of 871 (697239)
04-22-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 823 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2013 1:12 PM


But the expectation that there should be this wide variety, and that this wide variety should include intermediate forms between basal apes and humans, is a prediction of the evolutionary theory.
If it was just up to a creator God doing fiat creation, then he could have made no apes at all besides humans, or he could have made no australopithecines, or he could have introduced "variety" by giving some of them antlers and some of them feathered wings, and so on and so forth.

Instead, biologists find just those things that the theory of evolution would lead them to expect that they should find.

I think as is so often the case with creationists you are confusing the interpretative and the predictive functions of evolution. You accuse the biologists of "cherry-picking". But why are there any cherries there for them to pick?

Wouldn't the wings or antlers get caught on branches as the ape goes swinging through the trees?

Neither evolution nor creation predicts mass extinctions. They happened anyway, its the nature of this fragile planet that conditions can change rapidly , and those organisms normally suitable can sometimes die off. The fact that the number of species has dropped, supports neither evolution nor creation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 4:03 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 846 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 6:54 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 832 of 871 (697241)
04-22-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 3:59 PM


Wouldn't the wings or antlers get caught on branches as the ape goes swinging through the trees?

(a) What's that to the Almighty?

(b) Apes don't swing through trees so much, that would be monkeys.

Neither evolution nor creation predicts mass extinctions. They happened anyway, its the nature of this fragile planet that conditions can change rapidly , and those organisms normally suitable can sometimes die off. The fact that the number of species has dropped, supports neither evolution nor creation.

On the other hand, the fact that you made that up is surely of some relevance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 3:59 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 833 of 871 (697242)
04-22-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 830 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2013 3:35 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Well, is it not crucial to the substance of the debate that you should find that out?

You can hardly base your argument on the grounds that you personally don't know whether modern humans are more similar to australopithecines or orangutans. Either you should accept the expert views of those who have studied the question, or, if you are still skeptical, you have it open to you to study the question yourself. But instead you seemingly want it to be an open question on the grounds that you personally won't do either.

Hey I just want some common sense. If the common sense is lacking, I will trust my own judgment rather the the going with theories that lack common sense. If Lucy is more similar to a Gibbon than a human, why compare Lucy/Chimp/Human and leave out Gibbon? Does not make sense, makes the whole link posted by Granny Magda that proves Lucy is not a chimpanzee meaningless. Sure she isn't a chimp, that does not make her an intermediate.

And on what basis is a human characteristic human, if that characteristic ALREADY EXISTS in other extant ape species. LOL that does not make sense either. So all the arguments trying to associate Lucy with so-called human characteristics fall badly short.

Again, the things you don't know are hardly the basis of an argument.

I've seen that graph before. It does not list which species are represented by those dots, neither does it adjust brain capacity according to EQ, which is the significant comparison for brain capacity. ie a male gorilla has the same brain capacity as a human, but not relative to body size. And yet a mouse has a high brain capacity relative to body size, and yet this does not reflect relative intelligence. EQ takes these factors into account, giving a set of relative brain sizes that more readily matches species relative intelligence, with humans and dolphins expectedly having the highest EQ.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 3:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 4:26 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 837 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 4:28 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 834 of 871 (697243)
04-22-2013 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2013 4:03 PM


(a) What's that to the Almighty?

He does make logical efficient creatures.

(b) Apes don't swing through trees so much, that would be monkeys.

They do, except for gorillas. But even gorillas have tree dwelling features.

On the other hand, the fact that you made that up is surely of some relevance.

I never made up the fact that this earth goes through rapid mass extinctions through catastrophic events. That is fact. To base a sequence on the mere observance of a reducing number of species, is to cherry pick the convenient fossils among the large original variety of fossil species existing in taxonomic families.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 4:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 4:30 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 835 of 871 (697244)
04-22-2013 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 4:15 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Hey I just want some common sense.

You do.

If Lucy is more similar to a Gibbon than a human ...

"If"? Well, that was my point. You can't make your case based on ifs and buts about things which are there for us to study. We have the bones.

I've seen that graph before. It does not list which species are represented by those dots ...

A reference is given. Instead of pursuing it, you sit there complaining about things which you personally don't know. Well, the measure of your personal ignorance is not the measure of our knowledge.

... ie a male gorilla has the same brain capacity as a human ...

Er, no. You just made that up.

Why didn't you look it up before saying that? You've got the largest repository of human knowledge ever literally at your fingertips, and instead you came out with nonsense like that.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:15 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 836 of 871 (697245)
04-22-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 827 by bluegenes
04-22-2013 3:19 PM


Re: Hi mindspawn. New topic coming up.
When you get there (Message 751 is already three weeks old), I'll be expecting you to agree that duplication and point mutations are perfectly plausible ways to increase the number of protein coding genes on genomes over time. I think you must understand that by now. The other stuff (far too much genetic diversity in humans and elephants to fit your model) is best dealt with on my new thread, Message 1, which starts off with a reasonable falsification of your model based on research into diversity on the human Y-chromosome. You'll like it.

Patience brother! Its hard work to concentrate, and I have to concentrate when answering your posts. (I'm not sure if this is a veiled dig at a few others here, could be - hehehehe)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 827 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 3:19 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 839 by bluegenes, posted 04-22-2013 4:36 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 837 of 871 (697246)
04-22-2013 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 4:15 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
mindspawn writes:

ie a male gorilla has the same brain capacity as a human, but not relative to body size.

What?! Speak for yourself if you like, but my brain is a lot bigger than the largest known gorrilla brain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:15 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 838 of 871 (697247)
04-22-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 4:21 PM


He does make logical efficient creatures.

Why was it logical and efficient to fill the world with creatures which confirmed the beliefs of evolutionists, but were not quite logical and effecient enough not to go extinct?

They do, except for gorillas.

I don't. What you do in your free time is up to you.

But it would surely not be beyond the capacity of the Almighty to make apes with antlers that don't swing through trees. For some reason he withheld his mighty hand from that endeavor and concentrated all his limitless energy on making evolutionists happy.

I never made up the fact that this earth goes through rapid mass extinctions through catastrophic events.

However, you did make up the thing you made up. Like this:

To base a sequence on the mere observance of a reducing number of species ...

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:21 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 554 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 839 of 871 (697248)
04-22-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by mindspawn
04-22-2013 4:27 PM


Re: Hi mindspawn. New topic coming up.
mindspawn writes:

Patience brother! Its hard work to concentrate, and I have to concentrate when answering your posts. (I'm not sure if this is a veiled dig at a few others here, could be - hehehehe)

I've plenty of patience. But, as I pointed out before, there's not much point in you pursuing your young biosphere model when I've effectively falsified it, is there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by mindspawn, posted 04-22-2013 4:27 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 736 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 840 of 871 (697249)
04-22-2013 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 835 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
"If"? Well, that was my point. You can't make your case based on ifs and buts about things which are there for us to study. We have the bones.

I can . An in depth study trying to prove Lucy is more similar to apes than humans, compared Lucy to a chimp and not a gibbon. A cursory glance at gibbons, shows amazing similarities with Lucy, and so I am fully entitled to say IF they had bothered to do a more complete comparison with other ape species, they would have a point. Because they FAILED to compare Lucy with Gibbons, they have no point. Many of those differences with a chimp, show similarities with a gibbon, so I can see that the study fails to prove anything without the gibbon comparison.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 835 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 4:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 5:21 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 843 by Taq, posted 04-22-2013 6:15 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5455
56
575859Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019