like so much worthless dust

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:31:39 PM3/29/10
to
"you can't outright prove that Gilgamesh
and Jack the Ripper are of one contiguous
breeding population, but, you'd like me
to suspect that human beings and broccoli
have a common ancestor"


i'm willing to accept, without proof,
that Gilgamesh and Jack the Ripper may
be on the same "family tree" but,
that Gilgamesh and broccoli have
a "comon ancestor" begins the 'decent'
into outlandish speculation, and
it doesn't stop there.

[fixed width text]

-------
|A __|___
| | | B |
| | | _|____
---|--- | | |
|____|_| |
| C |
|______|

some A are in B
some B are in C

does not return as

some A -are- in C

some A are not in B
some B are not in C

some A -may- be in C

some A may not be in C

all A -may not- be in C

"all common traits denote common ancestry,
-but- sometimes, common traits do not
denote common ancestry"

so, we have to remediate that;


"some common ancestry is denoted by some common traits"

"some common traits are shared by humans and deer"

and -then- the grand leap;

"[all] common ancestry is shared by humans and deer"


"common ancestry is not denoted by some common traits"

"some common traits are shared by humans and deer"

"common ancestry is not shared by humans and deer"


as soon as you break it to "some"

you get only a "maybe"

if you can't say;

"all common traits denote common ancestry"

then you fall well short of;

"common traits denote common ancestry"

"some common traits denote common ancestry"

"some common traits do not denote common ancestry"


"human beings and deer have some common traits"


"human beings and deer may or may not share a common ancestry"

so, it's an arm twist to demand that


some common traits denote common ancestry

> [fixed width text]

> -------
> |A __|___
> | | | B |
> | | | _|____
> ---|--- | | |
> |____|_| |
> | C |
> |______|

> so, it's an arm twist to demand that

> some common traits denote common ancestry


and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"

so,

it's -still- an arm twist to say this;


"95% common traits denote common ancestry"


no, it's still quite conceivable that
a -complete- discontinuity exists
even where "95%" common traits
are possessed.

> [fixed width text]

> -------
> |A __|___
> | | | B |
> | | | _|____
> ---|--- | | |
> |____|_| |
> | C |
> |______|

> so, it's an arm twist to demand that

> some common traits denote common ancestry


and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"

so,

it's -still- an arm twist to say this;


"95% common traits denote common ancestry"


no, it's still quite conceivable that
a -complete- discontinuity exists
even where "95%" common traits
are possessed.


and therefore, substantial room

for reasonable doubt

in suspecting that "95%" common traits
denote -any- sort of common ancestry.


and so, my doubt remains...


> > [fixed width text]

> > -------
> > |A __|___
> > | | | B |
> > | | | _|____
> > ---|--- | | |
> > |____|_| |
> > | C |
> > |______|


"all common traits denote common ancestry,
-but- sometimes, common traits do not
denote common ancestry"

and this is what you are looking at with
the facts surrounding the construction
of so-called "phylogentic trees"

there is no single phylogentic tree
without conflict,

and so, we are stuck with;

"common traits -may- denote common ancestry"

and further;


-some- A is in B
-some- B is in C

with -no- clear reckoniong of
the relationship between A and C


A and C may be world's apart


period


> > so, it's an arm twist to demand that

> > some common traits denote common ancestry

> and this basically breaks it for "95% common traits"

> so,

> it's -still- an arm twist to say this;

> "95% common traits denote common ancestry"

> no, it's still quite conceivable that
> a -complete- discontinuity exists
> even where "95%" common traits
> are possessed.

> and therefore, substantial room

> for reasonable doubt

> in suspecting that "95%" common traits
> denote -any- sort of common ancestry.

> and so, my doubt remains...

> > > [fixed width text]
>
> > > -------
> > > |A __|___
> > > | | | B |
> > > | | | _|____
> > > ---|--- | | |
> > > |____|_| |
> > > | C |
> > > |______|

> "all common traits denote common ancestry,
> -but- sometimes, common traits do not
> denote common ancestry"


you get stuck with a;


"if A then A"

"if we assume common ancestry,
we prove common ancestry"


but that's a "fairy tale"


[fixed width text]
_______________
| || || |
|A||common ||B|
| ||traits || |
| || || |
_______________


see, even

-most- 'common traits' are in A
-most- 'common traits' are in B

and yet, no A is in B

which is to say, that even
a large 'percentage' of
"common traits"

does -not- necessitate
"common lineage"


it -can- be pure coincidence...


this may be a little clearer;

[fixed width text]

___ _
| | |B|
|A| | |
|_|_________|_|
| common |
| traits |
|_____________|


meaning, you can construct a little diagram

where -nearly all- of "A" and "B"

are found in "C", 'common traits'

and yet, in which, a complete

discontinuity between

"A" and "B" remains.


something like this

[fixed width text]
_______________
/ |\ /| \
/A|\common /|B\
/ |\traits /| \
/ |\ /| \
_______________


the commonality does not, in itself,
denote comon breeding populations,

or basically -any- sort of "A" and "B"

meaning, "A" and "B" can stand
for just about anything,

apples and oranges if you like...

apples are very much like oranges in many ways,

but, apples are not oranges...


> > > > -------
> > > > |A __|___
> > > > | | | B |
> > > > | | | _|____
> > > > ---|--- | | |
> > > > |____|_| |
> > > > | C |
> > > > |______|


it's not just a matter of
whether -i- 'like' it or not,

it -is- doubtful...

"common ancestry" -is- a dubious claim


see, but the same cannot be said for the
'proponents' of a single phylogentic theory,

-they- =like it=

and therefore, they repress their skepticism

on this account...


if you opened it up to just minimal skepticism,

common ancestry would blow away in the breeze

like so much worthless dust.

--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/


--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:32:34 PM3/29/10
to
this is the problem;

first, it is set forth that;

disparate breeding populations can
manifest similar characteristics,

and then it is positted that;

a similar characteristic found
on disparate breeding populations,
demonstrates a "common ancestry"

it's not just ambiguous, it's contradictory.

first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits
and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.

that it is clearly shown that common traits
do not require common ancestry nullifies
any contention that common traits
demonstrate common ancestry.

it's that simple...

there is no single phylogenetic tree,

and common ancestry is not shown

by the 'evidence'


the notion of common ancestry
is demanded -only- by personal bias,

and therefore, it -should be- discarded.


the evidence can be used to describe a situation

where multiplex and disparate breeding populations

exist independantly without common physical ancestry.


and now, you can add in the bits about ducks and dogs...
which is to say that it need not be shown
that "today's" assortment/taxonomy is -identical-
to "yesterday's" assortment/taxonomy, because
"species" is defined in an ambiguous manner.


+ [digression]
and so, now, what i posit is this;

that, if you were to gather up sperm
and egg samples from all sexually
reproducing organisms,

a huge library of samples,

and run all of the possible permutations
of viable offspring developement,

that you would find, not only a smaller number
of groups which could be considered
'breeding populations'

and therefore classified as 'species'

but that you would also find discontinuity
and a discontiguous nature to all available
organisms, and that, it would be, therefore,
possible to contend that this discontiguous
nature to all organisms,

has always been a factor.

meaning, you would find sets of groups,
and that production of ofspring was available
within given groups, and not available
between discontiguous groupings.

where =current= environment
and =current= breeding habits
are not the criterion for species,

but the ability to produce an offspring

is the sole criterion.

one wonders why no 'evolutionist' group
argues for the potential of a -discontiguous-
nature as opposed to the contention of a
-necessity- for a contiguous nature,
because no such -necessity- exists.

see, 'conflict' in the so-called "phylogentic tree"

shows that similar functionality, is found on organisms

-after- they are categorized -as- discontiguous,

and not -before-.


meaning, similar functionality is said to have

'arisen' in -disparate- organisms -by- 'conflicts'

in the so-called "phylogentic tree" and that this

similar functionality is not possibly -passed on-

from any 'common ancestry,'


and this tends to discredit any contention that

'common ancestry' is -necessary- to account

for similar functionality.


what?


you can find similar functionality

=without= implying 'common ancestry'

and so, the so-called "phylogenetic tree"

may not be a single distinct tree at all,

but -can be- viewed as -several-

-discontiguous- =trees=, plural.

no one can supply me with

a -single- "phylogentic tree"

without -conflicts- and therefore,

is is valid to suggest

that no such -single- "phylogentic tree"
is an apt description of the reality

of all relationships of all organisms
on the planet heretofore called "earth"
+ [end digression]


which is to say that organisms are categorized according
to physical characteristics, from outward display of trait
to molecular organization, which do not conclusively
describe placement within a particular breeding population,

and so, while these physical characteristics may permutate
over time, and therefore, the subjective assorting of organisms
according to such characteristics may likewise see alteration,
that multiplex and disparate breeding populations exist
independantly and without common physical ancestry
remains valid, and therefore even gross comparison
between "yesterday" and "today" doesn't bring you much
in the way of useful information in establishing
primary relatedness.


in other words, it's sort of a "fool's game"


in that one may be forced to try and solve for

5 independant variables with s single equation,

and so, you get multiple -solutions- to,


Ax + By + Cz + Dj + Ei = P


where A, B, C, D, E and P are constants

and x, y, z, j, and i are independant variables.


just making all constants 1, and yo uget


x + y + z + j + i = 1


and this alone has an infinite number of solutions,

and so, the "fool's game" goes like this;

you substitute and "tweak" the variables
to get your single "agreed upon" 'solution'

but you can carry this on ad nauseum

and never reach _THE_ solution because

no such _THE_ solution exists.


in other words...


the appearance of multiple, discontiguous
lines of organisms would generally be identical
to the consequences of multiple forms brought
about by an act of special creation.


the demand of a -singular- pathway
from bacterium to man ruins -evolution-
because of the gaping contradiction,

and that contradiction being;


first, common ancestry is not required for similar traits
and then, similar traits are used to suggest common ancestry.

that it is clearly shown that common traits
do not require common ancestry nullifies
any contention that common traits
demonstrate common ancestry.

and it -seems- as if the only reason
to maintain the "singular pathway" theory

is to contradict the prospect of special creation
resulting in numerous "kinds" which were never part
of a single breeding population.


so, in the long run, in maintaining a singular pathway
for this reason, you will do nothing but break the back
of the entire evolutionary schemata as opposed to
ruining any ideas of special Creation by design,

and it matters little if it takes 500 years for
"Science" to come to its senses and agree to
a multiple pathway theory "en masse", as
a multiple pathway -is- what
the evidence suggests,

and, of course, a multiple pathway
is indistinguishable from multiple kinds
brought forth by acts of special creation
by design.


--


--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:33:22 PM3/29/10
to
there is no physical record of

any contiguous breeding population

which includes any non-human organism [X]

and humans.

it is only speculation that such a

contiguous breeding population exists.


such a contiguous breeding population

is not a fact.

the speculation on the existance of
a contiguous breeding population which
includes a non-human organism and humans
certainly seems to be non-verifiable with
any sort of physical observation.


such speculation is a bad 'theory'...


see, my problem with the so-called 'fossil record'

is this, inability to ascertain breeding population.


so, in essence yo uhave people concluding things about
this so-called 'fossil record' with a very key bit of
information not only missing, but unattainable.

so, for instance, someone concludes that two sets
of boney fragments that look somehwhat alike in form

constitute a similar organism, and that two fragments
that look quite dissimilar, constitute variant organisms


all without any way of establishing absolute breeding population.


meaning, -if- you were to dig up something that looked
like a pekinese, and some other thing that looked like
a great dane, you -could- argue about them as if they
were different 'species' to the exclusion of any opinion
that would suggest that they are the same "species",

by "convention" all without any way of determining if
the two fragments were ever able to mate and produce
viable offspring, which, as it turns out, they can.

and, it's also, quite possible, that two bugs,

that look nearly identical may not be able to have
ever produced viable offspring, and, were therefore,
never part of a single contiguous breeding population
and, therefore, not the same 'species' and yet, be
classified -as- the same species with no chnace of
fully demonstrating breeding population, based
on outward appearance alone.

now, you find a variety of bugs, and start
trying to hang "extinct" labels on them


all without any idea as to whether one of -them-
could reproduce viable offspring with a bug that
is wandering about today, even if, it's appearance
has changed somewhat and it looks different as
far as one can tell from a 'fossil'


so, you start making up all these stories about
"extinct" species that you have zero method of
determining relationship with present day finds
with regards to breeding potential.

and then we have the problem of what appears

to be a genetic poverty developing as opposed

to a genetic richness.


take, for instance, the cheetahs and their potential
for extinction because they have had loss in populations
which can not be replenished because much genetic
information has been lost to the population losses

and gentic lethalities are prevalent and the
same sort of situation is occuring
in human beings.

it looks as though genetic poverties are on the rise

and not genetic richness, and this -because- of divergences.

and so, the model from creation would posit


prototype models with a genetic -richness-

which included an array of potential outward expressions
of traits many of which are now classified as variant
-species- by taxonomers but which are, in reality, simply
variant expressions of trait structures that were already
present in the initial prototypes

from square one.

and bones, being what they are, there is little opportunity
of demonstrating absolute breeding populations from bones alone,
and so, the models rise to an impassive ambiguity which
cannot be broken based on that boney evidence.


there simply is no contiguous breeding population to latch on to
to demonstrate any sort of 'interspecies' transformation.

it's inconclusive...

meaning, it's not possible to conclude either of these;


"it is possible that a fossil find could have bred
with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"

or

"it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with a contemporary living organism and produce
viable offspring"


or, "it is possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find to produce viable offspring"

or, "it is not possible that a fossil find could have
bred with another fossil find and produced viable offspring"


and without that very key information,

all statements concerning fossil relationships to
contemporary organisms are rather meaningless.


there's just no way of establishing
a contiguous breeding population

and so, positting that such a contiguous
breeding population exists is speculation.


not fact...

--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:34:38 PM3/29/10
to
[fixed width font]
> =======>
>
> _N_121-123-124-324-432
> 434-234-431-213 \
> \
> 412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
> 143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
> /
> /
> -N-434-234-431-213

this is a little assembly line,

and it's operative mission is

to make replicas of itself.


this operative mission is not innovative, and


incorrect copies are generally spot repaired,

shunted off to a recycling area, or destroyed.


the machine itself is not geared towards innovations.


the machine itself is geared towards precise replication.

in addition to making replicas of itself,

this machine builds and maintains a larger,

composite 'fractalized' version of itself.

which is to say, the machine replicates itself

in its indivisible micro-state, and,

erects and maintains, a composite superstructure

of which, -it- is the blueprint image.

generally, when and if, 'misprints' and other incorrect copying

pass through all of the safeguard devices which assure

replication of the mico-state mechanism, the

composite superstructure tends

to lose functionallity,


where redundancy is incorporated into the make-up

of the micro-state mechanism, which safeguards against

total breakdowns of the composite superstructure

attributable to such misprints and other incorrect

copyings in the micro-state mechanism.

which is to say that;

the micro-state system, will tend to have multiple components
which carry out the same task in erecting and maintaining the
composite superstructure, and so, when one or two 'break down'
due to incorrect copying, the other correct copies will still
be operative so as to assure the overall functionality
of the composite superstructure,


and also, it can be the case, where only very minimal 'damage'
is experienced because of a misprint etc. and the generalized
functionality may be maintained, even in the 'damaged' component.

but, what never seems to be seen, is, that,

a broken of damaged component provides

a =greater= efficacy to the overall workings

of the composite superstructure,

and so, the mechanism itself

is "non-innovative"


and so, what still seems to be in effect

is that organisms who =possess= the more

greatly diverse genomes tend to be able

to maintain their survivability over

the more extensive enviromental systems,

and in this way does a particular environmental sub-system

educes trait structures, -from- an -existing- _genomic_ structure,

which are more suitable for a given, particular,

envirnonmental sub-system,

and, so, we have a "non-innovative" mechanism

inhabitting a variable =environmental= system


where the =environment= -educes- variant

-expressed- trait structures from the

=already diverse and adaptable=

genomic structures,

and -this- is what =some= people would call "evolution"

what we are not seeing is

genetically less diverse organisms

gaining greater genetic diversity

through environmental eduction.

such as; we do not see "the environment" -assisting- in

an =innovation= of more highly adaptable -genomic- structures,

inasmuch as the genomes themselves are "non-innovative" and

geared towards replication, but only in the eduction of

more survivable strains or expression,

from already diverse genomes.

so, it seems as if, Life -on- this Earth is engaged in

a fierce struggle -with- the environment -of- this Earth

and slowly losing its diversity, functionality

and survivability -to- this Earth.


we see organisms survive because they already have
the genomic variability which make them adaptive
to multiplex environmental sub-systems.

this fits a model for "special creation"

meaning, organisms =begin= with the greater diversity

and are =losing- functionality and adaptability

to forces of environmental decay.


"save me Jesus"

=right=... exactly...


"oh dear YHWH, maintain the hedge around us,

like you did for Job"

=right=... exactly...

> > and, as you can see, from this bit on the peppered moths,
> > the =environment= -educed- variant -expressed- trait structures
> > -from- the =already diverse and adaptable= genomic structure.

> "Biston betularia" is a single species with
> two noticeable =phenotypic= variations,

> very much like the 'dog' exhibits
> pekineses and german shepherds etc.


so, what one may consider is this as an example;

in breeding a pekinese out from a more
genetically diverse 'proto-canine'

that, some, maybe much, genetic information is lost,
in such a way as, -if- all dogs except the pekinese
were suddenly killed, that it would be much more difficult
to breed a malamute from the pekinese as it would be
to breed a malamute from the 'proto-canine'

and so, dog breeds who came forth from the pekinese
as sole progenitor, would have a more difficult time
'adapting' to the wider range of environments to which
'the dog' now is capable of adapting,
and would become 'endangered'

see, in breeding out the pekinese, breeders pick out
specific traits, isolate them, and even euthanize
individuals which express traits they, the breeders,
are not seeking, and so, after many successive generations,

the -genetic- trait structures that constitute
the malamute's -expressed- trait structure,
may become, essentially, 'lost' to the pekinese,

and, reconstituting the 'proto-canine'

from the pekinese alone, may be

simply impossible, and

in this way, 'divergences' =decrease= survivability.


which is to suggest that;

'proto-canine' had a good 'global' survivability

-because- it could 'diverge' into a variety of expressions,

each adapted to a more specific environment, or 'niche'

but, as these 'divergences' -lose- genetic information,

each individual 'breed' is tending towards a lesser degree

of suvivability in the overall global environment of the earth,


and, this sort of phenomenon, if occuring in all global species,


is a slow losing battle to the environment.

[fixed width text]


=======================================


_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______



N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D

_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______

=======>

_NN_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231

=======>

_N_121
\
\

123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
-N-434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231

=======>

_N_121-123
434 \
\

124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434

=======>

_N_121-123-124
434-234 \
\

324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324
434-234-431 \
\

432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432
434-234-431-213 \
\

412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
143-124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
/
-N-434-234-431-213

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412
434-234-431-213-143 \
\

431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
124-324 /
-N-434-234-431-213-143

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431
434-234-431-213-143-124 \
\

231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_NN_
324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324 \

\ U

N--324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324

/ |
/
NN
/
/
124-N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324
/ D
434-234-431-213-143-124-324

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231-N-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 \
\

321-232-123-413-231-243-324

|

NN

/
N-413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413 \
\

232-123-413-231-243-324

|

NN

/

412-143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324 431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413

=======>


_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412 \
\

123-413-231-243-324

\

NN

/

143-234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412

=======>


_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143 \
\

413-231-243-324

\

NN

/

234-121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234 \
\

231-243-324

\

NN

/

121-342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121 \
\

243-324

\

NN

/

342-112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231 232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124-N-413-412-143-234-121

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342 \

\ UU

324

\

NN ====

/

112-231
/
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123
/ DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342

=======>

_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231
324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324
\ \ /
\
\
N N UU
\ / \
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112

->


_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_
UU
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231

++++++


231--N-- DD
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 /
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112
->
_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123 243-324
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231-N- DD
->


_N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N_
DD
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124 413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231

_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______



N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
U
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231


N_121-123-124-324-432-412-431-231_N-N_324-321-232-123-413-231-243-324_N
434-234-431-213-143-124-324-124
413-412-143-234-121-342-112-231 D

_______/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_______


=======================================>>>


--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages