Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, Faith, jar, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD (7 members, 21 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,939 Year: 20,975/19,786 Month: 1,372/2,023 Week: 323/557 Day: 16/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can evolution explain body symmetry?
CrackerJack
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 284 (111521)
05-29-2004 11:59 PM


When you look at most animals, you see a very symmetrical body that can be split down the middle into two mirror halves. How can evolution explain this? To me, this clearly points to an intelligent designer, and not natural selection. Let me elaborate.

Take the human ear. If evolution is correct, then I suppose that sometime long ago, some sort of cells started developing that were sensitive to sound waves, and eventually they formed into an ear with the various organs. But two ears are better than one because they allow the animal to distinguish which direction the sound is coming from. So somewhere along the line, via a mutation, an additional ear appeared, and over time slowly migrated to the opposite side of the head where it was in optimal position for stereo hearing. But the ear would still be a copy of the original ear, and not a mirror image. How can evolution explain this? All humans should have one of their ears facing backwards, or maybe upside down if they evolved naturally by the above process.

Furthermore, how is it that almost all animals exhibit this symmetry of the body, yet all animals are different in their features? For instance, an ear of a human is very different than an ear of an elephant, but both ears of an elephant are identical and symmetrical and both ears of a human are identical and symmetrical. If all ears of animals were totally identical to other animals, it would be a little easier to accept. But having both pairs of ears evolve identically just doesn't seem possible. If evolution was responsible for the creation of the animals, then once an original pair of ears was formed on some ancient creature, they would start evolving, but you would not expect both the left and right ears to evolve exactly the same. They might have two ears, but you would expect their shape and size to be quite different as they evolve over time. How is it possible that trillions and trillions of beneficial and lasting mutations happened to all the animals, but that almost every single one of them happened to both the left and right sides equally and symmetrically? Even if evolution was true, the statistical odds that mutations would happen in that way are just absolutely incredible. Even to have one single mutation happen to occur simultaneously and identically and symetrically on the opposite side would be amazing, but to have each and every mutation do this is simply impossible.

One additional point with respect to symmetry is the evolution of various appendages that eventually form limbs, wings, and other features. First of all, we should be seeing lots of not yet fully formed appendages occurring in animals, which we don't, but that is a totally different subject. But given some sort of appendage that is forming, you would expect that it would start out as just one single appendage, and then eventually it might duplicate itself into an additional appendage. But if this appendage is formed by random mutations, you wouldn't expect it to always be formed along the center line of the symmetrical body. Appendages would happen at random points on the body and then possibly migrate to more optimum positions. I can't say that it doesn't happen, but I can't recall ever seeing a generally symmetrical animal with an appendage off to one side. Why is that? Unless evolution happened long ago and then suddenly stopped, you'd expect to see all sorts of appendages that are not in line with the general body symmetry.

In short, it is my opinion that the only way such a high degree of symmetry of the external body without any significant amount of non-symmetry could occur in all the species is by intelligent design, and not by any natural random process.

This message has been edited by CrackerJack, 05-29-2004 11:07 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 05-30-2004 12:24 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 05-30-2004 12:50 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 1:28 PM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 56 by jar, posted 06-01-2004 2:44 PM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 69 by Brad McFall, posted 06-02-2004 7:23 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded
 Message 75 by Saviourmachine, posted 06-17-2004 11:10 AM CrackerJack has not yet responded
 Message 101 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-15-2005 8:41 AM CrackerJack has not yet responded
 Message 170 by Random123, posted 06-27-2005 9:36 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 284 (111560)
05-30-2004 11:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31675
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 3 of 284 (111562)
05-30-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack
05-29-2004 11:59 PM


You might have an interesting point
if there had been any basis for what you propose.

You said

Take the human ear. If evolution is correct, then I suppose that sometime long ago, some sort of cells started developing that were sensitive to sound waves, and eventually they formed into an ear with the various organs. But two ears are better than one because they allow the animal to distinguish which direction the sound is coming from. So somewhere along the line, via a mutation, an additional ear appeared, and over time slowly migrated to the opposite side of the head where it was in optimal position for stereo hearing. But the ear would still be a copy of the original ear, and not a mirror image. How can evolution explain this? All humans should have one of their ears facing backwards, or maybe upside down if they evolved naturally by the above process.

Nice thought but all of the indications and evidence is that is not at all what happened. Instead, the Ear appears to have come from jawbones. Jawbones already are symetrical, one on each side of the head. So forget all the migration around the skull. Never happened.

Summary, symetrical ears do not present any problem and are certainly not any indication of intellegent design.

Start you search for reasonable explanations of how the ear developed at TalkOrigins and then for more information (lots of it) simply Google +ear +evolution.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrackerJack, posted 05-29-2004 11:59 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 284 (111565)
05-30-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack
05-29-2004 11:59 PM


CrackerJack

When you look at most animals, you see a very symmetrical body that can be split down the middle into two mirror halves.

To me, this clearly points to an intelligent designer

Now,I am sure that you can explain why surface symmetry {interior organization is non-symmetrical except in the skeleton} is clear evidence of an intelligence and not a consequence of the natural alignment of protein and minerals such as calcium which form according to well known laws.
Also,perhaps you can explain why,when we view a human from the side,symmetry falls apart?


"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrackerJack, posted 05-29-2004 11:59 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6814
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 5 of 284 (111571)
05-30-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrackerJack
05-29-2004 11:59 PM


You seem to think that the two sides of a body develop independently from one another, and this is not so. Much of the development of the embryo occurs because differences in the relative concentration of various developmental proteins causes different cells to develop into different tissues. For example, if a certain hormone was produce along the axis of the embryo, then the concentration would decrease at the same rate in any direction from the axis, and so similar developmental patterns would appear in these directions. Of course, there are many such developmental proteins, some inhibitory hormones, and various centers arise for other horomones throughout the body, so the actual pattern that arises is the complexity that we see in the adult organism. But the point is that it isn't hard to see how changes in the developmental hormones, or in the response of cells to these homones, would cause two ears or two eyes or five starfish arms to all evolve at the same time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrackerJack, posted 05-29-2004 11:59 PM CrackerJack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by CrackerJack, posted 05-30-2004 11:26 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
CrackerJack
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 284 (111671)
05-30-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
05-30-2004 1:28 PM


Let me give an example to make my point clearer. I know someone who has one extra digit on their right hand, but only the normal five on their left. The same with his mother, grandfather, etc. back through his family history. So his body is not symmetrical. Polycats are an example of such extra digits in cats. Their extra digits are often not symmetrical. I've seen many other mutations in humans and animals that produce non-symmetrical results. These sorts of mutations that cause asymmetry are quite common, so why haven't many such asymmetries propagated throughout the history of evolution? Certainly there would have been at least one asymmetrical mutation in the history of the evolution of man which was beneficial enough to have been retained or even if not beneficial would have piggybacked on a beneficial mutation being propagated. But the fact that there isn't any is very strong evidence that evolution never happened. In order for evolution to be true, beneficial asymmetrical mutations must never occur, or are somehow culled and not allowed to propagate. Can you supply any evidence that either of these is true? I highly doubt it. If extra digits are such a common result of mutation, we should see all sorts of animals with differences in the number of digits between their left and right side.

Furthermore, regardless of how present life came into being, over time we should see many occurrences of non-symmetry due to mutations. If you were to breed cats or any other animal for a certain asymmetrical feature, eventually you would expect that mutation to become dominant and you would have "created" a new asymmetrical creature. Given enough time, such occurrences should happen naturally, given geographical isolation. So the fact that we do not see many such asymmetrical features on generally symmetrical animals indicates that either not enough time has passed since they were created / came into being, or there has never been enough geographical isolation from the main population for such mutations to propagate. For such a high degree of symmetry to remain, I see only one of two possibilities. 1. There was an intelligent designer created life not so long ago and chose a symmetrical design which has not had time yet to degenerate into any asymmetries. 2. Mutations have not propagated the way evolutionists say they do and the chances of population isolation allowing a mutation to become dominant is extremely rare and could never account for all the mutations required for evolution to have occurred.

Now if there was some biological mechanism that forces symmetry, even in the face of asymmetrical mutations, then asymmetrical mutations should never be passed on from one generation to the next, and the internal body should be just as symmetrical as the external body. The fact that the internal body is not totally symmetrical, and that asymmetrical mutations are easily passed from one generation to the next proves that this is not the case. How is it that evolution "chose" to create an internal body that is asymmetrical yet an external body that is always totally symmetrical? It doesn't make any sense.

So, in summary, the fact that asymmetrical mutations do occur so frequently places extreme doubt that evolution could have ever occurred unless some mechanism can be shown to explain why asymmetrical mutations do not propagate while symmetrical mutations do so very frequently.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2004 1:28 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-30-2004 11:38 PM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 9 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 12:06 AM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2004 8:13 AM CrackerJack has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31675
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 7 of 284 (111675)
05-30-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by CrackerJack
05-30-2004 11:26 PM


First, for a trait to continue it must offer an advantage to the population for survival. It is not individuals that evolve but populations. There is no plan to it, no direction.

For what you describe to happen, some asymetrical mutations would have to give some advantage, reproduction, able to tolerate some changed environment, new food supply, something.

That you do not see it simply means it didn't happen.

That says absolutely nothing about Evolution.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CrackerJack, posted 05-30-2004 11:26 PM CrackerJack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by CrackerJack, posted 05-30-2004 11:50 PM jar has responded

  
CrackerJack
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 284 (111681)
05-30-2004 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-30-2004 11:38 PM


quote:
First, for a trait to continue it must offer an advantage to the population for survival. It is not individuals that evolve but populations. There is no plan to it, no direction.

Precisely. "There is no plan to it, no direction." So why do we not see asymmetry in our evolution? Why is it that NO asymmetrical mutations are beneficial? What is so special about symmetrical mutations that makes them beneficial and asymmetrical mutations not? If, as you say, there is no plan or direction to the mutations, then symmetry should be a rare occrence, and not the norm.

quote:
That you do not see it simply means it didn't happen.

That says absolutely nothing about Evolution.


Then what does it say? If someone says to me that there are one trillion mutations that were necessary to bring us to modern man from some prehistoric creature, yet not one of these mutations deviated from the symmetry, that, in terms of statistical odds, says a LOT about evolution. Statistically, evolution could never have happened or you need some better explanation as to why asymmetries do not occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-30-2004 11:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 12:13 AM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 11 by jar, posted 05-31-2004 12:14 AM CrackerJack has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 284 (111686)
05-31-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by CrackerJack
05-30-2004 11:26 PM


quote:
Certainly there would have been at least one asymmetrical mutation in the history of the evolution of man which was beneficial enough to have been retained or even if not beneficial would have piggybacked on a beneficial mutation being propagated.

Language in humans evolved to be processed in the left hemisphere of the brain.

This is an asymmetry that is shared by nearly all humans today.

Your premise is shown to be false.

quote:
But the fact that there isn't any is very strong evidence that evolution never happened.

That is an unwarranted, giant non sequitur.

I found the following information in about 2 minutes after doing a quick google on "asymmetrical animals".

Maybe you forgot to try to find out if there actually were asymmetries before declaring that there weren't?

quote:
If extra digits are such a common result of mutation,

It's not all that common.

quote:
we should see all sorts of animals with differences in the number of digits between their left and right side.

Why would this trait be selected for?

We do see some selection for polydactylism in cats, because more digits with claws on them results in better ability to catch prey, as long as the number of "extra" toes doesn't encumber or endanger the cat before it can reproduce.

quote:
So the fact that we do not see many such asymmetrical features on generally symmetrical animals indicates that either not enough time has passed since they were created / came into being, or there has never been enough geographical isolation from the main population for such mutations to propagate.

But we do see such creatures.

Crabs and lobsters tend to have one claw that is larger than the other. In some crabs, this is extremely pronounced, which is used to communicate with other crabs.

Flounder and other flat fish are quite asymmetrical, because they have evolved to lie flat on the ocean floor.

Sponges have no axis in their body plans.

Snail shells coil either to the right of left.

One ear on an owl is set higher than the other so they can pinpoint sounds better.

A bit more can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/341feature1.shtml

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-30-2004 11:14 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by CrackerJack, posted 05-30-2004 11:26 PM CrackerJack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2004 2:43 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 13 by CrackerJack, posted 05-31-2004 5:50 AM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 284 (111687)
05-31-2004 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by CrackerJack
05-30-2004 11:50 PM


What is so special about symmetrical mutations that makes them beneficial and asymmetrical mutations not?

Vertebrates all evolved from water dwelling, swimming creatures, and there is VERY good reason for a swimming creature to be symmetrical. Once the symmetry is established, why do you expect it to be abandoned so much? And of course, when there's a good reason, it is abandoned (see the pics in previous post).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CrackerJack, posted 05-30-2004 11:50 PM CrackerJack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by CrackerJack, posted 05-31-2004 6:00 AM nator has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31675
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 11 of 284 (111688)
05-31-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by CrackerJack
05-30-2004 11:50 PM


Once more slowly
Unless it offers an advantage you will not see it. But the very things you have mentioned, that there is no symmetry internally, shows that there is no preference for either symmetry or asymmetry.

Plus, look at all the critters out their that are not symmetrical. Plants, are a great example. Look at handedness. Asemmetrical. Look at snail shells, look at fiddler crabs, look at trees, look at many spyder, bee and other insect's eyes. Often there are three of them, asymmetry.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CrackerJack, posted 05-30-2004 11:50 PM CrackerJack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by CrackerJack, posted 05-31-2004 6:39 AM jar has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 284 (111714)
05-31-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
05-31-2004 12:06 AM


Just to add, ask any barber and you'll find out that everybody has asymmetrical ears - one is always a little higher than the other.

Most people have a facial asymmetry to one degree or another. Not to mention one longer arm, one longer leg, one larger foot.

And of course there's great asymmetry inside the human body.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-31-2004 01:43 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 12:06 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CrackerJack, posted 05-31-2004 6:43 AM crashfrog has responded

  
CrackerJack
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 284 (111744)
05-31-2004 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
05-31-2004 12:06 AM


quote:
Language in humans evolved to be processed in the left hemisphere of the brain.

This is an asymmetry that is shared by nearly all humans today.

Your premise is shown to be false.


Sorry, I thought I clearly stated in the first post that I was referring to EXTERNAL features, and not internal features. I was trying to make my posts more readable by not adding the word "external" to every single reference, but I probably should have mentioned it, so now I will. Unless I state otherwise, I mean external symmetry. Now I totally agree with you that the internal body is not completely symmetrical. Why do you suppose it is that evolution chose such perfect symmetry of the external human body and of most creatures, while choosing an asymmetrical internal body? It doesn't make any sense to me why evolution is supposedly so random, yet seems to be so selective in this case as if it is some designer doing the selecting.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If extra digits are such a common result of mutation,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not all that common.


I know of two different cases of extra digits, so I would say it is fairly common, based on my observations, but whatever. I have personally only seen mutations that were asymmetrical and none that were symmetrical. But being I haven't made any scientific analysis of what are the probabilities of each type, I can't make any definite statement about that. The point is that asymmetric mutations are certainly not rare when compared to mutations in general.

quote:
I found the following information in about 2 minutes after doing a quick google on "asymmetrical animals".

Maybe you forgot to try to find out if there actually were asymmetries before declaring that there weren't?


No, not at all. I purposely didn't give any examples because I wanted someone who is defending evolution to help prove my point, which you did nicely. First, I didn't say that there weren't any asymmetrical features in any animals. I was referring to man, and a large group (majority) of animals that are symmetrical. The fact that such a large class of creatures exhibit external symmetry, without any significant deviation, shows that at no point in their history were there any asymmetries, or else somehow they were culled out. The fact that you came up with a few examples of asymmetries just proves my point that there is no reason why non-detrimental asymmetries should not occur as part of evolution. But in general they do not. Why are there a few animals that exhibit clear asymmetries while the majority don't? Even by your own claim, you say that the asymmetries in these few examples are the result of the evolutionary process. Thus, by your claim there should not exist any evolutionary process that culls out all asymmetric mutations because such mutations are clearly visible in the examples you brought up. So what happened to all the asymmetric mutations that occurred throughout the history of the evolution of man? Why can't we see them? If evolution isn't deselecting them, then what is? Why are humans left with only the symmetrical ones?

Now the main reason given as to why asymmetric mutations don't in general propagate seems to be that they are not of any benefit and have no reason to be selected. I say that this is a totally unfounded argument for the following reason.

Trying to say that EVERY SINGLE mutation that has led to modern man/animals was beneficial, and that each mutation becomes dominant in the population before the next beneficial mutation can occur is totally absurd. It is an absolute impossibility that evolution could have ever occurred in the timeframe given if that was the case. And the full-range of transitional forms would be very evident. I don't think any knowledgeable biologist would ever try to make that claim given the current evidence. But in order for non-beneficial asymmetrical mutations to be absent in so many branches of the evolutionary tree, that would have to be the case, or else we would expect to see many of these non-beneficial mutations present and dominant in today's species.

Let me elaborate. According to evolution, when a certain part of a population exhibits a positive mutation that gives them some advantage over the rest of the population, they then have a chance of squeezing out the others because of their advantage. But when selecting for some positive mutation, nature can't pick and choose and has no idea where evolution is taking it. It merely picks based on having some current advantage - a total advantage. So while sometimes the advantage may be just one single mutation, it often will be multiple mutations, with some being positive, some being negative, and some being neutral. If the net effect of all the mutations present in the new candidate species is positive, they have a chance at becoming a new branch on the evolutionary tree. If the net effect is negative, they will likely not make it. So along with some positive trait, it is only natural and extremely likely that many minor mutations will piggyback on the one or multiple positive mutations. Thus, even if no positive asymmetrical mutations ever occurred in the evolution of man, you would expect to to have some retained due to this piggybacking effect.

Most biologists today agree that punctuated equilibrium, or some other method of rapid evolutionary change is needed to explain the fossil record. If such a large number of mutations happen in such a short period, you are certain to get some neutral and some slightly negative mutations happening at the same time as the positive ones. Statistically, it just isn't possible to have such rapid change and not have some of these additional mutations included. Evolution has no way of examining the DNA and throwing out slightly negative or neutral mutations, it only can select branches that have an overall advantage and deselect branches that have an overall disadvantage. The same statistical odds apply equally to positive mutations as they do to neutral mutations when deciding if both male and female sharing the same mutation(s) pass it along to their offspring as a dominant trait(s). So statistically you are bound to get these neutral mutations in some of the evolutionary steps. Maybe not all of them, but statistically it is impossible that some won't be included. The only possible way they could have been excluded is if evolution happened much more slowly than is generally accepted and mutations happened so slowly that there was statistically almost no chance that there were any other mutations piggybacking on any of the evolutionary steps.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 12:06 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by custard, posted 05-31-2004 6:04 AM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 24 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 10:41 AM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 26 by NosyNed, posted 05-31-2004 10:59 AM CrackerJack has responded
 Message 115 by truthlover, posted 03-16-2005 6:02 PM CrackerJack has not yet responded

  
CrackerJack
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 284 (111745)
05-31-2004 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
05-31-2004 12:13 AM


quote:
Vertebrates all evolved from water dwelling, swimming creatures, and there is VERY good reason for a swimming creature to be symmetrical. Once the symmetry is established, why do you expect it to be abandoned so much? And of course, when there's a good reason, it is abandoned (see the pics in previous post).

You make a very good point about swimming sea creatures. If evolution was true, that would be a very good reason why symmetry was selected in those creatures. But the migration from sea to land happened long ago, yet the symmetry still exists with very little deviation in spite of huge evolutionary change in the creatures. If very little change had occurred since the start of land creatures, you would have a very good point. But given all the time, and all the multitude of mutatations, I don't see the significance of your point with relation to land creatures.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 12:13 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 05-31-2004 10:48 AM CrackerJack has responded

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 284 (111746)
05-31-2004 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by CrackerJack
05-31-2004 5:50 AM


For God's Sake...
This is nothing personal CJ, and I hate to single you out, but since I see this here I'll use your post as an example.

I know of two different cases of extra digits, so I would say it is fairly common, based on my observations

For everyone out there: YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND OBSERVATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE VALID DATA SETS FROM WHICH ANYONE MAY DERIVE MEANINGFUL STATISTICS.

Testimonials and "I have this friend/relative/partner/client who" anecdotes are not legitimate data.

Thanks. And keep smiling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CrackerJack, posted 05-31-2004 5:50 AM CrackerJack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by CrackerJack, posted 05-31-2004 6:52 AM custard has responded
 Message 138 by metatron, posted 04-15-2005 8:29 PM custard has not yet responded
 Message 284 by bkelly, posted 08-17-2005 6:35 PM custard has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019