Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:31 AM
26 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,816 Year: 4,853/19,786 Month: 975/873 Week: 331/376 Day: 8/116 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Bolder-dash's very own little thread
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2913 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 1 of 109 (570286)
07-26-2010 11:47 PM


One of our members here at EvC, Bolder-dash, has on several occasions expressed a desire to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. The same has also, on several occasions, expressed concerns that his/her topic proposals have not been given a chance of promotion because, in his/her opinion, moderation here has an anti-Bolder-dash bias.

Be that as it may, Bolder's topic proposals leave a lot to be desired. What aspects of evolutionary theory does Bolder want to discuss? What specific problems does he or she see with the TOE? What alternative model would Bolder like to propose in its place? What are the arguments for this model?

This thread is meant to assist Bolder-dash in developing an OP and a set of arguments brilliant enough to bypass even the strict anti-Bolder-dash policy of this forum. So let's give it a go shall we?

--------------------------------------------------------

Bolder's OP:

Hi, I would like to discuss aspect A of evolutionary theory.

(Examples:
Natural Selection
Common ancestry of humans with Chimps and other apes
The emergence of sexual reproduction
The endo-symbiotic origin of the Eukaryotic cell
etc.)

I believe aspect A of evolutionary theory has the following flaws:

blablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablab lablablabla blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablabla blablablabla blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

(Note: With the bla's being replaced by arguments in his own words)
(Note: Bolder should put forth the arguments in his/her own words, while citing sources where appropriate)

Now I propose alternative theory B as better explaining aspect A of evolutionary theory, and here's why:

blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

(Note: Cite sources. Same as above)

---------------------------------------

I think if Bolder followed this simple outline he'd have a good chance at getting his topics promoted.

Anyone else got suggestions?

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:20 AM Meldinoor has responded
 Message 11 by DrJones*, posted 07-27-2010 12:52 AM Meldinoor has acknowledged this reply

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 2 of 109 (570293)
07-27-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 11:47 PM


This is great, now I can discuss why I disagree with how I must present my own arguments.

First, it is not, contrary to every evolutionists begging of the point, the obligation of a critic to propose his own complete theory, in order to disagree with a present theory. That is a red herring, that I have seen way too often.

I can find issue with your own theory being inadequate on its own merit. If your theory is adequate, it is the obligation of the one's promoting the theory to prove its worthiness. This is indeed a standard method of scientific critique.

Secondly, I have stated again and again some of the great flaws of your theory, namely that demonstrating the mechanisms by which evolution occurs over long periods of time, particularly in regards to creating new and unique body plans, is something that evolutionists are not able to do. Now of course, virtually every evolutionist on this site will pull out the same BS card of simply saying its all in a magic book, and well if you knew anything about biology (bullshit, I know about biology) without citing that proof, so the argument then becomes virtually impossible to get to the heart of. They claim this is a valid argument, simply because they can repeat it again and again ad nauseum (just wait they will do it here again!, I predict Dr.A to be the first).

I will add much more critiques soon.

I love this thread already-because I can't be accused of being off topic here, now can I?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:47 PM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 12:30 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 12:33 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2913 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 3 of 109 (570296)
07-27-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 12:20 AM


Bolder-dash writes:

have stated again and again some of the great flaws of your theory, namely that demonstrating the mechanisms by which evolution occurs over long periods of time, particularly in regards to creating new and unique body plans

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So the aspect of evolution that you wish to discuss will be the formation of "new and unique body plans". Good.

Now the next step is to specify a few examples of "new and unique body plans". For though it may seem obvious to you, I am (and presumably any reader of your proposal is as well) uncertain as to what constitutes a new and unique body plan. Most body plans have many things in common and are hardly unique. But give us some examples.

Next explain why evolution could not produce these examples. Cite some sources, but give us the arguments in your own words.

Then if you can think of a better explanation of these different body plans, feel free to offer it. Don't be afraid to take a stance.

Then we can begin to discuss, and I promise not to tell you to read a magic book.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:36 AM Meldinoor has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 109 (570299)
07-27-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 12:20 AM


Secondly, I have stated again and again some of the great flaws of your theory, namely that demonstrating the mechanisms by which evolution occurs over long periods of time, particularly in regards to creating new and unique body plans, is something that evolutionists are not able to do.

But we are able to do that, and have. Evolution generates new body plans by the same mechanisms it generates everything else; random mutation and natural selections. New body plans are generated by small, heritable changes to the old ones that accrue over time.

That's why the fossil record shows a continuous pattern of transitional forms between taxa. That's why the <i>modern world</I> still shows a continuous pattern of transitional forms, from microorganisms, to colonial microorganisms, to multicellular invertebrates, to part-time chordates, to ocean-dwelling vertebrates, to cold-blooded land vertebrates, to warm-blooded vertibrates, to primates, to hominids, to humans.

There are no truly <I>de novo</I> body plans in evolutionary history. The sort of saltational change you may have in mind would be evidence against evolution, not in favor of it.

Now of course, virtually every evolutionist on this site will pull out the same BS card of simply saying its all in a magic book

Because here at EvC we're expected to support our arguments with references. Those "magic books" are actually collegiate textbooks on the relevant subjects, suited for instruction and considered proof in any court of law.

If you don't care to look at the references, you can hardly accuse us of not providing evidence. We can lead you to water but nobody can make you drink.

bullshit, I know about biology

You don't know any biology. The reason I know this is because biology is taught from textbooks, and you refuse to read books.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 12:38 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:47 AM crashfrog has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 5 of 109 (570300)
07-27-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 12:20 AM


Secondly, I have stated again and again some of the great flaws of your theory, namely that demonstrating the mechanisms by which evolution occurs over long periods of time, particularly in regards to creating new and unique body plans, is something that evolutionists are not able to do.

The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, selection, drift, lateral gene transfer, recombination, etc, and their existence is easy to demonstrate.

Now of course, virtually every evolutionist on this site will pull out the same BS card of simply saying its all in a magic book, and well if you knew anything about biology (bullshit, I know about biology) without citing that proof, so the argument then becomes virtually impossible to get to the heart of. They claim this is a valid argument, simply because they can repeat it again and again ad nauseum (just wait they will do it here again!

You're very fond of this lie, aren't you?

I wonder whom you hope to deceive by it.

I predict Dr.A to be the first).

Let me instead be the first person on this thread to tell you that since there is no such thing as magic, there is no such thing as a "magic book".

Of course, there are some people on this forum who will tell you that the most fundamental questions of biology can be answered by a book which was magically "inspired" by a magical invisible being who lives in the sky, and which if they were right might therefore be described as a "magic book"; but of course I am not one of those people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 6 of 109 (570301)
07-27-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Meldinoor
07-27-2010 12:30 AM


I will decide my own argument
NO, no, sorry, on this thread you don't get to decide my argument for me.

In this thread, I am proposing the questions, not you. And my first question is what empirical evidence can any evolutionist give that support the theory of how the mechanisms work that cause long term evolutionary change. How big is your body of empirical evidence? Does the body of evidence extend beyond the bounds of a few simple changes in bacteria?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 12:30 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 12:42 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 1:14 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2913 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 7 of 109 (570303)
07-27-2010 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 12:33 AM


Let's allow him to fully formulate an argument before we attack it. Wouldn't it be nice if we allowed him to present a specific well-formulated argument rather than bickering with him back-and-forth? This constant bickering is getting on my nerves, and it's not entirely his fault either. An unformulated argument is an argument not worth responding to. Let's get him on his feet before we start debating. That's what this topic is for after all.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 12:33 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 12:45 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:07 AM Meldinoor has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 109 (570305)
07-27-2010 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 12:36 AM


Re: I will decide my own argument
How big is your body of empirical evidence?

There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than for any other scientific theory. More than for Newton's theory of universal gravity, more than for Einstein's general relativity, more than for quantum mechanics.

There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is in support of any medical diagnosis that any doctor has ever made. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for any crime for which anyone has ever been convicted at any trial in any country.

Does the body of evidence extend beyond the bounds of a few simple changes in bacteria?

It is only out of complete ignorance of biology that you would be able to describe any change in bacteria as "simple."

But, yes, the body of evidence <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution+of+function&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1000000001&as_sdtp=on">extends beyond changes in bacteria.</a> There's about 3 million hits for that search, that should get you started.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 9 of 109 (570307)
07-27-2010 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Meldinoor
07-27-2010 12:38 AM


Let's allow him to fully formulate an argument before we attack it.

I'll be kinda busy if that that ever happens --- I'm planning to round up a few buddies and go ice-skating in Hell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 12:38 AM Meldinoor has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 10 of 109 (570308)
07-27-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 12:33 AM


Ok, I was wrong about one thing, Dr.A was not the first to pull out the "read a book" technique of argumentative fallacy (I am sure there is a name for this pedantic school of rhetorical discourse, but it slips me right now).

Perhaps its called the "evolutionists last resort" style of debating?

The BS flag is going to go straight up the next time someone tries to use it though, I can promise you that.

But crashfrog, since you are in school, and hoping to make a career out of biology, I implore you to at least first understand the difference between seeing an evolutionary change (such as a fossil) and understanding all of the mechanisms that actually caused those progressions of changes, and being able to account for them. So far you seem to be struggling with that differentiation.

This requires more than just blind faith, that a random mutation can seamlessly provide all of the variation necessary, and in the correct order to produce the changes your theory claims it does.

In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 12:33 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 1:04 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1819
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 11 of 109 (570309)
07-27-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Meldinoor
07-26-2010 11:47 PM


would you mind editing this post so that it doesn't cause an extra wide page?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Meldinoor, posted 07-26-2010 11:47 PM Meldinoor has acknowledged this reply

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 109 (570310)
07-27-2010 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 12:47 AM


Dr.A was not the first to pull out the "read a book" technique of argumentative fallacy (I am sure there is a name for this pedantic school of rhetorical discourse, but it slips me right now).

There is no name for it, because it's not a fallacy to provide your opponent with references to sources. What is fallacious is pretending that your opponent didn't source his arguments because he didn't open the book and read them to you by your bedside.

But crashfrog, since you are in school, and hoping to make a career out of biology, I implore you to at least first understand the difference between seeing an evolutionary change (such as a fossil) and understanding all of the mechanisms that actually caused those progressions of changes, and being able to account for them

Fossils are not "evolutionary change." Fossils do not ever change, they're made of stone - mineralized bone - and have been dead for millions of years, in some cases.

No fossil is ever going to engage in "evolutionary change" right before our eyes. No individual organism is going to, either. Evolution is something that happens to species, to populations, not to individuals. Everybody who didn't get their knowledge of biology from the "X-Men" movies knows that.

This requires more than just blind faith, that a random mutation can seamlessly provide all of the variation necessary

We've observed random mutations make every kind of change to DNA that it's possible to make. DNA can be added to, can be subtracted from, can be re-arranged. That's it; that's all you can do with DNA. And we have observations from the lab that prove that all three of those types of changes can be the result of random mutations.

So we know that random mutation is a potential source for any kind of heritable, genetic change, and those are the only sorts of changes that represent evolution of populations.

In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The scientific theory of evolution has an extraordinary amount of proof, far more than for any other scientific theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:47 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1734 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 13 of 109 (570311)
07-27-2010 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Meldinoor
07-27-2010 12:38 AM


I appreciate your moderate tone, so allow me to expand on one point.

If we take the theory on its face value, that in its simplest form, we are saying that point mutations (ok and gene transfer, and genetic drift, etc, I got it) lead to minute changes in species. These changes may cause some small, yet statistically significant fitness advantage in an organism, such that this advantage will soon begin to outnumber other individuals within a population who do not have this particular advantage.

So the first important thing to note about this aspect is that the mutation can't be too small, or it is unlikely to provide a significant enough advantage, and yet the mutation can't be too large (simply because your theory says that these changes are small-unless your theory is now re-inventing itself to exclude the small steps provision).

So the obvious point is that if this is the standard method by which all functioning body plans came to be, then these types of slightly beneficial mutations must be quite abundant throughout species populations, because we have so many millions of very detailed body plans to account for, so we are going to need trillions of these advantageous mutations. And if these advantageous mutations are significant enough to give one individual an advantage over others, then they should be detectable.

And yet, in our vast world of animal kingdoms, we have so much trouble pointing out some of these starting points for new emerging body parts, which could be advantageous and lead to a newer complex system of bodily functioning.

Now let me just add one final point here before I go on. I am aware that there are those who are nw arguing that it doesn't quite work this way, that instead many of the potentials for these new systems are already in place in our genetic codes, but that they don't reveal themselves until there is enough selection pressure to be revealed, but this is a secondary argument, that also has a lot of explaining to do, first of which is how did the potential get there to begin with.

Secondly, if one is going to now use this argument for your ToE you then have to acknowledge that all this time when you were arguing that it was point mutations and the like, causing these beneficial mutations, you were completely wrong, and thus much proffer some apologies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 12:38 AM Meldinoor has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 1:37 AM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 1:37 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Vacate, posted 07-27-2010 2:08 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Meldinoor, posted 07-27-2010 3:08 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2913 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 14 of 109 (570312)
07-27-2010 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 12:36 AM


Bolder-dash writes:

In this thread, I am proposing the questions, not you

Fair enough. Get proposing then. As long as the topic is reasonably narrow and delineated.

Bolder-dash writes:

And my first question is what empirical evidence can any evolutionist give that support the theory of how the mechanisms work that cause long term evolutionary change

The mechanisms that cause long-term evolutionary change must be the same that cause short-term evolutionary change, but over a longer period of time. Think about it. If it were not so, then different mechanisms must have existed in the past but not today, and a uniformitarian approach to the evidence would more or less rule that out.

The mechanisms that cause evolution are the ones that Dr A pointed out. Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and Random mutation are commonly discussed. Geographic isolation serves to isolate populations and produce new species. One of my favourite examples is that of the Ensatina Salamanders surrounding the Californian Central Valley. They constitute so-called "ring-species" because the population of salamanders are distributed around the valley in an almost complete ring, but with a gap caused by geographic barriers. Sort of like a horse-shoe. Adjacent populations within this "horse-shoe" are sexually compatible because they hybridize and have not strayed far from each-other genetically. But the species at either end of the horse-shoe are incompatible, and have formed truly separate species that will not interbreed when re-introduced to each-other.
This is an irrefutable example of speciation, caused by random mutation and genetic drift.

When you're looking at larger scale evolution it is hard to find neat examples like Ensatina. This is because intermediates are obviously no longer around for study. Of course, the fossil record is replete with examples of transitional fossils, including Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Dromaesaurids constituting transitionals between older forms and more modern forms (in this case illustrating transitions between the dinosaur theropods and modern birds).

Of course, merely seeing the transition in the fossil record does not necessarily tell us the mechanisms of these evolutionary changes. It could have been via naturalistic means, or there may have been a trickster god that created new species based off of older species as the old ones went extinct (something like this seems to be Hugh Ross' point of view). The key to understanding the mechanism of how evolution works lies in searching out the genetic similarities between different species. For instance, humans and chimps share an overwhelming portion of transcribed DNA. The differences between chimp and human DNA are due to mutations in existing DNA, or the activation/deactivation of genes that both share. As far as I know there are no difference that can not be explained through various types of mutation.

Natural selection is a mechanism that we know has always acted on populations of organisms. Try to conceive of a world where the individuals with the most offspring did not out-compete those with less. It doesn't make sense does it?

So since we have evidence of mutation in our DNA, and a tell-tale genetic similarity with other species (even including ERV's and other genetic "junk"), and since we know that natural selection is a factor in any population of replicating individuals with differential levels of success, we have two key mechanisms by which organisms have evolved.

The Ensatina salamanders provide an example of Allopatric speciation by Geographic isolation and genetic drift, thus validating these mechanisms as well.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 12:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2913 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 15 of 109 (570314)
07-27-2010 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 1:07 AM


Bolder-dash writes:

I appreciate your moderate tone

Thank you Bolder-dash.

And now I can finally understand your argument, at least regarding the problems you see with mutations and natural selection.

Ok, so if the effects of a mutation are too small natural selection won't have anything to act upon. I'll give you that. But how much of an effect does a mutation need to have for natural selection to "take notice"? First of all, some mutations (in fact, most I think) are neutral or nearly neutral because they are either synonymous (they do not change the protein expressed by the gene) or because they are never transcribed (they never get read by the protein-making process at all). You probably have many such mutations that your parents didn't already have, but you won't notice them because they didn't have (much of) an effect on your phenotype.

Most non-neutral non-synonymous mutations are deleterious (see Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila). But not all. Famous examples of small mutations being selected for are the Peppered Moth, Darwin's "Finches" and The Sickle-cell gene. More recently, the rather large-scale changes in Italian Wall Lizards that were transplanted to a new island environment are of interest. Apparently they changed their diet, the shape of their heads, the strength of their bite, and developed cecal valves in their digestive tract to facilitate their new mostly herbivorous diet.
See National Geographic Article.

That is an example of a new body function emerging in a species.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:07 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 1:59 AM Meldinoor has responded
 Message 20 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 2:12 AM Meldinoor has responded

  
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019