RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,12:46   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 10 2008,10:58)
Can you please point me again to the living coral evidence you spoke about?

Thanks.

I had started with FOSSIL coral intraspecific morphological variation, because it should have been clear, even to you, that Schindewolf was avoiding testing his hypothesis. Since you completely ignored that evidence, there was no reason to cite evidence from living corals:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry97708

You confidently claimed, "They're definitely inherited from generation to generation," Dan. Please tell me:

1) What evidence you used to reach this explicitly DEFINITE conclusion, and
2) If it was inherited, what evidence do you have on the amount of polymorphism within coral species or colonies.

Thanks!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,19:17   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 10 2008,10:46)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 10 2008,10:58)
Can you please point me again to the living coral evidence you spoke about?

Thanks.

I had started with FOSSIL coral intraspecific morphological variation, because it should have been clear, even to you, that Schindewolf was avoiding testing his hypothesis. Since you completely ignored that evidence, there was no reason to cite evidence from living corals:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....ry97708

That link just takes me back to page 1 of this thread.
   
Quote
You confidently claimed, "They're definitely inherited from generation to generation," Dan. Please tell me:

1) What evidence you used to reach this explicitly DEFINITE conclusion, and
2) If it was inherited, what evidence do you have on the amount of polymorphism within coral species or colonies.

Thanks!

For 1: I was going exclusively on the evidence presented for the "developing" suture lines in Schindewolf's book (see Fig. 3.46 on pg. 151 for an example).  I then made the assumption that, because these suture lines changed over time, they represented an inherited factor.  I did not seek out any other sources.  So, in retrospect, I should have never said "definitely".

For 2: I don't have any.  That's not to say that there isn't any in Schindewolf's book, but I'm not remembering any right now.

BTW, Schindewolf did study living corals, he mentions studying the living coral Scleractinia on page 151.  

One of my biggest problems JAM is that I can't seem to retain much of what I read (especially when it's over my head).  I'm learning this stuff in bits and pieces so I might not be able to give you specific answers to your questions - which is why I often speak in generalities.

I just ran across this in Schindewolf's book:
Quote
With corals, too, if preservational conditions have been favorable we are fortunate to have access to the entire developmental history of the skeletal elements of a singel individual, from its first appearance on.  We can take a series of cross sections from the calcareous corallite and, using them, follow in every detail the origin and transformation of the septa,
pg.149

I wasn't aware that it was possible to actually see the development of an individual in the fossil record!  Not that this proves anything, I just found it interesting.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,19:26   

Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 09 2008,11:56)
Otto Heinrich, the cherry-picker:
     
Quote
Schindewolf, pp. 291-295 (continuing from the previous excerpt):

...And yet, this [he means inexorable increase in size] is by no means always the case; extremely often it is just the opposite, that extinct, ancient animal forms are characterized by unusual size, and the layman is indeed inclined to imagine these, without exception, as gigantic monsters.

In fact, we know that among extinct tigers, bears, elephants, rhinoceroses, and so on, there are some  extinct species that were considerably larger than those living today. A particularly conspicuous example is the mighty Baluchitherium, from the Oligocene of Asia, which is assigned to the rhinoceros group even though (like most ancient rhinoceroses) it has no horn on its nose (fig. 3.136). The shoulder height of this animal comes to about 5.3 meters, and the length of the torso is as much as 10 meters, making it one of the largest terrestrial mammals that ever lived. The enormous size of this animal is clearly seen in the comparison of a reconstruction of Baluchitherium with the Recent Indian rhi­noceros, both shown to scale in figure 3. 137.

These examples, however, by no means represent a contradiction to our rule of phyletic increase in size, for the extinct forms in question are not the imme­diate predecessors of the smaller Recent species. They are only members of a broader, related group within which they represent the terminal forms of extinct collateral lines (fig. 3.138). To this extent, they thoroughly confirm the general rule that gigantic forms mark the end of evolution.

Unquestionable examples of a once-attained body size being secondarily re­duced are almost unknown except in instances where such a reduction is suc­ceeded by a thorough remodeling to a completely new typal structure, which, itself, begins again with small forms. The exceptions occasionally cited are prob­ably only apparent, for in those cases it has not been shown that the forms with the supposed reduction in size really issued from larger ancestral forms of the same genetic lineage; only in such a situation would our rule be contradicted.

Accordingly, the evolution of size is, in general, irreversible. However, it is immediately clear that gigantic forms are indicators of dying lineages, for ulti­mately a point would be reached beyond which continued increase in size would be impossible for physiological reasons.

However, you are full of it, Schindewolf:
   
Quote
Simpson, op. cit., pp.137-138:

In this connection, it is known that many large animals of the past became extinct and are not the ancestors of their smaller living relatives. Mammoths were not ancestral to smaller elephants. (As a matter of fact, most mammoths were no larger than some living elephants, but a few were.) The elephantine ground sloths were not ancestral to the little living tree sloths. The dinosaurs were not the ancestors of the small lizards of later times. But this does not mean that forms that were the ancestors of living animals were not also somewhat larger than the latter at one time or another, and such does appear to be the case for some of them.

Some paleontologists have been so impressed by the fre­quent trend for animals to become larger as time goes on that they have tried to work it the other way around. If they find, say, a Pleistocene bison that is somewhat larger than a Recent bison (so-called Bison taylori, associate and prey of early man in America, is a good example), then they conclude that it is not ancestral to later bison because it is larger. You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly.

That last line is a keeper.

mitschlag,

I don't think Schindewolf was of the opinion that all lineages always increased in size.  I remember him talking about exceptions such as pygmy and dwarf species.  He also talked at length, and provided septal and suture line data that showed that some lineages didn't change much at all for long periods of time.  He does claim that there's a definite tendency towards gigantism towards the end of many lineages, and your quote form Simpson agrees with that:  
Quote
Some paleontologists have been so impressed by the fre­quent trend for animals to become larger as time goes on that they have tried to work it the other way around.

Schindewolf might have overstated its extent, but I don't think that means his statements should be ignored altogether.  Perhaps they should just be taken with a grain of salt.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,22:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2008,01:26)
I remember him talking about exceptions such as pygmy and dwarf species.

Ah, superb. Obviously Schindewolf must be right because he addresses these MAJOR problems for evilution. PYGMIES AND DWARFS!!!!!!!!!!1111!1

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2008,23:17   

This doesn't say much for your searching abilities:

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 17 2008,13:58)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,07:08)
I think the issue of suture lines was tainted for me by the statement in Moyne and Neige:            
Quote
Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus.

[Daniel Smith]But that sentence doesn't mention Schindewolf! Therefore it (and the classification generated by using characters other than suture lines) can't possibly falsify his assumptions![/Daniel Smith]
     
Quote
So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch.

Except that Schindewolf merely assumes that the switches represent huge genetic differences, Daniel blinds himself to Schindewolf's arrogance, and treats Schindewolf's opinions as evidence.
     
Quote
Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Only morphological data are needed, which is why I kept pointing out to Dan that Schindewolf couldn't be bothered to test his hypothesis. It makes crystal-clear predictions about the limits of variation we should find in both living and fossilized corals.

Click to enlarge, from:

Journal of Paleontology; January 1987; v. 61; no. 1; p. 21-31
Intraspecific morphological variations in a Pleistocene solitary coral, Caryophyllia (Premocyathus) compressa Yabe and Eguchi
Kei Mori

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,06:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 10 2008,19:17)
I did not seek out any other sources.  So, in retrospect, I should have never said "definitely".

   
Quote
One of my biggest problems JAM is that I can't seem to retain much of what I read (especially when it's over my head).


So go back to the beginning and start over. Start your education from the ground up, don't try and leap in areas even you admit you do not properly understand. How can you possible expect to prove your (any) point if you don't even understand the arguments you are getting back when you make a point!?!

Daniel, there's only room in my sig for one quote at a time, please stop!

So, is horse evolution a problem for Darwinism or not? I don't care if it was Alan that picked that subject, I'm asking you now, with your new knowledge that's been hard earned, do you see it as a problem for Darwinism or not?

If yes, why?
If no, well, teh win.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,15:40   

Quote
So, is horse evolution a problem for Darwinism or not?


Neigh!

:)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,19:06   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 10 2008,21:17)
This doesn't say much for your searching abilities:

 
Quote (JAM @ Feb. 17 2008,13:58)
   
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 17 2008,07:08)
I think the issue of suture lines was tainted for me by the statement in Moyne and Neige:              
Quote
Suture line characters are not used in this analysis because of their high variability between the different species of each genus.

[Daniel Smith]But that sentence doesn't mention Schindewolf! Therefore it (and the classification generated by using characters other than suture lines) can't possibly falsify his assumptions![/Daniel Smith]
       
Quote
So, I now see the parallel in Schindewolf's claims for corals and ammonoids: an ontogenetic switch.

Except that Schindewolf merely assumes that the switches represent huge genetic differences, Daniel blinds himself to Schindewolf's arrogance, and treats Schindewolf's opinions as evidence.
       
Quote
Is that the gist of his saltationist hypothesis?  It looks testable.  Are there any molecular-genetic-devolopmental data pertaining thereto in the literature?

Only morphological data are needed, which is why I kept pointing out to Dan that Schindewolf couldn't be bothered to test his hypothesis. It makes crystal-clear predictions about the limits of variation we should find in both living and fossilized corals.

Click to enlarge, from:

Journal of Paleontology; January 1987; v. 61; no. 1; p. 21-31
Intraspecific morphological variations in a Pleistocene solitary coral, Caryophyllia (Premocyathus) compressa Yabe and Eguchi
Kei Mori

JAM,

Thanks for finding that for me.  I've been looking at the pictures and can see a lot of variety in septal arrangement - though many follow a similar format with three shorter septa between the longer ones.

I can not access the paper though.  Can you tell me if these corals were all contemporaries of one another?  I see that they are all from the Pleistocene epoch, but that epoch spans from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years BP.  Also I need to know if these are all adult forms?

Thanks.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,19:12   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 11 2008,04:15)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 10 2008,19:17)
I did not seek out any other sources.  So, in retrospect, I should have never said "definitely".

     
Quote
One of my biggest problems JAM is that I can't seem to retain much of what I read (especially when it's over my head).


So go back to the beginning and start over. Start your education from the ground up, don't try and leap in areas even you admit you do not properly understand. How can you possible expect to prove your (any) point if you don't even understand the arguments you are getting back when you make a point!?!

Daniel, there's only room in my sig for one quote at a time, please stop!

So, is horse evolution a problem for Darwinism or not? I don't care if it was Alan that picked that subject, I'm asking you now, with your new knowledge that's been hard earned, do you see it as a problem for Darwinism or not?

If yes, why?
If no, well, teh win.

The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Henry J



Posts: 4098
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2008,23:10   

Quote
The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.


As long as it wasn't detrimental, why would it be a problem?

Henry

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,03:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2008,19:12)

The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.

So, is that a "Yes" or a "No"?

You are very good at answering a different question to the one that was asked Daniel....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,11:09   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 12 2008,01:45)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2008,19:12)

The only part of horse evolution that I ever claimed was a problem for Darwinism was the [disputed] claim that the reduction in toes began before it was beneficial.

So, is that a "Yes" or a "No"?

You are very good at answering a different question to the one that was asked Daniel....

I don't know enough about the particulars of horse evolution to say whether it (the entire evolutionary history of the horse lineage) is a problem for Darwinism or not.  I was merely pointing out that I (as far as I can remember) only made one reference to horse evolution being a problem for a Darwinist interpretation and that was regarding the pre-adaptive selection for the reduction in toes.  It has never been the focus of my arguments here however.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,14:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2008,11:09)
I don't know enough about the particulars of horse evolution to say whether it (the entire evolutionary history of the horse lineage) is a problem for Darwinism or not.  I was merely pointing out that I (as far as I can remember) only made one reference to horse evolution being a problem for a Darwinist interpretation and that was regarding the pre-adaptive selection for the reduction in toes.  It has never been the focus of my arguments here however.

That might be a problem if it were supported by evidence.  How can one be confident that a trait is non-adaptive if one does not have a clear picture of the environment at the time the trait emerged?

Note that the plains came before the one-toed horses, contrary to Schindewolf's belief.  (You can't have plains without grazing animals, and you don't need to be one-toed to be a grazing animal.)

Note that three-toed horses were running on plains (and eating grass) capably enough to survive for millions of years.

Note that one-toed horses became extinct in the Americas despite an abundance of plains for them to run on and grass to graze on.

Schindewolf appears to have selected evidence to fit his  orthogenetic preconceptions.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,18:54   

I think I'm done here.

I'm just getting tired of arguing.

There's really no point to it anymore.  We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here.  Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things.  You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs.  I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING!  I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on.  Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1966
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,22:30   

Good start.  Warm regards.  Bye Bye

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2008,23:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2008,18:54)
I think I'm done here.

I'm just getting tired of arguing.

There's really no point to it anymore.  We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here.  Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things.  You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs.  I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING!  I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on.  Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

Dan,

I'm glad I could help. Good luck. You might want to look into the concept of NOMA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

  
mitschlag



Posts: 235
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,06:25   

Tough love rocks!

Congratulations, Daniel Smith, as you continue your adventure.


(Anybody interested in a slightly used copy of Grundfragen?)

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,13:30   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2008,18:54)
I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on.


Transparently dishonest to the last.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1373
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2008,13:32   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2008,13:54)
I think I'm done here.

I'm just getting tired of arguing.

There's really no point to it anymore.  We're starting to cover topics we've already covered - sometimes several times.

I've learned lots since coming here.  Thanks to everyone who challenged me on things.  You forced me to take a long hard look at myself and my beliefs.  I'm sorry I came across as defensive and unwilling to learn because I really was listening.

I'd like to especially thank JAM for showing me the importance of evidence, data and TESTING!  I'm going to do everything in my power to destroy my own hypotheses and beliefs from now on.  Maybe I'll come back and let you all know how it turns out.

Later.

Farewell, Dan.

Glad you feel there was some benefit to your experience here.
I second JAM's point about NOMA. You should give "The Ancestor's Tale" a try too.

Best wishes
Alan

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,12:36   

Daniel,

it's a pity you have finished the discussion here. But you are right. There were some interesing links you sent. It's more usefull to read those materials. I was again inspired by the link you sent on German idealistic morphology and borrowed Pflanzenmorphology by professor Wilhelm Troll. It has more than 700 pages and it deals with interesting idea that all seed-plants are just variations of ideal "Urpflanze". Wilhelm Troll crucial works  - as those of A. Portmann - haven't been translated into English.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2008,21:48   

Quote
it deals with interesting idea that all seed-plants are just variations of ideal "Urpflanze"


that is indeed an interesting idea.  it reminds me of another interesting idea that all left nipples are regrets in the mind of lesser gods.

Quote
Wilhelm Troll crucial works  - as those of A. Portmann - haven't been translated into English.


as shitty as it actually works in practice, the law of supply and demand provides an explanation for this phenomenon.



Get back to work Martin!  Them sows ain't gonna inseminate themselves, boy.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5379
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2008,11:52   



Quote
but I know what I like, by mondoagogo


I moved some off topic comments yesterday.

Edited by Lou FCD on Mar. 17 2008,12:53

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 01 2007,21:26)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 01 2007,07:31)
Re the search for evidence of life on Mars, there are three possible outcomes that I can foresee.

1:Evidence is found for a life-form totally different from anything seen on Earth, say, not even based on carbon, but, for instance, built on silicon.

2: Evidence is found for a life-form bearing distinct similarities to terrestrial lifeforms.

3; No evidence found.

If 1, abiogenesis is almost inevitable on any suitable planet, given enough time.

If 2, lifeforms such as bacterial spores may travel across space as passengers in meteorites. (Panspermia)

If 3, we still don't know.

One other option for #2:

If we find life on another planet that is distinctly similar to our own, it could mean that abiogenesis acts according to laws as well.

Denton's position, as expressed in "Nature's Destiny", was that any life, anywhere else in the universe, would have to be remarkably similar to our own.

But now you'll write him? Tell him abiogenesis is impossible?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2009,03:04   

Oops, wrong thread :)

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]