Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: Tusko
Post Volume: Total: 904,367 Year: 1,248/14,231 Month: 172/1,076 Week: 281/234 Day: 47/86 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 76 of 2806 (898095)
09-18-2022 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
09-18-2022 3:50 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
How many fixation/adaptation cycles do you think humans and chimpanzees have done?
PaulK:
I think that sexual reproduction significantly complicates the issue. There is no need for mutations to occur in the same lineage,

It doesn't complicate it as much as you think. You can do the math for recombination using a trinomial distribution. If you do the math correctly, you will understand why recombination does not defeat the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
Kleinman:
Do you mean "clonal" not "clinal"? Lenski's experiment operates by the most fit variant with the previous beneficial mutation fixes and as that subset accumulates replications over generations, the probability of the next beneficial mutation occurring on one of its members increases. This occurs in a sequential manner.
PaulK:
Yes, I meant clonal. And the auto “correct” feature insisted on changing it to “clinal”.

However your reply has nothing to do with your assertion that the most beneficial mutation would fix first, followed by the second most beneficial.

That's what Lenski's experiment shows. Some member of the most fit variant sub-population gets an adaptive mutation and that new variant ultimately drives the now less fit variants to extinction. The probability that the new variant gets another adaptive mutation depends on the number of replications it does. The probability that any particular variant gets two adaptive mutations before fixation in that experiment is very low because of the low population sizes being used.
It's the same math as if two selection conditions are used simultaneously. For example, Kishony's experiment doesn't work when he uses two drugs simultaneously. Some member of the population has to get two adaptive mutations before it can grow in the next higher drug-concentration region. In order to have resonable probabilities for that to happen, Kishony would need a much much larger mega-plate. The colony size would have to reach about a trillion. If you are interested, here's a paper that shows how to do the math:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
Kleinman:
Kishony correctly recognizes that each adaptive mutation requires about a billion replications. Each time some variant gets an adaptive mutation, it must form a new colony which must achieve a population size sufficient for there to be a reasonable probability for the next adaptive mutation to occur on one of its members. This is due to the multiplication rule of probabilities.
PaulK:
That seems to have more to do with clonal reproduction. And even then it only tells us that a sequence of microevolutionary events will take time. Not that they cannot add up to a macro evolutionary event.

It works the same empirically with sexually reproducing organisms. Common empirical examples of this are the use of combination herbicides and combination pesticides when dealing with weeds and insects in agriculture, both of which are sexually reproducing organisms. Likewise, HIV does recombination but it does not defeat the use of combination therapy. You should learn how to do the math of random recombination. If you can't figure it out, I'll show you how to do the math. Only in very specific instances will recombination lead to variants with beneficial alleles recombining to give offspring with multiple adaptive alleles. You still have the multiplication rule when considering biological adaptive evolution in sexually reproducing organisms.
Kleinman:
Equations (12,13) show how you apply the multiplication rule to compute the joint probability for a lineage to accumulate a set of adaptive mutations.
PaulK:
Your equations do not seem to offer any reason why a number of microevolutionary events cannot add up to macroevolution.

These equations give the mathematica! reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive transition in a single selection pressure evolutionary process. When the probability of success for an adaptive mutation occurring in a single replication is the beneficial mutation rate, you will need a large number of replications to have a reasonable probability of at least one of those events occurring. Here's a simple analogy to help you understand:
Consider if for your family to survive that your family needs to win two lotteries. And the probability of winning one lottery is 1 in a million, and the probability of winning the other lottery is 1 in a million. For you to win both lotteries, that probability is 1 in a million times 1 in a million equals 1 in a trillion, a very low probability indeed. But let's say, you win one of those lotteries. And because of this, you are a very wealthy man and you can raise a very large family. And all your descendants start buying tickets to the second lottery. As soon as you have enough descendants, there will be a high probability that one of your descendants wins that second lottery for your family.
The probability of an adaptive mutation occurring on some variant in a population depends on the number of replications that variant does and the mutation rate, nothing else. There are lots of factors that affect that variant from doing the necessary number of replications for the next adaptive mutation. Competition is one of those factors. It is also possible that a single adaptive mutation does not exist for the given selection conditions. But it all comes down to the fact that the number of replications and the mutation rate determine that probability. And adaptive evolutionary events don't add, they are linked by the multiplication rule as are your chances of winning two lotteries are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 09-18-2022 3:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 12:24 AM Kleinman has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5561
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 77 of 2806 (898099)
09-18-2022 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 5:07 PM


Re: Video not available
What principles of aeronautical engineering did the Wright Brothers get wrong?
The same number that they got right: none!
They were bicycle mechanics, not engineers. Like almost all those aeronautical pioneers, they tinkered together their aircraft primarily by guess and by golly and as such, many died when their aircraft would break up in mid-flight because of stresses that none of them knew how to deal with or design for. The ones who went on to create the aerospace industry were just lucky to have not crashed. In 1912, Glenn L. Martin flew the seaplane that he had built himself from Newport Beach to Catalina Island and back, breaking the over-water record. He also had no training in engineering but rather was a tinkerer, so he's lucky that he survived that flight to go on to form the Glenn L. Martin Company which has gone on to be merged with many other companies (eg, Lockheed-Martin).
Jack Northrop was one of the first ones to analyze those stresses using the geometry and physics that he had learned in high school. His aeronautical career started in 1916 when he was hired by the Loughead brothers (they changed their name later to Lockheed). That was more than a decade after the Wright brothers' 1903 flight at Kitty Hawk.
Donald Douglas was the first one to arrive with an actual engineering degree (the first BS Aeronautical Engineering degree earned at MIT, 1914), going to work for Glenn L. Martin in 1915. Commentary in Blue Sky Metropolis (PBS) about Douglas' main contribution was that now you could build an airplane that was a little less likely to break your neck.
So the Wright Brothers knew nothing about aeronautical engineering, but rather tinkered their way along. Which supports ringo's remark:
ringo writes:
That's like bringing up the Wright Brothers in a discussion about twenty-first-century aviation.
Twenty-first-century aviation involves a helluva lot of engineering. The Wright Brothers involved none!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:07 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:10 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 78 of 2806 (898101)
09-18-2022 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dwise1
09-18-2022 9:32 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
What principles of aeronautical engineering did the Wright Brothers get wrong?
dwise1:
The same number that they got right: none!

dwise1 thinks that the inventors of powered flight knew nothing about aeronautical engineering. When is dwise1 going to give us his explanation of the physics and math of Darwinian evolution? That really won't fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 09-18-2022 9:32 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dwise1, posted 09-18-2022 11:32 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5561
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 79 of 2806 (898102)
09-18-2022 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 11:10 PM


Re: Video not available
What a fucking idiot you are! Did creationism make you that way? Or were you already damaged and was attracted to creationism?
Learn the history some time. Aeronautical engineering had to be developed (with MIT's first degree presented a full decade after Kitty Hawk), so in the meantime they had to tinker and stumble their way through it (and do a lot of crashing).
The mathematics of studying evolution came long after Darwin with neo-Darwinism. Why don't you ask about Darwin's mathematical explanation of genetics? He didn't provide one because we didn't know about genetics yet! And the development of the mathematics of population genetics also didn't come until after Darwin. So why do you keep harping on about Darwinian evolution? You may as well ask about all the creationist research I did on the Internet in 1980.
The bullshit is strong in you. Please take a bath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 11:10 PM Kleinman has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 80 of 2806 (898104)
09-19-2022 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 5:16 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
It doesn't complicate it as much as you think. You can do the math for recombination using a trinomial distribution. If you do the math correctly, you will understand why recombination does not defeat the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
So you think that HIV reproduces sexually,
Aside from that sexual reproduction does away with the need for your cycles so it is still an important factor.
quote:
That's what Lenski's experiment shows.
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t show that the second mutation to be fixed has to be less adaptive than the first or more adaptive than any other mutations in the wider population.
quote:
It works the same empirically with sexually reproducing organisms. Common empirical examples of this are the use of combination herbicides and combination pesticides when dealing with weeds and insects in agriculture, both of which are sexually reproducing organisms.
Haldane showed that a combination of selective pressures would work decades ago, for other reasons.
And, of course, you can’t generalise a special case to a more normal situation.
quote:
These equations give the mathematica! reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive transition in a single selection pressure evolutionary process
You’d have to put numbers to them to get that answer. The equations alone won’t do that.
And you still haven’t explained how microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution, just as I predicted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:16 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2022 12:46 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 83 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 2:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5561
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 81 of 2806 (898105)
09-19-2022 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
09-19-2022 12:24 AM


Re: Video not available
And you still haven’t explained how microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution, just as I predicted.
Of course he hasn't. He's a creationist. Creationists only know to follow their scripts. Outside of their scripts, they don't know what to say, so they just keep repeating their scripts. They cannot even think, but rather all they can do is to follow their scripts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 12:24 AM PaulK has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20832
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 82 of 2806 (898122)
09-19-2022 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Kleinman
09-18-2022 5:07 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman writes:
What principles of aeronautical engineering did the Wright Brothers get wrong?
They didn't know anything about supersonic flight, for example.
Kleinman writes:
Do you think Darwin got biological evolutionary competition and descent with modification wrong?
He didn't know anything about genetics, for example.
The point is, why are you stuck in the past? Why not just call it "evolution": instead of "Darwinism"?
Kleinman writes:
At least you have some idea of what a conservation principle is.
I didn't say anything about conservation principles. I was suggesting a reason for the bullshit coming out of you: bullshit in (from creationist sources), bullshit out.
Kleinman writes:
Now, only if you could figure out how to apply it to Darwinian Evolution.
Again, why not just "Evolution"?

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Kleinman, posted 09-18-2022 5:07 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 2:43 PM ringo has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 83 of 2806 (898139)
09-19-2022 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by PaulK
09-19-2022 12:24 AM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
It doesn't complicate it as much as you think. You can do the math for recombination using a trinomial distribution. If you do the math correctly, you will understand why recombination does not defeat the use of combination therapy for the treatment of HIV.
PaulK:
So you think that HIV reproduces sexually,

Aside from that sexual reproduction does away with the need for your cycles so it is still an important factor.


HIV does recombination. If you want, I'll provide you with links to papers where they show this.
As for recombination reducing cycles, it doesn't when producing adaptive alleles. What I think you are trying to point out that in some population, you will have one parent with a beneficial allele (call that allele A) at one locus and the other parent having a beneficial allele (call that allele B) at a different locus and when those parents breed, they can produce an offspring with both beneficial alleles A and B. Let's put this into the context of a real situation. One farmer uses a herbicide on his field that selects for allele A and a different farmer uses a different herbicide on a different field that selects for allele B. Both farmers are treating the same weed. So, some of the weeds have allele A, other weeds have allele B, and the remaining weeds have neither allele A nor allele B (call those allele C). What is the probability distribution function that describes this problem and compute the probability that you will get an A parent and a B parent giving an AB offspring as a function of population size, and frequencies of A, B, and C members.
Kleinman:
That's what Lenski's experiment shows.
PaulK:
No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t show that the second mutation to be fixed has to be less adaptive than the first or more adaptive than any other mutations in the wider population.

Read this paper by Lenski:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/...10.1098/rspb.2015.2292
Lenski:
A recent study showed that fitness trajectories of Escherichia coli populations over 50 000 generations were better described by a power-law model than by a hyperbolic model. According to the power-law model, the rate of fitness gain declines over time but fitness has no upper limit, whereas the hyperbolic model implies a hard limit. Here, we examine whether the previously estimated power-law model predicts the fitness trajectory for an additional 10 000 generations. To that end, we conducted more than 1100 new competitive fitness assays. Consistent with the previous study, the power-law model fits the new data better than the hyperbolic model.
Kleinman:
It works the same empirically with sexually reproducing organisms. Common empirical examples of this are the use of combination herbicides and combination pesticides when dealing with weeds and insects in agriculture, both of which are sexually reproducing organisms.
PaulK:
Haldane showed that a combination of selective pressures would work decades ago, for other reasons.

And, of course, you can’t generalise a special case to a more normal situation.

There are no empirical examples that show that a population evolves more rapidly as they are subject to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
Kleinman:
These equations give the mathematica! reason why it takes a billion replications for each adaptive transition in a single selection pressure evolutionary process
PaulK:
You’d have to put numbers to them to get that answer. The equations alone won’t do that.

And you still haven’t explained how microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution, just as I predicted.

The only numbers you need to use are the mutation rate and population size.
The reason why microevolutionary events don't add is they random events. You must compute the joint probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 12:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 3:08 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 84 of 2806 (898140)
09-19-2022 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
09-19-2022 11:43 AM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
At least you have some idea of what a conservation principle is.
ringo:
I didn't say anything about conservation principles. I was suggesting a reason for the bullshit coming out of you: bullshit in (from creationist sources), bullshit out.

Didn't they teach you in your physics class (perhaps you didn't take one) that you compute a conservation principle by what goes in must come out or stays inside? So try applying that principle to biological evolutionary competition and see what you get.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 09-19-2022 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 09-19-2022 9:50 PM Kleinman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 85 of 2806 (898144)
09-19-2022 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Kleinman
09-19-2022 2:38 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
As for recombination reducing cycles, it doesn't when producing adaptive alleles.
It obviously does away with the need to wait until the population with the first beneficial mutation reaches sufficient size,
quote:
Let's put this into the context of a real situation. One farmer uses a herbicide on his field that selects for allele A and a different farmer uses a different herbicide on a different field that selects for allele B.
This looks like an artificial example which would produce more heat than light.
quote:
Read this paper by LenskI
I should point out that fitness is relative, which will affect the calculation. As Lenski points out, the more fit the population, the less effect a beneficial mutation is likely to have.
quote:
There are no empirical examples that show that a population evolves more rapidly as they are subject to multiple simultaneous selection pressures.
As Haldane worked out decades ago. Nice to see he was right.
quote:
The only numbers you need to use are the mutation rate and population size
Wrong. You would need to know the mutation rate and the proportion of beneficial mutations.
quote:
The reason why microevolutionary events don't add is they random events. You must compute the joint probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition
That’s just silly. Events are not probabilities. If you toss a coin continually adding the times it comes up heads, how would you react to somebody who said “the reason Heads don’t add is they are random events. You must compute the probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition.”?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 2:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 3:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 86 of 2806 (898146)
09-19-2022 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by PaulK
09-19-2022 3:08 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
As for recombination reducing cycles, it doesn't when producing adaptive alleles.
PaulK:
It obviously does away with the need to wait until the population with the first beneficial mutation reaches sufficient size,

Sure, that's why they use combination herbicides and pesticides in agriculture.
Kleinman:
Let's put this into the context of a real situation. One farmer uses a herbicide on his field that selects for allele A and a different farmer uses a different herbicide on a different field that selects for allele B.
PaulK:
This looks like an artificial example which would produce more heat than light.

OK, so you formulate what you think is a realistic example and show us how to do the math of random recombination.
Kleinman:
Read this paper by LenskI
PaulK:
I should point out that fitness is relative, which will affect the calculation. As Lenski points out, the more fit the population, the less effect a beneficial mutation is likely to have.

You claimed that the sequence of adaptive mutations and fitness gain in the Lenski experiment doesn't decline over time. In Lenski's published words, he says they do.
Kleinman:
The only numbers you need to use are the mutation rate and population size
PaulK:
Wrong. You would need to know the mutation rate and the proportion of beneficial mutations.

I could have worded that better. It is the size of the population with would benefit from the particular mutation. The total population size or proportion of beneficial mutations does not affect that probability.
Kleinman:
The reason why microevolutionary events don't add is they random events. You must compute the joint probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition
PaulK:
That’s just silly. Events are not probabilities. If you toss a coin continually adding the times it comes up heads, how would you react to somebody who said “the reason Heads don’t add is they are random events. You must compute the probability of random events occurring using multiplication, not addition.”?

So you think that joint random events are mutually exclusive events? What happens when the probability of the first adaptive mutation occurring is 0.98 and the probability of the second adaptive mutation occurring is 0.97? Is the probability of those two events occuring 1.95?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 3:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 3:46 PM Kleinman has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17395
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 87 of 2806 (898147)
09-19-2022 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Kleinman
09-19-2022 3:38 PM


Re: Video not available
quote:
Sure, that's why they use combination herbicides and pesticides in agriculture.
They would work anyway.
quote:
OK, so you formulate what you think is a realistic example and show us how to do the math of random recombination
Maybe later.
quote:
You claimed that the sequence of adaptive mutations and fitness gain in the Lenski experiment doesn't decline over time. In Lenski's published words, he says they do.
No, I didn’t. I said that the order of fixation doesn’t depend on how beneficial the mutations are. It’s the order that affects the relative fitness gains, not the reverse,
quote:
So you think that joint random events are mutually exclusive events?
No.
quote:
What happens when the probability of the first adaptive mutation occurring is 0.98 and the probability of the second adaptive mutation occurring is 0.97? Is the probability of those two events occuring 1.95
Don’t be silly. I’m saying that if both happen you have two beneficial mutations. That’s what it means to count.
Now, are you going to explain why a sequence of microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 3:38 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 7:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 88 of 2806 (898157)
09-19-2022 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
09-19-2022 3:46 PM


Re: Video not available
Kleinman:
What happens when the probability of the first adaptive mutation occurring is 0.98 and the probability of the second adaptive mutation occurring is 0.97? Is the probability of those two events occuring 1.95
PaulK:
Don’t be silly. I’m saying that if both happen you have two beneficial mutations. That’s what it means to count.

Now, are you going to explain why a sequence of microevolutionary events can’t add up to macroevolution?

So, how many beneficial mutations do humans have compared to chimpanzees have you counted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2022 3:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 09-19-2022 7:45 PM Kleinman has replied
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2022 12:19 AM Kleinman has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 8105
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 89 of 2806 (898158)
09-19-2022 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kleinman
09-19-2022 7:34 PM


First
Can you define a beneficial mutation?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 7:34 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Kleinman, posted 09-19-2022 8:34 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Kleinman
Member
Posts: 1687
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2016


Message 90 of 2806 (898161)
09-19-2022 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Theodoric
09-19-2022 7:45 PM


Re: First
Theodoric:
Can you define a beneficial mutation?
That's a reasonable question.
A beneficial mutation is a mutation that gives improve reproductive fitness to that variant with respect to related variants without that particular mutation. This is manifested by the greater population size of that variant with that beneficial mutation than those related variants without that beneficial mutation. A neutral mutation does not change the reproductive fitness of the particular variant with respect to those related variants without that neutral mutation. And a detrimental mutation reduces the reproductive fitness of those variants with that detrimental mutation with respects to those related variants without that detrimental mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Theodoric, posted 09-19-2022 7:45 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Theodoric, posted 09-19-2022 8:49 PM Kleinman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023