Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Kinks in Evolution
Call911Quick
post Dec 3 2007, 08:51 AM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Jul 2007
Member No: 547,099



I've been studying AP bio at a private international high school. We've learned a little bit about evolution, and after learning about it, I realize that there are problems with the theory. Here I will show you why Evolution is credible, and why it is also not "proven fact".

***If you are already fairly familiar in detail with the theory of Evolution, skip down to my series of dotted lines.***

First of all, let me inform you about DNA. 1.5% of your DNA are genes. Genes are what code for proteins and RNA molecules (enzymes). These are the mini machines in your body that regulate everything from the distance between your eyes to the length of your toes. There are around 30,000 genes in a human cell, give or take.

So, what is the other 98.5% of your DNA? It is actually composed of many different things. Random segments of non-coding DNA, transposons, satellite DNA, etc. At any rate, all you need to know is that the rest of your DNA does absolutely NOTHING good for you.

Now, I may be exaggerating, but 99% (or somewhere around that number) of our genes are identical to a fruit fly's genes. This is one of the bases for the theory of evolution; we are so similar to primates, flies, and even sea cucumbers. We must have a common ancestor.

The theory of evolution states that over the course of 1.5 billion years (That's a REALLY LONG TIME!), single cell procaryotes eventually evolved into simple multicellular organisms composed of specialized eucaryotic cells. The first animal: sponges.

From sponges, it went to worms. Worms were the first animals to have a central nervous system, radial symmetry, and most importantly, a head. From there it's a really long story but basically we evolved over the course of 1.5 billion years. This is actually quite probable; lots can happen in such a long time.

This is my mini introduction to the theory of evolution, just to clarify some things. It may be 1% of what is actually known, because I could write a 10-page essay on this thing.

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

The problem with evolution likes in your DNA.

As you all know, genetic mutations cause diseases. Genetic mutations can occur in many different ways. The most common causes are mutagens, such as x-rays, car exhaust, etc. They're chemicals that cause genetic mutation.

Another way is from viruses. AS you know, viruses insert a segment of double-stranded DNA into your cell, which integrates itself with that particular cell's DNA. This causes the cell to produce more viruses, etc.

The step in which the virus' DNA integrates itself with your human DNA is where mutations can occur. Your cell doesn't produce viruses, but maybe it grows uncontrollably and eventually develops into a malignant tumor. Viruses are a leading cause for cancer.

Secondly, and more curiously, is your own DNA is capable of mutating itself. I mentioned earlier that a part of your DNA is transposons. Approximately 15%. If you have knowledge in Latin roots, you can figure out that transposons are segments of DNA that can be cut out and re-inserted by the enzyme transposase. This has no known positive benefit, and is just a formula for genetic mutations. Another cause for cancer.

If evolution were true, why did we develop this kind of DNA? The only reason why we don't have cancer is because a cell firstly needs 13-17 mutations in order to become cancerous, and the probability of transposons affecting a gene is low, because your cell's growth cycle has two restriction points, and if something is wrong, the it will commit suicide. Your mutated cell kills itself, unless the... well, if you want to know about cancer, PM me.

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

Are you curious why human cells stop metabolism? Why do we age? Why do we die? Well, part of the cause is once again, ourselves. Our cells have receptors for hormones with, basically, tell the cell to stop metabolizing. A scientist (forget her name, she's a genius tho) experimented with roundworms. She ended up being able to DOUBLE the life of a roundworm (from two weeks to four weeks) by mutating the gene that codes for said receptors on the cell. The cells are incapable of receiving the hormones, and thus don't die THAT way.

There are other ways our cells die. Our sex cells, or gametes, also have a way of causing our body to stop metabolism. I wasn't paying much attention during this part of the lecture, so I can't go into detail.

Anyway, why does this happen? If evolution were true, we'd have never developed this aging process. We strive for survival. The animals that mutated and began aging should have died, while the animals that didn't would live much longer. According to Darwin, that is.

Think on it. Sleep on it. Take some aspirin.
 
StandardEdition
post Dec 3 2007, 08:56 AM
Post #2


You're awful, I love you!
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Apr 2007
Member No: 514,546



hmm cool.
_smile.gif
 
synthase
post Dec 3 2007, 09:28 AM
Post #3


ALLISON
*******

Group: Official Designer
Posts: 3,372
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 310,259



Haha I was totally blanking out on half of it, but I get what you mean..for some reason, this whole thing reminds me of Heroes. mellow.gif
 
MissHygienic
post Dec 3 2007, 09:32 AM
Post #4


Resource Center Tyrant
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 2,263
Joined: Nov 2007
Member No: 593,306



Interesting stuff here that you gathered from your private international high school. What grade are you in at your private international high school? Was this part of an essay at your private international high school, or did you just happen to type this all up from your notes that your private international high school gave you? Coming from a private international high school should give this a lot of credibility.
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 3 2007, 05:25 PM
Post #5


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



^lmao

we shouldn't have an aging process? but the aging/dying process has evolutionary value. living a a really long time after procreating would be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. this assures that the parents don't have to compete with their own children for resources, food, ect.

besides, over population doesn't sound fun to me

i don't see how it's a kink, it seems like aging works in our favor.


it's not a "proven fact" because no scientific theory ever will be, not because it's just full of problems. gravity is a theory too, maybe at ur private international high school u can figure out for us why gravity isn't a proven fact too.

i think it's hilarious that u think this is why it's not a fact
 
EddieV
post Dec 3 2007, 05:28 PM
Post #6


cB Assassin
********

Group: Official Member
Posts: 10,147
Joined: Mar 2004
Member No: 7,672



I'll read this in an hour.
 
Simba
post Dec 3 2007, 05:29 PM
Post #7


Photoartist
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 12,363
Joined: Apr 2006
Member No: 399,390



Me too. Later at least.

Dang that's a lot to read.
 
Just_Dream
post Dec 3 2007, 05:35 PM
Post #8


durian
********

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 13,124
Joined: Feb 2004
Member No: 3,860



Wait I thought viral DNA enters and replicates itself, then it causes the cell disrupt and then it spreads? But I'm not so sure about that because I took AP bio almost 3 years ago. whistling.gif


As for the rest, i don't quite understand it. Let me get back to you on this.


BTW this should belong in

INTERESTS > DEBATE

right? It's asking for a debate. wink.gif
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 3 2007, 05:38 PM
Post #9


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



i'll move it to debate, cause i def don't agree that this proves or disproves anything
 
Call911Quick
post Dec 4 2007, 05:49 AM
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Jul 2007
Member No: 547,099



Look, if you stop to think about it, you'd say, "OK! People SHOULD age, so we don't use up resources and overcrowd the planet, right?"

However, if you think back to the first animals that developed, which were sponges, could their cells *think* "Oh... In the future, we might overpopulate the planet, so let's make sure we only live for ____ amount of time. That way, we can prevent overcrowding! What a great idea, let's do it!"

Things evolve because of their surroundings, and what is necessary at the moment. If you think about it, cells aren't "alive". They're microscopic structures filled with molecules (proteins) that respond to a certain stimulus with a certain reaction. It's a cause and effect thing. Enzymes don't "move" to where they are needed. They float around until they bump into something. Even then, they don't *decide* "Okay, these molecules need synthesis. Let's do this."

Thus, the definition of "alive" really broad, because according to scientists, we are a massive being of basic passive molecules that do what their structure allows them to. We personify our cells and proteins, but they are nothing more than lifeless compounds of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen.

What I'm getting at is that evolution couldn't have "decided" to prevent overcrowding.

@ the person who said I'm not credible, I'd like to see you prove me wrong.
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 4 2007, 08:10 AM
Post #11


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 4 2007, 06:49 AM) *
Things evolve because of their surroundings, and what is necessary at the moment.

living to reproduce was/is what is necessary. tell me how living a long time is necessary and the advantages
 
Sandraaa
post Dec 4 2007, 08:53 AM
Post #12


Senior Member
******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 2,223
Joined: Dec 2006
Member No: 485,356



QUOTE(MissHygienic @ Dec 3 2007, 03:32 PM) *
Interesting stuff here that you gathered from your private international high school. What grade are you in at your private international high school? Was this part of an essay at your private international high school, or did you just happen to type this all up from your notes that your private international high school gave you? Coming from a private international high school should give this a lot of credibility.

LMFAO!

Too long to read. I'll respond when I've done so. ><
 
pinacoolada
post Dec 4 2007, 05:12 PM
Post #13


roosternamedingo.
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,211
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,926



But aging and death is a way for nature to create a balance between the Earth's natural resources (food?) and the population. We can't just live forever; we'll use up everything.

I guess you can say that we can evolve and sustain our needs some other way though...but even if that happens, that won't happen for a long long time.

I don't know. This topic taps into religion and all that. If you believe that religion and science can co-exist, you can say that since God created nature, he made it so that we don't use up everything. So we have to die.

I guess I just don't get how that disproves evolution at all mellow.gif
 
NoSex
post Dec 4 2007, 07:42 PM
Post #14


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 3 2007, 07:51 AM) *
I've been studying AP bio at a private international high school.


Good for you.

QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 3 2007, 07:51 AM) *
This has no known positive benefit, and is just a formula for genetic mutations.


A genetic mutation is simply the change in the base pairs of our DNA. In other words, a shifting of allele sequencing on a chromosome. Such a mutation is generally neutral. Some are harmful, but, some can be quite beneficial within a specific species when affected by specific environmental factors. Refer to Human Chromosome 2, without it and its obvious mutated existence we may very well have never existed as a superior intelligence to our ancestral ape.

So, you're wrong - there are known benefits to genetic mutation. All that is needed is a random error in transcription or translation which produces a favorable phenotype. It isn't an alien idea, which makes me assume you simply haven't read the literature.

QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 3 2007, 07:51 AM) *
She ended up being able to DOUBLE the life of a roundworm (from two weeks to four weeks) by mutating the gene that codes for said receptors on the cell. The cells are incapable of receiving the hormones, and thus don't die THAT way.


First off: you can't have your cake and eat it too, moron. Either there aren't any known benefits to mutations or there are known benefits.

Secondly, you really don't seem to understand the aging process (as many of us don't) or the meaning of the research done by Dr. Kenyon (that's her name).

QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 3 2007, 07:51 AM) *
Anyway, why does this happen? If evolution were true, we'd have never developed this aging process. We strive for survival. The animals that mutated and began aging should have died, while the animals that didn't would live much longer. According to Darwin, that is.


1. You're asking a question that is just as f**king ignorant as: "Why can't we just build a car that will never break? I mean, it would be sweet, why can't we do it?"
2. Aging is a mysterious, complex, and imposing process. We aren't entirely sure how or why it operates the way it does but we are learning a few things: Oxidative stress, caused by normal metabolism, damages our cells. The damage caused by this stress decreases the function of our cells which results in further damage (when metabolism isn't successful, the human body tends to create toxins). Cancer is caused by the controlled division and replication of cells. Humans have proteins and hormones which attempt to regulate the mitotic process. These enzymes also damage and wear down our cells, attributing to the aging process. However, without them, we find an increase in the frequency of tumors - there is no longer regulation in mitosis.
3. The aging process is both a natural process (things break down, entropy, etc.) and a seemingly necessary side-effect of cell regulation. For example, in your roundworm experiment, the gene (daf-2) which was mutated in order to increase the lifespan of the worms was the regulating gene for the worms entire insulin-receptor system. In an early stage of life, if the gene is mutated (or turned off), the worm will not be able to reproduce in the future. What is living two more weeks worth if you can't pass on your genes? It's evolution, not a f**king fairy-tale.
4. You don't know shit about Darwin.

QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 3 2007, 07:51 AM) *
Think on it. Sleep on it. Take some aspirin.


Read a book.
 
ersatz
post Dec 4 2007, 07:59 PM
Post #15


Ms. Granger
*****

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 735
Joined: Jul 2005
Member No: 165,238



Your fancy shmancy high school obviously isn't doing a very good job. I suggest transferring.
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 4 2007, 08:22 PM
Post #16


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



well, that solves that. good work guys
 
Kontroll
post Dec 4 2007, 08:48 PM
Post #17


Jake - The Unholy Trinity / Premiscuous Poeteer.
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,272
Joined: May 2006
Member No: 411,316



QUOTE(MissHygienic @ Dec 3 2007, 09:32 AM) *
Interesting stuff here that you gathered from your private international high school. What grade are you in at your private international high school? Was this part of an essay at your private international high school, or did you just happen to type this all up from your notes that your private international high school gave you? Coming from a private international high school should give this a lot of credibility.


Haha. Private International High School.

Well, I really am not an advocate of either Creation or Evolution, but if mutations are primarily harmful, how can any good come from it? Again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Would a person with Down's Syndrome be considered to have genetic mutations?

 
Gigi
post Dec 4 2007, 09:14 PM
Post #18


in a matter of time
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 7,151
Joined: Aug 2005
Member No: 191,357



^ Yes (one cell has two 21st chromosomes, as opposed to the 'correct' number of one).

Mutations are not "primarily" anything at all. They are just errors in either DNA replication, transcription or translation. The mistakes can have positive, negative, or non-existent effects. Since human beings are pretty highly evolved, it's hard to see how any more genetic mutations could be beneficial for us, but billions of years ago, very small mutations helped.

Again, with the concept of being "fit" - here's an example. Say, an early life form doesn't live very long at all because its legs are not strong enough to run away from predators. Genetic mutations over time can randomly create new life forms that have slightly more muscular legs, thus being more "fit" and able to survive in the environment. In this case, then, I would say that the genetic mutation is a good thing.
 
NoSex
post Dec 4 2007, 09:22 PM
Post #19


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(JakeKKing @ Dec 4 2007, 07:48 PM) *
if mutations are primarily harmful, how can any good come from it?


Did you even attend a high school biology course?
Did you take more than five minutes to read the responses in this thread?
Are you a moron?
 
Call911Quick
post Dec 5 2007, 04:40 AM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Jul 2007
Member No: 547,099



QUOTE(ersatz @ Dec 4 2007, 07:59 PM) *
Your fancy shmancy high school obviously isn't doing a very good job. I suggest transferring.


At least I have an education.

QUOTE(NoSex @ Dec 4 2007, 07:42 PM) *
Good for you.
A genetic mutation is simply the change in the base pairs of our DNA. In other words, a shifting of allele sequencing on a chromosome. Such a mutation is generally neutral. Some are harmful, but, some can be quite beneficial within a specific species when affected by specific environmental factors. Refer to Human Chromosome 2, without it and its obvious mutated existence we may very well have never existed as a superior intelligence to our ancestral ape.


Right, fine, let me rephrase for you. We've evolved due to mutations, or changes in our genes, but of all the mutations that have ever happened, VERY few are beneficial. If you were to give a generalization on mutations, you'd say "They are bad." Oh, and genetic mutations are not restricted to mere shifting of allele sequencing. Not even alleles, mutations happen at the nucleotide levels. Nucleotides can be inserted, deleted, or substituted, while triplet code sequences are duplicated or inverted.

QUOTE(ersatz @ Dec 4 2007, 07:59 PM) *
Secondly, you really don't seem to understand the aging process (as many of us don't) or the meaning of the research done by Dr. Kenyon (that's her name).
1. You're asking a question that is just as f**king ignorant as: "Why can't we just build a car that will never break? I mean, it would be sweet, why can't we do it?"


No, that is a terrible analogy. It's more like asking "Why did we build a car with a self-destruct timer set for X amount of years?" Don't put words in my mouth. Because it is in our genetic code to kill ourselves. If our natural instinct is survival, we would have never developed such a gene. Someone asked what is the benefit to living forever? Oh, I don't know, if you'd rather die a slow painful death where your body slowly stops metabolism and erodes away, you don't have to wait until you're 70. Just smoke maybe 3 packs a day.

QUOTE(ersatz @ Dec 4 2007, 07:59 PM) *
2. Aging is a mysterious, complex, and imposing process. We aren't entirely sure how or why it operates the way it does but we are learning a few things: Oxidative stress, caused by normal metabolism, damages our cells. The damage caused by this stress decreases the function of our cells which results in further damage (when metabolism isn't successful, the human body tends to create toxins). Cancer is caused by the controlled division and replication of cells. Humans have proteins and hormones which attempt to regulate the mitotic process. These enzymes also damage and wear down our cells, attributing to the aging process. However, without them, we find an increase in the frequency of tumors - there is no longer regulation in mitosis.


Cancer is not caused by the controlled division and replication of cells. On the contrary, it is the UN-controlled division and replication of cells. The genes that code for enzymes and proteins that regulate the meiotic process are called proto-oncogenes. These genes have become mutated, which are then simply called oncogenes. Nobody knows the details or we'll have cured cancer by now. However, I'd like you to explain further how these enzymes and Oxidative stress cause our cells to stop metabolizing.

QUOTE(ersatz @ Dec 4 2007, 07:59 PM) *
3. The aging process is both a natural process (things break down, entropy, etc.) and a seemingly necessary side-effect of cell regulation. For example, in your roundworm experiment, the gene (daf-2) which was mutated in order to increase the lifespan of the worms was the regulating gene for the worms entire insulin-receptor system. In an early stage of life, if the gene is mutated (or turned off), the worm will not be able to reproduce in the future. What is living two more weeks worth if you can't pass on your genes? It's evolution, not a f**king fairy-tale.


The aging process wasn't my only argument. Perhaps you'd like to address my question as to why transposons, satellite DNA, introns, unique non-coding DNA (genes with no promoter), and ALU elements exist?

And everybody knows about Darwin. Him and his famous natural selection theory. He discovered/came up with the theory while studying tortoises, actually. I forgot which islands, everything here is off the top of my head.

Yes, to me, evolution is a f**king fairy-tale.

Oh, and if you have nothing to contribute or argue with me about, quit trying to diss me.
 
brooklyneast05
post Dec 5 2007, 09:22 AM
Post #21


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



QUOTE(Call911Quick @ Dec 5 2007, 05:40 AM) *
Someone asked what is the benefit to living forever? Oh, I don't know, if you'd rather die a slow painful death where your body slowly stops metabolism and erodes away, you don't have to wait until you're 70. Just smoke maybe 3 packs a day.


i obviously see reasons why people want to live a long time, but they aren't evolutionary reasons, and that's what i was asking for. people wanna be with their family and friends forever, that's not a reason why we should evolve that way. evolution doesn't give a shit if u don't want to die when u're 70 or not. like nate said, as long as u've passed on ur genes, then who cares what happens after that? evolutions goal isn't to make u happy and live however long u personally think u should live.


lol, evolution is a fairy tale because u don't think we should die. right...which one sounds more like a fairy tale?
 
Call911Quick
post Dec 5 2007, 09:30 AM
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Jul 2007
Member No: 547,099



What I'm saying is that evolution had to go out of its way to make us die. It MUTATED/EVOLVED the gene(s) that makes us age and die. I know why you think we don't need to live forever, but our instinct for survival would have made the animals who don't have this gene and can thus live longer survive, while the animals with these gene(s) would die.

THAT's the contradiction between evolution's idea about how every animal's natural instinct is to survive and how we developed and passed down the gene that kills us.

And that wasn't my ONLY reason/argument, you know...
 
*Steven*
post Dec 5 2007, 09:48 AM
Post #23





Guest






tldr
 
ersatz
post Dec 5 2007, 04:41 PM
Post #24


Ms. Granger
*****

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 735
Joined: Jul 2005
Member No: 165,238



Everyone has to have an education by law, at least in the U.S., which is where most of us are...so "at least I have an eduation" doesn't work, because it's not a very good one anyway.

It's not like the animals with "better genes" live forever. Everyone dies. Living forever is bad, as said earlier. Obviously evolution would require that some animals were weaker. It's natural selection. Those that are weaker would act as nourishment for the stronger animals. Kind of like how so many animals eat grass -- grass has no natural defenses. It's pretty much the weakest plant out there. But it has the genes to be able to spread and multiply quickly. You don't see as many trees as you do blades of grass for a reason -- trees don't need to multiply that quickly. They have the defense of being really tall. It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die. The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened. Through their instinct, the stronger animals prey on the weak. Duh.

In layman's terms, I guess, since you don't seem to get it...
 
Call911Quick
post Dec 6 2007, 04:51 AM
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Jul 2007
Member No: 547,099



QUOTE(ersatz @ Dec 5 2007, 04:41 PM) *
Everyone has to have an education by law, at least in the U.S., which is where most of us are...so "at least I have an eduation" doesn't work, because it's not a very good one anyway.

It's not like the animals with "better genes" live forever. Everyone dies. Living forever is bad, as said earlier. Obviously evolution would require that some animals were weaker. It's natural selection. Those that are weaker would act as nourishment for the stronger animals. Kind of like how so many animals eat grass -- grass has no natural defenses. It's pretty much the weakest plant out there. But it has the genes to be able to spread and multiply quickly. You don't see as many trees as you do blades of grass for a reason -- trees don't need to multiply that quickly. They have the defense of being really tall. It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die. The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened. Through their instinct, the stronger animals prey on the weak. Duh.

In layman's terms, I guess, since you don't seem to get it...


Uhh, no, you're the one who doesn't seem to get it. Dr. Kenyon (ty NoSex) doubled the life span of worms, she didn't make them live forever. I never said "live forever". "Live longer" might be the correct interpretation of whatever I said.

Secondly, evolution doesn't require any animal to be weaker. Don't personify evolution, evolution is merely a sequence of cause and effect events with a lot of chance thrown in.

"I don't seem to get it?" Perhaps you'd like to read my previous posts? I'm discussing evolution at a molecular level. You're the one that doesn't get it.

"It IS an animal's instinct to survive, but that has nothing to do with the fact that animals die." Read that to yourself a couple times. That's what you just said, word for word. That's like saying "It IS a fact that I wear shoes, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I walk around."

"The animals didn't consciously evolve, it just happened." That's what I've been TRYING to say all this time. In evolution, everything happens for a reason. Weaker animals are extinct for a reason: they were weak, duh! Thus, if "it just happened", why did the animals with weaker genes (lived half as long) survive to pass their genes down? Because we are obviously capable of living until we're 150 years old, according to Dr. Kenyon's work.

Perhaps I shouldn't have implied you don't have an education. I meant that what you say gives off the impression that you haven't had an education, or haven't learned anything in biology class. Quit trying to insult my knowledge when you clearly don't have any of your own. NoSex is the only one supplying a tangible and strong argument. And he still hasn't addressed the existence of excess DNA, which consists of 98.5% of a human's DNA.

Everyone is jumping to the conclusion that I said animals can be immortal.
 

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: