Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 1 of 70 (403081)
05-31-2007 6:50 PM


New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...
I recently completed a beta version of an Origin Views Comparison Chart:
Online version here: HugeDomains.com
Printable PDF here: OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains
The chart seeks to accurately represent Young-Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Naturalistic Evolution.
Since "You don't know what you don't know," I'm looking for feedback as to whether or not this chart could be considered accurate and complete (in the sense of providing enough information to give a person a basic understanding of each view).
---
My main site is OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains.
[Message to Young-Earth Creationists @ HugeDomains.com]
There's also a new Origin Views Research Links page on the site, here:
OriginScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains
If you know of any links that should be added, please e-mail info@originscience.com.
Thanks,
Mark Bradford
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by anglagard, posted 06-01-2007 5:27 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 4 by Vacate, posted 06-01-2007 10:28 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 11:02 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:18 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 2:15 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-01-2007 10:20 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 45 by Doddy, posted 06-02-2007 4:03 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 9 of 70 (403250)
06-01-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 2:15 PM


replies...
Hi folks,
Thanks for the critiquing. Believe me, I don't take any of it personally, and my goal is to make the chart as accurate as possible. So I really do appreciate the feedback. (Though I should say that the intended audience is Christians, since non-Christians probably don't care about the other views anyway. I still want it to be accurate, just not biased toward evolution. No free passes on any issue, or for any view, as far as I'm concerned
---
To Angalard, I wanted to say that this is a brand new chart, created from probably hundreds of sources, including audios, videos, and articles read (over time) but not documented, unfortunately...
That's why I wanted to put this version out there as a beta, so I can correct any mistakes.
There is another chart that I modeled this one after, which I have on my site (and which I've promoted online). That chart was created by Reasons to Believe.
This is the (PDF) link:
HugeDomains.com
[CREATION/EVOLUTION MODEL 'TESTABLE PREDICTIONS' COMPARISON CHART]
But their chart goes right over most people's heads, including mine. So I wanted to create a simpler one. (I stay in pretty close contact with Reasons to Believe, since they are the dominant Old-Earth Creationist group. I just sent them my new chart yesterday to look over.)
If there's another chart like mine that I'm not aware of, and anyone knows the link, I hope you'll send it to me or post it here. (Thanks!)
---
So far, it seems these are the major issues that have been raised with the chart:
- assertions that the second law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis are not violated by the theory of evolution.
- assertions that a much larger number of transitional fossils have been found (than the chart is indicating)
Related to the Big Bang, the phrasing I used is by no means a direct quote. But I think it accurately represents the most current thinking related to the Big Bang. An MIT professor on NOVA described it very similarly (though if it is proven that my description is incorrect, I will change it).
As far as the other 'major problems' with the chart ” biogenesis, thermodynamics, and transitional fossils ” I really do want to find out if I'm wrong.
If someone can provide links to show how evolution truly does not violate those two laws, and especially if someone can post links to any reputable claims as to a 'large number' of transitional fossils, I am all ears! I haven't been able to find the fossil evidence anywhere ” from any source...
Thanks again,
Mark
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 2:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 4:17 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 7:30 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 11 of 70 (403269)
06-01-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2007 4:17 PM


Re: replies...
DA,
I'll look at those links on the 'laws.'
But about the fossils, there should be a list somewhere...
If 200 million fossils have been found, and they have been categorized into 250,000 different species, then there should be a list somewhere indicating which fossils show transitions from one species to another.
I keep 'hearing' very low numbers (like under a couple dozen) for the 'real' number of transitional fossils found. I don't think 'the list' is readily disclosed because evolutionists know it is ridiculously small. But I'm definitely open to PROOF ” or at least a list
Mark
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 4:31 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 4:52 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 8:04 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 14 of 70 (403293)
06-01-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 4:52 PM


Missing Links
This mainstream evolutionary biologists essentially admits there are no 'missing links' and says change happened suddenly...
"No Missing Link? Evolutionary Changes Occur Suddenly, Professor Says"
link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/02/070210170623.htm
EXCERPTS:
"Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."
"...However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz."
Article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/02/070210170623.htm
-
Here is Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz personal page on the University of Pittsburg website:
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh
-
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 4:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 6:49 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 8:18 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 20 of 70 (403306)
06-01-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
06-01-2007 7:34 PM


"Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first place."
"...Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first place..."
More on Dr. Jeff Schwartz:
The Thinkers: Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin's theory needs to evolve on some points
EXCERPT:
"But there is another possibility, Dr. Schwartz said. There isn't a huge number of missing transitional fossils because they were never there in the first place. Instead, new species emerged suddenly due to genetic alterations that created sharp differences with their predecessors."
-
This at least opens the door for the possibility that old-earth / day-age creationism MIGHT possibly be true, although current DNA research seems be arguing against it at the moment...
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 7:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 8:13 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 8:21 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 25 of 70 (403311)
06-01-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 8:13 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
Chiroptera, I'll look at your essay links. I'm not against evidence ” if it's available and reliable. To this point, I just haven't seen it, and I HAVE been looking for it, believe me!
I just have to believe that if the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE were extremely compelling, it would be all over the Internet. And it isn't!
Whatever they have must be pretty flimsy, or you and I both know the creation/evolution debate would have been over a long time ago. This site wouldn't even exist if transitional fossil evidence was truly compelling.
--------------------------------
jar,
The man is clearly saying that transitional fossils are seriously lacking. And because of that, he is postulating that Darwin was wrong, that the changes are not gradual, and that new species basically 'just appeared.'
He clearly believes evolution is responsible for it. He just doesn't know HOW, and he sure as heck doesn't believe Darwin got it right OR that changes from one species to another were gradual ” because he acknowledges the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT IT.
I hope people will read the article for themselves.
The Thinkers: Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin's theory needs to evolve on some points
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 8:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 8:34 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 8:37 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 8:46 PM mpb1 has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 29 of 70 (403319)
06-01-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2007 8:46 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
Creationists have been screaming about the lack of transitional fossils for years and years and years...
Don't you think evolutionists with solid 'missing links' would have been parading them around for all the world to see?
It defies logic not to believe that, and your links not withstanding, the evidence to support claims of transitional fossils is almost nowhere to be found online.
-
You are spouting company policy because you want Darwinian evolution to be true. I think you care as much about the facts as YECs.
Fifty evolutionary anthropologists like Dr. Schwartz could tell you 'missing links' don't exist, or barely exist if at all, and you wouldn't buy it.
But fifty of them won't stand up and admit the truth because creationists would claim victory. So evolutionists must continue holding the line, no matter what the evidence says.
-
DNA evidence is currently a stronger evidence for transitions from one species to another. I don't like the fact that DNA evidence seems to go against any form of instant creation, but I can't change the evidence.
How 'bout some more honest evolutionists?
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 9:11 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 6:00 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 12:32 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 34 of 70 (403346)
06-01-2007 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by bluegenes
06-01-2007 10:20 PM


bluegenes,
I appreciate all feedback, and want to use whatever I can, but I believe that "without a soul" is implied in a purely naturalistic explanation of man. A "soul" is nowhere to be found in the anatomy of a human being. So in the purely naturalistic view, it cannot exist.
Certainly evolutionists would not point this out, to avoid unnecesary offense. But with a series of YES / NO questions, I'd bet that any evolutionist could be cornered into acknowledging as much.
Don't make me try it
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bluegenes, posted 06-01-2007 10:20 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:12 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 36 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:19 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 12:36 AM mpb1 has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 36 of 70 (403349)
06-01-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by mpb1
06-01-2007 11:03 PM


1.) Please take a look at this diagram of the human body.
2.) Would you kindly point out the human soul?
3a.) That's not the soul. The diagram says 'brain.'
3b.) Oh, you don't know where the soul is because you can't find it?
4.) Do you have faith to believe it's there, even though you can't see it?
I thought not. Thank you for your time.
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 11:03 PM mpb1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:28 PM mpb1 has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 38 of 70 (403351)
06-01-2007 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
06-01-2007 11:28 PM


Re: on the soul
Then it is automatically denied by naturalism, whether naturalistic evolutionists find this pleasant or not.
---
Sorry, admin. I know this is off-topic too.
I won't continue the "soul" discussion any further. I simply feel the need to defend certain statements in the chart, if someone says they don't belong. If I am proven wrong on any counts, I will change the chart.
But I understand the need not to take side issues too far off-topic...
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:53 PM mpb1 has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 40 of 70 (403353)
06-02-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
06-01-2007 11:53 PM


Re: on the soul
jar,
You claim to be a Christian, even though most of your views have no basis in Scripture whatsoever. (We've had previous discussions.)
If you have faith to believe man has a soul, then you have to believe God put it there (or it magically appeared), if a purely naturalistic explanation will not suffice.
Therefore, you could not be defined as believing in purely naturalistic evolution. You would be classified as a theistic evolutionist, or maybe just a very confused person who thinks he knows everything. Personally, I'd go with the latter.
The person who brought up the soul was saying I should remove "without a soul" from the NE column.
My point was and still is that the statement representing NATURALISTIC EVOLUTIONISTS is correct.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 11:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 06-02-2007 12:27 AM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 43 of 70 (403364)
06-02-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluegenes
06-02-2007 12:36 AM


I freely admit that the first three views are based at least partially in faith. (I personally happen to believe there is also an element of faith to a belief in naturalistic evolution, but that's beside the point.)
Purely naturalistic evolution MUST preclude the existence of a soul, if you define 'soul' in the biblical sense ” the way most people in America, at least, would define soul (having to do with an ability to commune with God, and innate immortality [or conditional immortality, depending on one's religious view]).
So in the generally accepted sense of the word, naturalistic evolution does not allow for the existence of a soul. Naturalistic evolution restricts humanity to bone, tissue, and chemical processes. It says man is formed apart from any supernatural activity, and there is absolutely no other explanation for the existence of a human soul.
So in the purest sense of the definition, I believe it is fair to say that for naturalistic evolutionists, humans do not have a soul, unless you want to define soul as a 'sense of self,' rather than something equal or akin to a supernaturally endowed, immortal, ethereal spirit.
So perhaps a naturalistic evolutionist who believes in a soul is 1-10% theistic (or perhaps 'magistic' 'cause biblical souls are not scientifically provable or measurable.
If 100% pure naturalistic evolution is TRUE, humans do NOT have souls, in the generally accepted definition of the word.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 12:36 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Vacate, posted 06-02-2007 3:17 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 06-02-2007 10:16 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 48 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 11:23 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 49 by jar, posted 06-02-2007 11:26 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 5:58 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 51 of 70 (403402)
06-02-2007 12:59 PM


Issues...
Doddy,
About theistic evolution, it's really just a carbon copy of naturalistic evolution, with God added somewhere (anywhere) in the equation. So it's really just NE + faith. I figured it made little sense to complicate it beyond that.
Most TE's I know, agree with whatever science says. When they allegorize Genesis, they are free to believe just about anything science tells them. (I'm personally stuck between TE and OEC, even though I can't help having personal disdain for the TE view.) Maybe in the TE 'problem' column, I should add the (revised) info from the NE 'problem' column or refer to it.
About ID, if I could fit it, I'd add it. But since most IDs are either YECs, OECs, or TEs (and since it can't really fit in a printable version of the chart), I thought I'd just incorporate it where I could. It seems to me that the 'ID Movement' has been reduced down to the argument over Irreducible Complexity anyway. Besides that, it's basically OEC or TE.
About thermodynamics/entropy and biogenesis, I'm going to seriously revise or remove them.
------
About transitional forms...
Maybe this is a case of perspective... People like me with a Creationist bias want to see the cup (of transitional fossils) half empty. ...I happen to see the cup 99% empty.
People with an evolutionist perspective see the cup as full enough to support to the view.
So we argue back and forth, and get nowhere
I can't be convinced the cup isn't empty, and you can't be convinced the cup isn't full (full enough, at least).
I need to read through all the transitional fossil links that have been posted throughout this thread, and try to wrap my head around whatever's there...
I like to get down to the bottom line consensus of what reality IS as fast as possible... So I'll probably end up e-mailing or calling some university biologists, paleontologists, and whoever else I can find to give me some quick answers on what the 'consensus number' is on how many proven transitional fossils have been found ” as compared to how many SHOULD have been found by now (out of 200 million), if gradual evolution were true.
If there's any consensus on that, I think it would be a good starting point. I'd probably ask questions like this...
Q. Mr. Biologist / Paleontologist, do you have a good working knowledge of transitional fossils? (if yes, proceed)
Q. Is it correct that there are approx. 200 million fossils classified into 250,000 species? (assuming the answer is yes or thereabouts, proceed)
Q. Of that number, are you aware of approx. how many of those fossils have been proven to be transitional forms ” showing an evolutionary state between one clear species and another?
Q. If that number is X and X is Y% of 200 million (let's assume it's under 1%, for now at least), Mr. Biologist / Paleontologist, do you consider that a large enough percentage to give credence to GRADUAL EVOLUTION, or would you say the fossil record honestly seems more like what Dr. Jeff Schwartz has described; that is, showing the SUDDEN APPEARANCE of most species, rather than gradually-evolving species, with long transitional phases (IF you believe that is an accurate assessment of his view [see The Thinkers: Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin's theory needs to evolve on some points or contact him directly Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh ]).
(If the biologist/paleontologist used the argument about the rarity of fossilization occurring, blah, blah, blah... then the discussion would probably end. If not, I would proceed.)
Q. If the entire theory of evolution were dependent solely on the transitional fossil record, do you believe it would be PROVABLE?
Q. Still hypothetically asking 'if the entire theory of evolution were dependent solely on the transitional fossil record' and it could NOT be CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN by that alone (apart from DNA research), would you consider that the sudden appearance of nearly ALL species in the fossil record could EVEN REMOTELY be interpreted as evidence for some version of supernatural Creation?
Q. Why (or Why not)?
After getting a consensus of honest answers to these questions, I'd feel I could come to some sort of conclusion, as to whether or not there are legitimate grounds to question the provability of evolution ” from the fossil record alone ” and whether or not there is any legitimacy to the notion of instant creation as a possible explanation for the sudden appearance of most species in the fossil record.
------
About the NE soul issue, I'll probably have to revise the soul statement to something that basically says the equivalent of "no soul, by default, or by definition," since NE does not scientifically speak to the issue of a soul. However, I believe the distinction should be pointed out ” as the materialist view does not 'allow' for an immaterial soul, that would somehow magically appear in a human of purely 'naturalistic' origin. (You can't have your cake and eat it too
------
bluegenes,
About other views, I'd have to let someone else cover those. I created this chart to speak to those who are either Christians or are considering Christianity. It's built on a Christian framework, as the science of each view is compared to Scripture.
------
Thanks again for all the feedback. I appreciate everyone's help in revising this chart. I may argue, but if I'm shown to be incorrect, I'll change my conclusions ” perhaps not without a fight, but a good argument should be able to win a fight, and then you know you've got something
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by NosyNed, posted 06-02-2007 1:56 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 2:41 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 54 by bluegenes, posted 06-02-2007 3:09 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 58 by Doddy, posted 06-02-2007 7:38 PM mpb1 has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 59 of 70 (403450)
06-02-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Doddy
06-02-2007 7:38 PM


Re: Issues...
Doddy, you're right, I will.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Doddy, posted 06-02-2007 7:38 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 10:56 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 65 of 70 (404130)
06-06-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by molbiogirl
06-06-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Any word yet?
I do this stuff in spurts... Make a little money... get back to science stuff (or whatever else)... go broke... Currently in the broke stage. Need to make some money and then get back to this stuff later...
But I've gotten enough feedback on the chart to sufficiently update it. Hope to do that in the next week or two...
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by molbiogirl, posted 06-06-2007 5:59 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-07-2007 9:03 AM mpb1 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024