Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:41 PM
29 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, kjsimons, RAZD, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,199 Year: 15,235/19,786 Month: 1,958/3,058 Week: 332/404 Day: 50/96 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 24 of 187 (810597)
05-31-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:49 PM


Wow, you would mock God....

Sorry, but it is you who are mocking God. And making Him look like a "fucking idiot".

Why do you persist in such blatant blasphemy?


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Steven Colbert on NPR


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 25 of 187 (810598)
05-31-2017 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Porosity
05-31-2017 12:46 AM


Re: Extinction via evolution?
In a seminal "punc-eq" article from 1980, it was pointed out that many species become over-specialized to a particular environment, so when that particular environment disappears, they go extinct. It is the more generalized species ranging over a variety of environments that continue to survive to then split off and specialize into particular environments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 12:46 AM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 1:34 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 26 of 187 (810600)
05-31-2017 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
05-30-2017 11:00 AM


In high school biology (circa 1967), the most confusing part was plant reproduction. I mean, just the ferns were so complicated. One stage produced spores which grew other ferns. Those ferns then reproduced sexually, producing ferns that reproduced using spores, etc. It was like a single species was using two different methods of reproduction.

Then we have other plants that also reproduce literally by cloning. "Clone" means "twig". Some plants (maybe many) can reproduce by planting a twig. And at the same time they can reproduce sexually through seeds. More than one method operating in parallel.

There are a number of invertebrate animals which can reproduce either sexually or by a form of cloning. For example, if you chop up some invertebrates, each piece will then grow into a different individual. As new methods of reproduction are being developed, older ones persist.

Even among vertebrates, we have non-sexual reproduction. Some vertebrates, mostly reptiles and fish, engage in parthenogenesis, "virgin birth." Basically, in the absence of a male to provide sexual reproduction, a female creates clones of herself. All female, of course. This plays a role in my "Jesus H. Christ" page (a serious investigation for the most part), where we must assess what a "virgin birth" must really mean biologically. As in what the gender of the product of parthenogenesis must be. And why the Church has seen fit to cover it up.

Bottom line: Biology is always messy, reproduction multiply so, and there is often more than one way to get the job done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 11:00 AM jar has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 28 of 187 (810603)
05-31-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Porosity
05-31-2017 1:34 AM


Re: Extinction via evolution?
Yes, of course. If you become over-specialized in one particular environment, then your survival depends on that particular environment. If that one particular environment goes away and you (as a population, of course) are not able to adapt quickly enough, then you go away as well.

At the same time, species who are not as over-specialized and overly dependent on one particular environment are not as vulnerable to extinction. As a result, they would have more ability to persist longer.

No "invisible genie".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 1:34 AM Porosity has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 132 of 187 (822319)
10-22-2017 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dredge
10-21-2017 7:59 PM


Really. How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?

Well, more than a 0.005% of a mammary system.

And, yes, a marginally better mammary system would indeed confer a better survival advantage.

So just what the fuck are you arguing for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:59 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 136 of 187 (822376)
10-23-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dredge
10-22-2017 8:55 PM


And a chunk of a reptile's jaw somehow evolved into the bones of a mammal's inner ear. Pure fiction.

Convenient that you drag up that old PRATT. It was while researching that question that then-creationist Merle Hertzler realized how much evidence there is for evolution and how false creationism is.

Merle was the first of extremely few honest creationists that I have encountered in the more than three decades I've been studying and discussing "creation science." On CompuServe around 1990, he was doing things that no other creationist would do: he would actually try to engage in a discussion, would actually respond to questions, would actually try to support his claims and statements, and when he said he'd go read something he would actually follow through and actually read what he said he would. He was an honest creationist, so after about a year he came to realize how false creationist claims are so he switched to arguing for evolution. As I understand, several members of this forum used to be young-earth creationists who learned the truth about YEC and now oppose it. I think that's why so many creationists are so dishonest, because they have to keep themselves deluded in order to avoid learning the truth.

The following is a small excerpt from Merle's page, Did We Evolve? (itself a very small part of his site), in which a visit to the university library and the research there opened his eyes. I present it to you, because the evolution of the mammalian ear was the specific question he was researching.

quote:

Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

. . .

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.


As I pointed out to you last night, you are arguing against popularized science. You need to address the actual science as Merle had done. Which I'm sure you won't do, because you are not an honest creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dredge, posted 10-22-2017 8:55 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:20 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 146 of 187 (822518)
10-26-2017 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:06 PM


The theory that a mammal's four-chambered heart evolved from a reptile's two-chambered heart is untestable. Any theory of how a four-chambered heart evolved from a two-chambered heart is untestable.

"two-chambered heart"? What organisms have that? Amphibians and reptiles have three-chambered hearts: two atria and one ventricle. Please try to get at least your most basic facts straight.

What's the difference between one ventricle and two? A septum that divides the one ventricle into two.

What proof is there of that happening? Consider the crocodile. Reptile, born with a three-chambered heart. As it grows larger, that becomes a four-chambered heart. Without skipping a beat.

Possessing such abysmal ignorance, what do you think you can ever accomplish? I mean besides making your side look ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:06 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:29 PM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 149 of 187 (822523)
10-26-2017 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:20 PM


Oh, I get it ... an honest creationist is one who gets converted to evolution and the creationists who don't are all dishonest. I'm glad we got that straightened out.

No, an honest creationist is one who actually looks at the evidence. Someone who is willing to test his own side's claims. Even the New Testament commands to test everything and hold on to that which is true. Have you ever tested a creationist claim? You're afraid to, because deep down you know that it's false.

Dr. Kurt Wise, a YEC, is another example of an honest creationist. He found and freely admitted that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. He freely admitted that if all he had to go on was the evidence, then he would accept evolution. But he is a presuppositionalist, which means that he presupposes his YEC beliefs and proceeds from there. He's sure that evidence will be found to support his YEC beliefs, but we just haven't found them yet. In the meantime, he very much wishes that creationists abandon their fascination with being evidential and should instead be presuppositional. We recently discussed Dr. Wise (no relation to myself) with Phat, so if you use the forum's search function you should find more information and links to even more.

The thing is that if you are all wrapped up about what the evidence says, then honestly following the evidence will lead you to evolution. The only way for you to avoid that would be to avoid the evidence, to deceive yourself. Lies and deception, that's all that creationism has to offer.

The irony is that there is no inherent conflict between evolution and a Divine Creator, YHWH even. The only conflict is with YEC and its contrary-to-fact claims. If YHWH (AKA "your god") did truly create the universe, then no evidence from the universe, from the real world, could possibly contradict that. But if you hold false beliefs about Creation, then reality would indeed conflict with those false beliefs.

When are you ever going to wake up and stop doing such stupid things?

Poor, stupid, gullible Merle. He fell victim to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind.

He asked the questions and sought the answers.

You are the one falling for a hoax.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:20 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:30 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 150 of 187 (822524)
10-26-2017 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:29 PM


A better example is a fish heart. It is nothing like the heart of its "descendants" - amphibians and reptiles.

After you lied to us so outrageously about the reptile heart, why should we believe at all what you say about the fish heart? You have proven yourself to be a liar! You're just lying to us again, aren't you? That is after all what creationists do, isn't it? Lie about everything and anything. That is what their god demands, isn't it? What your god demands.

Over half a century ago, I was a Christian. I was taught Christian doctrine. Everything that creationists do, including you, is contrary to that Christian doctrine. According to that Christian doctrine, everything that creationists do, including you, indicates that you actually serve and worship the Prince of Lies, the Great Deceiver.

Why don't you just come clean and admit that you worship and serve Satan?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:29 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:33 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 153 of 187 (822541)
10-27-2017 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Dredge
10-26-2017 11:29 PM


A better example is a fish heart. It is nothing like the heart of its "descendants" - amphibians and reptiles.

And actually we're talking about the ancestors of modern fish, not modern fish themselves. Only willfully ignorant creationists would ever try to claim that modern fish are completely identical to ancient fish.

And your attempt to move the goal posts is duly noted. You still need to address your claim regarding reptilian hearts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Dredge, posted 10-26-2017 11:29 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 3:01 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 154 of 187 (822543)
10-27-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by jar
10-27-2017 10:28 AM


It seems that not only is there no culture of honesty in Creationism, there is no evidence that Creationists even have a clue what honesty or truth or reality is.

That appears to be an integral part of their religion/theology, which not only has no clue what morality is, but actively promotes immoral behavior so long as it serves their god. Completely contrary to standard Christian doctrine.

I would applaud their zealous efforts to promote the growth and spread of atheism except for the fact that they also teach an aberrant form of atheism which does nobody any good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 10-27-2017 10:28 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2017 11:21 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 158 of 187 (822558)
10-27-2017 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by RAZD
10-27-2017 11:21 AM


Just remember that nobody is completely useless ...

... they can always serve as a bad example.

Throughout school starting in early elementary school, I seemed to always serve as the bad example. "Everybody look at David and see what he's doing. Don't do that!"

But seriously, I don't want to see people becoming atheists just because their religion taught them to become atheists -- eg, "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning and you should throw your Bible on the trash heap and become a hedonistic atheist who runs down the street naked and eats babies for lunch." Rather, I want to see people becoming atheists because they have outgrown the need for gods. Religions' false teachings about atheism paints it as a legalistic loophole for them to escape responsibility and do whatever they want to do. Rather, atheism requires that you do take personal responsibility for your actions; it's religion, especially fundamentalist Christianity, that enables you to escape responsibility for your actions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2017 11:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 159 of 187 (822589)
10-28-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dredge
10-21-2017 7:46 PM


Sorry, but I just came across this particular piece of inanity again.

Sorry, "Slowly over long periods of time" doesn't explain anything. This is the Darwinist's equivalent of the Creationists' "God did it."

Absolutely false equivalency. To start with, "God did it" does not even attempt to answer any questions nor to discover what happened or how. It is the ultimate cop-out. To illustrate that, the next time you pull that crap of demanding of us complete knowledge of every single step in which some feature evolved, we will demand of you the exact same level of complete knowledge of precisely how it was created. Your just copping out with "God did it" will not even begin to suffice. For that matter, "God did it" would also support evolution; we're just getting deeper into how it happened.

"Slowly over long periods of time" refers small changes over many generations. We have observed small changes occurring within a few generations, so that is certainly no fantasy. And the thing about a generation is that it takes a particular length of time -- let's call that t measured in years. So if something requires 100 generations to evolve, then it would have taken it 100×t years. If t is one year, then it would have taken 100 years. If t is 4 years, then it would have taken 400 years. If t is 20 years (arguably the length of a human generation), then it would have taken 2,000 years. Therefore long periods of time is a basic necessity in evolution, not a cop-out. Despite all the creationist lies you've devoured and regurgitated here, it doesn't happen overnight -- nobody but an ignorant or deliberately dishonest creationist would even begin to think that it's supposed to happen overnight.

Please, learn something about evolution!

Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck.

Again, that's just yet another idiotic creationist lie. While new changes can be random (eg, the mutation of lysozyme into alpha-lactalbumin), it's natural selection which selects which new changes stay and which go away. Natural selection is the opposite of "sheer luck."

Please, learn something about evolution!

This is akin to believing a mammary system could evolve in a human male.

Are you really that stupid? Besides the fact that your wording shows a complete ignorance of evolution (ie, we inherit our mammary system from ancestors who evolved it long before primates let alone humans), you overlook the very simple and obvious fact that human males do possess a mammary system! It doesn't develop during puberty because our hormones are not right for it, but it's there and it will develop if you mess around with our hormones (just how do you think that transsexuals are able to grow breasts?). And some men do develop breast cancer.

How could you be so stupid? Please, learn something about reality!

To quote the Organians, "The mere presence of beings like yourselves is intensely painful to us." Remember, there is a cure for ignorance, but you must want it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:46 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:50 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3643
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 178 of 187 (823414)
11-09-2017 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dredge
11-09-2017 2:50 AM


Deary, deary me ... a mammary system is one that produces milk, so males don't have a mammary system.

Oh really now. So if a human isn't producing milk, then he/she does not have a mammary system? How very interesting!

For the vast majority of her life, every single female human is not producing milk. So female humans do not have mammary systems? How very interesting! So how can you account for the vast fortune amassed by Playboy?

All humans possess the genes for the mammary system, males and females both. During gestation, all humans grow the tissue for the mammary system, males and females both. During puberty (of which of course you are ignorant), hormones cause the mammary tissues of females to develop into secondary sex traits, but not the mammary tissues of the males. But it isn't until after having given birth that those mammary tissues get the hormones needed for actual lactation.

Dredge, that is all basic biology. Very basic biology. Of which you are abysmally ignorant.

So then, Dredge, why are you so abysmally ignorant of those things that most normals know? Because your false religion demands that you remain ignorant. Because your false religion's greatest fear is knowledge. Because the only way that your false religion can keep you imprisoned is through ignorance.

And OBTW, your religion is not necessarily Christianity itself. Rather, Christian doctrine would identify your religion as Satanic, since it has you worshipping the Prince of Lies. But then that's your problem, not mine.

Btw, how do you know so much about transvexuates or whatever they're called? No, don't tell me; I don't want to know ...

They are called "transsexuals". It is common knowledge. For example, the tenets of Christianity are common knowledge, so I do not need to be a Christian in order to point out how you and other creationists violate Christian doctrine on a regular basis.

Or to quote George Takei (from his appearance on "The Big Bang Theory"), "I read!"

One does not need to be an actual transsexual to know what a transsexual is. One does not need to be an actual female to know what a female is. Are you trying to imply that in order to know about females you need to be female yourself?

But your desperate resorting to a form of argumentum ad hominem ("attacking the person") tells me that you have nothing, so you are trying to bluff. You are trying to attack my own sexual identity in order to draw attention away from your lack of any argument whatsoever. Well fuck you so very much, you unspeakable asshole ... I'm divorced!

I guess it's confession time. I just now passed retirement age and I've signed onto the local Oster LifeLongLearning Institute (OLLI) program, though with limited access because I'm still working. With no previous background (the only cards I ever played with had 80 columns and you never wanted them to be shuffled), I've been learning about poker. One of the things about poker is the other players' tells. Your tell there is to go full blown bullshit. Which you have done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dredge, posted 11-09-2017 2:50 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 11-10-2017 12:12 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Dredge, posted 11-15-2017 2:21 AM dwise1 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