Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 255 of 1104 (849034)
02-21-2019 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Minnemooseus
02-16-2019 3:15 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
I massively suspect that the vast majority of ID proponents (including yourself) have the Christian God as being the designer.
That may be, but again, it is irrelevant. I don't have a census of all ID proponents, but I do know that there are a significant number that do not claim to be Christian. But even if the "vast" majority were, so what?
ID definitely has unique properties with implications that may apply to religion. But the reverse is not the case.
Biological evolution is the change in a population from genetic change through time. Your "intelligent design" is changing the path ("guiding") evolution would take without the "intelligent design".
I think we might be getting lost in semantics, but I would probably agree here. The important distinction though would be is this a directed or undirected approach. Evolution and ID might both be working with the same matter (DNA, proteins, etc.), but the difference is in whether that work is by a directed (mind) process or undirected (random) process.
Common decent is a chain of genetic change. Certainly Behe does not subscribe to M+NS as the sole mechanism. More like M + NS + ID (aka divine genetic engineering).
Well, M+NS doesn't really comport with ID in the same instance. Behe (and most all ID proponents) would agree that M+NS does some things. But it doesn't do the other things well, or at all. Those things would be more likely to ID. (And just to make sure I'm couching these statements properly, nobody in ID is saying that evolution cannot EVER do something, nor or they saying the ID necessarily does everything.)
What we see in life is more the picture of non-design or bad design.
Well, that is what is being questioned, isn't it? You'd have to be more specific for any further response. What are you seeing that you categorize as "non-design"? As for "bad design", I'd love to know what example you mean, but I would point out that "bad design" is still "design"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-16-2019 3:15 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by AZPaul3, posted 02-21-2019 10:23 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 258 of 1104 (849048)
02-22-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by AZPaul3
02-21-2019 10:23 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Tangle writes:
It's quite interesting how far creatists have come over the last couple of centuries....
AZPaul3 writes:
Some of us know well ID’s history, its lineage....
Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.
Tangle writes:
As even more discoveries will be found, that corner is going to get even smaller and even wilder claims will be made. I'd love to be around in another 100 years to see what becomes of them.
Love this because in reality it is applying much better to Dawinian explanations. It seems that new papers are coming out weekly that put another nail into the old evolutionary explanations and the ID paradigm is becoming stronger. No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
AZPaul3 writes:
It has been near 15 years since you bloodied your nose in Dover. This, now, is a further attempt to worm your way back into the schools by trying to give ID a new non-religious (wink-wink) identity with sciencey-sounding words and concepts that most of your adherents do not even comprehend.
Dover is so overblown by evolutionists. It figures though, since the scientific support is fast waning, they have to rely on a federal judge giving a legal decision as their new science authority. Nevermind that his ruling is like +90% copied from an amicus brief provided to hiim by the ACLU. And ignoring reality seems to be the norm for evolutionists. Never mind that ID is stronger than ever now.
Please do elucidate. Where is the "further attempt to worm your way back into the schools" happening? As far as I know, the Discovery Institute publicly is against trying to teach ID in public schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by AZPaul3, posted 02-21-2019 10:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by JonF, posted 02-22-2019 2:55 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 261 by AZPaul3, posted 02-22-2019 4:45 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 262 by Tangle, posted 02-22-2019 6:19 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 272 by JonF, posted 02-24-2019 11:30 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 274 of 1104 (849109)
02-25-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Tanypteryx
02-22-2019 2:27 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Tanypteryx writes:
Can you describe how these techniques can be applied to living organisms?
Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things? Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on. You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations. You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits. You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products. You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals. There is no limitation on what you can consider for design. Why would living organisms be an exception?
What specific techniques from other scientific endeavors would be used and how would they differentiate design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design resulting from evolution?
The techiques are used in other sciences that I already mentioned. Archaelogy, forensics, cryptography. SETI is good example of looking for design signs of something that clearly would not be from humans.
Why would one have to differentiate design from one agent (known) or another agent (unknown) or presumably evolution. Design is design.
Identifying artifacts made by humans seems to have little relationship to identifying organisms created by an undetectable agent.
Design detection is not focussing on what you are implying. It is not looking for whom made an artifact, it is just determining that an artifact was 'made'. So whether an item was made by a human or not, is not the important distinction. It is just whether a thing was 'made' or not.
Or in other words, why would there have to be no relationship between them?
Can you demonstrate that micro-evolution is a different process than evolution?
Not really, because I am thinking of them as the same process. You have to define the distinction if that is needed.
The only thing I am debating is what the process can realistically produce.
Tanypteryx writes:
Wookieeb writes:
There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed.
This assertion has not been demonstrated.
No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.
What do you consider a new body plan?
What regulatory networks are you talking about?
Body plans comprise the specific arrangements of specialized organs and tissues.
For networks, things like developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) that control the timing and expression of pre-existing genes during animal development.
Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution produces new body plans and regulatory networks?
Well, to an evolutionist, what else would account for them?
Can you describe anything that requires a "measure of complex and specified information"? Can you describe a measure of complex and specified information?
How about anything IC - ribosome, ATP synthase, eye, DNA transcription or replication, kinesin, or the always popular flagellum.
Complex - relates to odds, Shannon information.
Specified - matching a pattern (or function) that is independent of the properties of the medium.
Where we have knowledge of the origin of artifacts, it has always turned out to have been man-made.
Usually, but not always. Animals have left behind artifacts that are detectable as designed.
It also turns out that humans are detectable.
This is irrelevant as to whether something is designed or not. But what do you mean by "detectable"?
An assertion without any supporting evidence
What is asserted without evidence is that M+NS can produce any significant new information.
ID is a religious fantasy depending on an undetectable designer and magic. Grow up.
Nope, no religion needed for ID. Just an inference to the best explanation based on our uniform and repeated experience that complex specified information always comes from a mind. Stop strawmanning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-22-2019 2:27 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 02-25-2019 11:49 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 282 by caffeine, posted 02-25-2019 1:45 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 283 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-25-2019 3:51 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 284 of 1104 (849131)
02-25-2019 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
Hi,.... Chicken....?
Thank you for for at least providing an example of what you think is an example of bad design. Providing real world examples as support of an idea is something that, unfortunately, your compatriots are very lax at doing.
Nevetheless, this example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) doesn't really work well for you.
First, I would again point out that even a badly designed thing is still designed, which implies a designer.
Next, I thought evolution was supposed to be good at cleaning up things that don't work. With as old as the recurrent laryngeal nerve is supposed to have first developed, you would think that the all-powerful evolution would have corrected that badly working thing? If you assume evolution, the fact that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is conserved would point to it not being a 'bad design'.
Put simply, the argument that it is 'bad' is based on the assumption that all it does is connect to the larynx, but that it is bad routing because the route goes all the way from the brain, down to the heart and back up to the larynx. Presumably, all because the nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart and had to grow long as animals evolved. For the case of the giraffe that means 20' or so of extra nerve that would be better served by a direct route from the brain to the larynx.
Is it really a 'bad design'? No. If anyone would actually have consulted an anatomy book, they probably could have surmised that. For one, there already is a nerve that goes directly from the brain to the larynx - the superior laryngeal nerve. Next, the RLN doesn't only innervate the larynx. It also innervates the trachea and esophagus. There are like 27 connections the nerve makes on it's route down the throat. It also connects to other nerves coming from the heart. And there is a suggestion that the RLN helps in embryology when the arteries are being formed.
So there are numerous functions for the RLN. Far from being a 'bad design', it appears to be doing it's jobs just fine and well.
More detailed information:
http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1507
Lastly, let me urge you be more careful about the sites you are linking. It seems you didn't check your reference, as the site you linked was from an pro-ID site, and itself was a link to an audio podcast where a scientist was explaining how the RLN isn't a bad design.
So, what's the next "bad design' candidate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-22-2019 6:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-25-2019 6:10 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 288 of 1104 (849159)
02-26-2019 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by RAZD
02-23-2019 7:19 AM


Re: problems with detecting design
And yet neither you nor anyone else on that thread actually identifies any mis-characterizing or axioms that are not true. It is facile to make a criticism without substantiating it. I'd be happy to discuss it further on that thread if you actually have an argument.
Touchy! You ask me to look at a LONG thread from like 15 years ago and with 10 years of comments on it. Then when I simply state I have some issues with the premises, you castigate me for not immediately detailing them in a somewhat unrelated thread?
So sorry! If I have time, I'll go revisit it and comment. But you all have to realize that I only have time to respond with one or two posts per day, if I can at all in a day. I'm going to be much more selective on what I'm responding to, so if I am not up to your current point, you'll have to deal with it.
Where we have known examples of things created by humans to compare them to. We have no examples of anything created by an IDr to use for comparisons. Appealing to information theory has other problems, such as definition of information and ways to actually measure it.
You're making the same category error that Tangle is. You seem to think identifying who/what the designer is is important for design detection. But it is not. Design has common properties among the various artifacts, despite who/what did the designing. It is not important to identify the designer, just to identify whether or not a thing is designed.
Granted, most designed objects we identify are made by humans. But not all are, nor do they have to be. It is irrelevant.
If I found a nest in a tree, based on characteristics of that nest, I could realistically infer that it was designed. I would not have to know whether it was from a finch or an eagle, or a seagull. I wouldn't even have to say that a bird did it necessarily, a human could have made it. None of that information matters other than that I could identify it was made by a process other than random/natural (non-mind) means.
Same as for the SETI program. If someone actually received a patterned radio signal from a far off galaxy, would we have to discount it because a human didn't create it? Of course not. It doesn't matter what 'alien type' would have made the signal, we should be able to determine if it was actually from a mind or from some other non-intelligent natural source.
This fixation on living things is the same. Any designed thing should (obviously) be able to display the characteristics of design, and that thing would be distinct in some properties from non-designed things (again obviously). The only thing that is unique for humans in this endeavor is that we are the only available thing that is able to rationally identify the differences. But what designed a thing is a distinctly different question as to whether or not a thing is designed. ID aims to address only the latter.
And yet "microevolution" is the only mechanism of change used in the study of biology and evolution. I can walk across the room and I can walk from Maine to California: one is micro-trekking the other is macro trekking, but the process - putting one foot after the other, even if it is not on a direct path - is the same. This is demonstrable, has an empirical justification, and doesn't need ID to accomplish or justify it.
Ahh, but if you want to analogize your micro-trekking and macro-trekking to evolution, they are very different animals.
For one, evolution doesn't have a target. When you start from a point in your room, you cannot specify ahead of time a successful journey target, even if such a successful journey would take you to the other end of the room. Same applies to a trek across the US. You could not pre-specify that getting to CA from Maine is a successful trip, even if that happens to be true.
So how would trekking across your room work? I'll just make some general assumptions. The 'target' spot is 12 feet away and an area 3 ft diameter circle. A single stride would be 3 feet. Now you start your trek. From a a safe point in your room, you take a stride....in what direction? It would be random. Say we limit direction to degrees, so you can take a stride in 1 of 360 directions. Your 'success' target is initially at about a 14 degree angle, so your best directional stride is a 1 in 25 chance or so. If we make that an average for a 'good' direction for all strides, and assume you take one stride a second for 24 hours a day, you are still looking at about finding your target on average about once every 4.5 days. If you want to plead keeping any initial step in the 'target' direction (or any other direction for that matter), you would have to justify that without pre-defining the target as the actual success target.
But it is readily conceivable that you could hit that target. Of course, you're only going 12 feet and we're assuming a nice smooth landscape.
Now apply the same principles to making 5,422,560 strides. (Portland ME to Los Angeles CA). That's your optimal route too. If you had an intelligently picked target and an intelligently designed route, you could do it in about 63 days if you all you did was walk. But evolution doesn't allow that sort of intelligence. Even if we allowed (via intelligence and planning or some other justification) that you could rely on hitting the islands of 'success' along the way (of the most direct route) comparable to your success in the room, it would still take you about 5.5K years to make the trip. Ahh, but wait, you'd be dead. Oh well.
To arrive at a point that could be considered a successful journey in your room in your lifetime is a much easier proposition that trekking 3081 miles and it being a successful journey, according to evolution's rules.
Unfortunately, the numbers for macro-evolution appear to be much worse than your trekking across the US.
And yet we have evidence of evolution producing such systems. Not one such system proposed by IDolgists has stood up to testing. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for an example where a purported irreducibly complex function evolved.
Operative word is "purported" Turns out it isn't all that impressive as to evolving IC.https://www.discovery.org/a/441/
I listed some of the systems proposed by ID in another thread. You mean those haven't stood up to testing? Really?!? Where?
Please define what you mean by a "new body plan" so that we may discuss this further and be on the same page.
As far as I can see all quadrupeds have the same body plan with modification via microevolution, and we can see it's origin in Tiktaalik. This does not seem to be a real problem for evolution for the development of diversity in the biological world.
...
Again, please define what you mean by a "(new) regulatory network so that we can discuss this further and be on the same page.
Body plans comprise the specific arrangements of specialized organs and tissues.
For networks, things like developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) that control the timing and expression of pre-existing genes during animal development.
And Tiktaalik isn't such a great example anymore, since tetrapod tracks were discovered that are 20 million years older than Tiktaalik.
Can you provide and example of an instance where evolution is not up to the task?
Again, I'm the one maintaining that evolution hasn't done this. So me providing and example is proving a negative. You please provide a documented example of where it has (a positive).
The BIG problem for ID is nested hierarchies:
Why do modified features in the evolution of species fall into nested hierarchies if design is involved? As a designer myself I can say that design elements are frequently borrowed from one system to another, which would show up in cross-fertilization from one line of descent to another and not in nested hierarchies.
No, design elements would not have to be done via cross-fertilization. Unless you are assuming evolution is the method, there is no reason why that would have to be so.
For instance the eye. Mammal eyes use a lens that can be flexed to change the focal length to make images focus on a fixed retina. The Cephalopod eyes use a fixed lens and a flexible eye/retina to change the position of the retina to put images in focus. A design eye could combine these two mechanisms to make a zoom lens eye that could see microscopic items (bacteria) and telescopic items (planets) with equal clarity, but such an eye does not exist in any biological species known.
I doubt this. If it was viable, I'm not sure why we don't have human inventions that do this. Any design has to take into account certain trade-offs. You can't do everything equally well at the same time or via the same mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2019 7:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2019 6:42 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 294 by RAZD, posted 02-28-2019 3:38 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 290 of 1104 (849178)
02-27-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by JonF
02-24-2019 3:43 PM


Re: Behe busted lying in "Darwin's Descent"
At Coyne and Polar Bears: Why You Should Never Rely on Incompetent Reviewers Behe posts table S7 from Liu, S., et al. 2014. Population genomics reveal recent speciation and rapid evolutionary adaptation in polar bears. Cell 157:785-794 to prove that all mutations are harmful, which he claims he proved in Darwin's Descent.
Except that Behe never makes the assertion (bolded) that ALL mutations are harmful. So your premise is wrong, which makes your argument invalid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by JonF, posted 02-24-2019 3:43 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by JonF, posted 02-27-2019 2:07 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 292 of 1104 (849190)
02-27-2019 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by JonF
02-25-2019 11:49 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
Jonf writes:
WookieeB writes:
No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.
Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation (free registration required)
Nothing special here. They take an inferred ancestral protein, change two AA's to more closely match a modern version, and show that the binding capability is less strong. The item is not even IC.
Behe responds - https://www.discovery.org/a/3415/
Takeaway - the result was exceedingly modest and well within the boundaries that an intelligent design proponent like myself would ascribe to Darwinian processes.
In fact, the followup to that experiment An epistatic ratchet constrains the direction of glucocorticoid receptor evolution demonstrates the inability for NS to have it evolve the other way (making the binding function even stronger). This vindicates Behe's contentions in the Edge of Evolution
Also the many propoosed pathways such as Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Can you demonstrate any issues with that?
No, not really an issues with it, other than it is exactly what it describes itself as... a model. Nothing of the sort has been demonstrated though. The whole thing is a 'well maybe if this happened', hypothesizing, guesses, 'possibly'.... but no demonstrations. It's not that hard to come up with a plausibly sounding model for just about any situation. But providing demonstrable evidence is a different animal.
There are a log of debatable things in that paper, like whether the T3SS is older than, younger than, or a spin-off from some ancestor version compared to the flagellum FLi complex. Take the information however you want. All I would add is that now 16 years and counting, there isn't anything in the model that has been demonstrated.
So "complex specified information" is a synonym for "irreducibly complex"? Then why have two labels?
They are not the same thing, nor synonyms for each other. Thus.... two labels.
IC relates to a system made up of interacting parts that contribute to a acheive a function of the system. (More details in past posts)
CSI - is really a probability argument that has a more rigourous form to it than your average probability statement.
CSI relates to IC, but they are not the same things.
And we know of many ways IC can evolve and have at least one example.
Then show the way(s). Your example didnt work.
BTW evolution can and does produce Shannon information.
Perhaps, though you need to clarify what/how you mean this. But Shannon information is only related to one leg of CSI. It helps provide knowledge of the probabilities, but it isnt the only factor.
If you meant to show this by the link you included next.... ...then no. That link is all about a computer simulation, not actual biology. And as a simulation, active information was smuggled into the programming, making it a better example of ID than evolution.
A Vivisection of the ev Computer Organism: Identifying Sources of Active Information
If one cannot realistically estimate the probabilities, any discussion of the relevant information is likely to be bogus.
Regarding this and the link associated with it, you seem to misunderstand what complex and specified information. The link has Shallit arguing that all CSI is looking at is Shannon information and that the idea of specified complex infomation is unique to ID. For one, Shannon information is part of, but not only, what is being looked at. And the idea is not unique to ID, but has been referred to in literature, even before the recent ID movement got going.
As to your highlighted part, it's somewhat irrelevant, because we can realistically estimate the probabilities of Shannon information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 02-25-2019 11:49 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by JonF, posted 02-28-2019 8:52 AM WookieeB has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 1032 of 1104 (913045)
10-09-2023 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by Granny Magda
10-09-2023 8:50 AM


Re: problems with detecting design
I only ask because if we use your definitions, your idiosyncratic version of the scientific method... the Theory of Evolution is a fact. An absolute fact. By your definitions.
Can you please point to the particular definition that leads you to this detemination? I'm only asking for clarity sake and don't feel like scouring the thread again to try and find the source of this claim.
By everybody else's definitions, the ones used by actual scientists (as opposed to angry fifteen year old boys ranting on the internet) the ToE is a theory, held tentatively, but with an extremely high degree of confidence.
Then secondly, if you please, might you state which definition of ToE you are referring to here. There are so many definitions out there, and I'd like to know which one you specifically refer to here.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by Granny Magda, posted 10-09-2023 8:50 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1033 by Theodoric, posted 10-09-2023 7:11 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 1035 by Granny Magda, posted 10-09-2023 7:53 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 1036 by AZPaul3, posted 10-09-2023 7:54 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 1063 of 1104 (913080)
10-10-2023 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by AZPaul3
10-09-2023 7:54 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Compare and contrast any 3 of them. Show us these other definitions, WookieB. Do they differ significantly? Does one involve dragons? Sources, of course, will be necessary and should be extensive enough to challenge the modern synthesis.
First, my response was an inquiry on Granny Magda's post Message 1 where they are referring to at least two different definitions of evolution that were not stated, but that very strong determinations were made.
Secondly, even in these forums, many various definitions are given. For example, Tangle in Message 19 said: "Evolution - ie the observation that organisms change over time - is often called a fact now because we've got so much knowledge about it." nmw in Message 28 recently said much the same thing. But that is a definition that I would suppose most people, including myself and sensei, would not have a problem with and would agree that that observation is true. But that is not where the disagreement is.
Tangle in Message 19 then gave another term. "But Universal Common Descent - a projection from the ToE - is still regarded as a hypothesis - although a strong one. There is less certainty about it" So this UCD, which is not "evolution" but is linked to it, is probably closer to what is being debated. And as both Tangle and nwr indicated, terms on this subject are rather interchangeable. But unfortunately, they have to be made clear in this instance.
Thirdly, the "evolution" they are referring to is merely what has been observed, which is (as much as can be) a fact. But the question that is being pondered relates to the mechanism of what produced what is observed. Though often described by the same word "evolution", the observation and what produced the observation are totally different things.
Thus bringing me back to my original question related to Granny Magda's post. They referred to two different definitions of evolution without specifically stating what they were. I am merely asking for clarification, or what exactly are they talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by AZPaul3, posted 10-09-2023 7:54 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1065 by AZPaul3, posted 10-10-2023 5:35 PM WookieeB has not replied
 Message 1067 by Percy, posted 10-10-2023 9:00 PM WookieeB 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