Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
499 online now:
Dm14174, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (8 members, 1 guest login, 490 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,885 Year: 997/6,534 Month: 997/682 Week: 50/182 Day: 24/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 9 of 374 (772334)
11-12-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2015 10:32 AM


AOk writes:

But that's just the way it is. Biology is the study of life, but biologists can't agree on a definition of life.

Oh sure we can.

When we trained to be biologists we learned the characteristics of life. In fact, for me that started in 7th-grade science (Mr. Jenner's class). We learned that life is incredibly complex and that not all organisms share all the characteristics.

I suspect this indoctrination has led most Biologists to give up on the definition.

It turns out that scientists use the definition that fits the context best. I have several friends who are virologists and they often treat viruses as living and refer to them as surviving or dying. At other times, they talk about viruses as complex molecules. Life is complex molecules and complex chemistry.

When biologists talk about life, if there is any confusion of their meaning, they define exactly what they mean. It depends on who we are talking to and what we are talking about.

As one alien entity on Startrek referred to humans as "Ugly bag of mostly water". It's all in the context.

This may not be very satisfying for non-scientists, but science is tentative and we are not sorry about that.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2015 10:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Diomedes, posted 11-12-2015 4:18 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 15 of 374 (772364)
11-12-2015 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2015 5:40 PM


AlphaOmegakid writes:

RAZD writes:

Mine is simpler: anything capable of evolution. (cue definition of evolution ^(1)... ).

This not only includes viruses but self-replicating molecules. The essential difference in my opinion between life and non-life is that one evolves (life) and one doesn't (non-life).

Enjoy

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Look at your definition. You of all people should know better than this! Populations evolve, not individual organisms. So by you definition, only populations are alive, because only populations are capable of evolving.

Wow, that one went right over your head, didn't it?

Individual entities cannot be alive, because individuals do not evolve.

because only populations are capable of evolving.

This is really only the case for sexually reproducing species. Asexually reproducing species like many bacteria and other single celled organisms can and do evolve when mutations occur in individual organisms.

And while populations evolve, the mutation part of evolution occurs in the sex cells of individuals.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2015 5:40 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2015 6:27 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 17 of 374 (772370)
11-12-2015 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2015 6:27 PM


Try spending five minutes here: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=populations+evolve+i...
and maybe what flew over my head should fly out of yours!?!

If you have an argument to make, make it. We do not debate bare links here.

It just appears to me that you misunderstood part of what RAZD said. I don't think he was saying that individuals are the only unit of evolution.

Individuals are the unit of reproduction. They pass on the mutations that are selected for or against by the environment.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2015 6:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-17-2015 5:42 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 44 of 374 (772706)
11-17-2015 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by AlphaOmegakid
11-17-2015 5:42 PM


OK, thanks for making your argument.

Back to your definition of life. As a biologist, I don't think it is good enough.

What difference does it make to you if biologists use multiple definitions for life?

As I said in Message 9

quote:
It turns out that scientists use the definition that fits the context best. I have several friends who are virologists and they often treat viruses as living and refer to them as surviving or dying. At other times, they talk about viruses as complex molecules. Life is complex molecules and complex chemistry.

When biologists talk about life, if there is any confusion of their meaning, they define exactly what they mean. It depends on who we are talking to and what we are talking about.

As one alien entity on Startrek referred to humans as "Ugly bag of mostly water". It's all in the context.

This may not be very satisfying for non-scientists, but science is tentative and we are not sorry about that.



What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-17-2015 5:42 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Pressie, posted 11-18-2015 7:29 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 70 of 374 (772868)
11-19-2015 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 2:30 PM


Re: Equivocation
AOk writes:

They are fine with fuzzy things, so OOL funding can continue and "life" is good.

Big chunk of moola, huh?

Equivocation whether in definitions or argumentation is a logic issue. In Scientific definitions, the logic should be sound. In general, I would think that biologists who put definitions of life in papers would tend to believe their definitions are unequivocal.

OK, so now you have your unequivocal defenition, what's next? Publication?

Are you the sole originator of the ATP Definition of Life or has it been proposed before?

I find that I must still disagree with you. In my opinion, viruses are alive. Have you seen3-dimensional images of the external architecture of viruses? This is really, really complex chemistry.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 2:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 112 of 374 (773125)
11-24-2015 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Question to RAZD
Baloney! Viruses are known. They are not alive!

A lot is known about viruses and we are learning more all the time. They have a nifty way of replicating and they are quite complex but lack a number of the mechanisms of cellular life. When some viruses come in contact with the cell membrane of the certain cells they are passed inside the cell. Some time after that the virus may insert itself somewhere in the genome of the cell and then trigger the cell to replicate the virus over and over until it overwhelms mechanisms in the cell, escapes, and infects new cells. Apparently, some viruses specialize in the cells they infect and have unique, specialized, non-lethal effects on cells.

Sometimes viruses infect sperm and egg cells in multicellular organisms and insert themselves into the genome. If that sex cell is successfully mated the resulting organism will carry a genetic copy of the virus the can then be passed on to its descendants. It may eventually be in the genome of much of the clade. At each reproductive event the there is a chance of mutations occurring in the viral DNA that was inserted into the genome. These viral sections in the genome are called endogenous retroviruses or ERVs. A fascinating thing about ERVs is that mutations persist because they have no impact on survival or mating success of the organism.

Now, one of the coolest things about ERVs is that when we sequence them from groups of clades we can use the positions of ERVs they have in common and the relative changes that have occurred due to mutations to map a cladogram that shows us the relative branching pattern for these groups of organisms at the species level, but also hierarchical clade branchings (speciation events) prior to the most recent speciation event. This result from the development gene sequencing technology is rapidly expanding our understanding of evolution as a process and also the evolutionary history of the biosphere.

You say viruses are not alive, but techniques developed to study cellular life can be applied to viruses and vice versa. Viruses impact other cellular functions besides just replication.

Maybe viruses developed as extracellular mechanisms of organisms that mutated and lost their original functions.

Are they a byproduct of the development of cellular life or are they precursors of cellular life?

Can you demonstrate that they are not alien nonbiological lifeforms that may have developed here and learned to exploit cellular biological life?

What should we expect another branch of life that might develop on this planet to look like?

Well actually I am presenting a definition which is in compliance with current scientific theories including OOL hypotheses.

Ok, are you passing a law that says everyone has to use your definition for life or else?

Everyone knows you have to identify the pathway from non living chemicals to cellular life. Its just the silly equivocating along that pathway that I have a problem.

Why is this your problem? Are you performing and reporting some kind of research that depends on all the other biologists agreeing to follow AOk's law of life?

Trying to define self replicating molecules as "alive" is a joke of semantics. It's just word soup that misleads. It is still light years away from cellular life. So what good does calling it "alive" do except mislead?

OK, so who is being misled? We already know it is not you. As a biologist, I don't have a problem with it. If I ever feel misled I ask questions and get clarification.

When scientist can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then my faith might get challenged.

Hmmmmm, I need you to define what Humpty Dumpty means. I have no idea why you suddenly start talking about faith.

But equivocal definitions which are illogical will never challenge my faith.

Ok, now I am really confused. You started this thread stating your wonderful invention "The AOk Unequivocal Definition of Life" and asked for our comments and now you think someone is trying to challenge your faith?

Like I said several times in this thread, your definition of life does NOT work for me.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 2:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 152 of 374 (773443)
12-01-2015 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2015 6:22 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
If they are not alive, then they are dead.

Then you must decide your definition of life and the differentiation between life and death. And both must make sense.

I think you are misusing death here and several others have referred to non-living matter as "dead." Death is something that happens to living organisms when they stop functioning.

Non-living material may not be the same thing as dead material. If it was never alive then it is just "non-living material." If it was once an organism that has died then it is dead. Dead material is the remains of a living organism that has gone through the process of death.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 6:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 7:59 AM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 170 of 374 (773484)
12-02-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 7:59 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
So when does a virus die?

When it is exposed to various chemicals, some of which are intentionally used by humans for that purpose. When they are targetted by the immune systems due prior infection or anti-viral vaccination.

But outside the host, is it alive or dead?

Yes.

And how about self replicating molecules? When are they dead? etc etc.? Or are they ever alive?

Those are in the gray area between living and non-living.

AOk writes:

This is the reason that we need a good unequivocal definition of life.

As a biologist, I do not see a need for a single "unequivocal definition of life", nor do I think that you will have success convincing many biologists to accept your definition.

I have asked several times before, why do you care? Why do you feel compelled to define life and why are you so insistent that biologists or other scientists adopt your definition?

Maybe, I was too quick in the semantics by using the term "dead", but you can see that the term non-living is almost a synonym of "dead".

No, I don't see that at all. Dead means no longer living. Non-living has none of the characteristics of life.

So now we (you and I) have clarified the grey area. We have categories:

(1) White=Living==>by some unequivocal definition of life
(2) Grey=Abiotic=non-living
(3) Black= Dead

This is incorrect. You and I do not agree at all.

(1) White = Living, cellular organisms
(2) Lighter Gray = some characteristics of life; DNA, RNA, replication
(3) Darker Gray= Dead, formerly living
(4) Non-living= rocks, individual elements, non-replicating molecules.

On this White, Gray, and Black scale that other people have been referring to, you have misinterpreted what they are saying. White is living and black is non-living and in between these two extremes is a gray area, a continuum, of things that exhibit some of the characteristics of life. Non-living and dead are not the same thing. As far as I can see abiotic is a synonym of non-living, but it is not a synonym of dead.

The problem I was having was everyone else in this forum was referring to the grey area as "life" (the "grey area of life").

I think they are referring to the gray area as a continuum between life and non-life. Some things like viruses and prions are in the light gray area self-replicating molecules are in the middle gray area and crystals are in the dark gray area.

This makes no sense, because every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life which is obviously false.

I do not think anyone is saying abiotic is on a pathway to life. I consider abiotic to be non-life and thus totally black on our scale.

The reality is that most abiotic things have no chance at life, many are dead, and some have some of the characteristics of living things.

I think you have incorrectly expanded the definition of abiotic to include dead organisms and things that the rest of us consider living or almost living.

Now look at your last sentence, and consider a virus. If it is considered alive within the host cell. Then when the cell is destroyed and the virus is released again, then all life functions would be gone. It would be dead. Both abiotic and dead. This makes a lot of sense using this model. So a virus would not be in the grey area at all. It would be black.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. I consider the virus to be alive, but with a completely different life history from cellular organisms. I think it is a completely different life form that has evolved to take advantage of cellular organisms for metabolism and replication.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 7:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 4:36 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 172 of 374 (773488)
12-02-2015 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
12-02-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Besides, what's really interesting about the study of life isn't whether it fits some definition, but rather the details of its inner workings.

Well said!

AOk, seems to be oblivious to the fact that he will have little or no luck convincing biologists to accept his narrow definition. The only reason I can see for his insistence is as some kind of argument against abiogenesis. He has cited the so-called "Law of Biogenesis" that creationists are so fond of enforcing several times in this thread.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 12-02-2015 4:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 174 of 374 (773491)
12-02-2015 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 4:36 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Ok, let's assume for a moment it is in the grey area, and the grey area is not a self refuted concept as already identified by the kid.(you are arguing like all the others.)

Ok, let's assume that your understanding of a gray-scale continuum that extends from totally black to totally white is incorrect and could only be considered self-refuted by someone who defines life and non-life too narrowly.

In the abiogenesis history from non-life towards life, just how did virions evolve?

I don't know. I am not sure that viruses are part of part of the abiogenesis history of non-life to life.

Evidence please?

I don't have any, and I don't know if any exists. Research on viruses and abiogenesis may eventually show us ways that viruses originated and whether it is connected to the origin of cellular life.

Or hypotheses please?

My own personal hypothesis is that viruses arose separately from the pathway to cellular life or that they broke way from cellular life very early on. I see viruses as a completely seperate kingdom of life. Viruses may have evolved from free-living organisms that later parasitized cellular life. So maybe viruses arose separately, arose at the same time dependent on cellular life, evolved as a means of genetic exchange between early free-living cellular organisms or are just a fluke of the early synthesis of DNA and RNA.

To me, it all sounds like exciting areas of research.

Before any cellular life existed, what chemical mechanism causes a virion to evolve?

Imperfect replication of genetic material and selection (survival or non-survival) in the environment.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 4:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 175 of 374 (773492)
12-02-2015 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 4:36 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Also, you just said you believe viruses are alive which contradicts your classification of "(1) White = Living, cellular organisms". Do you want to be contradictory, or do you want to correct this?

I said I think viruses are living, but I did not say I think viruses are "living, cellular organisms."

I think viruses are living, but they are a couple small steps away from Cellular Life that we have chosen to put at one end of our continuum. You may think this is contradictory, but I think you are still trying to force us into too narrow a definition of life.

Why do you care about the definition of life so much? What is in it for you?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 4:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:43 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 178 of 374 (773496)
12-02-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 5:43 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
I know it's contradictory.

Well, no, since you misquoted me.

I just like to see evos twist and turn and flip in their mental gymnastics.

Sorry, then, since your definition is incorrect, there will be no gymnastics. Creationists just never get it.

ABE: So basically you are saying you're a troll. Good to know.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 201 of 374 (773541)
12-03-2015 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 2:38 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
The host cell has living tissue within it.

No it doesn't. Tissues are made from cells, cells do not contain tissues. Maybe you should study a little biology.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 2:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 205 of 374 (773547)
12-03-2015 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 4:17 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
And you then extend the left side out to infinity with white only, then the edge of white and grey will still be there. It hasn't moved.

WTF are you talking about? Extend the left side to infinity?

Do you not understand what a continuum is? There is a graphic representation with white on one side and black on the other and varying shades of gray in between.

You keep insisting that we are saying that everything is either on one side or the other, but that is not what we are saying.

Your definition for life is clearly wrong to all of us, because it does not take into account viruses which are much closer to living than non-living and some of us consider them to be living, even though they belong to a different domain of life.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 4:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2772
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 223 of 374 (773627)
12-04-2015 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
12-04-2015 5:18 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
A single cell of a dog could not live by itself outside the dog.

A cell wouldn't be able to live by itself (meaning without outside help), but cells can be kept alive and dividing in a lab, invitro.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 12-04-2015 5:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 1:49 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022