Home | Community | Message Board


Marijuana Demystified
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep
    #2403150 - 03/04/04 04:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

LOCKSTEP THINKING
(Spare Me)
by Fred Reed, Tuesday, March 3, 2004

Oh help. The religious orthodoxy that impedes discussion of biological evolution continues with its accustomed dreadful tenacity. I?m going to hide in Tierra del Fuego.

One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He won?t be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.

By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected.

Among the articles of faith: Life evolved from the primeval soup (sheer conjecture; the existence of the soup is inferred from the theory); evolution occurred, as distinct from change; accounting for all characteristics of life (mere assertion); natural selection being the driving force (unestablished). Many of these points are logically separable. Since evolution serves the purposes of a religion, namely to explain human origin and destiny, they are invariably bundled.

A few questions:

It is asserted, though not demonstrated, that point mutations caused by, say, cosmic rays sometimes give an animal a slight advantage over others of its species, and that these advantages accumulate over countless generations and lead to major changes. Demonstrable fact, or plausible conjecture? I note that metaphysical plausibility often substitutes for evidence in matters evolutionary. The approach ignores hard questions, such as whether tiny advantages, if engendered at all, rise above the noise level, or what that level might be.

At any rate, the idea is that slight selective pressure (operational definition, please? Units?) over enough time produces major changes. The idea is appealingly plausible. But, for example:

(1) A fair number of people are deathly allergic to bee stings, going into anaphylactic shock and dying. In any but a protected urban setting, children are virtually certain to be stung many times before reaching puberty. Assured death before reproduction would seem a robust variety of selective pressure.

Yet the allergic haven?t been eliminated from the population. Why is it that miniscule, unobserved mutations over vast stretches of time can produce major changes, while an extraordinarily powerful, observable selective pressure doesn?t? The same reasoning applies to a long list of genetic diseases that kill children before they reach adulthood. (Yes, I too can imagine plausible explanations. Plausibility isn?t evidence.)

(2) Homosexuality in males works strongly against reproduction. Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?

(3) Pain serves to warn an animal that it is being injured, or to make it favor, say, a wounded leg so that it can heal. Fair enough. But then why did we evolve the nerves that produce the agony of kidney stones?about which an animal can do absolutely nothing?

(4) There are at least two ways in which a species might change over time. One is the (postulated) accumulation over very long periods of mutations. Maybe.

The other is the concentration of existing traits by selective breeding, which is nothing but deliberate natural selection. The latter is demonstrable, and can happen within a few generations. If a breed of dog has weak hips, for example, the defect can be rectified by interbreeding those with better hips until good hips become the norm. About this there is no doubt. If natural selection occurs as advertised, this is where we would expect to see it.

Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay. Presumably (a tricky word) in a pre-civilized world, strong and intelligent people with superbly acute (for humans) senses would be more likely to survive and spread their genes, leading to a race of supermen. Is this what we observe?

Here we come to an interesting question: Do the superior pass along their genes more reliably than the inferior? In primitive tribal societies do we observe that the brighter have more children than the not so bright?

Do the most fit men breed with the most fit women, or with the most sexually attractive? As a matter of daily experience, a man will go every time for the sleek, pretty, and coquettish over the big, strong, bright, and ugly. I mention this to evolutionists and they make intellectual pretzels trying to prove that the attractive and the fit are one and the same. Well, they aren?t.

(5) If intelligence promotes survival, why did it appear so late? If it doesn?t promote survival, why did it appear at all?

(6) People have a wretched sense of smell and mediocre hearing. Why? The pat explanation is that people evolved in open territory, where sight is more important than the other senses. People walked erect, keeping their eyes well above the ground so that they could see farther. As noses became smaller, there was less room for the olfactory apparatus.

Is much of this not palpable nonsense? Horses have eves at about the same altitude as people, yet have acute senses of smell. Anywhere but in perfectly open territory, a sense of smell is obviously important in detecting predators, as it is at night, when many things hunt. Excessively small nasal apparatus? Cats and rats have little room for olfactory equipment yet have acute senses of smell. Do sensitive ears take up more space than sorry ones?

(7) Without weapons, humans would appear to be easy prey for almost anything. A persistent forty-pound dog would be a challenge for a single man. A pack of hyenas would have no trouble killing him. Any big cat would need about ten seconds.

People are weak. I once had a semi-domesticated monkey of perhaps thirty pounds jump on me in Bali because it wanted a banana I was eating. I was a husky 180 and lifted weights. I tried to push the thing off of me, and instantly realized I couldn?t. The little beast was ferociously strong. I gave it the banana.

A man cannot outrun a toy poodle, cannot climb well (and anyway there aren?t trees in open territory), cannot swim naturally, has teeth useless as weapons, no claws, and poor musculature. (Why the latter? Strength isn?t of value in survival?) He can neither smell nor hear an approaching big cat (say) and, unless armed, couldn?t do anything about it anyway. Hiding isn?t a choice: People are noisy, their children uncontrollably so. When unwashed, humans reek. Our young are extraordinarily helpless for long years.

Were we already packing heat when we swung down from the trees?

(8) So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won?t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But?but?.

The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value. That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence. This is science?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Post deleted by Anno [Re: Evolving]
    #2403181 - 03/04/04 04:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: ]
    #2403208 - 03/04/04 04:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

It is not pretty obvious that evolution happens. The creation of a new species by evolutionary means has never (to my knowledge) been observed by humans. I'm not implying anything, I am agnostic. It would seem however, that a belief in evolution relies heavily on faith in inadequate theories.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 1 day
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Evolving]
    #2403356 - 03/04/04 05:29 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

What do you mean by "species?" From my recollection of the argument Evolution is accepted as fact, even by the Creationists. What they deny is that natural selection is the engine.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Evolving]
    #2403551 - 03/04/04 06:28 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Hmm.... while it seems that the author has a good understanding of evolution, he picks and chooses his evidence to support HIS theory.  This leads me to believe that he only flipped through the Cliffs Notes.

Shit... this is a fucking lecture and a half.

(1) First of all, when the locus of selection shifted from genes to memes (the emergence of consciousness), as it did with humans, genetic flaws may no longer be a lethal disadvantage. That said?

Ignoring the shift in the locus of selection, there is yet another explanation for the persistence of recessive lethal alleles.  Peter Dawson demonstrated this in his study involving flour beetles.  His conclusion was that when a recessive allele is common (and a dominant allele is rare), evolution by natural selection is rapid.  In contrast, when a recessive allele is rare, and a dominant allele is common, evolution by natural selection is slow.  In a random mating population, most copies of a rare recessive allele are phenotypically hidden inside heterozygous individuals.  I?m not going to go into the algebraic treatment of selection on recessive and dominant alleles.
(see: Dawson, P.S. 1970.  Linkage and the elimination of deleterious mutant genes from experimental populations. Genetica 41:147-169.)

(2) There has been no definitive proof that homosexuality is due to genes or memes, but in either case, see my answer to (1).

(3)  While this seems to be a good point, some things are left out.  Since we have no record of the incidence of kidney stones among humans before we became conscious (gene-to-meme shift), it is not really possible to have a control group.  Moving on, the formation of a kidney stone ([url=http://my.webmd.com/hw/kidney_failure/hw204798.asp?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348} ]info on kidney stones[/url]) is influenced by multiple factors: diet, lifestyle, genetics, and so forth.  Note that most of these factors are due to memes (though the theory of natural selection is about GENES).  However, let?s suppose that kidney stones are ONLY influenced by genetics ? why, then, would they still occur (ignoring my answer to #1)?  Well, natural selection does not create a PERFECT being, only a MORE FIT being, where fitness is relative to the organism?s environment and such.  If the organism is able to reproduce, that?s all that matters when it comes to its genes and natural selection.

(4) Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay? Is this what we observe?

Okay, right of the bat, I can see that this guy just isn?t getting it.  He has not taken into account the concept of memes.

Do the most fit men breed with the most fit women, or with the most sexually attractive? As a matter of daily experience, a man will go every time for the sleek, pretty, and coquettish over the big, strong, bright, and ugly. I mention this to evolutionists and they make intellectual pretzels trying to prove that the attractive and the fit are one and the same. Well, they aren?t.

No, they ARE more fit.  I can now say for sure that this guy does not understand the biological definition of fitness. All that matters is successful reproduction.  If being physically attractive allows a woman to pass on her genes, then it doesn?t matter if she can bench-press 300 pounds or run a marathon.

(5) If intelligence promotes survival, why did it appear so late? If it doesn?t promote survival, why did it appear at all?
Assuming he is swapping ?intelligence? for ?consciousness?...
I think it is rather obvious that consciousness is a VERY powerful survival tool.  How many BILLIONS of people are there?  Which species dominates this planet like no other?  As to why consciousness appeared so late, I honestly can?t tell you.  Since evolution is only a backward-looking process (natural selection has no ultimate plan), it would not be easy to point to the answer.

(6) Actually, this is a shitty point, too.  Any of our senses can be trained to be more acute.  Here?s a study on Human Echolocation.  I saw a similar Discovery Channel show (or some other channel) on these blind guys who were phenomenally good at echolocation (several demonstrations proved this).  I?d say that humans are merely sensory-biased towards vision.  It?s not hard to understand why? the characteristics of light provide several distinct sensory advantages over the other senses.  The primary advantage would be one of effective distance.  I can see a candlelight on the other side of a stadium, but there?s no way I?d hear a whisper from that distance. :wink:

(7) Without weapons, humans would appear to be easy prey for almost anything.
Blah blah blah? without their huge claws, huge muscles, and mouths full of sharp teeth, tigers are just sitting ducks.  Consciousness allows for better alternatives to direct confrontation with a possible predator.
This kind of ?logic? is laughable.

(8) Again, he fails to recognize the power of the meme.

Yes, THIS is science.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Evolving]
    #2403554 - 03/04/04 06:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Okay, I'm ready for the next jackass.  :wink:


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCleverName
the cloudsshould know meby now...

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 1,121
Loc: red earth painted with mi...
Last seen: 11 years, 14 days
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Sclorch]
    #2403777 - 03/04/04 07:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

hehe, nice. by the way, our development of being vision oriented has alot to do with swinging through the trees, i believe. hence our forward-positioned eyes(for depth perception), etc...


--------------------
if you can't find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it?

this is the purpose


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Sclorch]
    #2403790 - 03/04/04 07:53 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: ]
    #2403840 - 03/04/04 08:06 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Ah!


I prefer monosyllabic expressions of arrogance  :lol:


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 1 day
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: SpecialEd]
    #2403921 - 03/04/04 08:31 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

No, you prefer monosyllabic expressions of ignorance   

    :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I love you anyway, I couldn't resisit


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: ]
    #2403928 - 03/04/04 08:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

That's always a sign of a vested interest in the subject.

Yeah... my bachelor's degree in biology didn't materialize in a puff of smoke. :wink:


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Sclorch]
    #2403943 - 03/04/04 08:39 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Should we refer to you as Dr. sclorch? We know you have an evolutionary interest in nurses...


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 1 day
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Sclorch]
    #2403966 - 03/04/04 08:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Sclorch, my man, somebody here who actually has an education to back up his post. And in the field he's trained in no less. Let's not let this be a trend OK


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 1 day
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2403973 - 03/04/04 08:49 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I like Stephen Jay Gould's take on this argument. He's a good read anyway.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAtomisk
all forms areself awareness

Registered: 02/09/04
Posts: 164
Loc: jungle of love
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2403979 - 03/04/04 08:51 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

edward o wilson is my prefrence


--------------------
o house-builder! thou art seen. thou shalt build no house again. all thy rafters are broken. thy ridge-pole is shattered.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAtomisk
all forms areself awareness

Registered: 02/09/04
Posts: 164
Loc: jungle of love
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Sclorch]
    #2403989 - 03/04/04 08:54 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

sclorch, who would you suggest as a good read in the field of evolutionary biology/sociobiology?


--------------------
o house-builder! thou art seen. thou shalt build no house again. all thy rafters are broken. thy ridge-pole is shattered.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Evolving]
    #2404146 - 03/04/04 09:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Evolving wrote,"The creation of a new species by evolutionary means has never (to my knowledge) been observed by humans."

Does anybody know of a new species developing and the process being recorded by man? I know humans have created a great number of breeds of various animals, certainly there must be some instance of the emergence of a new animal brought about by human intervention. It would seem that mankind could greatly speed up the process. Haven't there been plants created by cross pollination that could be considered a new species? Luther Burbank anyone?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSpecialEd
+ one

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 6,220
Loc: : Gringo
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2404172 - 03/04/04 09:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Actually, my expressions of ignorance are polysyllabic.


--------------------
"Plus one upvote +1..."
--- //
-- :meff:
  /l_l\/
--\-/----


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: zappaisgod]
    #2404461 - 03/04/04 10:51 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
What do you mean by "species?"



The generally accepted biological definition.

Quote:

From my recollection of the argument Evolution is accepted as fact...



By many, yes. Acceptance of something as fact does not make it a fact. It is still a theory.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: Thinking in Darwinian Lockstep [Re: Sclorch]
    #2404535 - 03/04/04 11:12 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
Hmm.... while it seems that the author has a good understanding of evolution, he picks and chooses his evidence to support HIS theory.



As near as I can tell, he doesn't have a theory - just doubts.

Quote:

Shit... this is a fucking lecture and a half.



We all appreciate your efforts.

Quote:

(1) First of all, when the locus of selection shifted from genes to memes (the emergence of consciousness), as it did with humans, genetic flaws may no longer be a lethal disadvantage.



That makes sense.

Quote:

If the organism is able to reproduce, that?s all that matters when it comes to its genes and natural selection.



Yep.

Quote:

(4) Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay? Is this what we observe?

Okay, right of the bat, I can see that this guy just isn?t getting it.  He has not taken into account the concept of memes.



You could email him, I provided a link.  But what about the time before the emergence of consciousness in our ancestors?

Quote:

No, they ARE more fit.  I can now say for sure that this guy does not understand the biological definition of fitness. All that matters is successful reproduction.  If being physically attractive allows a woman to pass on her genes, then it doesn?t matter if she can bench-press 300 pounds or run a marathon.



Doesn't it matter if her chances of living to sexual maturity are less because of her physical attributes?

Quote:

Assuming he is swapping ?intelligence? for ?consciousness?...
I think it is rather obvious that consciousness is a VERY powerful survival tool.



I don't think it's necessary to swap intelligence for consciousness, perhaps there's just a situation of diminishing returns for greater intelligence.

Quote:

(6) Actually, this is a shitty point, too.  Any of our senses can be trained to be more acute.



No matter how much training you have, a human isn't going to smell like a dog (although he may stink like one).

Quote:

Consciousness allows for better alternatives to direct confrontation with a possible predator.



Tru dat!

Quote:

This kind of ?logic? is laughable.



Next time insert one of these,  :lol:

I'm still waiting for some examples of evolution that has been observed by humans.  Now I'm not referring to different colored moths on soot covered bark, can we verify the process of one species giving rise to another using the scientific method?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution and natural selection (philosophy) SeussA 565 4 03/08/05 11:33 AM
by redgreenvines
* does evolution lead to the restriction of evolution?
SneezingPenis
1,126 6 08/21/06 01:56 PM
by kake
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous 2,927 64 01/30/03 08:45 AM
by Teragon
* Evolution and Society
( 1 2 3 all )
DoctorJ 2,868 46 03/16/04 01:29 PM
by Phred
* Who believes in evolution?
( 1 2 3 all )
Icelander 3,475 59 12/21/06 04:16 AM
by IgnatiusJReilly
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 6,109 61 12/08/03 05:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Natural Selection Pressure on Humans
( 1 2 3 4 all )
psychomime 3,125 72 08/11/05 02:47 PM
by Icelander
* western society disables evolution
( 1 2 3 all )
secretmachine 4,394 49 10/30/06 01:24 PM
by ShamanSoul

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
2,514 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.119 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.