Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 356 (465696)
05-09-2008 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 5:50 AM


Re: What is Solid Evidence?
Is eyewitness testimony solid evidence? That seems to be a lot better evidence then we have for the origin of life and the origin of the universe.
Au contraire we know that life and the universe both had origins.
My point about solid evidence was simply to point out that certain circumstances are required before one can believe in a miracle; if you find the evidence solid enough for the events in the Gospels, then let's not derail the thread, eh?
Is that a hyperbole when you say that you "find no evidence for ... what-have-you?"
No, that was vagueness. Other things that seem problematic include the Tower of Babel, the suggestion of geocentrism, that the sky's a solid, that the stars are smaller than the Sun rather than just further away, the phrase: "The four corners of the Earth", and so forth.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 5:50 AM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 356 (465724)
05-09-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 7:43 AM


Re: Contrary Evidence
I am sure that there are many scientists who believe there is contrary evidence. At least the 5% who believe in creation in the last 10,000 years must base that belief on something.
Of course they base that belief on something. They base it on the belief that the Bible is inerrant and should be taken literally.
I have only began to study some of this evidence, but we don't need to act like it does not exist.
No, "acting" is not necessary.
If you have "only began to study some of this evidence", then I know twenty times more creationist arguments than you do. I also know why they're wrong, 'cos I looked that up too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 7:43 AM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 356 (465736)
05-09-2008 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 6:10 PM


Re: Shadows and Reality
It is not intentional. I guess I need to ignore posts that are getting totally off topic like who wrote the Gospels and when. I will try to move back in the right direction.
Believe it or not, somewhere along the line I was attempting to make a point that relates to teaching evolution in schools.
Yes. The only reason that the moderators on this forum have put up with this thread so far is that you're a courteous, intelligent, and sincere debater; so they're giving you a break. Normally, they'd be down on you like a ton of bricks 'cos of the way you shift from point to point. A word to the wise, eh?
If a significant portion of scientists believe that God was involved in creation, then why are we having this controversy.
Because the gist of this controversy is not about whether God exists and is the creator of the universe, but about whether evolution happened or whether the kinds of animals that we see today are the result of fiat creation as you would have to believe if you took the Book of Genesis literally.
I don't know the answer. What shall we do?
Abandon the concepts that conflict with the evidence.
Don't scientists calculate probabilities of events such as abiogensis ...
No. No, they don't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 6:10 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 9:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 206 of 356 (465744)
05-09-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Wumpini
05-09-2008 9:00 PM


Re: Boiling down the Controversy
Would you say then that the entire argument rests upon the "age of the earth?"
No, 'cos that's not what I said.
So, it seems you are saying that creationists need to abandon the Genesis creation account and the flood.
Does that mean that science does not have a problem with the other miracles in the Bible as long as they do not contradict the evidence that you see in nature?
In my view, yes. I'm just one guy, and cannot speak for "science", but for myself, yes.
I did not know that. I have seen probabilities before but I did not know where they came from.
Most of the figures you've seen don't come from scientists, but I wasn't quibbling about where the figures came from. The reason that I said: "No", flatly, is that no-one is in any position to calculate those odds. With my hand on my heart, and hope to die if I lie, no-one can make that calculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Wumpini, posted 05-09-2008 9:00 PM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 356 (465817)
05-10-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Wumpini
05-10-2008 2:26 AM


Re: Objective of School
Well, there are a number of answers to this. This'll take me a while, sit down.
* Evolution is just science. Evolution is just a thing that exists, like gravity. It's not something that conflicts with spiritual beliefs per se; it just happens to disagree with one interpretation of one religious text. If the same religious text said that the planets were pushed around by angels, then we'd have the same problem with gravity.
You write:
They should understand that everything is not as black and white as the physical exists, and the spiritual does not exist.
Sure. But no-one is teaching them that "the spiritual does not exist". No-one will learn that in science classes. They'll learn about gravity and the periodic table and evolution. This is how the world works.
* Second point. You write about:
It seems that if we create a population that has no understanding of how to go beyond the physical realm ...
The fact is that most people don't live in a "physical realm" or a "spiritual realm". They live in a social realm. They live and they die and their major concern is what their boss thinks of them or what their cute co-employee thinks of them and they never think about how the world works.
* Finally, you write:
Children need to have their horizons broadened, not narrowed.
Those are fine sounding words, only doesn't all education "narrow horizons" to a certain extent? You are taught that the world is round, and you are shown evidence. Your "horizons" have then been "narrowed", you now find it hard to believe that the world is flat or tetrahedral. To learn something is to learn that the alternatives aren't true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Wumpini, posted 05-10-2008 2:26 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Coyote, posted 05-10-2008 11:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 229 of 356 (466210)
05-13-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 12:32 PM


Re: Here's the deal.
You really give man way too much credit. I think that has been the problem from the beginning. Man has always wanted to be God.
Yes, well, that's a sword that cuts both ways. A non-believer in the divine authorship of the Bible might suggest that it is you who do men too much honor by hailing their writings as divine.
However, look at the history of science, and the times they have had to completely change their view as a result of new evidence.
* sigh *
If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of evolution that could completely change the view of what has happened in the past then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in the theory than the truth.
"If a scientist is going to say that it is impossible for new evidence to arise in the field of pig studies that could completely change the view of whether pigs have wings then I would seriously doubt the sincerity of that scientist, and it would seem that they are more interested in their dogma of non-flying pigs than the truth."
Strictly speaking, a scientist shouldn't use the word "impossible" like that. Would you settle for "profoundly unlikely"?
. However, to interpolate this data which is presently being observed millions of years into the past, and treat it as fact, is going beyond what it seems this field of science allows.
If it seems that way to you, I think you have some reading to do.
Science can go beyond the unseen, and it must. Has anyone ever seen an electron? No, but we've made observations consistent with the theory that electrons exist, and what's more, we need that theory to make sense of the observed phenomena.
Then teach the observations. No one has observed anything that happened millions or billions of years ago.
However, we can make present-day observations that are correctly predicted by our theories about what happened millions of years ago, and, again, we need those theories to make sense of the observations.
Observations without theories make no sense and lead nowhere.
Would you like kids in chemistry class to just learn a list of chemical reactions that go and that don't go, without learning about the periodic table and covalent bonding and ionic bonding and electrons and all the other stuff you can't actually watch?
Moreover, your suggestion would make for strange lesson plans.
---
Teacher: "Coelacanths are closer genetically to giraffes than herrings."
Student: "Why? I mean, they look more like herrings."
Teacher: "I'm not allowed to tell you. But I'd like you to remember it until you meet someone who is."
Student: "But isn't that really weird?"
Teacher: "No, it's exactly what we should expect ... according to a theory I'm not allowed to refer to."
Student: "But I want to understand!"
Teacher: "Then you should have gone to a private school."
---
The observations that support evolution, without evolution, are a jumbled inexplicable mess. That, in a sense, is why they are evidence for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 12:32 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 236 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 8:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 241 of 356 (466254)
05-13-2008 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 7:17 PM


Re: A jumbled up mess
I have been trying to understand the way scientists use different words to help me communicate with them. Especially, words like fact and theory.
They don't use those words consistently.
I am trying to study that now.
I have been reading a middle school textbook on evolution which I kind of like even though it probably isn't very accurate. It is only about 100 pages long and mostly pictures (pretty cool pictures) so it is easy to read.
Yeah, I thought we agreed that that book was rubbish.
I have a college textbook I found on evolution but it is a lot longer with more words (big words like transcriptase), and it has less pictures. So if I start using big words about evolution, they are probably coming out of this book. I read the first chapter, and then went back to my little book. I consider that progress.
If the word "transcriptase" was in the first chapter, your college textbook may be poorly organised.
You may be trying to approach this from two wrong ends at once. One book is trying to explain the history of evolution to you, very badly, and the other book appears to be explaing the theory of evolution (i.e genetics) from the bottom up.
Are they ever going to meet in the middle?
I am having a little difficulty in my mind understanding how all of these different eras, and ages, and index fossils came into being. I may have to go look in my big book to figure it out. It kind of seems like that jumbled up mess you are talking about.
Yes, you need a theory to understand it.
I don't know whether your "big book" will tell you anything like that, because books about evolution most often take the geological evidence as read. If I was going to write a textbook about evolution, I'd refer your questions about eras and ages and index fossils to a good textbook on geology, rather than trying to fit that all into my textbook.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 7:17 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 242 of 356 (466257)
05-13-2008 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
05-13-2008 10:12 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
Yes. The evolution event can be repeated, the result will be evolution. Evolution can be repeatedly tested in the present as well.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
What are you expecting?
Enjoy.
That was disingenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 05-13-2008 10:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 05-14-2008 9:40 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 243 of 356 (466260)
05-13-2008 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Wumpini
05-13-2008 8:03 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
I am not sure that I understand the comparison between the observation of the effect of an electron in the present, and the inability to observe an evolutionary event in the past.
The electron is unseen, but the effect can be repeatedly tested in the present.
And so can the effects of evolution, whether it happened a million years ago or yesterday, be tested in the present.
The evolutionary event in the past is unobserved, and the event cannot be repeated so that testing can be done at any time.
Am I missing something here?
Yes. You are missing the fact that the predictions of evolution can also be tested at any time.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Wumpini, posted 05-13-2008 8:03 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 249 of 356 (466294)
05-14-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 4:19 AM


Re: A jumbled up mess
The first chapter is "A Case for Evolutionary Thinking: Understanding HIV." That is where the Reverse Transcriptase came into play.
Ah, I see. That may not be so bad then.
I'm sorry to hear about your book situation.
Looking at these books, it may be best for me to start with a life science or biology textbook instead of either of the ones on evolution. It seems that each of these biology textbooks has a section on evolution. Unfortunately, it does not seem that they deal much with Geology.
Like I say, they'll just take the results of geology as read. If it comes to that, they'll take evolution as read --- they'll tell you some of the stuff we know, but little about how we know it.
I guess I will have to find this information on the internet since it doesn't seem that any of these books will deal with the geological aspects of the geological column in detail. Which creationist website do you suggest I go to for that information?
Is "creationist website" a momentary lapse of your mind?
I wouldn't advise you to look at any creationist website for information about geology, because ... well, because it won't be written by geologists, and 'cos it won't contain information about geology. It'll contain statements such as "there is no such thing as the fossil record, there's just a lot of dirt".
I'll see if I can look you up a good website about geology written by geologists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 4:19 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 250 of 356 (466299)
05-14-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 5:39 AM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
. However, it would seem that you could never test your hypothesis related to an evolutionary event that far in the past for numerous reasons.
First, in many instances the organisms that supposedly evolved no longer exist, so you cannot test those organisms today. Second, the environment that existed that long ago cannot be known so its effect upon the evolutionary process could not be simulated. Third, it seems the mechanisms for evolution would allow for evolution to occur in any direction. Life does not always evolve from a less complex form to a more complex form. Actually, I believe I have read somewhere that it would be more logical for life to evolve from the complex to the more simple. If you were only dealing with natural selection then you may be able to theorize a particular path, but with the many different mechanisms which are now believed to be part of the evolutionary process this would not seem to be the case.
This is such a jumble of misconceptions that I don't know where to start. I can find only one sentence in it that's both meaningful and true, and it was also irrelevant.
I think for now I'll stick to your problems with the scientific method.
That brings me back to my original question. How can we make a conclusion about an evolutionary event that occurred that long ago when the event cannot be repeated in the present.
How can a forensic scientist say: "This man died of gunshot wounds", when this can't be repeated in the present?
How would it help matters if such a hypothesized past event could be repeated? Suppose a forensic scientist says "This man died of gunshot wounds", and then "proves" it by bringing him to life and shooting him, and declaring: "Look, I've repeated it!" Would that prove that the man didn't (the first time around) die of cyanide poisoning? Of course not.
I may not be making myself very clear, but it seems obvious to me that there is not a comparison between making a hypothesis about the effects of electrons in the present, and making a hypothesis about an evolutionary event that occurred billions of years ago.
Has the reality of the scientific world completely escaped me?
Yes.
There is a comparison between the two. They are both hypotheses that lead to deductions that are testable in the present. The only difference is that one is too small to observe directly and one is too long ago to observe directly.
The scientific method doesn't make a difference between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 5:39 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 1:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 254 of 356 (466366)
05-14-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Wumpini
05-14-2008 1:18 PM


Re: What am I missing in this comparison?
No. I wanted to see how you would respond. I mentally gather all of these responses and attempt to falsify any theories that I have put together about scientists. My theories are still valid.
(It could also be my attempt at humor which is very dry.)
Evidently.
No, I can't recommend a creationist website that'll teach you geology because none of them will. It is not in their interest to do so.
Would the same conclusion apply to websites like talkorigins.org?
While their statements about geology are usually sound and well-referenced, I don't think there's anything they've produced that could be used as a geology textbook.
Does this mean that you are a geologist if it is any of my business?
No, I'm a mathematician. I have, however, read up on geology.
I think I will leave it at that for now before I confuse you more than I already have.
I take it that that was more dry humor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 1:18 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Wumpini, posted 05-14-2008 8:19 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 268 of 356 (466942)
05-18-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Wumpini
05-18-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Facts and Theories
Am I missing something here? Can you understand why I am confused? Are these facts based upon evidence? How can you prove by evidence that something did not exist? I have been told that you cannot prove that God does not exist, how can you prove that birds did not exist 250 million years ago?
How can you prove that there are no winged pigs if you haven't looked everywhere?
Nonetheless, if you were to say: "It's a fact that there are no winged pigs", then I wouldn't cavil.
Maybe you can give me a link where I can examine one evolutionary event to see how scientists go through this process.
For example, Lewontin says it is a fact that birds came from non-birds. What is the evidence? Is it fossils or something else? How was the evidence evaluated? What conclusions were reached regarding the evidence? At what time did the evidence or theory become a fact?
Well, let's have a look at that shall we?
Hypothesis: modern birds are the product of evolution.
Prediction #1: there should be something that, in morphological terms, they could have evolved from. Potential falsification: if there wasn't anything. Actual observation: the existence of small bipedal archosaurs.
Prediction #2: Since these are the only candidates, we predict that there must have been bipedal archosaurs before birds. Potential falsification: fossil birds in Devonian rocks (for example). Actual observation: the fossil record is consistent with the hypothesis.
Prediction #3: In the fosil record, therefore, we should find things which are morphologically intermediate between archosaurs and modern birds, and we should not find chimerical forms between a bird and anything else. Potential falsification: complete absence of sauch desired intermediate forms; the existence of chimerae (as, for example, if the platypus really was duck-billed). Actual observation: feathered, wingless theropods, feathered gliding theropods, dino-birds such as Archaeopteryx.
Prediction #4: Birds should be genetically closer to the other surviving archosaurs (e.g. crocodiles) than to anything else, and vice versa. So a crocodile should be genetically closer to, for example, a hummingbird than it is to a Komodo dragon. Potential falsification: a contrary observation, obviously. Actual observation: bang in line with this remarkable prediction.
In the light of such evidence, we can either regard the hypothesis as established, or we can suspect that God is messing us about. I'll go with the former option.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Wumpini, posted 05-18-2008 4:39 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Wumpini, posted 05-18-2008 10:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 275 of 356 (467085)
05-19-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Wumpini
05-18-2008 10:37 PM


Re: Winged Pigs?
You probably would have been among those who would have thought like these scientists a while back:
Why yes. You say that as though it was a bad thing, but a remarkable claim should be submitted to skeptical inquiry. This is how people found that the platypus was real; and why, conversely, mermaids and fire-breathing dragons and centaurs and so forth are not in zoology textbooks.
Really, what do winged pigs have to do with the existence of birds before 250 million years ago? You seem to be arguing that because scientists have not found something that contradicts their theory that it could not exist.
No, I'm saying that if we find nothing to contradict our theories, then those theories must be accepted as true pending the discovery of contrary evidence.
After all, what other evidence can there be for a proposition such as "there are no winged pigs" except that we have not yet found any evidence for winged pigs?
To put it another way:
Hypothesis: There are no winged pigs. Prediction: We won't see any winged pigs. Potential falsification: Seeing a winged pig. Actual observation: No winged pigs, lots of wingless pigs.
Now, of course this method is not perfect. We could have argued the same about "Hypothesis: there are no egg-laying mammals" until the discovery of the platypus. We base our knowledge of the world only on the evidence that we have, and this does not lead us to infallible truth. But there is no superior method.
Thank you for the example on the evolution of the bird.
Sure.
I think this will give me a better idea of how this way of thinking works.
Though, mind you, you will not usually see such arguments set out in such a formal hypothetico-deductive style as I used (though, if you're interested, I have written some articles where I do just that). However, any sound empirical argument always can be put in this form, and this is something you should bear in mind.
Do scientists ever consider the possibility that a bird could come from a chemical soup like some other organisms supposedly did? You know through the process of abiogenesis? (Not a full grown bird, but a cell that develops into a bird.)
A fertilized bird's egg sort of coalescing from chemicals? I think you'll find that pretty high on any scientist's list of stuff that didn't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Wumpini, posted 05-18-2008 10:37 PM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 277 of 356 (467088)
05-19-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Wumpini
05-19-2008 1:27 PM


Re: Lateral Gene Transfer
What you're proposing contradicts the fossil record and molecular phylogeny.
As for the lateral gene transfer, the genes have to be transfered from somewhere, don't they? You'd need something else to have the genes for being a bird first, in which case it's a bird, or you'd need one organism with half the genes for being a bird, and another to have the other half of the requisite genes, and these genes would need to come about by previously independent evolution, and just happen to fit together, and ...
No, I'm not seeing this.
If I understand correctly, then it is accepted scientifically that genes can transfer laterally between living matter. It appears that this is occurring today, and that it has been proposed as a scientific theory that instead of one universal ancestor, there may have been many as a result of this process. This would obviously change the tree of life that scientists generally use to explain the theory of evolution.
Wrong way round. They use the theory of evolution to explain the tree of life.
It would not seem to change the theory of evolution ...
The discovery of lateral gene transfer did change the theory of evolution. The theory consists of the law of natural selection, plus everything we know about the mechanisms of genetics: this includes sexual reproduction, recombination, that inheritance is particulate and not by blending, et cetera, amongst which we have to include the observation of the various kinds of lateral gene transfer.
It appears to have been proven that an organism can survive and possibly prosper with the merger of genes from different sources. I think this may be called chimerism in humans. I think it has even been proposed that all of us are chimeras of one sort or another.
The evidence is that we have indeed picked up genetic material from bacteria and viruses, maybe about 0.5% of our genome.
. In this situation, that hurdle would have already been jumped ... Is it possible that in some sort of chemical soup through a combination of abiogenesis (if necessary), lateral gene transfer (between living cells) ...
Not sure I'm following you. If it involved abiogenesis, that would be jumping the hurdle, and if it involved lateral gene transfer between living cells, that requires the hurdle to have already been jumped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Wumpini, posted 05-19-2008 1:27 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Wumpini, posted 05-19-2008 3:31 PM Dr Adequate 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