Jump to content


Photo

Ken Miller


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 July 2009 - 12:43 PM

Then please demonstrate a prediction that is'nt made by creation.If you think bacteria digesting nylon is an increase of genetic information,then where is the research without equivocation.All bacteria have the ability to gain new traits through horizontal gene transfer so the equivocation is double edged.

View Post

I think Ibex has provided sufficient links to specific information to answer your request.

Your attempt to use the claim of horizontal gene transfer in order to avoid admission that digesting nylon represents new information is Creationist logic at its best.
If the particular organism acquired the gene by transfer, how did that DNA sequence evolve?
If you are trying to suggest that that gene sequence was divinely created 4.5 billion years ago, then you have to explain how it has avoided deleterious mutations which would have prevented its functioning.

#42 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 July 2009 - 02:59 PM

Actually, the mechanism is known, and it is detailed here and here (warning: PDFs). The new gene is the result of a duplication and frameshift, which is by all means an increase in information and the addition of a novel trait, rather than a change. Indeed, a duplication on its own would constitute a new trait (the ability to mutate a novel feature without the loss of an existing one), and would constitute an increase in information all on its own, but in this case we also have novel information, with the development of a novel trait which only is manifest since advent of nylon.


Your cherry picking a paper full of speculation and assumtions and ignoring more recent research that has proven it is'nt the result of a frameshift mutation.

n 1984, geneticist Susumu Ohno suggested that one way in which new genes could evolve is through a "frameshift" mutation – one that alters the way in which the genetic code is read and thus completely alters the amino acid sequence of a protein. And nylonase evolved this way, he claimed.

Then in 1992, another team claimed that nylB genes are unique and had evolved by a rather complicated and special mechanism.

They are both wrong, says Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, whose team has published many studies on the structure and evolution of nylon-related enzymes. "I believe that the above two hypotheses can be excluded," he told New Scientist.

His team's study of the protein structure show that nylonase is very similar to a common type of enzyme that breaks down beta-lactamases – natural antibiotics produced by many organisms. Just two amino-acid changes – two mutations, in other words – are required to change the beta-lactamase binding site to one capable of binding the nylon by-product.


Source.

The evidence once again,is better explained by creation than random mutation.

Source



Enjoy.

#43 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 20 July 2009 - 03:09 PM

I think Ibex has provided sufficient links to specific information to answer your request.

Your attempt to use the claim of horizontal gene transfer in order to avoid admission that digesting nylon represents new information is Creationist logic at its best.
If the particular organism acquired the gene by transfer, how did that DNA sequence evolve?
If you are trying to suggest that that gene sequence was divinely created 4.5 billion years ago, then you have to explain how it has avoided deleterious mutations which would have prevented its functioning.

View Post


Keith,

Creationists logic at it's best is why you dislike it so much.We expose your assumptions as non-scientific.

#44 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 21 July 2009 - 08:01 AM

(Svedish accent)O, look at da quote mine!  Zees is precious, ja!(/Svedish accent)

View Post


You did not make a case that Jason "quote-mined" and are hereby warned. See my Evo-Babble Percher Alert Page, #3. Any such accusations must be clearly substantiated.

Fred

#45 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 22 July 2009 - 04:55 AM

Hi Ibex Pop,

Quote mining means taking quotes out of context to make someone appear to be saying something they weren't. In the case of the quote from A. H. Brush, I won't comment about whether it accurately represents his views, but the second part of the quote is in error. This sentence:

"feathers appear suddenly in the fossil record, as an 'undeniably unique' character distinguishing birds"


Does not appear in the cited article, A.H. Brush, "On the Origin of Feathers" Journal of Evolutionary Bioglogy, vol.9, 1996, s.132.

The closest you can find is this on page 133:

Although this issue is still unsettled, the appearance of feathers in the fossil record is undeniably unique.


I was able to find the same incorrect quote attributed to A. H. Brush at several websites, but couldn't track down an actual point of origin. All I think we can say is that A. H. Brush's actual opinions regarding how suddenly feathers appear in the fossil record cannot be found in this paper. The portion of the misquote about feathers being an "'undeniably unique' character" of birds seems to accurately reflect Brush's position because the abstract makes this clear right up front in the first sentence.

So quote mining aside, the quote is not accurate.

--Percy

#46 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 23 July 2009 - 04:47 AM

Hi Jason,

The evidence once again, is better explained by creation than random mutation.

View Post


I want to be sure I understand your position. You're saying that because the evolutionary mechanism for the new trait of nylon digestion was first identified as a frame shift mutation, then later as a "rather complicated and special mechanism," and then later still as a pair of mutations affecting two amino acids, that this is not a reflection of the tentative nature of science and of the way it gradually improves the quality of our knowledge, but of special creation?

We know that nylon digestion was caused by a change in the bacterium's DNA, but you're saying that if there's disagreements or changes in the ideas revolving around the mechanism's of its evolution that this is evidence of special creation? That God changed the bacterium's DNA, not random mutation?

If I've understood you correctly, then this raises the question of how you determine when a mutation has happened randomly and when God did it.

And isn't this in effect just a claim that anything that science doesn't know or doesn't agree about is evidence for special creation?

--Percy

#47 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 23 July 2009 - 10:54 AM

Hi Jason,
I want to be sure I understand your position.  You're saying that because the evolutionary mechanism for the new trait of nylon digestion was first identified as a frame shift mutation, then later as a "rather complicated and special mechanism," and then later still as a pair of mutations affecting two amino acids, that this is not a reflection of the tentative nature of science and of the way it gradually improves the quality of our knowledge, but of special creation?

We know that nylon digestion was caused by a change in the bacterium's DNA, but you're saying that if there's disagreements or changes in the ideas revolving around the mechanism's of its evolution that this is evidence of special creation?  That God changed the bacterium's DNA, not random mutation?

If I've understood you correctly, then this raises the question of how you determine when a mutation has happened randomly and when God did it.

And isn't this in effect just a claim that anything that science doesn't know or  doesn't agree about is evidence for special creation?

--Percy

View Post


Hi percy, just a quick question...How long do you think that these bacteria take before their dna develops these mutations to adapt to eating the nylon?

#48 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 23 July 2009 - 11:14 AM

Hi percy,  just a quick question...How long do you think that these bacteria take before their dna develops these mutations to adapt to eating the nylon?

View Post


There were three possible mechanisms mentioned for the evolution of nylon digestion. If it was a frameshift mutation then that only requires a single point mutation, so it would have occurred in a single generation. There was a bacterium that didn't have this mutation (none of them did, of course) that experienced fission (reproduction via splitting), and after fission then either one or both possessed the mutation.

I can't comment about how long it might have taken for the "rather complicated and special mechanism" to take place.

The last mechanism was two separate mutations resulting in a change to two amino acids. Mutations occur during fission, so both mutations could have occurred at the same time, or they could have occurred in consecutive generations, or there could have been years and years between their occurrence.

--Percy

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:33 PM

There were three possible mechanisms mentioned for the evolution of nylon digestion.  If it was a frameshift mutation then that only requires a single point mutation, so it would have occurred in a single generation.  There was a bacterium that didn't have this mutation (none of them did, of course) that experienced fission (reproduction via splitting), and after fission then either one or both possessed the mutation.

I can't comment about how long it might have taken for the "rather complicated and special mechanism" to take place.

The last mechanism was two separate mutations resulting in a change to two amino acids.  Mutations occur during fission, so both mutations could have occurred at the same time, or they could have occurred in consecutive generations, or there could have been years and years between their occurrence.

--Percy

View Post


Ok, but at what point did these bacteria cease being bacteria, and evolve into something other than bacteria?

#50 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 July 2009 - 03:18 PM

Percy,

The point your missing is the fact that these bacteria adapt to eating nylon in just 9 days in laboratory experiments.

What if we repeated the experiment 100 times and every time they adapted in only 9 days?That is not a random mutation,but preprogrammed adaptibility,clearly indicating design.

BTW,science is not about proclaiming truth without empirical testing.Fairytales are tentative and always change as the old story gets proven wrong.




Thanks.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 July 2009 - 04:01 PM

Percy,

The point your missing is the fact that these bacteria adapt to eating nylon in just 9 days in laboratory experiments.

What if we repeated the experiment 100 times and every time they adapted in only 9 days?That is not a random mutation,but preprogrammed adaptibility,clearly indicating design.

BTW,science is not about proclaiming truth without empirical testing.Fairytales are tentative and always change as the old story gets proven wrong.
Thanks.

View Post



Along those lines; I would wonder how many bacteria have decided of their own accord (without coercion, or designed experimentation) to start eating nylon? ;)

#52 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 23 July 2009 - 04:59 PM

It comes down to the same question you're avoiding, Jason, how do you tell the difference between God in action on the one hand, and just matter and energy following known physical laws on the other?

A bacterium that reproduces once every 20 minutes will grow from a single bacterium to a colony of about five thousand billion billion (5x10^21) in a single day. There would be just about the same number of fission events. The mutation rate for bacteria is rougly 10^-8 per base-pair per fission event. Let's say these bacteria have one million nucleotides, and that it takes a single point mutation to produce nylon-eating ability. Assuming mutations are equally likely for any nucleotide in the bacterium's genome, then on average it would take 3x10^8 fission events to produce the correct mutation at the necessary location. In 1 day this many fission events will occur nearly 2 trillion times, meaning the necessary mutation will occur on average around 2 trillion times. Remember, that's in a single day, not 9 days. (Do you have a reference for the nine days?)

It's inevitable that the necessary mutation will occur. Sure, God could have done it, but how do you tell that God did it when the event is exactly what one would expect anyway.



BTW,science is not about proclaiming truth without empirical testing.

View Post


Science isn't about proclaiming truth at all. It's about building an understanding of the way the universe we live in works by following a process of, if you like, empirical testing, and also analysis, replication and prediction validation.

Fairytales are tentative and always change as the old story gets proven wrong.

View Post


Fairy tales? You mean like talking snakes?

--Percy

#53 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 July 2009 - 06:15 PM

Hi Percy,

It comes down to the same question you're avoiding, Jason, how do you tell the difference between God in action on the one hand, and just matter and energy following known physical laws on the other?


Prediction validation.The prediction of finite variation was made before the evidence was found.I'm not avoiding anything,we simply asked for an empirical increase of genetic information,in this case,the prediction failed.

A bacterium that reproduces once every 20 minutes will grow from a single bacterium to a colony of about five thousand billion billion (5x10^21) in a single day. There would be just about the same number of fission events. The mutation rate for bacteria is rougly 10^-8 per base-pair per fission event. Let's say these bacteria have one million nucleotides, and that it takes a single point mutation to produce nylon-eating ability. Assuming mutations are equally likely for any nucleotide in the bacterium's genome, then on average it would take 3x10^8 fission events to produce the correct mutation at the necessary location. In 1 day this many fission events will occur nearly 2 trillion times, meaning the necessary mutation will occur on average around 2 trillion times. Remember, that's in a single day, not 9 days.


And yet,as creation predicts,bacteria have remained bacteria for nearly 4 billion years.How does that help your case?Does our predictions now support your model?

It's inevitable that the necessary mutation will occur. Sure, God could have done it, but how do you tell that God did it when the event is exactly what one would expect anyway.


I'm sure it will if the mechanism is in place.The function of the mechanism does'nt tell us the origin of the mechanism.Logic tells me that mechanisms are designed,but i would stand corrected if evolutionists could go beyond equivocation and into empirical experimentation.

Science isn't about proclaiming truth at all. It's about building an understanding of the way the universe we live in works by following a process of, if you like, empirical testing, and also analysis, replication and prediction validation.


Another reason why creation has the best explanatory power.It started with it's predictions thousands of years ago and nobody has empirically demonstrated change beyond limited variation.

Fairy tales? You mean like talking snakes?


Or lizards growing wings,which ever you prefer.





Thanks.

#54 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 24 July 2009 - 09:53 AM

Prediction validation.The prediction of finite variation was made before the evidence was found.I'm not avoiding anything,we simply asked for an empirical increase of genetic information,in this case,the prediction failed.

View Post


The relevant prediction of evolution is adaptation to a changing environment, and this prediction is validated in the case of nylon-eating bacteria. And the evolution of a new trait via mutation to create genes that did not previously exist represents an increase in genetic information.

And yet,as creation predicts,bacteria have remained bacteria for nearly 4 billion years.

View Post


Some have, some haven't.

I'm sure it will if the mechanism is in place.  The function of the mechanism doesn't tell us the origin of the mechanism.  Logic tells me that mechanisms are designed, but i would stand corrected if evolutionists could go beyond equivocation and into empirical experimentation.

View Post


You haven't identified any mechanism that could produce the mutations that created the nylon-eating behavior. But random mutations occur all the time, and for a variety of reasons. Some occur because the delivery of some necessary chemical was late. Others occur because of some physical stress on a complex molecule causing a breakage of a bond. Still another source of mutation is background radiation and the occasional cosmic ray. And this isn't a complete list. If creationists think there are other mechanisms at work producing mutations that are ultimately due to an intelligent designer or God then they should do the research necessary to demonstrate this and submit the results to appropriate scientific journals.

Another reason why creation has the best explanatory power.It started with it's predictions thousands of years ago and nobody has empirically demonstrated change beyond limited variation.

View Post


Sure they have.

Or lizards growing wings, which ever you prefer.

View Post


Except that no textbook on evolution describes the evolution of reptilian flight as "lizards growing wings," while one only has to read Genesis 3:1 to find talking snakes. "Lizards growing wings" is a creationist misrepresentation of scientific views on evolution, while "talking snakes" is something creationists actually believe. The fairy tales in this debate all come from creationists.

--Percy

#55 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 July 2009 - 05:32 PM

Hi Percy,

The relevant prediction of evolution is adaptation to a changing environment, and this prediction is validated in the case of nylon-eating bacteria.


Creationists,as well as everyone else,has known for hundreds of years that species adapt.Thats why Fred and others have banned that kind of equivocation.

And the evolution of a new trait via mutation to create genes that did not previously exist represents an increase in genetic information.


Now your in line with what evolution actualy predicts and what is actualy debatable according to forum rules.Now your problem is that protein replacement and translation is controlled by coding genes,not the other way around.

We now know that the two protiens added could have been produced by the same gene,after scientists completed the DNA sequencing of fruit flies.

The work also led to many surprises. For example, the researchers found many protein-coding genes that defy the traditional rules of how the DNA code gets translated into protein. For example, 150 genes apparently bypass signals that would normally cause DNA to stop being translated, and other genes encode multiple proteins in a single RNA transcript. Other findings include surprising evidence that a single microRNA gene locus can produce up to four functional microRNAs, each with distinct functions.


Source

You haven't identified any mechanism that could produce the mutations that created the nylon-eating behavior. But random mutations occur all the time, and for a variety of reasons. Some occur because the delivery of some necessary chemical was late. Others occur because of some physical stress on a complex molecule causing a breakage of a bond. Still another source of mutation is background radiation and the occasional cosmic ray. And this isn't a complete list. If creationists think there are other mechanisms at work producing mutations that are ultimately due to an intelligent designer or God then they should do the research necessary to demonstrate this and submit the results to appropriate scientific journals.


The source and cause of the adaptation by Seiji Negoro in post#42 was from a scientific journal.Do you always ignore the science that does'nt agree with you?Or are you going to suggest that Seiji Negoro must be a creationist because his research proves that no increase of genetic information is involved in bacteria adapting to feeding on nylon?

Sure they have.


Examples?

Except that no textbook on evolution describes the evolution of reptilian flight as "lizards growing wings," while one only has to read Genesis 3:1 to find talking snakes. "Lizards growing wings" is a creationist misrepresentation of scientific views on evolution, while "talking snakes" is something creationists actually believe. The fairy tales in this debate all come from creationists.


You have provided "Zero" empirical evidence of anything,except using equivocations to make your belief sound scientific.

#56 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 24 July 2009 - 06:20 PM

Creationists,as well as everyone else,has known for hundreds of years that species adapt.Thats why Fred and others have banned that kind of equivocation.

View Post


If for hundreds of years it was accepted that species adapt and you accept this, then since evolution accepts this too, it would seem we're in agreement.

Negoro's was the most recent of three research groups to suggest which mutations might have produced nylon-eating behavior. You're working a completely different angle than Negoro or his predecessors. You don't believe that nylon-eating behavior was a result of random mutation. You believe that a mechanism to produce precisely those mutations was already inherent in the bacterium, placed there at the beginning by the intelligent designer or God. As I said before, if creationists think there are other mechanisms at work producing mutations that are ultimately due to an intelligent designer or God then they should do the research necessary to demonstrate this and submit the results to appropriate scientific journals.

Examples?

View Post


You'll have to define "limited variation" first so I can produce examples that exceed it.

--Percy

#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 25 July 2009 - 02:52 AM

Hi Percy,

Negoro's was the most recent of three research groups to suggest which mutations might have produced nylon-eating behavior.


I think your confusing the issue."This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation".Is literally translated as "An assumption which has no observable or testable evidence at all".On the other hand,"X-ray Crystallographic Analysis of 6-Aminohexanoate-Dimer Hydrolase" is literally translated as "A direct observation and measurement of a protein change".Surely you can see the difference now.

You're working a completely different angle than Negoro or his predecessors. You don't believe that nylon-eating behavior was a result of random mutation. You believe that a mechanism to produce precisely those mutations was already inherent in the bacterium, placed there at the beginning by the intelligent designer or God.


No mutation was involved.Genes already have the abilty to code for and transcript different proteins when necessary.It can hardly be considered an accident if an automobiles headlights work at night.

As I said before, if creationists think there are other mechanisms at work producing mutations that are ultimately due to an intelligent designer or God then they should do the research necessary to demonstrate this and submit the results to appropriate scientific journals.


Wow,what a bias!In the same context,i could demand that all evolutionists submit their research papers to ARJ for peer review if they want to be accepted in the scientific community.

You'll have to define "limited variation" first so I can produce examples that exceed it.


That is simple.No new trait can exist without brand new genes.Genes are able to code for and transcript a limited number and variation of proteins,but a new trait requires a brand new set of genes.



Thanks.

#58 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 25 July 2009 - 04:21 AM

No mutation was involved.  Genes already have the abilty to code for and transcript different proteins when necessary.  It can hardly be considered an accident if an automobiles headlights work at night.

View Post


You don't believe mutations were involved in the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, but you offer in support of your position the work of Negoro who believes that they were. That he believes this is from an article excerpt you provided in Message 42 in which Negoro was stated to believe that, "Just two amino-acid changes – two mutations, in other words – are required to change the beta-lactamase binding site to one capable of binding the nylon by-product."

This seems contradictory, so I guess you'll need to clarify your position for me.

That is simple.  No new trait can exist without brand new genes.  Genes are able to code for and transcript a limited number and variation of proteins,but a new trait requires a brand new set of genes.

View Post


Are you defining a gene which experiences a mutation as a "brand new gene?"

--Percy

#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 July 2009 - 09:58 AM

You don't believe mutations were involved in the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, but you offer in support of your position the work of Negoro who believes that they were.  That he believes this is from an article excerpt you provided in Message 42 in which Negoro was stated to believe that, "Just two amino-acid changes – two mutations, in other words – are required to change the beta-lactamase binding site to one capable of binding the nylon by-product."

This seems contradictory, so I guess you'll need to clarify your position for me.
Are you defining a gene which experiences a mutation as a "brand new gene?"

--Percy

View Post

In that passage, is Negoro using the term 'mutation' in the same sense you are? Some employ the term exclusively to describe copying errors, and some employ it to describe any change whatsoever, including the results of recombination and epigenetic mechanisms. Evospeak hasn't positively contributed to clear communication.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 July 2009 - 10:12 AM

Evospeak hasn't positively contributed to clear communication.

View Post

-_-




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users