Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9057 total)
59 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,716 Year: 828/6,534 Month: 828/682 Week: 63/445 Day: 9/10 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 181 of 223 (343424)
08-25-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
08-25-2006 8:22 PM


Visual deterioration
Is a gene for visual acuity identifiable? Are different alleles for same identifiable? Can the particular degrees and kinds of visual problems be located on the gene?

I find it odd, from my creationist point of view, that an inferior condition such as deficient visual acuity and focal ability could be called "diversity." To my mind it can only be properly called genetic deterioration.

I understand that according to the principles of the ToE it's properly called diversity, but my job here is to challenge the ToE and this is where I would begin to do that.

{At least that is the case when explanations are offered. Now, if the thread just sticks to known genetic facts, such as what the gene or genes for vision look like and how you may or may not know whether they have undergone mutation, and what the variojs alleles involved look like and all that, then we can avoid discussion the clashes of theory.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 8:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Percy, posted 08-26-2006 5:21 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 206 by Omnivorous, posted 08-26-2006 12:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 577 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 223 (343427)
08-25-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
08-25-2006 4:22 PM


Re: Trade-offs
Nothing you said counters the argument that civilization and modern medical technology insulate people from the types of selection pressures imposed on those living under primitive conditions.

Obviously it does, to the extent that the modern environment of medicine and technology is a different environment than the primitive world.

It doesn't follow from your conclusion, though, that no selective pressures emerge to take their place. Every environment has pressures. And in the face of those pressures I don't see any reason to take Faith's model of increasing genetic degeneracy seriously, and I don't see what reason you have to do so, either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 4:22 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 223 (343428)
08-25-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Aegist
08-25-2006 10:58 AM


Re: Trade-offs
I put up the Wikipedia article on Mutation myself in my OP.

When you understand exactly what mutations are, you can see it is simply a changing of genetic material. Changing a base pair, inverting a sequence, moving a sequence, deleting a sequence, adding a sequence, copying a sequence.... Shuffling DNA in one form or another. Since DNA is directly translated into proteins, and proteins tend to have functions in cells and directly or inadvertantrly affect phenotypes, it is obviously possible for mutations to have beneficial outcomes.

I don't know that this is the case from these facts. Science apparently treats it as a normal process. But if in fact mutations are a disease process, or at least some of them perhaps, a break-down in the normal genetic system, I see no guarantees that any of it can produce a beneficial outcome. Perhaps some can, perhaps not. How would it be possible to know? I don't see how. I gather you assume the normality of the changes and go from there. If so, I see no basis for the assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 10:58 AM Aegist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 184 of 223 (343435)
08-25-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
08-25-2006 5:49 PM


quote:
It is not treating your opponent with respect to speculate about the opponent's motivations or assume why she does anything or comment on the opponent at all.

Might I point out that it is also ot treating your opponent with respect to simply dismiss their arguments, which your opponent has usually spent time researching, finding links for, and constructing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 5:49 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 9:50 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 223 (343436)
08-25-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
08-25-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
Yes they ARE TOO hypothetical scenarios when offered as supposed evidence for a past situation you can't know anything about for sure.

Can you please explain why it is unreasonable to consider it likely that ancient humans got impacted teeth when their jaws became smaller?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 6:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 186 of 223 (343437)
08-25-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
08-25-2006 8:55 PM


Re: Trade-offs
quote:
But if in fact mutations are a disease process, or at least some of them perhaps, a break-down in the normal genetic system, I see no guarantees that any of it can produce a beneficial outcome.

1) Mutations are the normal genetic process.

2) Gene CCR5


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 8:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12749
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 187 of 223 (343440)
08-25-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by nator
08-25-2006 9:28 PM


Topic Drift Alert
schraf writes:

Might I point out that it is also ot treating your opponent with respect to simply dismiss their arguments, which your opponent has usually spent time researching, finding links for, and constructing.

An appropriate point perhaps as part of a longer post discussing the topic, but as the sole content it's just rising to the bait. Please focus on the topic.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 9:28 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 08-25-2006 10:04 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 223 (343442)
08-25-2006 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Aegist
08-25-2006 10:30 AM


Re: Trade-offs
I just want to take a moment to show my respect to Fatih. Never before have I seen someone who clearly doesn't believe in Evolution seriously trying to come to understand the science around it.

Honestly, I am impressed with your efforts, and I will do my best to understand where you are coming from and sort out the differences.

Thank you. I am trying and it's not easy. But you have to understand I have a solid creationist set of assumptions that contradict the evolutionist assumptions and I have to guess that your appreciation won't last. Nevertheless it's nice for the moment.


Faith said:
Traits are simply the selected product of the variety of alleles already present in a population, which were designed into the creature, not created by mutation.

So I was not talking about traits, but only about the supposedly beneficial mutations that are currently claimed to have been observed, more than one of which is like the Sickle Cell genetic disease which is strongly selected because of its protection against malaria.

OK, I am trying to work from your point of view, and hopefully I understand what you are trying to establish. We are assuming that all species have been created as they are. Lets suppose for the sake of argument that the Earth was created by the Magratheans 1000 years ago ala Hitch Hikers Guide to the galaxy. They created humans and all other species with a degree of variety there so that sexual reproduction could continue to mix alleles and continue to maintain variety in the species.

Yes.

Have any mutations created new improvements in humans since that time?

I have no idea. I dno't yet understand mutations well enough. I grasp the basic variety and the various ways they come about but the idea that they produce anything beneficial is very much in question, despite the various examples given. This doubt comes from my creationist assumptions, by which I can't call beneficial something that produces disease even if it also protects against another disease. It's a definitional matter, and one problem in these discussions is that the evolutionists announce their definitions as if they were some kind of proof of something, or as if such a definition can't be challenged as to whether it fairly reflects reality. This harping on the evolutionist definition of "beneficial" as anything that spreads in a population for whatever reason simply pre-empts the creationist definition.

Would this premise and question be somewhat in line with what you are trying to understand?

Guess I should have read on before answering. OK, yes, that is a fair represenation.

I need to understand exactly what you want to be shown. I am from a Molecular Biology background, so the mechanisms of mutation and the affects on the DNA -> Protein -> Phenotype process arising from a mutation is rather familiar to me. However it is very difficutl for me to name a "Beneficial Mutation" to you which is 1. In humans, 2. Not related to a disease 3. Not only beneficial given specific circumstances. If you want those criteria then the only beneficial mutations possible are ones which we simply can't detect and ones which you can easily argue as "Pre-existing traits" and hence not mutations.

(My bolding.)

OK, thanks. That does seem to fit what I've been encountering. Then why not treat my point of view as simply an alternative point of view that may or may not be viable since there is no way to prove it one way or the other yet? Why the insistence on beating it down every time I bring it up? Not that you are doing that. Yet. But I know why. Evolution is SUCH a strongly held position nobody wants to give the slightest ground to the opposition, even of this tentative sort.

This last point is really the catch 22. Anything which has happened could be argued as a pre-existing trait which has been repressed or ressesive until now. And anything which hasn't happened we can't assume will happen. And thus, we have no examples of beneficial mutations in humans.

Exactly. Why can't that simply be acknowledged by everybody?

Of course it's not an easy thing to prove. By the same token you can't prove that an alternative view of mutations as nonbeneficial is false.

I hope you can see how restrictive this criteria would be, and I hope you don't intentionally impose it. Particularly since this thread was supposed to be about whether any mutation could be beneficial.

But of course the criteria are restrictive. I have a completely other explanatory framework that *suspects* that beneficial mutations are probably nonexistent or flukes, and the kind of ambiguity you are acknowledging is support for my explanatory framework. But if this is acknowledged, as you are doing, then go ahead and discuss what is taken to be beneficial by your criteria and maybe a different angle on this picture could emerge. But this constant dismissing of my view is very hard to take when in fact it is perfectly reasonable given the facts under discussion.

Also, this article looked to be of interest

When more is less: Study into Human Genome vs Chimpanzee genome. Loss of function = improvement


(Link made active by me.)

Well, the article shows that this is becoming a popular idea, and it makes use of a lot of concepts I've barely digested, concepts that could in fact be the meat of a thread on mutations, and in fact should have been the objetive of this thread if I hadn't taken it back to the questions that keep the interpretational systems under constant dispute.

======================================================
To posters on the thread in general: It took me over an hour to put together this post, including reading that link. It took over three hours to put together the OP for this thread, and the posts on it hardly encourage the feeling that it's worth it. I am usually up against a dozen or more opponents, most of whom delight in saying insulting things in one form or another. The logistics are simply impossible. And if I don't respond to everybody they complain that I am mistreating them or dodging the argument or make other insulting insinations. Some I have simply resolved not to deal with. And if I mock the argument, that is not the same thing as accusing someone of such motives. The arguments I'm up against are as good as mocking my arguments anyway.

I am not going to respond to some posts, and if I treat arguments as stupid that are mocking mine, deal with it. That's the way it is.
======================================================

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 10:30 AM Aegist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 11:19 PM Faith has responded
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 08-26-2006 6:39 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 200 by Aegist, posted 08-26-2006 6:44 AM Faith has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 1280 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 223 (343445)
08-25-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Admin
08-25-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Topic Drift Alert
My apologies to Admin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Admin, posted 08-25-2006 9:50 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 190 of 223 (343457)
08-25-2006 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Percy
08-25-2006 8:22 PM


Re: Trade-offs
Hi, Percy. I welcome the rare opportunity to disagree with you at length.

Percy writes:

Omnivorous writes:

How would we measure the robustness of the human genome? I would hazard the argument that diversity, more than any other metric, indicates the robustness of any genome.

I'm not so sure it's as simple as this. If we use the example of vision and accept, merely for the sake of argument, that the vision of civilized peoples has declined in terms of visual acuity (i.e., resolution) and the ability to focus, then genomic diversity for vision was less in the distant past than it is today. In other words, a lesser percentage of people had bad vision in the past than today. Would a greater diversity in visual acuity and focal ability be a sign of robustness? In other words, is the fact that more people are born today with bad vision a sign of robustness?

Again, I'm not trying to sneak in my stance on vision, it's just for the sake of argument.

I don't think it is simple at all. I was arguing from first principles: we know that traits that were deleterious at their emergence, like sickle cell, ultimately proved to be advantageous.

We will not recognize an adaptive mutation until the environmental pressure that selects it emerges.

In passing, let me say that I see no reason to believe that ancient peoples had better visual acuity, nor do I see any reason to believe that modern peoples have poorer visual acuity.

But for the sake of argument, let's presume that is so: we do not see as well as our progenitors. Why is that? Is there some entropic principle in evolution such that an advantageous trait will deteriorate in the absence of its originating selective pressure? I suppose so, if the biologic cost is high. Is the cost of excellent human vision higher than poor human vision? I don't see why it would be.

I am familiar with genetic drift, but that seems like a gentle force compared to the degree of change you propose. If visual acuity was so adaptive, why was its lack--like, say, the relatively rare condition of congenital blindness--not largely purged from the genome long ago?

Rather, I suspect that the differences we detect in visual acuity are largely a factor of our ability to detect them, and they are made manifest to us by our ability to correct them.

From your earlier remarks, I assume you see no causal agent for this deterioration earlier than agriculture--do you believe this deterioration occurred in a span of 10,000 years? Do you believe that the Third World has clearer eyes? I don't: I think they lack ophthalmologists, optometrists, and the means to purchase lenses.

Rather, I think good enough vision was good enough. The myth of the Golden Age pervades many areas of modern thought: the clear-eyed hunter, the noble savage, the clean-limbed and mighty Grecian wrestler, the etc. But, in fact, our biggest and strongest seem to be bigger and stronger than theirs were.

I think there is strong evidence for the possibility that intelligence continued to evolve after the emergence of our species. Even in scant centuries, the studies involving populations of Asjkenazi Jews suggest that intelligence-focused bottlenecks--e.g., that in Bohemia only a single scion could obtain a marriage license, and that lottery was won by the most successful child in a hostile environment--can measurably shift a population's average intelligence.

More fundamentally, I want to make clear my central idea here. What determines a genome's robustness? Clearly, the reproductive fitness of its members in the current environment is one determinant. But if that genome's extant population is a monoculture--say, clones of elm planted after the clear-cutting of an ecologically complex forest--then the potential survivors of a dramatic challenge to the genome are fewer than if the genome has greater variability: if every individual shares the same genetic vulnerability to Dutch Elm disease, the species is toast.

But we didn't know that until the disease arrived. Intelligence and its child, culture, permit an increase in the diversity of the genome. That will include bets that become losses (i.e., never pay off), but you cannot win if you do not play. You could be right about visual acuity, but you are still wrong about the deteriorating robustness of our genome.

Diversity is the insurance for the genome; a higher number of currently less adaptive individuals is the current premium paid; intelligence raises the capital on hand to afford that premium.

If I were to guess, I'd say that you and Crash see our modern technology as an indication that we're superior to ancient man. I don't see it that way. Our modern technology is just an inevitable development of thousands of years of gradually accumulating knowledge and expertise made possible through language and writing.

What do you mean we, kemosabe? :D

I have no doubt that "ancient man" would fit within our modern bell curve of intelligence, though there is certainly some undefinable point where that is not so. Whether that bell has moved would require the testing of both populations. I see neither the possibility nor the necessity.

My single, intense, insisted on point, is that we cannot know now which genetic constellation means reproductive fitness in the future. We do know that genes which have an immediate cost can, in changed circumstances, confer huge benefits. For that matter, we know so little of the complex constellation of our DNA that it may well be that the set of "poor visual acuity" genes includes a subset that will dictate the survivors of the first viral war. Do you suppose that anyone witnessing the agonies of a possessor of a single allele for sickle cell would have bought the argument that their misery paved the road to survival?

The point is that when you do not know what number will win the lottery, and you simply must win the lottery, your best bet is to play as many numbers as you can afford, not to increase your bet on one number. The emergence of intelligence, culture, and technology have increased the number of our genome's bets on the table.

Diversity isn't just a warm and fuzzy ideology; it's what intelligence makes possible, and it promotes our genome's survival.

Edited by Omnivorous, : typos

Edited by Omnivorous, : 'nother typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 8:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 08-26-2006 4:43 AM Omnivorous has responded

  
Aegist
Member (Idle past 2810 days)
Posts: 23
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Joined: 08-21-2006


Message 191 of 223 (343460)
08-25-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
08-25-2006 9:57 PM


Re: Trade-offs
Perfect reply.

This thread blew out 3 pages while I slept, and I was starting to feel like it what going to hell while I was reading thrrough them all, but you rlast post faith at least gives you and I something to work on, and I hope everyone will excuse me if I ignore everything else that has been said, and try to work from Faiths assumptions rather than our own.

the idea that they produce anything beneficial is very much in question, despite the various examples given. This doubt comes from my creationist assumptions, by which I can't call beneficial something that produces disease even if it also protects against another disease. It's a definitional matter, and one problem in these discussions is that the evolutionists announce their definitions as if they were some kind of proof of something, or as if such a definition can't be challenged as to whether it fairly reflects reality. This harping on the evolutionist definition of "beneficial" as anything that spreads in a population for whatever reason simply pre-empts the creationist definition.

This is why I went on to my second post on outright mutations. I got caught up in the discussion with everyone else and thought this was about Mutations being beneficial in evolution, but it seems you want to discuss whether mutations, as a concept can be beneficial. So, I will use my assumption above, pretend evolution is non-existent and discuss mutation with you.

*unfortunately you will have to excuse me for a few hours. I have to go out and I have already spent an hour trying to put together a reply. I have saved it and will return to it later. I don't want to post a half arsed effort :)

Shane


----------------------------------
http://shanegreenup.blogspot.com
www.sportsarbitrageguide.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 08-25-2006 9:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 1:47 AM Aegist has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 223 (343483)
08-26-2006 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Aegist
08-25-2006 11:19 PM


Re: Trade-offs
This is why I went on to my second post on outright mutations. I got caught up in the discussion with everyone else and thought this was about Mutations being beneficial in evolution, but it seems you want to discuss whether mutations, as a concept can be beneficial. So, I will use my assumption above, pretend evolution is non-existent and discuss mutation with you.

Excellent. A ray of light penetrates the murk. The fact that something that merely spreads in a population is by that artificial definition beneficial is just one of those irritating evolutionist mind games, but it is used as the standard from which to call my alternative concerns "a denial machine" or "willful ignorance" etc etc etc, thereby effectively snuffing out any possibility of any geniuine objection to the ToE. One expects this of course, but the degree of it, the total blackout of it, is astonishing.

And I'm not sure you are REALLY saying anything different yet. But it sure sounded good.

No rush with the post by the way. I'll be getting off line for the night soon anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Aegist, posted 08-25-2006 11:19 PM Aegist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 08-26-2006 3:13 AM Faith has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3205 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 193 of 223 (343499)
08-26-2006 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
08-26-2006 1:47 AM


Re: Trade-offs
It is the fact that you insist on using your definitions rather than those that are actually part of the science involved that cause a problem.

How can you 'genuinely' object to ToE by ignoring what it actually says and making up your own definitions which it can never satisfy? All you are doing is building up a strawman version of the ToE.

Without you giving a clear definition of what you consider benefificial which isn't merely your subjective opinion, 'oh that sounds beneficial', what possble criteria do we have for finding an example of a beneficial mutation?

I'm not sure how Aegist can discuss whether mutations can be beneficial while what beneficial actually means is so vague. I don't mean to bust up your new found accord but at some point you are going to have to provide a workable definition of beneficial if we are to discount the one in current scientific usage.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 1:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 3:23 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 223 (343502)
08-26-2006 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Wounded King
08-26-2006 3:13 AM


Re: Trade-offs
You don't need to discount anything. And my having my own definition does not in any way erect a straw man of your definition. Your definition remains intact. I simply find it inadequate for dealing with the realities that interest me. It's fine for it to be recognized, and for the various mutations to be explored in its light, but when you impose it on me, require that I accept it, and treat my objections as simply a refusal to be scientific, you don't seem to recognize that all you are doing is absolutely pre-empting any possibility of having a different point of view about the very question we are discussing.

You may be right that Aegist can't go far with his worthy attempt at ecumenical dialogue as it were, but I hope you're wrong.

Why this demand for workable definitions? Sometimes we only have a ballpark idea of what we are getting at. That doesn't disqualify the effort at all. Sorry for the problem of ambiguity but that's the way reality often is. Aegist seems to get the ballpark idea. It's not that difficult.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 08-26-2006 3:13 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Hawks, posted 08-26-2006 3:49 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 197 by ReverendDG, posted 08-26-2006 5:00 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 202 by nator, posted 08-26-2006 8:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 5257 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 195 of 223 (343504)
08-26-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
08-26-2006 3:23 AM


Faith, given that this is a science forum, any evidence cited as evidence for beneficial mutations should by necessity be scientific evidence. Hence, (1) any definition for beneficial mutation must also by necessity be scientific and (2) any evidence presented would not have to be limited to direct observation, but can also include hypothesis/theories. Your rejection of evolution seems to stem from your rejection (or misunderstanding) of science. While there is no absolute reason why science should be the only way to examine the world, it is the one being dealt with here. Might I suggest that if you wish to pursue the topic of this thread using non-scientific definitions/standards of evidence that you start a new thread in another forum. Or alternatively, that you start one in the science forum questioning the validity of scientific knowledge as such.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 3:23 AM Faith 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 © 2022