Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution
New York Times ^ | 10 December 2006 | Nicholas Wade

Posted on 12/10/2006 2:44:11 PM PST by Alter Kaker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last
To: LonePalm

Dammit man! I had to cover my mouth to keep from spewing luke warm coffee on my monitor and keyboard!


101 posted on 12/11/2006 10:37:59 AM PST by null and void (I'm not a great American. I'm a grateful American ~ Morrill Worcester (Worcester Wreath Co.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

"However, certain human populations have undergone a mutation on chromosome 2 which results in a bypass of the common shutdown in lactase production, allowing members of these populations to continue consumption of fresh milk and other milk products throughout their lives."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Lactose_intolerance


102 posted on 12/11/2006 10:57:10 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
"Who created the creator? After all, if something exists, it must have a creator."

This is only true if reality is limited to 4 dimensions.

A creator existing in 4+ dimensions does not require a beginning since he is not bound by time.

103 posted on 12/11/2006 11:03:24 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 3Lean
Since evolution is generally considered in the context of speciation

Actually, it isn't. Evolution is just change in allele frequencies over time. That can be caused by selection, which can take a number of forms including natural, sexual and artificial.

104 posted on 12/11/2006 11:53:48 AM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; 3Lean
"Actually, it isn't. Evolution is just change in allele frequencies over time."

This renders the term 'evolution' meaningless since it easily accomodates populations accumulating deleterious mutations.

This would allow evolutionists to claim that populations that are in catastrophic error-catastrophe are 'evolving' when they are actually in genetic meltdown.

Coincidental?

105 posted on 12/11/2006 12:06:18 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
This renders the term 'evolution' meaningless since it easily accomodates populations accumulating deleterious mutations. This would allow evolutionists to claim that populations that are in catastrophic error-catastrophe are 'evolving' when they are actually in genetic meltdown.

Huh? Populations don't go into "catastrophic error-catastrophe" (whatever that is). That violates the principle of natural selection -- more fit individuals will survive, which means that there is constant evolutionary pressure towards greater fitness, not less.

106 posted on 12/11/2006 12:16:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: jim35
There are tons of fossils, lots of evidence of what happened, with some pretty good evidence of when it happened, but practically nothing but raw speculation, ever changing, about how it happened.

I think your first clause disproves yours second. We know how it happened: selection, mutation, gene flow and genetic drift, and we can readily and repeatedly observe those four forces in the fossil and genetic record.

We know that hydrogen didn't evolve, that it was somehow created.

I don't know what "evolve" means in that context. Evolution in the biological sense refers to a change in allele frequencies over time. Hydrogen has no alleles. It did not "evolve". Hydrogen did form approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang, per cosmologists, when atomic nuclei and electrons cooled down enough to combine.

Tell me how the first bits of life came about. Then show me your proof.

My answer is: I don't know. Evolution has nothing to say on the matter -- as far as I know, God could have created the first life.

107 posted on 12/11/2006 12:22:22 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
People keep calling it a mutation. Why is that?

Because it's a mutation that we can observe in the genetic record. Looking at random mutations over time to that mutation, we can get an approximate date for it's first appearance. Which is exactly what the researchers did in this study.

IOW, this article is opinion.

Nonsense. Out of curiosity, what are your qualifications? Have you read the actual study?

108 posted on 12/11/2006 12:25:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
I don't tolerate high amounts of alcohol like I used to. Am I evolving?

No, but if you continue to consume large quantities of alcohol, your children will possibly evolve, although the resultant mutations are unlikely to be benign or beneficial.

109 posted on 12/11/2006 12:27:09 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: jim35
. Just for the sake of info, how do these researchers know when this took place?

By looking at the degree of variation between different copies of the mutated gene, microbiologists can estimate the age of its earliest appearance, as certain mutation rates are reasonably constant. At the present time, this kind of dating is still only approximate, as you'll notice with the date used in this article which has an accuracy of +/- 2000 years.

110 posted on 12/11/2006 12:30:53 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
I guess that's why they can't duplicate Darwinism in the lab--cause that wouldn't be natch'rl.

Maybe you could help us out then -- please describe to me a hypothetical experiment where one could "duplicate Darwinism (sic) in a lab."

111 posted on 12/11/2006 12:32:58 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Lactose tolerance is just a normal 'loss-of-function' mutation. Nothing supporting evolution here.

Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to believe whatever it is you feel called on to believe.

112 posted on 12/11/2006 12:34:28 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
The domestication of mammal herds makes available a source of excess milk but by itself doesn't prove that the enzyme had remained switched off thousands of years before.

No it doesn't. That's why the researchers mentioned in the article conducted the genetic experiment they did, in order to date the mutation.

113 posted on 12/11/2006 12:36:13 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Or, you might have the gene(s) that turn off at adulthood.

I know many adults that should switch from genes altogether, and just wear sweat pants.

114 posted on 12/11/2006 12:38:09 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
If you don't accept the obvious examples in millenia of animal husbandry, then there's no lab that can duplicate natural selection. In which case, we'd have to way to test the hypothesis other than a historical record.
115 posted on 12/11/2006 12:45:52 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
If you don't accept the obvious examples in millenia of animal husbandry, then there's no lab that can duplicate natural selection.

Animal husbandry is the opposite of natural selection. Sorry Mamzelle.

116 posted on 12/11/2006 12:47:04 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"Tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to believe whatever it is you feel called on to believe."

Like you aren't doing the same thing?

117 posted on 12/11/2006 12:47:20 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: labette
I would think the casualty rate would be kinda high if milk consumption was attempted before domestication.

LOL True.

118 posted on 12/11/2006 12:50:17 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
So, is there a lab scenario? Seems to me that if you can't duplicate, you can't demonstrate. So the theory has no scientific, testable accountability, at least in the conventional sense.

Sorry, Alter Kater. Ain't accepting this stuff on faith or even history.

119 posted on 12/11/2006 12:52:51 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: null and void
It's an additional food source in a famine.

Hmmm. . .makes sense, but I'll have to think about that. Assuming they had domesticated cattle, it would seem the first thing they would do is eat some of the cattle as well as some of the plants the cattle ate.

120 posted on 12/11/2006 12:53:30 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Because it's a food source.

True, but so are the cattle that produce the milk, as well as some of the plants the cattle eat.

121 posted on 12/11/2006 12:54:56 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Yes, cattle are food, but a society that can milk cattle is stronger than a society that is dependent only on their meat, as it has a more stable food source. Stone age societies couldn't slaughter cattle every day.


122 posted on 12/11/2006 12:56:50 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Seems to me that if you can't duplicate, you can't demonstrate.

I take it we haven't demonstrated why the earth revolves around the sun? After all, nobody has successfully duplicated the process.

123 posted on 12/11/2006 12:58:16 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"Huh? Populations don't go into "catastrophic error-catastrophe" (whatever that is). That violates the principle of natural selection -- more fit individuals will survive, which means that there is constant evolutionary pressure towards greater fitness, not less."

Catastrophic error catastrophe is when a population has too many mutations to clear them via natural selection.

RNA viruses are suspected of being in catastrophic error catastrophe and humans are very close.

"RNA viruses which replicate close to the error threshold have a genome size of order 104 base pairs. Human DNA is about 3.3 billion (109) base units long. This means that the replication mechanism for DNA must be orders of magnitude more accurate than for RNA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe

"Error catastrophe is when genetic errors accumulate in a population faster than they can be rid of. Using data supplied by evolutionists themselves, and their own standard model of evolutionary genetics, one can show that humans are within or precariously close to error catastrophe — even if we give the evolutionary model the incredible advantage of assuming that a full 97% of the human genome is completely inert and unavailable to suffer harmful mutation."

http://www1.minn.net/~science/contents_detail.htm

One of those cases of reality intruding on theory.

124 posted on 12/11/2006 12:58:34 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Now please explain to me how error catastrophe can arise in a sexual population.


125 posted on 12/11/2006 1:00:30 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
"I take it we haven't demonstrated why the earth revolves around the sun? After all, nobody has successfully duplicated the process."

That is correct.

Fred Hoyle, as follows:

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."

Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973), p. 78

126 posted on 12/11/2006 1:01:07 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

>>Because it's a mutation that we can observe in the genetic record. <<

I wasn't wondering why they called it "a mutation we can observe in the genetic record", I was wondering why they called it a mutation at all.


127 posted on 12/11/2006 1:01:22 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Some excellent models have been created and tested. (But--they aren't natchr'l.) They do manage to get rockets into space, however, based on what they learn from the models.

Are the Dismal Coots at DC getting lonely again?

128 posted on 12/11/2006 1:02:39 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

When error correction schemes are not precise enough to prevent replication errors over a certain threshhold. The larger the genome, the more precise the error correction schemes must be.

The links I included said that.


129 posted on 12/11/2006 1:02:56 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

I'm just glad they decided to milk the girl cows.


130 posted on 12/11/2006 1:07:44 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vetsvette; neverdem
neverdem posted the following interesting info on another thread...

Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe

A SNP in the gene encoding lactase (LCT) (C/T-13910) is associated with the ability to digest milk as adults (lactase persistence) in Europeans, but the genetic basis of lactase persistence in Africans was previously unknown. We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence and that have derived alleles that significantly enhance transcription from the LCT promoter in vitro. These SNPs originated on different haplotype backgrounds from the European C/T-13910 SNP and from each other. Genotyping across a 3-Mb region demonstrated haplotype homozygosity extending >2.0 Mb on chromosomes carrying C-14010, consistent with a selective sweep over the past 7,000 years. These data provide a marked example of convergent evolution due to strong selective pressure resulting from shared cultural traits—animal domestication and adult milk consumption.

131 posted on 12/11/2006 1:18:10 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Junior

*Ping* to an interesting article surrounded by an ocean of creationists.


132 posted on 12/11/2006 1:18:52 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Stone age societies couldn't slaughter cattle every day.

True, but it's doubtful they all domesticated cattle at the same time.

133 posted on 12/11/2006 1:25:25 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
What's the connection with Vitamin D? It would take several quarts of raw milk to meet the daily requirement of Vitamin D--that's why processed milk tends to be fortified with Vitamin D.
134 posted on 12/11/2006 1:31:25 PM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
I understand that, but lactose digestion is normal(what I am saying). It is "shut down" later in life as a "normal" condition of some mammals including man(what you are saying). Lactose tolerance is "returned" by not "shutting down" the mechanism that metabolizes the sugar. If you look at the genome on gene 2 you might see something related to your answer. Again note that turning something on or off requires a mutation(change) to the mechanism coded in DNA.

LAC, 2q21

Also HYPOLACTASIA, ADULT TYPE has a good explanation of the topic

135 posted on 12/11/2006 1:36:26 PM PST by AndrewC (Duckpond, LLD, JSD (all honorary))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

So if I have a friend who is lactose intolerant, can I tell her that she is the missing (now found) link between humans and apes?


136 posted on 12/11/2006 1:44:47 PM PST by abishai (And Abishai...said to the king, "let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim35
OK, just one question: Why did our ancestors bother to domesticate milk cows, when they couldn't digest the milk in the first place? Did they know that some day, they would become lactose tolerant? If this is evolution, wouldn't that mean our ancestors had to be drinking milk, as adults, for a long time, in the hope that some day their children, or grandchildren, etc, would mutate that gene? Wow, our ancestors were VERY forward thinking.

No, our ancestors probably were mixed in who could or could not drink milk. Some could, some couldn't. Something happens, where other food sources are in bad shape. Just say plants other than grasses are killed off. The cow milk is a great source of fat. Those who were able to consume it, survive the drought and then reproduce. The classic study on this phenomena is the brittish rabbit and butterfly population. White was the dominant color, with some charcoalish too but in a vast minority. Once industrialization came, the air got really sooty. The whites got eaten off quickly by predators, now darker colors were more predominant. Then they stopped using so much coal, and it switched once again. If the recessive trait was totally killed off, the species might have died.

137 posted on 12/11/2006 1:46:46 PM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: abishai
So if I have a friend who is lactose intolerant, can I tell her that she is the missing (now found) link between humans and apes?

Is that an attempt at humor?

138 posted on 12/11/2006 1:47:01 PM PST by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"I understand that, but lactose digestion is normal(what I am saying). It is "shut down" later in life as a "normal" condition of some mammals including man(what you are saying)."

Except that you are ignoring the fact that lactose digestion is normally shut down later in life and I am not. The system is normally more complex than you acknowledge and is disabled by mutation. Disabling complex systems would not be consistent with a goo-to-you evolution model.

"Lactose tolerance is "returned" by not "shutting down" the mechanism that metabolizes the sugar.

Au contraire, it is not 'returned'. It never left in those individual genomes where the shut-down sequence is disabled.

"If you look at the genome on gene 2 you might see something related to your answer."

Sorry, I make it a habit not to try to interpret for people. I figure that if they have something to say, they will say it.

"Again note that turning something on or off requires a mutation(change) to the mechanism coded in DNA."

What we are dealing with here is a complex system that supposedly arose (or was created) that enabled lactose-tolerance early in life and then shuts it down. That the shut-down sequence is disabled by mutation is a loss-of-function mutation. Much simpler than the turn-on sequence which required that the system be built.

139 posted on 12/11/2006 2:08:21 PM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Modern practice is to fortify milk with Vitamin D. Not so long ago that was not the practice ~ that's mostly because no one knew that we needed Vitamin D, or what a vitamin might be, or that milk was something other than a tasty liquid.

The deal is that the further North you go the less opportunity there is to bare the skin to expose it to sunlight so the body can make its own vitamin D. So, what you do is drink cow's milk (or the milk of some other mammal) to make up for the deficiency. That way you can move even further North (to exploit the resources).

Of course, you eventually run into a situation where your skin can't get lighter (to allow in more sunlight), and the cows can't live. So, what to do?

Other sources of Vitamin D are fish and seamammals.

Early man conquered the North by drinking the milk of wild mammals, eating lots of fish, and hunting for seamammals like walrus, seal, porpoise, and so on.

140 posted on 12/11/2006 4:17:36 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

The East African thing had to be disease. If Vitamin D helps you ward off bacteria attacking your body, it's useful to be able to consume it (in milk) as an adult.


141 posted on 12/11/2006 4:19:10 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
No doubt all of that is very good information. On the other hand the idea of "control genes" turning on and off other genes as well as exogenic DNA methylation are VERY NEW discoveries and just about everybody is unaware of them.

I've noticed that even our numerous pro-evolution guys still hold out for all sorts of quasi-supernatural explanations when a simple reference to an existing DNA methylation or "control gene" peer reviewed report would be sufficient.

This will take time ~ and, if that article (the one you C&Pd) is typical of what we face, it will take an awful lot of time ~

142 posted on 12/11/2006 4:24:57 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
But we don't know that.

Experiments must be conducted numerous times to prove that these differences to not prevent interbreeding.

Find volunteers ~

143 posted on 12/11/2006 4:26:05 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Lactose tolerance is a modern (within the last ten millenia) change in the genome that allows adult humans to digest lactose.

Normal human beings do not have this change.

144 posted on 12/11/2006 4:31:25 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: 3Lean
Outside of ethnographic studies I think you can find something on the matter in the journal of the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Time to read!

145 posted on 12/11/2006 4:32:53 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; Alter Kaker; 3Lean
Although I don't buy the idea that a change in allele frequency over time is evolution, the fact is that there are isolated human populations who have developed deliterious mutations but who are not in genetic meltdown.

The Sa'mi, closely related to the Europeans, live in the far North where no grass grows. They have a variation in a gene affecting digestion which results in many of them reacting to wheat gluten as if it were poisonous.

Although modern Sa'ami number under 100,000 people a full 1% of white Americans have this same gene. That's 2,250,000 people! An even larger number of such folk live in Western Europe.

The gene is not harmful if you never eat wheat, barley or rye. It is disastrous if you have a large appetite for white bread.

Most of the references to this genetic situation are 6 years or less old, which gives you some idea of how long anyone has had a clue about the cause. You can cure it in three days by not eating the offending products.

I know a gentleman with a celiac problem all his life. Although he's in his 80s he gave up bread for 3 days and his problem is gone. Just to test it he ate an icecream cone. It came back instantly.

The Eskimos have similar genetic arrays.

Now, is this genetic difference a disaster, or simply a "difference"? Can you eat as much seal liver as an Eskimo? Or, do you have a genetic disorder that prevents you from consuming a substance with maybe a thousand times the safe level of mercury and other heavy metals? If you can't do that then, from the Eskimo perspective, you may well be considered horribly handicapped with a dangerous disease.

"Genetic meltdown" depends on where you live and what you eat.

146 posted on 12/11/2006 4:43:46 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

I gather cattle were domesticated in Europe but once ~ and that was the aurox.


147 posted on 12/11/2006 4:49:20 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

Interesting article, thanks for posting it.

Of course, the anti science luddites will misunderstand, and try to use the bible as a science text.

But, for everyone else, its a fascinating report and we are just learning about the complexities of human evolution.


148 posted on 12/11/2006 4:51:45 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

149 posted on 12/11/2006 4:54:28 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Pro Evolution, Pro Stem Cell Research, Pro Science, Pro Free Thought, and Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
A more recent example:


150 posted on 12/11/2006 4:54:32 PM PST by quark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson