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

Skip to comments.

Surprises in sea anemone genome (More Vindication for Intelligent Design/Creation Science)
The Scientist ^ | July 5, 2007 | Melissa Lee Phillips

Posted on 07/06/2007 11:20:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 last
To: js1138

==Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.

I’ll do you one better. How about a fossile record that:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.

Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May


151 posted on 07/10/2007 11:30:06 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
More Gould quotes on the subject:

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .


152 posted on 07/10/2007 11:37:50 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
From “Predictions of Intelligent Design” ... Informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found.

I'm willing to be convinced. Please show me how this statement is a prediction of ID. IOW, please reply with the logical argument from the axioms of ID whose conclusion is that statement and also show that its negation is inconsistent with the theory.

153 posted on 07/10/2007 11:45:33 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
More detailed article here.

Good luck getting to 1000 posts!

154 posted on 07/10/2007 11:45:47 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Just another Church of Darwin devotee desperately tugging at the unfalsifiable Darwinian elastic clause in an effort to give a thoroughly discredited “theory” CPR. But to Gould’s credit (unlike his co-religionists) he was a pioneer in at least admitting the facts in evidence re: the fossil record.
155 posted on 07/10/2007 11:45:54 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa

You might want to start by reading the OP. Here are some links for further commentary:

From the ID perspective:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/surprises-in-sea-anemone-genome/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/frontloading-confirmed/

And now for my favorite, from a Creation Science perspective:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200707.htm#20070708a


156 posted on 07/10/2007 11:58:11 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But to Gould’s credit (unlike his co-religionists) he was a pioneer in at least admitting the facts in evidence re: the fossil record.

Unlike some evolution critics, Gould was not a liar. He did not pull quotations out of context, attempting to make them say the opposite of what they intend.

157 posted on 07/10/2007 12:00:26 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I didn’t make him say the opposite of what he intended. I merely quoted his assessment of the fossil record. Everyone knows Gould clung to his Darwinist faith in spite of the massive evidence against it. What?...did you get the impression that I was trying to paint him as some sort of Creation Scientist? Perish the thought! I would never intentionally try to give the impression that a known Darwinist deserves such a privileged status.
158 posted on 07/10/2007 12:08:10 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This of course comes as no surprise for those of us who hold that evolution was front-loaded (anatomical complexity in later animals was present but not expressed in the ancestral animals) by an intelligent designer. Nothing in macro-evolution makes sense except in the light of front loading!

From the article linked by Dembski:

"What's exciting about this paper is that you're seeing the footprints of that ancient organization, reaching back perhaps 700 million years, which is an enormous expanse of evolution," said David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the work.

When Dembski talks about "front-loading" is he unaware that 700 million years is just one-fifth of the history of life? He is a mathematician, isn't he?

By the way, what happened to the Cambrian "explosion"? I thought the designer zapped all this complexity into the Genome one day 500 million years ago. What is it doing showing up 200 million years prior?

And what is a creationist doing admitting to 700 million years of evolution, anyway? Do the troops in the trenches know about this?

159 posted on 07/10/2007 12:17:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
we would expect the Creator to use common elements in His designs (if only so his creatures could eat each other, for for many other reasons as well).

I don't see it. Why would a Creator make His creatures so they eat each other? Even supposing that were true, it doesn't follow they need be made of common elements, at least as I understand the term.

160 posted on 07/10/2007 12:18:35 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I didn’t make him say the opposite of what he intended.

There you go again.

If you hadn't intended to misrepresent what Gould intended, you would have presented his thesis intact. Instead you pulled a snippet that makes no sense out of context.

You have absolutely nothing to say about his actual position. If you did, you would respond to it.

161 posted on 07/10/2007 12:20:44 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
... would definitively falsify Darwinism

... as a complete theory of the origin of the species (just helping, you left that part out.)

162 posted on 07/10/2007 12:21:17 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

In which of those (and where in it) can I read the argument?


163 posted on 07/10/2007 12:24:58 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Don’t you get it, even on your own/darwinist terms, the time allowed for a genome to evolve into something “nearly as complex as the human genome” has just shrunk by one-fifth! The probability of that happening by chance within such a limited time period = ZERO.


164 posted on 07/10/2007 1:07:37 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa

This discovery means that, even on evolutionary terms, the time allowed for a genome to “evolve” into something “nearly as complex” as the humane genome has just shrunk by one-fifth! The probability of that happening is nil. I suggest you read the following, and then go back and re-read the OP:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=155


165 posted on 07/10/2007 1:13:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
LAMARCKISM REVISITED

First, this isn't really Lamarckism. Lamarckism was a competing theory to Darwinian evolution based on heritability of acquired characteristics. The prime example being the giraffe stretching its neck every generation resulting in longer necked offspring. DNA and Mendialian genetics were unknown when this theory was popular, so it seemed reasonable (except when extrapolated to more ridiculous conclusions, i.e. loss of limbs). The reason I hinted at Lamarckism is because it would imply a direction to evolution based on individual desire, which is obviously in conflict with natural genetic variation. You seemed to have latched on to the keyword Larmarckism and ran with it though without having a thorough understanding.

Second, this is a far cry from being unattributable to genetic variance. In fact, the article explains *exactly* what is happening in the genetics to cause the morphological differences: "The methyl groups bound to a transposon at the 5' end of the agouti locus, thereby shutting off expression of the agouti gene, not just in the murine recipient but in its offspring as well." This is precisely what you weren't supposed to show. A gene is being shut off which causes the distribution of fur pigmentation in the offspring to change. No huge surprise.

Now, pick one of these:
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
Intelligent design has no explanation for these phenomena. A fish which doesn't need eyes has eyes that don't work? This is not a good design and your "theory" really has nothing to say about these. When *any* scientific theory fails to give an adequate explanation for any natural phenomena, we have no choice but to discard it and look for a better explanation. None of these cases are difficult in an evolutionary context.
166 posted on 07/10/2007 2:10:04 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

You remind me of a number of banned evos who posted here and continually called people who disagreed with them liars.


167 posted on 07/10/2007 2:20:10 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
True to Darwinist form, I knew you guys would try to Wesley out of this one. The whole point is that the mutation was caused by the environment (the opposite of random mutation + natural selection) and was passed on to the offspring. This is the antithesis of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and absolutely meets the qualification you laid down for falsifying the Darwinian ToE.
168 posted on 07/10/2007 2:30:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
True to Darwinist form

And true to IDist form, you label your opponent, ignore all arguments made by him, and attack a straw man of evolution.

The whole point is that the mutation was caused by the environment

First, methylation is not mutation. The article stated this explicitly, but you didn't read it: "...despite the fact that all offspring inherited exactly the same agouti gene (i.e., with no nucleotide differences), mice who received supplements had offspring with mostly brown fur..." Methylation only acts to control the level of gene expression. Methylation of the promoter of a gene will often lead to silencing that gene (by blocking DNA transcriptase). Alternatively, hypomethylation can cause over-expression of genes (e.g. oncogenes in human cancer). The reason the article was interesting was that they found a simple environmental factor which regulated the gene's expression via epigenetics (DNA methylation, which is inheritable). Again, this is not Lamarckism, but I'll let you figure out why.

(the opposite of random mutation + natural selection)

Any inheritable change in genetic expression is an evolutionary mechanism (not just random mutation - of which there are many types as well). For example, paramutation, bookmarking, imprinting, gene silencing, position effect, methylation, transvection, carcinogenesis, and histone and heterochromatin modifications all affect gene expression but do not change the actual DNA.

I also noticed that you avoided applying ID to some of the examples provided by nature. What kind of theory provides no answers when challenged?
169 posted on 07/10/2007 3:22:40 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
So I looked at it and nowhere do I see the argument, starting with ID that concludes informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found, which your post claimed was a prediction of ID.

I am truly interested. I think there's an obvious argument why the statement cannot be derived from any reasonable ID theory and I'd therefore like to see why you think otherwise. So please, instead of pointing me to pages that don't bear on the question, just post the argument in your own words.

PS, I don't know what the "OP" is.

PPS, that ICR article you linked is riddled with typical creationist sophistry. I hope you don't actually find it persuasive.

170 posted on 07/10/2007 6:12:51 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

But, you still don’t answer the question.


171 posted on 07/11/2007 4:07:07 AM PDT by shuckmaster (The only purpose of the news is to fill the space around the advertisements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: js1138

“Finding fossils sorted in the strata according to density rather than in a pattern that supports descent with modification. That would be good evidence against evolution.”

Actually, you are only half right.

Any evidence which shows other than a pattern of descent with modification in the fossil record would serve to falsify. Fossils wouldn’t necessarily have to be sorted by density, it would just have to be any fossil data which show other than a pattern of many unsuccessful mutations and a few successful mutations over a relatively long period of time. That’s why the discussion of the Cambrian “explosion” (yes, I know many don’t like to call it that, but that’s the simplest way to refer to it) is relevant to falsification of the TOE.


172 posted on 07/11/2007 9:23:26 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Don’t you get it, even on your own/Darwinist terms, the time allowed for a genome to evolve into something “nearly as complex as the human genome”

How do you measure complexity?

I know of no mathematical characteristic of the human genome that makes it significantly more complex than that of an amoeba. Genes are just parameters. Humans don't have significantly more parameters than other living things. Evolution just tweaks parameters a one or two at a time. In engineering, this is called Muntzing.

173 posted on 07/11/2007 10:26:40 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
That’s why the discussion of the Cambrian “explosion” (yes, I know many don’t like to call it that, but that’s the simplest way to refer to it) is relevant to falsification of the TOE.

A Cambrian mammal would cause a major upheaval in biology, but the Cambrian "explosion" is looking more and more like a dud. This is an era with few hard parts to be preserved by ordinary fossilization, so the things we find seem to appear suddenly. This picture is changing with DNA analysis.

174 posted on 07/11/2007 10:39:30 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
You remind me of a number of banned evos who posted here and continually called people who disagreed with them liars.

This is a management decision by FR. It does not change the fact that quote mining and misquotation are lying, nor does it change the fact that creationists like Ken Ham destroy children's' minds with their lies.

175 posted on 07/11/2007 10:44:40 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: js1138
==How do you measure complexity?

I was merely quoting a Science Daily article on the sea anemone genome. This just goes to shoe that the genome was already as complex as modern day humans even BEFORE the Cambrian explosion. This, of course, comes as no surprise to the Creation Scientist, as he is already well aware that all living things were created with their current complexity built-in (fully formed and fully functional). Here is the Science Daily quote in full:

“The first analysis of the genome of the sea anemone shows it to be nearly as complex as the human genome, providing major insights into the common ancestor of not only humans and sea anemones, but of nearly all multi-celled animals.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153000.htm

176 posted on 07/12/2007 10:16:51 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I was merely quoting a Science Daily article on the sea anemone genome. This just goes to shoe that the genome was already as complex as modern day humans even BEFORE the Cambrian explosion.

I have no problem with that, to an order of magnitude or so. This has been known for some time. Evolution is mostly bit changes to parameters.

The period since the Cambrian is one-seventh of the history of life. Virtually everything prior has been erased. Why should it be surprising that more happened in three billion years than in 500 million?

177 posted on 07/12/2007 10:56:51 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Putting my question another way: suppose you gave a test of general knowledge to people aged 60 and again at age 70.

Suppose you discovered that most of what people know at age 70, they already knew at age 60.

Would you call that “front-loading”?


178 posted on 07/12/2007 11:31:44 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: js1138
==I have no problem with that, to an order of magnitude or so. This has been known for some time. Evolution is mostly bit changes to parameters.

Then, as Darwin predicted, there should be innumerable transitional species...billions and billions of them...and yet there are none. The evidence overwhelmingly points towards Creation, and against Darwinian evolution. Or as Arthur Strahler (evolutionist in good standing) admits:

“...(the creationist) finds all the confession he needs from the evolutionists that each of these classes appears suddenly and with no trace of ancestors. The absence of the transitional fossils in the gaps between each group of fishes and its ancestor is repeated in standard treatises on vertebrate evolution...This is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from the paleontologists a plea of nolo contendre.”

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. “Science and Earth History: The evolution/creation controversy”, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. p. 408

179 posted on 07/12/2007 1:16:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Give me a good reason, based on the physics and chemistry of fossilization, why every part of every individual should be preserved.

Do you think, for example, that there are naturally preserved specimens of every stage in the evolution from wolf to teacup poodle? This has happened within the time of recorded history, and the morphological changes are greater than any gap in the fossil record.

Morphological change requires that a few individuals get cut off from the parent population. Changes equivalent to the changes in dogs can occur in a thousand years or less. There is little chance for this transition to be recorded.

Now for those Young Earthers out there lurking, creationists like Ham assert that current species are descended from a few hundred “types” over the last few thousand years — a rate of evolution that vastly exceeds anything claimed by biologists. If the divergence from generic cat to all the existing cat species occurred in a few thousand years, where are the transitionals?


180 posted on 07/12/2007 1:36:38 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: js1138
==Give me a good reason, based on the physics and chemistry of fossilization, why every part of every individual should be preserved.

Who said we require “every part of every individual” should be preserved? Of the billions upon billions of fossils, even if a small percentage were could be proved to be transitional fossils, that would be fine. Instead, we find none, zero, nada, zilch....Or in the words of one of Darwin’s high priests:

“ the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years [evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years], are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”

Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987). p. 229

Take his assumed timescale, and I couldn’t agree with him more!—GGG

181 posted on 07/12/2007 1:57:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
==First, this isn’t really Lamarckism. Lamarckism was a competing theory to Darwinian evolution based on heritability of acquired characteristics.

I suggest YOU go back and READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN. That’s exactly what the article is talking about. They changed the diet of the agouti mice which produced a mutation that was inherited by their offspring. Thus, by your own criteria, Neo-Darwinism is falsified.

==DNA and Mendialian genetics were unknown when this (Lamarckian) theory was popular, so it seemed reasonable

They were also unknown during Darwin’s time. The researchers studying DIRECTED MUTATION have just as much right to these discoveries as the researches who study random mutation.

182 posted on 07/12/2007 7:24:43 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Quote mining is not a substitute for thinking. Anyone who quotes Dawkins or Darwin or Gould to make it look like they are arguing against evolution is just admitting they haven’t got enough attention span to follow an argument.

The biggest problem with citing missing transitionals as a problem for evolution is that they are an even bigger problem for creationism.

Ken Ham, the leading spokesman for creationism at the moment, says everything from the Family level on down to the Species level evolved in just a few thousand years. Where are Ken Ham’s transitionals?


183 posted on 07/12/2007 7:31:52 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: js1138
==Quote mining is not a substitute for thinking.

I quote mine because every time I present the findings of Creationists/IDers your side disqualifies them as being religion masquerading as science. Additionally, if our side is correct (and it is) nature will force the evolutionists to prove our point for us (which it does).

==Ken Ham, the leading spokesman for creationism at the moment, says everything from the Family level on down to the Species level evolved in just a few thousand years. Where are Ken Ham’s transitionals?

If DIRECTED MUTATION is in fact true, you won’t find the extremely fine gradations in the fossil record that Darwinism predicts.

184 posted on 07/12/2007 7:47:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If DIRECTED MUTATION is in fact true, you won’t find the extremely fine gradations in the fossil record that Darwinism predicts.

If angels push the planet along we have no use for laws of gravity. If everything was created by the great invisible pink unicorn, we have no use for science at all.

185 posted on 07/12/2007 8:01:56 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I hate to break it to you, science is still science, even when Directed Mutation contradicts Darwinist religion:

“The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions. The significance of the Cairns paper is not in the presentation of new data but in the framing of the questions and in changing the psychology of the situation. He has taken the question ‘Are mutations directed?’ which was taboo, and made it an issue that people will now do experiments on.”

(Moffat, Anne Simon; “A Challenge to Evolutionary Biology,” American Scientist, 77:224, 1989.)


186 posted on 07/12/2007 8:08:44 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
They changed the diet of the agouti mice which produced a mutation that was inherited by their offspring.

Precisely (except for the mutation part again). In this case, a differential in gene expression is cause by the environment, the reason for it being an interesting result. Epigenetic inheritance is not doubted (as countless experiments have validated it) and can have environmental causes (hence the appeal to Lamarckism). Even though most biologists view epigenetic inheritence as another form of phenotypic plasticity... and not a primary mechanism of evolutionary novelty.

I asked for an animal whose offspring differed from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance. Obviously this example doesn't satisfy these requirements. I mentioned Lamarckism because in historical context it requires active mechanisms rather than evolution's passive mechanisms. For example, a giraffe's "desire" to have a longer neck does not cause it to have a long neck. I'll be more precise in the future. Regardless, all you've shown, and seem to be arguing for, is that a natural cause has a natural effect.

For further information in your "directed mutation" idea, I would look up phenotypic plasticity, which deals with phenotypic adaptations in individuals in response to the environment. It is well studied and I'm sure you can find numerous examples.
187 posted on 07/12/2007 9:54:21 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR

==I asked for an animal whose offspring differed from it in a way unattributable to genetic variance.

The offspring did differ from the parent in a way unattributable to genetic variance. As you said yourself, the underlying gene sequence of the agouti mice remained the same, and yet the change in their diet/environment produced changes to the phenotype that were non-random and heritable. And as for whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian, one of the researchers (Douglas Ruden from the Univ. of Alabama) quoted in The Scientist article says just that: “Epigenetics has always been Lamarckian. I really don’t think there’s any controversy.” If this is all true, the neo-Darwinian synthesis is falsified.


188 posted on 07/12/2007 11:06:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions

Then you will no doubt provide an example of this happening.

189 posted on 07/12/2007 11:30:23 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The offspring did differ from the parent in a way unattributable to genetic variance.

I hope you understand that genetic variance includes changes in gene expression levels as well, which this is.

And as for whether or not epigenetics is Lamarckian,

Well... like I tried to explain, it's borderline. In the sense of being an inheritable trait cause by the environment, yes. In the sense Lamarckian "desire", or acquired physical characteristics, no. Regardless, it's a an interesting case.

If this is all true, the neo-Darwinian synthesis is falsified.

Riiight... it's just another mechanism of evolution, that all.
190 posted on 07/12/2007 11:44:40 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-190 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