Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 368 of 1034 (727451)
05-18-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Archer Opteryx
05-18-2014 11:15 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
Faith writes:
If the mutation occurs in a fur color gene it will only affect fur color. You are not going to get anything really new, a new function for instance, through mutation.
So fur colour can change, but we shouldn't expect any new functions--like, say, the ability to sneak up on prey unobserved (polar bears, tigers)?
Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.
How about fur stiffness? Can that change, too? Or would the change get too newly functional (hedgehogs)?
Not from the gene for fur color, perhaps from the gene for fur stiffness depending on the range possible for that gene.
If hair shafts can change shape, how about skeletal features?
Only if the genome provides the basis for such variation. That's my point. You aren't going to get changes that aren't built into the genome.
You postulate a natural boundary where ongoing small mutations must suddenly stop happening. Why must they stop? Where may a geneticist look for this border?
The natural boundary has nothing to do with mutations, only with the reduction in genetic diversity, whatever its source, by the processes of selection. You have to read my argument to understand how it works.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-18-2014 11:15 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 12:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 370 of 1034 (727620)
05-19-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 12:12 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
Not from the gene for fur color. Maybe from the constellation of genes for sneakiness though.
A bear differing in no way from other bears other than having gained white fur is automatically better suited for stalking prey in snowy areas.
In other words, fur color is functional. In addition to enhancing hiding and/or sneakiness, fur color may provide respiratory advantages in some environments. Fur length and fur density are also functional. So are silly looking minor things like the ability to move one's outer ears.
You are missing the context, which is "new" functions, "new" being the operative word. If it's in the genome, an allele or options for any combination of genes already available in the bear population, it's not a NEW function, it's simply a normally occurring variation that will be selected if it is advantageous.
Perhaps a better way of distinguishing the mutations you believe are possible from the ones you believe are not would be useful here.
I don't believe mutations contribute anything at all to normal variation/microevolution, except possibly the very rare fluke when a mistake in replication happens to reproduce a sequence that revives a formerly lost function. But normal variation is the result of normal sexual recombination of built-in genetic possibilities. I know it's hard to think along these lines if you are used to thinking in terms of mutations, but this is the way it used to be understood and they were right.
But shucking and jiving about the definition of functional is going to cost you even more of your credibility.
No, what costs me credibility is nothing more than having to do battle with ingrained bias.
Or maybe a loss of credibility on the topic is simply not possible for you.
Not with myself, but otherwise would that it were so.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 12:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 12:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 374 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 2:37 PM Faith has replied
 Message 384 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 1:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 372 of 1034 (727634)
05-19-2014 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2014 12:59 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
It has been ASSERTED and CLAIMED, not exactly "brought to my attention" and I've never seen anything that holds up except maybe three or four iffy examples..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 12:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2014 1:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 375 of 1034 (727711)
05-20-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by NoNukes
05-19-2014 2:37 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
Yes I am denying that that is how white fur shows up in any species, by a mutation, except the possible extremely rare fluke as I keep saying. It is a normally occurring variation for the genes that govern fur color that is brought out by the normal processes of sexual recombination. Mutation is not needed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2014 2:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-20-2014 10:51 AM Faith has replied
 Message 381 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2014 12:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 377 of 1034 (727724)
05-20-2014 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Tanypteryx
05-20-2014 10:51 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
Oh mutation happens all right, but what YOU can't prove is that it produces the changes you claim it does. It was always understood until this mutation fiction took over, that variation is simply a matter of the sexual recombination of genetic material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-20-2014 10:51 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-20-2014 11:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 382 by Taq, posted 05-20-2014 1:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 379 of 1034 (727733)
05-20-2014 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Tanypteryx
05-20-2014 11:07 AM


Re: No 'new functions'
The variation in the genetic material is all made up of mutations. The ongoing study of modern genetics has steamrolled your naive views.
Oh that's for sure. A pure fiction has steamrolled the truth. Happens all the time these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-20-2014 11:07 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-20-2014 11:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 385 of 1034 (757655)
05-11-2015 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Denisova
05-11-2015 1:33 PM


Re: No 'new functions'
Sorry, I don't accept anything about bacterial genetics (your E. coli example) as applying in this discussion. You have to use examples from sexually reproducing creatures.
Moreover, somewhere else you addressed the problem how a very small population of just 8 persons (after the Flood) could have produced the currently observed, pretty extensive genetic variance in humans by condoning that it came from the redundancy of junk DNA.
Let's take skin colour. Skin colour in humans in controlled by several genes. In order to obtain the current variation in skin colour out of 8 persons from the same genetic background, some junk DNA must have been CHANGED - well, according to *your* scenario. Because in that scenario non-functional DNA sequences allegedly became functional (coding for melatonin, pheomelanin or eumelanin.
What? Don't know what you have in mind here.
Nothing "changed" in anything I said. I believe junk DNA is genes that died over the millennia as a result of the Fall, most as a result of the Flood which was a very severe bottleneck. If about 95% of the genome is junk DNA today, a rough guess would be that maybe about .0003% was junk DNA at the time of the Flood. So it just seems likely that there were even more genes governing skin color and every other variable trait as well.
But sexual reproduction DOES NOT change alleles.
In non-random mating they can change the frequency of alleles but it cannot introduce genetic CHANGE by altering junk DNA sequences into functional genes.
Good thing then that I don't think so either. The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses.
Already Mendel realized that.
Each allele in a heterozygote is EITHER from the mother OR from the father and is rendered UNCHANGED. So Mendelian genetics is not a matter of blending alleles but of segregated sorting. I thought we knew this for 150 years - the inheritance patterns of traits as observed make no sense in a blending model.
Again I don't see what this has to do with anything I've said. But as far as blending goes, allleles don't blend but apparently the effect of so many genes for variations in skin color pretty much amounts to a blending of the traits themselves. You get degrees of lightness and darkness as well as combinations of shades of yellow, red and blue.
But I'm afraid I don't get what you were trying to say in this post anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Denisova, posted 05-11-2015 1:33 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by jar, posted 05-11-2015 10:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 388 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 9:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 390 by Denisova, posted 05-12-2015 11:00 AM Faith has replied
 Message 391 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2015 11:15 AM Faith has replied
 Message 392 by Taq, posted 05-12-2015 6:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 393 of 1034 (757731)
05-12-2015 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Dr Adequate
05-12-2015 11:15 AM


genetic diversity
As I've said a bazillion times, the PROCESSES of evolution REQUIRE the reduction of genetic diversity, doesn't matter how you get the diversity or when, IF YOU ARE GETTING NEW TRAITS you are also getting a reduction in genetic diversity WHERE THAT IS HAPPENING. Where it's not happening you can have lots of genetic diversity. It's either genetic diversity or microevolution, take your pick.
ABE: Clarification: You can't have both in the same place at the same time that is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2015 11:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-12-2015 7:33 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 395 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-12-2015 9:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 399 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2015 1:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 402 by Denisova, posted 05-13-2015 4:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 405 of 1034 (757771)
05-13-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Admin
05-13-2015 6:48 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Have to point out that you attributed a quote to me that was actually Tanypteryx's.
I'll have to come back to the rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 12:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 408 of 1034 (757776)
05-13-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Admin
05-13-2015 6:48 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Apparently breeding can result in speciation. At least there is one known instance, according to Wikipedia on Speciation:
New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[23]
============
Thought I'd be able to post today but my eyes are hurting, so I have to put it off again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Admin, posted 05-13-2015 12:57 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 410 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 PM Faith has replied
 Message 413 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2015 10:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 416 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 12:21 PM Faith has replied
 Message 417 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 12:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 418 of 1034 (757829)
05-14-2015 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2015 6:48 PM


Re: genetic diversity
... would we really say that O. aries has less diversity than O. orientalis?
Which is a misrepresentation of my argument again.
I usually start back at the Flood to point out that there had to be enormous genetic diversity in the few representatives of each species on the ark to explain how such a great variety of subspecies of each representative emerged since then.
The explanation for the many different kinds of domestic sheep is just that: there was enough genetic diversity in the original subpopulation of domestic sheep to allow the development of all the different breeds.
Nevertheless none of those breeds or subspecies could have developed unless it developed in reproductive isolation from the rest of the sheep, and developed out of the new gene frequencies, which usually involves a loss of some alleles, or the loss of genetic diversity in its collective genome. Not always, depends mostly on how many individuals form the new population.
Because, again, my argument is that you only get new breeds or phenotypes by losing the genetic material for other breeds and phenotypes. I'd be SO happy if you actually GOT the argument and had a really GOOD objection to it instead of these typical straw man objections.
Even now in any of the separate breeds of domestic sheep there may still be quite a bit of genetic diversity, enough for further population splits developing their own new phenotypes. The process I'm trying to keep up front is a TREND, a population doesn't usually reach absolute genetic depletion from any given diversification, it depends on how much genetic diversity it started out with, but if the trend continues through many more population splits it could reach that point of complete genetic depletion.
PLEASE address my actual argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2015 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 3:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 429 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-14-2015 9:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 419 of 1034 (757832)
05-14-2015 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by NoNukes
05-14-2015 12:22 AM


Faith writes:
The only thing I suggest is that genes died as a result of all those people and animals dying in the Flood, whose traits were lost to the species and therefore the alleles for those traits, so the genes just died and remain in the genome as corpses.
You like my colorful description of junk DNA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2015 12:22 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 420 of 1034 (757837)
05-14-2015 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by RAZD
05-14-2015 10:28 AM


Re: genetic diversity
Hello RAZD,
I'm skipping over your long post again but just temporarily. My eyes are still in bad shape after three days and I may yet have to take more time off. My own fault I'm sure, pushed the envelope too far as they say. It's hard to read through sunglasses but at least the pain is gone for now. Sorry you've been sick. Do you do vegetable juices?
can I say "Baaa humbug" ???
One of the reasons that (I think) there is less speciation in domestic breeds versus wild variants is that breeders frequently cross-breed to (a) cure genetic diseases and (b) generate new variants, so they end up breeding for continued ability to interbreed between varieties.
Yes, but this is a fairly new trend, not sure if it holds up for the earlier methods.
Now if Faith's hypothesis were correct, it seems to me that a corollary would be that hybridizing between variations should be able to recover (or tend to recover) the original base genetics, ie you should be able to combine the genomes of O. aries to get O. orientalis ... and do it without losing traits ...
I think that would depend on how far the processes of evolution have gone, because after a time of inbreeding of a new subpopulation its genome would have changed, developing its own gene frequencies, losing alleles that don't get passed on, increasing others and so on, so that even if hybridization is still possible it probably won't recover the original genetic situation exactly. But quite a bit should be recovered nevertheless. If not, it will develop a new breed anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2015 10:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by jar, posted 05-14-2015 2:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 422 of 1034 (757842)
05-14-2015 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by jar
05-14-2015 2:36 PM


Re: genetic diversity
You have been shown this evidence repeatedly but simply continue to deny reality.
Your dating methods are highly suspect, and you really haven't "shown" me evidence. Go out and collect some ring species and read the DNA of the populations at different points around the ring. That's where I think the evidence should be. Chipmunks around the Sierra, salamanders in northern California, seagulls around the northern Atlantic, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by jar, posted 05-14-2015 2:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 3:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 427 by jar, posted 05-14-2015 5:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 437 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2015 5:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 425 of 1034 (757853)
05-14-2015 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Denisova
05-14-2015 12:13 PM


Re: genetic diversity
I haven't looked back at the old thread today so I hope you've brought it all over here.
Interesting point. Now, looking at the great variety of domestic sheep would we really say that O. aries has less diversity than O. orientalis?
Let's go back to the very core of evolution theory.
Basically, evolution needs a gain in biodiversity otherwise it can't explain the emergence of, say, multicellular life out of unicellular life or the vast diversification in all kingdoms of life into the taxes we see today or for that matter in any past era of the natural history of the earth.
But if you mean by "biodiversity" what Dr.A meant by showing all those different breeds of sheep (phenotypes) that evolved from the first population of domestic sheep, you too are confusing phenotypic diversity with genetic diversity. I'm arguing that new phenotypes require the loss of GENETIC diversity. There may still be lots of "biodiversity" possible, if you mean by that phenotypic diversity, but each new breed or race formed from it requires a reduction of genetic diversity. Evolution NEEDS a gain in genetic diversity, that's why if in fact its own processes that lead to new breeds and races require a reduction instead, evolution is not possible.
This gain in biodiversity evidently also implies an increase in genetic diversification.
Depends on what you mean by "diversification." If what you mean is that you are getting new combinations of genes/alleles from new gene/allele frequencies in new subpopulations, this is true, but that's not the same thing as genetic diversity, which is what I've been talking about. Genetic diversity is basically the genetic variability /diversity within a population, and this is what gets reduced when a new subpopulation forms from relatively few individuals.
The only possible source of an increase in genetic diversity, apart from the remixing of formerly separated populations, is mutation, which the ToE requires as the source of all genetic material, which I'm of course disputing. And as I also keep arguing, even if mutation really did accomplish this, any subpopulation that develops new traits or phenotypes can only do it with the reduction of genetic variability in its own collective genome. Whatever the source of the original diversity the formation of new breeds or races requires the elimination from that subpopulation of whatever doesn't contribute to the new breed or race.
The mere fact that there may be examples of speciation accompanied by a decrease in genetic diversity does not detract anything from this basic understanding.
But since you used the word "diversification" we may not have an argument here anyway, though I'm not entirely sure how you are using the term. As I say above you are probably not saying anything I would disagree with because you aren't addressing my point.
Breeding by humans is just application of evolutionary mechanisms: selection acting on genetic variation. The most important difference between breeding and nature is the type of selective criteria - in breeding it's things like the looks, hunting traits or meatiness, in nature it's survival and/or reproduction chances.
All true, nothing I would dispute here: The basic methods are the same but the selective criteria are different.
Now O. aries indeed has more genetic diversity than O. orientalis. The variety in phenotype in your picture tells the story.
Nope. It apparently has developed more PHENOTYPIC diversity than O.orientalis, meaning simply so many breeds, (although other breeds of O.orientalis have not been discussed, and it could be that O. orientalis lost more genetic diversity in the split than O.aries did), but again, I'm arguing that to get new breeds requires the reduction of the genetic substrate for other breeds.
New phenotypes, new breeds, require the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes or breeds. That's how you get new domestic breeds, and Darwin (and followers) still think domestic breeding is the model for natural selection, because they ignore the fact that selection, whether random or intentional, requires the reduction of genetic diversity. This fact has become apparent as breeders realized they had to cope with genetic disease in their breeds when they took their selective methods too far, and conservationists are always having to deal with nature's overselecting and putting species in danger of extinction. Nothing should be more commonplace than this point I'm trying so laboriously to make: selection, the development of new subpopulations from relatively few individuals, HAS to reduce genetic diversity. It isn't a problem where the species has tons of genetic diversity to begin with, as all would have right after the Flood, and some still do, but whenever you get a new subspecies there has to be some loss of genetic diversity. While evidence should be sought, and I'm not in a position to do that, this ought to be common sense. Unfortunatehy the ToE got itself all wrapped up in the wrong assumption that the formation of subspecies is accompanied by greater genetic diversity, which is basically what everyone here is arguing.
And sheep indeed perfectly show how it works: first more genetic diversity emerges, reflecting the selective criteria.
"First more genetic diversity emerges." From where would it come? What would produce it? And what do you mean "reflecting the selective criteria?" Can't be. First some number of sheep get separated from the original wild population, in this case by human selection. There's nothing different in their general appearance at first, but over time as they inbreed among themselves apart from the original population new traits will begin to emerge, and this is because of the new set of gene frequencies they possess in contrast with those of the original population. (Depending on how big a proportion of sheep were separated out of the original population, that original population could also undergo the development of new traits over time because of its own changed gene frequencies as a result of the split.) The new gene frequencies, which means more of some alleles, fewer of others by comparison with the original population, and even the complete absence of some (which nevertheless remain in the other population) bring out a new set of traits in the subpopulation, which over some time of inbreeding among the individuals get merged into a new breed with a new overall appearance. (Domestic breeds traditionally started with many fewer individuals but the principles are the same).
Of course there's also genetic drift which occurs irrespective of any selective pressure. Genetic drift can conduce to speciation by allowing the accumulation of non-adaptive mutations that can facilitate population subdivision. Genetic drift may contribute to speciation, if after a genetic bottleneck the resulting small group does survive.
Genetic drift operates the same way as any population split, starting from a random collection of genetic possibilities in a relatively small number of individuals. Migration is just as random a process. There needs to be no selection of particularly adaptive traits for a new subspecies to develop. All it takes is the reproductive isolation of a portion of a population. Its own set of gene frequencies will do the rest. Evolution theory makes too much of adaptive selection it seems to me; most new subspecies form as a result of simple migration and geographic isolation. There certainly are some very nice adaptations in nature, but it's quite likely many of those didn't form by environmental pressures but simply by the creature's own traits leading it to food and other resources it just happens to be suited to: for instance, it isn't necessary to interpret Darwin's finches as evolving to fit the kind of food available. For the most part all the different kinds of food are available anyway. It is more likely that the different kinds of beaks developed as a simple result of the migrations of small numbers out of the larger finch population, and the new subpopulations that resulted specialized in the kind of food their beaks are most fitted for.
That being said, I refocus on adaptive processes.
Eyes and general stamina giving out. Back to the rest of this later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Denisova, posted 05-14-2015 12:13 PM Denisova has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Denisova, posted 05-15-2015 3:59 AM Faith has replied
 Message 433 by Admin, posted 05-15-2015 7:55 AM Faith 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