Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:11 AM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,595 Year: 9,631/19,786 Month: 2,053/2,119 Week: 89/724 Day: 21/68 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
180181
182
183184
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 2716 of 2887 (832513)
05-04-2018 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2714 by Faith
05-04-2018 7:32 PM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
Faith writes:

quote:
How are the traces of those living things in any way evidence of the notion that they lived in a particular time period? That's the problem.

You're making a trifle. You know, that dessert where you layer fruit, sponge cake, and custard in a bowl.

Suppose you wanted the second layer to be strawberries and kiwi fruit. But, you realize after layer five that you only put strawberries down on the second layer.

How are you going to get the kiwi fruit into the second layer when there are three layers on top of it?

Or suppose you're going the other way...you had strawberries and kiwi fruit in the second layer but you realize you wanted all the kiwi fruit to be up on layer seven.

You're going to have to disturb the top three layers. In fact, you're going to have to do a massive deconstruction of all the top layers in order to do it. You'll have to pretty much start from scratch because the custard is certainly going to leave stains on the side of the bowl, the cake is going to leave crumbs, and if anybody really examines things, they're going to see that it's been disturbed. No, you're either going to have to live with the fact that the second layer is just strawberries or chuck the whole thing and start all over.

That's how we know that the fossils we see in the strata lived at the time the strata was formed: The only way they could get into those layers is to be there at the time of the layer. Otherwise, all the layers above it would have to be wiped away in order to get those organisms into the layer and start over from scratch with the other layers.

In order for organisms from, say, the Paleogene to show up in, say, the Permian, or the other way around, you're going to have to disturb all the layers in between in order to move them.


Rrhain

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2714 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 7:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2719 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:16 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 2717 of 2887 (832514)
05-04-2018 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2715 by Faith
05-04-2018 7:37 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:

quote:
Extra alleles are the result of mutations that are mostly deleterious

No, Faith. They are mostly neutral. Most mutations have little change in the fitness of an organism.

quote:
Those many "alleles" which are really just mutations, most of which are deleterious, are also mostly on their way to becoming junk DNA for that reason, which is therefore actually a reduction in genetic diversity rather than an increase .

Completely backwards. Well, except for the statement that the alleles (why the sneer quotes?) are mutations. Because that's precisely right. Alleles are mutations of a gene.

Since they are mostly neutral, they spread throughout the population in a process known as "drift." They don't become "junk DNA" because they actually code for protein and are expressed. That's why people with the allele for A blood don't die just as the people with the allele for B blood don't die. Interestingly, the O allele is a frameshift mutation of the ABO gene. Because the frameshift results in a different protein being made, the rest of the process that creates the antigens known as A and B doesn't follow through (kinda like how humans can't synthesize vitamin C even though most other mammals can...we have all the machinery to do it if only the GLO gene weren't broken in humans...but notice, this still isn't a deleterious mutation as humans take in sufficient vitamin C in our diet to prevent any negative effects.) And interestingly enough, it isn't "junk DNA" nor does it cause people to die.

In fact, there are six alleles for this major blood group: A1, A2, B1, O1, O1v, and O2. Yep, there are three different alleles for type-O blood.


Rrhain

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2715 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 7:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2720 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:26 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2718 of 2887 (832516)
05-04-2018 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2597 by Faith
05-02-2018 2:55 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:

Oh is that all this thing is about, those dips in the strata?

The irregularities in the contacts between strata have a great deal of variety and are not just dips.

Way way back when we were discussing the Grand Canyon I drew a pictute to show how it SHOULD look if there had been any erosion on the surface and it looked like that diagram.

As has been explained many times, erosion smooths out a landscape. It's like sandpaper for landscapes. Mountains and hills and rises are eroded, the products of erosion in the form of sediments are transported to lower areas, and over time the landscape becomes level. The exception is when water forms streams and rivers, which cuts channels into landscapes.

Here's the diagram again:

So what caused the irregular contacts between strata if not erosion? I'd prefer an Edge or Moose answer, but I haven't seen yet where they've tackled this, so I'll take a stab at explaining the topology of the top few contacts. Remember the vertical is exaggerated. In case it helps anyone I found this paper full of information about the Geology of Michigan
and the Great Lakes
, though I only found it helpful on only a couple minor points during this exercise.

From top to bottom:

  • Top contact of Ionia Formation: An unconformity since it's Jurassic strata. The cut into the top of this formation is filled with glacial drift, so it may have been caused by a glacier. The Saginaw Lobe of the Laurentide Ice Sheet made a number of forays through the area about two and a half million years ago.

  • Top contact of Grand River Formation: An unconformity, since the Grand River Formation is late Pennsylvanian and the overlying Ionia Formation is Jurassic, with the Triassic and Permian completely unrepresented, a span of time of around a hundred million years. The solid sandstone means it was buried deeply enough for complete diagenesis, so a great deal of overlying strata were eroded away. The big dip of Ionia strata might be a stream or river channel.
    The flatness is likely not a result of erosion but of Walther's Law. While the formation was exposed at the surface life lived there, there were lakes and streams and rivers. Then a sea transgression or regression (it's not possible to tell which from the diagram because the contact with the underlying layer is also an unconformity) occurred leaving the sand deposits behind as the land/sea boundary migrated.

  • Top contact of Saginaw Formation: An unconformity. The little ridge near the left hand margin is present because sandstone (yellow is sandstone) is harder than shale (tan is shale), so erosion didn't erode the sandstone as quickly as the shale. The large dip is probably a river or stream. I can't explain the little areas of sandstone in the middle and on the right. The Saginaw is a complex formation that includes sandstone, shale and limestone, probably indicating a transgressing/regressing sea.

  • Top contact of the Parma Sandstone: Conformable with the overlying Saginaw, mostly transitioning from shale to sandstone with greater depth, but not exclusively, again likely indicating a transgressing/regressing sea. This is Walther's Law at work again and there's no clear contact to interpret.

  • Top contact of the Bayport Limestone: An unconformity. The flat portions appear to have minor irregularities caused by the transgressing/regressing sea. The dips into the Bayport could be a river or stream.

  • Top contact of the Michigan Formation: Conformable with the overlying Bayport Formation. The transition with depth from limestone to shale to sandstone (mostly but not exclusively) indicates a mostly transgressing sea with regressive interruptions.

I'll stop there. Moose/Edge: feedback much appreciated. Hope I wasn't too far off.

I drew another one with hills and valleys and a river too. Is that the point? Well, hooray, finally there's some erosion to report.

Well, not really. While erosion is responsible for the unconformities (cessation of deposition is another possible cause of unconformities, but it's always seemed unlikely to me), the actual final surface that represents the contact between strata is usually going to be due to Walther's Law. Land surfaces are likely only preserved intact when rapidly inundated, which probably doesn't happen that often. Ours is an active but not frequently a catastrophic planet. In general sea levels slowly rise and fall, landforms slowly uplift and erode.

Take it back. There's salt in the layers, and that causes changes after the strata were laid down. Oh well.

Again I'll need confirmation from real geologists, but I think the salt layers lying between limestone layers may represent warm shallow seas that receded/evaporated, and that the salt layers between shale layers may represent coastal areas that receded/evaporated.

There is no deformation of the layers above the salt layers, so they caused no changes. Remember, the vertical scale is exaggerated. Salt deposits that rise through strata and can cause distortions and faulting typically involve massive amounts of salt, and these skinny salt layers don't appear to have migrated at all.

Question for Edge/Moose: why the irregular left edge of the diagram?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2597 by Faith, posted 05-02-2018 2:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2721 by edge, posted 05-04-2018 9:40 PM Percy has responded
 Message 2723 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:52 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2719 of 2887 (832517)
05-04-2018 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2716 by Rrhain
05-04-2018 7:48 PM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
That's how we know that the fossils we see in the strata lived at the time the strata was formed: The only way they could get into those layers is to be there at the time of the layer.

But there's a big big problem here. Perhaps I needed to be more specific but the main problem is that you can't prove the time period itself, meaning prove that there ever was a time on the earth when certain plants and animals lived. You are assuming the time period, assuming that a particular layer of rock really does represent that time period, but that can't be proved any more than the animals in it can be proved to have lived at any given time. It's really the same problem. You can claim the rock is some particular age, but not that it represents a landscape with creatures in it.

In order for organisms from, say, the Paleogene to show up in, say, the Permian, or the other way around, you're going to have to disturb all the layers in between in order to move them.

But that isn't the problem I had in mind. In my frame of reference the rocks are just rocks, not time periods such as Paleogene or Permian or whatnot.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2716 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 7:48 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2810 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 3:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2720 of 2887 (832518)
05-04-2018 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2717 by Rrhain
05-04-2018 8:01 PM


Re: no supergenome
Yes most are neutral, sorry, but others are deleterious and it is well kinown that beneficial mutations are very very rare. So the neutral mutations don't change the phenotype, but they do change the sequence of the gene which seems to me to be a destructive effect in itself. It's not needed, it's not useful.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2717 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 8:01 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2730 by Tangle, posted 05-05-2018 2:05 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4606
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 2721 of 2887 (832519)
05-04-2018 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2718 by Percy
05-04-2018 9:06 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Starting with the last question first ...

Question for Edge/Moose: why the irregular left edge of the diagram?

That's a schematic device to show the effects of weathering. More resistant units would extend farther to the left.

Again I'll need confirmation from real geologists, but I think the salt layers lying between limestone layers may represent warm shallow seas that receded/evaporated, and that the salt layers between shale layers may represent coastal areas that receded/evaporated.

There is no deformation of the layers above the salt layers, so they caused no changes. Remember, the vertical scale is exaggerated. Salt deposits that rise through strata and can cause distortions and faulting typically involve massive amounts of salt, and these skinny salt layers don't appear to have migrated at all.


Good observation. In this case it looks like there is not much 'salt tectonics' going on.

The interpretation of such evaporite layers is that they formed in a restricted basin in which evaporation was more than replenishment of water. There are several lines of evidence for this.

Well, not really. While erosion is responsible for the unconformities (cessation of deposition is another possible cause of unconformities, but it's always seemed unlikely to me), the actual final surface that represents the contact between strata is usually going to be due to Walther's Law. Land surfaces are likely only preserved intact when rapidly inundated, which probably doesn't happen that often. Ours is an active but not frequently a catastrophic planet. In general sea levels slowly rise and fall, landforms slowly uplift and erode.

When you have such variation, it usually means that the relief was low so you had minor transgressions and regressions. If you look up the term 'cyclothem' you'll get a boatload of information on that. However, in those cases, the rise and fall of sea level is not fast enough to plane off the mountains and sea cliffs. It's always a race (relative) between uplift and erosion.

When the deposition is terrestrial (lakes and rivers and swamps, etc.), you can fill in some of the lowlands and stream channels that way.

One thing to remember is that in such a stratigraphic column, whenever you see a wavy or jagged line, it indicates an unconformity. In this case there are a lot of unconformities at times when Faith says that there is no erosion occurring. Well, that might be true in the GC, but there was plenty going on elsewhere.

We also see cases where some terrestrial deposits occur in channels which cut entirely through older formations.

Another thing to remember is that the unconformity lines are actually isochronous, so even though they cut across the time scales they are the age of the younger formation.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2718 by Percy, posted 05-04-2018 9:06 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2811 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 4:14 PM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4606
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 2722 of 2887 (832520)
05-04-2018 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2712 by Faith
05-04-2018 6:33 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
I certainly have no problem with even extreme erosion of cliffs, but I can't regard some sand on top of tilted and apparently deeply buried siltstone layers as an angular unconformity, ...

I have always suspected that you have a hard time visualizing in three dimensions.

Maybe you can visualize the paged of a book turned on end and then another book laid across those pages.

If not, well, so be it. Everyone else can.

... just as there is no way that I can see how any current landscape could ever become a slab of rock such as we see in the geo/strat columns.

Other than the fact that we just explained it to you, sure.

I understand I'm probably not going to be able to persuade anyone of this, though I'll keep trying anyway.

Truth. And that is because your viewpoint contradicts reality.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2712 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 6:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2724 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:54 PM edge has not yet responded
 Message 2812 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 4:26 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2723 of 2887 (832521)
05-04-2018 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2718 by Percy
05-04-2018 9:06 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Yes, the amount of salt is something I already mentioned. Not even enough to cause the sagging.

Again I'll need confirmation from real geologists, but I think the salt layers lying between limestone layers may represent warm shallow seas that receded/evaporated, and that the salt layers between shale layers may represent coastal areas that receded/evaporated.

You are always credulously treating the evogeo paradigm interpretation as unassailable fact and making my eyes roll out onto the floor. This is unprovable nonsense, and it ends any motivation I might have to answer you in spite of all the other reasons I have to ignore you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2718 by Percy, posted 05-04-2018 9:06 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2752 by JonF, posted 05-05-2018 8:32 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 2813 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 4:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2724 of 2887 (832522)
05-04-2018 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2722 by edge
05-04-2018 9:50 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Sand over the tilted siltstones would not form an angular unconformity, it would just bury the siltstones.

I guess you think you explained how that grooved landscape could become a slab of rock but it doesn't explain that at all, it's just eyeball-rolling mystification.

You really don't seem to know that what you like to call "reality" is just an unprovable and really quite nonsensical impossible interpretation.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2722 by edge, posted 05-04-2018 9:50 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2725 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-04-2018 10:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 2726 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-04-2018 11:08 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 2814 by Percy, posted 05-06-2018 5:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3725
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2725 of 2887 (832523)
05-04-2018 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2724 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:54 PM


An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
Sand over the tilted siltstones would not form an angular unconformity, it would just bury the siltstones.

Younger sediments deposited on top of older tilted sediments is the definition of an angular unconformity. "Volcanics" can substitute for "sediments", younger and/or older. Still an angular unconformity.

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2724 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2729 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:04 AM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 2726 of 2887 (832524)
05-04-2018 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2724 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:54 PM


Checking In ... Nope
All this time, Faith, and you still don't understand how dirt works.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2724 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15069
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 2727 of 2887 (832525)
05-05-2018 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2711 by Faith
05-04-2018 6:27 PM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:

You are right I would point to the dog species Kind since they vary greatly in size and are all still dogs. The trilobites had a lot more genetic diversity to play with than today's dogs do, but dogs nevertheless have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today, although they went through the bottleneck of the Flood and the trilobites are all pre-Flood with all or at least most of their original genetic diversity available.

All this is just assumption. I bet you havent even got any measurements of genetic diversity in dogs. (Theres plenty of phenotypic diversity but thats due to aggressive selective breeding - funny how you keep missing that point.)

And the fact that it is all assumption is the reason why you wont persuade us. Even if your ideas about trilobites were plausible without assuming a massive program of selective breeding - which they arent.

Try coming up with evidence if you want to persuade us. Real evidence, not lies, not things youve made up. Evidence that stands up to examination, without relying on cherry picking and or avoiding all the inconvenient details that go against your claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2711 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 6:27 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2728 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:02 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2728 of 2887 (832526)
05-05-2018 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 2727 by PaulK
05-05-2018 12:38 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
You are right I would point to the dog species Kind since they vary greatly in size and are all still dogs. The trilobites had a lot more genetic diversity to play with than today's dogs do, but dogs nevertheless have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today, although they went through the bottleneck of the Flood and the trilobites are all pre-Flood with all or at least most of their original genetic diversity available.

All this is just assumption. I bet you havent even got any measurements of genetic diversity in dogs. (Theres plenty of phenotypic diversity but thats due to aggressive selective breeding - funny how you keep missing that point.)

The great phenotypic diversity couldn't exist unless there was great genetic diversity in the overall dog population. There's less and less in each breed of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2727 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 12:38 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2732 by PaulK, posted 05-05-2018 2:15 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 31775
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2729 of 2887 (832527)
05-05-2018 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2725 by Minnemooseus
05-04-2018 10:53 PM


Re: An angular unconformity is not an angular unconformity
How can you have an angular unconformity unless the overlying sediment, whatever it is, forms a flat slab of rock across the tilted rocks? Are you saying it does, or that it's not necessary?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2725 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-04-2018 10:53 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2746 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-05-2018 5:55 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 2754 by edge, posted 05-05-2018 9:08 AM Faith has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6913
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2730 of 2887 (832528)
05-05-2018 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2720 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:26 PM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:

But there's a big big problem here.

We all agree that you have a big problem.

Perhaps I needed to be more specific but the main problem is that you can't prove the time period itself,

Yes we can. We can do it very simply. We both know that the bottom layer had to be laid down before the top layer. So the deeper we go, the older the rocks get.

Your difficulty is in explaining why certain fossil plants and animals are only EVER found in certain layers of rock. And always the same layers for the same fossils. Floods do not and can not sort fossils in order. For that you need a miracle.

Strawberries are only ever found in red jelly. Kiwi fruit in green jelly and green jelly is ALWAYS found above red jelly. To be that way your mother put the red jelly in first with the straberries and the green jelly in second with the kiwis - after the red jelly had set. If she'd put it all in together and shaken it all up she'd have yellow jelly with kiwis and strawberries throughout.

meaning prove that there ever was a time on the earth when certain plants and animals lived.

And that's your proof that 'certain plants and animals' lived at at certain times - if only relatively.

Then just to put the cap on it, radiodating directly proves that red jelly is older than green jelly. And by how much.

So there it is, as simple as it can be made to be. All you have to do to prove all thi wrong is find a kiwi fruit in with the strawberries. Your inability to do this should tell you something.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2720 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2731 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 2:13 AM Tangle has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
180181
182
183184
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019