Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why should ID be taught in science classes...
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 61 of 105 (437235)
11-29-2007 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Fosdick
11-29-2007 11:05 AM


Re: Decrease in genetic information
Hoot Mon writes:
... I'd say that any mutation that reduces the number of alleles in a population would also decrease that population's genetic information.
What "population"? I'm talking about one DNA molecule. Gamma ray zings past and bumps a few atoms over a notch or two. How is there a change in "amount" of information at that level?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 11:05 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 62 of 105 (437244)
11-29-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ringo
11-29-2007 11:21 AM


Re: Decrease in genetic information
Ringo writes:
What "population"? I'm talking about one DNA molecule. Gamma ray zings past and bumps a few atoms over a notch or two. How is there a change in "amount" of information at that level?
If your DNA molecule lost an allele by way of mutation why doesn't that mean that your DNA molecule suffered a decrease in genetic information?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ringo, posted 11-29-2007 11:21 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 11-29-2007 12:10 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2007 12:11 PM Fosdick has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 63 of 105 (437250)
11-29-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Fosdick
11-29-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Decrease in genetic information
Hoot Mon writes:
If your DNA molecule lost an allele by way of mutation why doesn't that mean that your DNA molecule suffered a decrease in genetic information?
The topic has to do with what is taught in science classes. What I'm asking has to do with how it would be taught in science classes.
In a science class, if they teach that mutations are rearrangements of the DNA molecule, how would IDists show that those rearrangements can only produce a net decrease in information?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 11:47 AM Fosdick has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 64 of 105 (437251)
11-29-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Fosdick
11-29-2007 11:47 AM


Re: Decrease in genetic information
Your DNA would gain an alternative mutant allele at the same time it lost its original allele. Now the allele might be a null allele but that is beside the point. You might make a case if the mutation happened to turn a heterozygote into a homozygote for a particular allele, but that is pretty far fetched in terms of point mutations.
Unless you can tell us how to comparatively measure the information of different alleles we can't say whether the point mutation changed the amount of genetic information or in what direction.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 11:47 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 1:05 PM Wounded King has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 65 of 105 (437263)
11-29-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Wounded King
11-29-2007 12:11 PM


Re: Decrease in genetic information
WK writes:
Unless you can tell us how to comparatively measure the information of different alleles we can't say whether the point mutation changed the amount of genetic information or in what direction.
I see your point. Questions: On a very broad scale of genetic information, would you say a bacterium has more or less of it than a human? On a narrower scale would you say a hummingbird has more or less of it than a crocodile? My point is that somewhere there must be measurable differences in genetic information. I don't know why mutations couldn't accomplish that, because corrupted alleles would be nulled, as you dsay.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2007 12:11 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2007 6:05 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 95 by Beretta, posted 12-01-2007 2:57 AM Fosdick has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 105 (437267)
11-29-2007 1:12 PM


Topic folk
Why should ID be taught in science classes...

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 2:20 PM jar has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 67 of 105 (437283)
11-29-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Beretta
11-29-2007 9:42 AM


Re: How would ID's Supernatural-based Science Work?
Beretta writes:
So? Those precursors are needed for the secretory system -at what point did they stop secreting and get in line to motor and gradually get organized into a flagellum. Isn't there still a secretory function ongoing in the bacterium? You have to be an evolutionist to imagine the natural selection pathway that kept a non-functional part way flagellum going while it organized itself into something that worked. Did the bacteria decide that it needed to go somewhere? Did its inner working parts randomly mutate according to its desire to head out there? If my ancestors and I all really felt that flying would be a useful function, would our random generational mutations eventually make that happen. And when our wings were just getting started, of what value would they be? Is natural selection likely to select them if they are halfway there and have no purpose yet.
Your objections all have easy answers, but this isn't the proper thread for a discussion of the basics of evolution. Your core problem is obvious: whenever called upon to present the evidence for ID, you instead criticize evolution.
What's more, your criteria for which scientific information you accept is contradictory. You accept that scientists can decipher biological processes like the type III secretory system, but not that they can decipher the mechanisms behind hereditary change.
You need to provide a description of what ID scientists understand about the design and construction of things like the bacterial flagellum. For example, just as scientists explain the development of the bacterial flagellum in terms of a process involving descent with modification combined with natural selection, IDists need to explain things like how the designer makes the change within the genome, whether the change was sudden or gradual over some number of generations, whether there is evidence of the change in the genes, whether the modification happens as part of the reproductive process or to a mature organism, and whether the change happens to just one individual or to many.
For sexual species it would involve questions like whether the change is made for a male and female simultaneously, and if so what mechanisms does it use to make sure the modified male and female breed with each other. Does the change involve only genetic modifications to sperm and egg, or to the genome of mature individuals, in which case you'd have to ask if it affects morphology. And lastly, of course, there's the question of evidence for the actual designer.
But right now there's nothing for ID to teach except that God did it, and of course, science doesn't believe that, and it makes no sense to teach that something is science when it isn't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 9:42 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Beretta, posted 12-01-2007 5:29 AM Percy has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 68 of 105 (437290)
11-29-2007 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
11-29-2007 1:12 PM


Re: Topic folk
jar writes:
Why should ID be taught in science classes...
Because it would be useful as a negative example to demonstrate the value of the scientific method?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 11-29-2007 1:12 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 11-29-2007 4:45 PM Fosdick has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 69 of 105 (437307)
11-29-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Beretta
11-29-2007 4:40 AM


Re: How would ID's Supernatural-based Science Work?
{sigh} Beretta, Beretta, Beretta, ...
Why must you insist on taking all these PRATT-falls? I have seen Chevy Chase. You are no Chevy Chase.
Bananas are an example of human design. God didn't do that one, Man did. That has to be one of the most idiotic claims that creationists have ever come up with, more idiotic even than "then why are there still monkeys?". That some many creationists have glommed so eagerly onto it speaks volumes of the intellect of the creationist community. I can't help but notice how desparately you are clinging to it. Recognize it for the sheer crap that it is and drop it like a turd. Sheesh!
dwise1 writes:
A primary goal of ID is to change science fundamentally so that it makes use of supernaturalistic explanations
Making use of supernatural explanations for origins doesn't change anything since the fact of natural selection and variation are what is used in science.Please tell me what you disagree with in that statement.
God may have dun it but scientific progress carries on - we are not going to perform experimentation via the miraculous, we are going to carry on working with natural laws and how can that possibly threaten science or scientists for that matter?
I answered that in the OP of the So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? topic. Supernaturalistic explanations are untestable, how could scientific methodology based on supernaturalistic explanations possibly work? Please describe how any experiment could be devised and conducted to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis?
Furthermore, having a "answer" like "Goddidit" brings scientific inquiry to a screeching halt. Not only does it remove an incentive to answer a question that's already been "answered", but that "answer" provides incentive to look no further. The god of ID is the same one as the god of "creation science": the God of the Gaps. The God of the Gaps exists and operate within the gaps of our knowledge. God of the Gaps theology says that if a natural cause for something is found, then "God didn't do it" and the realm of the God of the Gaps has been diminished. This leads to the idea that science attacks God as it advances human knowledge. It ignores the idea of God as "Sovereign over Nature", who is able to use Nature to His own ends, such that a natural cause of a phenomenon does not in the least bit rule out God ultimately being behind it.
But, you see, neither ID nor creationism believe that. They believe that finding natural causes serve to disprove their god. Which is true of their God of the Gaps.
So, as Wakefield observed at the end of his article on investigating Gentry's polonium-halo claims, when a scientist sees a mystery, he wants to solve it. But a creationist to whom that mystery is proof of God will want to make that mystery remain a mystery. The text of that observation is the last one in my signature.
Whether God was involved or not is totally irrelevant to questions of how the natural universe works. The question of whether or not God exists (or in which of the multitude of different forms attributed to "God") or whether this "God" was involved is strictly a matter of theology and philosophy, not of science. While science does not involve itself in philosophical materialism (the theological/philosophical idea that the supernatural does not exist), it must for extremely practical purposes employ methodological materialism, which is that it restricts itself to only those kinds of explanations that it could possibly deal with, which are naturalistic explanations. Science could not possibly deal with the supernatural, so it must preclude appeal to supernaturalistic explanations. One the big fundamental lies of ID is to accuse science of philosophical materialism and to then use that as justification to reform science so that it will be forced to use supernaturalistic explanations, specifically "Goddidit".
dwise1 writes:
I stated before that adopting ID would kill science. You scoffed at that statement. I have offered support for my position; you have offered none.
I wonder if what is above answers your question.How do you think ID kills science -exactly???
No, you did not answer it.
I did explain why including supernaturalistic explanations would kill science: in the should creationism be taught in schools?, in the So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? topic, and here. What part of my explanation do you not understand?
Please take it to the So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? topic, where discussion of it will be on-topic.

{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, No webpage found at provided URL: 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 4:40 AM Beretta has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 70 of 105 (437313)
11-29-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Fosdick
11-29-2007 2:20 PM


Re: Topic folk
Agreed. A brief discussion of ID could serve to :
1. Present the difference between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism.
2. Demonstrate why supernatualistic explanations have no place in science, hence the practical need for methodological materialism. Would also be a way to introduce basic scientific method.
3. Present the idea that science could not possibly be used to prove or disprove God and that all attempts to do so would be highly suspect. This in turn would teach that science is not antagonist towards religion, maybe along the lines of "religion saying that God created and science explaining how."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 2:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 7:32 PM dwise1 has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 71 of 105 (437359)
11-29-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dwise1
11-29-2007 4:45 PM


Empiricism
dwise1 writes:
Agreed. A brief discussion of ID could serve to :
1. Present the difference between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism.
I'm a little confused by this. Do you mean ID would be proven to have or not to have empiricism? I'm not sure who needs to differentiate philosophical materialism from methodological materialism? Isn't that already pretty obvious to everyone?
3. Present the idea that science could not possibly be used to prove or disprove God and that all attempts to do so would be highly suspect.
Or, alternatively, just say that God is not empirical and therefore falls off the table of scientific consideration.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dwise1, posted 11-29-2007 4:45 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 11-29-2007 8:17 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 100 by Beretta, posted 12-01-2007 5:44 AM Fosdick has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 72 of 105 (437376)
11-29-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Fosdick
11-29-2007 7:32 PM


Re: Empiricism
What I'm basically saying is that by briefly discussing ID, it would be an opportunity to cover some concepts with the class. Basically a "here's why these statements are wrong". Kind of goes with my attitude that science education should not just tell you the findings of science, but rather must also teach how we had arrived at those findings. Not only does that defuse most creationist claims, but it also makes learning science so much more interesting; my sister's son once told me that he hated science class because all they did was to memorize a lot of unrelated facts, whereas in my family we all loved science because we would also look into where those facts came from.
For an example of a concept that could be covered, one of the big bitches that ID has with science is that it is materialistic. We frequently see the cdesign proponentists parrotting this as caricaturizing science as "molecules to man, matter is all there is". They are of course wrong and misrepresenting what science actually says. This was presented to me as philosophical materialism vs methodological materialism, so the terms used in the philosophy of science may be different; sorry if my terminology is the source of confusion. Philosophical materialism would indeed be the view that "matter is all there is" and that is what ID accuses science as teaching. But they're wrong, because what science actually teaches is methodological materialism, in which science chooses to limit itself to only dealing with the material universe.
Again, a brief discussion of ID allows the teacher to present and discuss the difference between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism so that the students can learn that there is a difference.
Isn't that already pretty obvious to everyone?
Obviously not to IDists nor to cdesign proponentists. Nor would it have been to any students who had already been exposed to ID rhetorics.
dwise1 writes:
3. Present the idea that science could not possibly be used to prove or disprove God and that all attempts to do so would be highly suspect.
Or, alternatively, just say that God is not empirical and therefore falls off the table of scientific consideration.
OK, however. The main point being to touch on the relationship between science and religion (eg, Wikipedia article at Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia) to show that there should be no inherent conflict or antagonism between the two. As it is, some theists, especially among fundamentalist, as well as some atheists/agnostics do believe such a conflict exists, so I would think that it would be beneficial to defuse the situations that would cause. It should also enable the students to take a more mature view of that question and hopefully make them less likely to fall for "creation science's" either-or rhetorics. I may be a bit overoptimistic here, but we've got to try something to promote the truth.
PS
In a report on NPR's Monday All Things Considered, an evangelical Christian minister turned environmentalist started off (at about 05:00 in the audio) stating "I was one of those very conservative evangelicals who thought to be faithful you had to be at war with science."
To me, this demonstrates a prevailing fundamentalist attitude towards science.
You can listen to "Mayors Take Action as Texas Slacks on Climate" at Mayors Take Action as Texas Slacks on Climate : NPR.
PPS
To amplify on the preceding, in the Fundamenalism section of that Wikipedia article, Science_and_religion, we find:
quote:
Most significantly, {fundamentalists} are openly hostile to the scientific community as a whole, and to what they call "scientific materialism".
"scientific materialism" links to the article on Naturalism at Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia whose 3rd and 4th paragraphs read:
quote:
Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation-evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism and conflate it with metaphysical naturalism. These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports "theistic science" or pseudoscience.
Edited by dwise1, : PS
Edited by dwise1, : science education needs to teach where those conclusions come from
Edited by dwise1, : PPS

{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, No webpage found at provided URL: 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 7:32 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Fosdick, posted 11-30-2007 10:36 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2007 7:57 PM dwise1 has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 73 of 105 (437449)
11-30-2007 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Fosdick
11-29-2007 1:05 PM


Re: Decrease in genetic information
My point is that somewhere there must be measurable differences in genetic information.
There are lots, principally because there are lots of different metrics by which 'genetic information' can be measured. The point is that to discuss a specific claim like 'mutations can only decrease genetic information', we have to be using the same metric or the discussion is meaningless.
We could measure the size of the genome, the number of genes, the proportion of coding to non-coding DNA or any number of things that might be colloquially considered measures of genetic information and that is before we get onto the information theoretic measures like Shannon information, Shannon entropy, Kolmogorov complexity, etc...
As far as I know though absolutely none of these metrics would be compatible with the idea that point mutations must lead to a decrease in information.
I don't know why mutations couldn't accomplish that, because corrupted alleles would be nulled, as you dsay.
I'm not sure what these things have to do with each other. Can mutations effect changes in the amount of genetic information? Certainly in fact they are the obvious mechanism which does, but that change can be of varying magnitudes and in either direction or even laterally. But this has nothing to do with the fact that some mutations can create null alleles, that may be one example of a change in genetic information but without an agreed metric and knowing exactly what the mutation was we can't say if it is or what sort of change.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Fosdick, posted 11-29-2007 1:05 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fosdick, posted 11-30-2007 10:50 AM Wounded King has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 74 of 105 (437456)
11-30-2007 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Beretta
11-29-2007 9:26 AM


Re: How would ID's Supernatural-based Science Work?
Which contained all the genetic material found in a modern banana -nothing added; some information lost perhaps, but not added.
Where does evolution say anything about addition or subtraction? It's a straw-man concept peddled by creationists. Evolution is based on mutation.
Anyway, as others have pointed out you're just moving the goalposts. The original claim was that God created the modern banana for human hands. It's a claim is clearly false.
You should wonder what else you are being lied to about...
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2007 9:26 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Beretta, posted 12-01-2007 6:38 AM RickJB has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 75 of 105 (437488)
11-30-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by dwise1
11-29-2007 8:17 PM


Re: Empiricism
dewise1 writes:
The main point being to touch on the relationship between science and religion (eg, Wikipedia article at Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia) to show that there should be no inherent conflict or antagonism between the two.
I don't know why a real scientist should give a sh!t about any of this. Science has a much to do with religion as a volcano has to do with the uplifting powers of salvation. Scientists don't ever go to religion for validation, but the reverse certainly is true. That's what creationism and ID are attempting to do”to invoke scientific principles to "prove" their points. The most important thing a biology student can learn is difference between empiricism and faith.
Yes, creationism and ID should be discussed in an entry-level biology class that adresses evolution. It would be the best way I know of to break that senseless notion that science and religion are compatible or related to each other.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 11-29-2007 8:17 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Granny Magda, posted 11-30-2007 1:44 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 80 by dwise1, posted 11-30-2007 3:27 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 102 by Beretta, posted 12-01-2007 6:42 AM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024