RE: The Human Race 2

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The Human Race 2

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Human Race 2

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 4:05:29 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
if mutation means anything it should include an increase in information. Am I right ?

Yep. For example, up until the eleventh century or thereabouts all beech trees had green leaves. Then a mutation occurred and in one town in Italy a beech tree with brown leaves was observed. All brown leaved beech trees are descended from that one single brown leaved beech tree. I was taught this little fact - with specifics of year and location - more than thirty years ago during biology class.

As for that poor man Dawkins in that youtube fragment, at first he did not understand the weird question and later perhaps he sat wondering how to explain quantum physics to someone that does not even know how to perform multiplication.

Mutations do occur, seeks. And when expressed in some slightest way in the phenotype, for example in requiring one less or one more of the biological coin of energy ATP to perform a biochemical reaction or to produce a protein, natural selection will have its way with that mutation. And then there are the various other ways in which such new alleles and old alleles increase and decrease in gene pools, such as genetic drift, island colonization, sexual selection and cultural selection.

Evolution does occur, speciation does occur.

I think it is admirable to oppose any scientific hypothesis and perchance even to question the validity of a scientific theory, but thus far you have not managed to make the slightest dent in the theory of evolution.

< Message edited by Rule -- 3/21/2008 4:37:28 AM >

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 101

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 4:23:02 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
It's not possible for me to walk in, say, my buddy Randall's or Domiguy's shoes, but I can sure as hell try.

I do not know this Randall, but I have read the posts of Domiguy. Nope, you cannot walk in his shoes. Nor can I, nor can most others. Not because Domiguy is black, but because like me he stands on his very own pinnacle, elevated far above ordinary people. (By divine decree mine is the highest pinnacle, though.)

Your very post that I reply to here is drenched in a racist point of view, Hk. You may delude yourself that you have escaped from the traitism in your parental home, and proclaim yourself sanctimoniously Holier Than Thou, but you have not changed from an electron into a photon; you have merely changed the direction of your spin.

< Message edited by Rule -- 3/21/2008 4:24:25 AM >

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)

Post #: 102

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 6:07:54 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Seeks said.Faites vos Jours
Freudian slip?
'make your day(s)' not 'make your play(s)' in the sense of gamble.
What am I on about lol.
Just stopping Kitten putting the boot in thats what.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 103

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 6:23:26 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

Some here set themselves up as experts not just on areas of genetics of which they clearly know little but also as arbiters on how and what I can say. Picking an example at random, someone attributed great relevance to breeding programmes in the period of chattel slavery. Well, hardly any such activity took place until the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade - slaveholders relied on buying imported slaves. Only 60 years later, slavery was abolished - how many generations can be born and grow to puberty in that time? And affect genetic populations? There were slave-breeders, of course but they went for numbers first, in order to make as much money as soon as possible - and frequently impregnating these women themselves. That lack of rigour on one hand and the obvious racist motives of others makes real participation in the "debate" pointless.

It was I who made that reference RL (you can attribute my posts to me you know?) and I'll be pleased to explain it.

What I said was that commercial slavery effectively selectively bred the African descended population of the US. I did not go further with that because I thought it was fairly self explanatory and my post - refuting the argument of this thread - was already very long.

So how did this effect occur? You're quite correct that no one in Africa was running breeding programmes, and that instead the ships were stuffed with whoever was available for sale to the slavers - numbers were what was important. The first stage of selection occurred on the ships, where its well known that much of the "merchandise" would die en route to the Americas - meaning that only the stronger would ever set foot in America. We therefore have already at this stage a genetic population which is superior to that which set out from Africa, and physically superior next to the European descended population which is the product of ordinary generational descent.

On arrival in America, the slaves are sold, and taken for heavy work in awful circumstances. Again a proportion cannot withstand these circumstances and die off - further strengthening the remaining population. When it comes to reproduction, this is on the say so of the slave owners, who with an eye to the future permit only those relationships which are most likely to produce strong slaves in the future. One could be sold down the river for non compliance with such directives.

So, at the end of the shipments from Africa, at the end of slavery as such, the African descended population in the US represented an effectively selectively bred population - whose descendants, coming from that population, could be expected to inherit the strength in terms of genetics, which that population had required to survive its bondage.

That I used this argument to refute one aspect of the ridiculous white supremacist bullshit my acquaintance used to spout at me, makes me racist exactly how please?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to RealityLicks)

Post #: 104

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 6:25:36 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

DomKen
.....caused by mutation of the genome over time.
if mutation means anything it should include an increase in information. Am I right ?

So lets see what your God had to say
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2klREiCejzI

The infamous pause.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html

Now to deal with 'information,' creationist make a lot of claims regarding information and the genome but don't define information so how can their claims be shown to be false since when confronted with mutations they always dismiss that mutation as being either not a gain or an actual loss.

But here are some mutations that certain can increase diversity in a population, in other words produce new alleles.

1) Point mutation. This is the most basic of mutations. A single molecule of DNA of is incorrectly copied, Due to the nature of using 3 such molecules to code for the 20 amino acids our bodies use to make proteins, many such point mutations result in no change in the amino acid the codon reprsents and therefore no change in the resultant protein. However many other mutations of this sort can result in changes in which amino acid is put into the produced protein which may have good, bad or almost completely neutral outcome.

2) Gene duplication. In this case a big chunk of DNA is copied twice resulting in the offspring having 2 copies of one or more genes. This has two very important effects. First it causes that specific protein to be produced twice as frequently by each cell which may in and of itself confer some selective advantage. For instance the birds have 3 functional copies of the gene that makes yolk for eggs in their genome while the platypus only has one functional copy.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/reproductive_history_writ_in_t.php

Secondly with two copies of the gene available one copy can mutate, by way of point mutations, into a different function without depriving the organism of some needed protein. This has resulted in enitre families of similiar proteins with different functions. For instance many of the enzymes involved in blood clotting and the enzyme trypsin, which is involed in protein digestion in the gut, are derived from the same ancestral enzyme.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/behe-vs-sea-squ.html

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 105

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 7:13:04 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

The infamous pause indeed. An extended version of this session exists where Dawkins asks for the mike to be switched off and then when restarting launches into a totally irrelevant response saying that fishes are modern species too you know.
What he also does by implication is to push true speciation way way back into the the fog of pre historic time about which virtually nothing is known. The trunk of those "tree" diagrams that you can probably visualise. This also leads to a difficulty in that species have suddenly appeared way after the time period.

Rationalise if it helps you but Dawkins was stuck for an answer.lol

I accept mutations take place, what has not been demonstrated is that such mutations are capable of producing new species not different coloured leaves or different body colouring on existing species.
What is known is that 99.95% of mutations have deleterious or do nothing
consequences. I make up the number but the point is valid.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 3/21/2008 7:16:46 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 106

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 7:26:42 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

I would guess Seeks, that some sort of isolation would be required.

If species A produces a mutated form AB which lives alongside A and is reproductively compatible with A, then as long as the mutated form survives, we'll just have one species in two variants.

But if there is some form of division of the total population of A and AB, such that there are two isolated pockets of A&AB, then one of those two populations may find itself in an environment where the A forms are at disadvantage and the AB forms are better adapted. The A form dies out in the one isolated pocket, leaving the AB form only in its special environment, where it reproduces and mutates further over millenia until the AB form is no longer reproductively compatible with the A form in the other isolated pocket - making a new species. I believe this is along the lines of what is meant to have occurred in the cases of Madagascar and the Galapagos?

What I find interesting though is that we have two species - the lion and the tiger, who are reproductively compatible. Does this mean they are one species really, or is it that there has not been sufficient mutation in one or the other since the two diverged?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 107

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 7:30:25 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The infamous pause indeed. An extended version of this session exists where Dawkins asks for the mike to be switched off and then when restarting launches into a totally irrelevant response saying that fishes are modern species too you know.
What he also does by implication is to push true speciation way way back into the the fog of pre historic time about which virtually nothing is known. The trunk of those "tree" diagrams that you can probably visualise. This also leads to a difficulty in that species have suddenly appeared way after the time period.

Rationalise if it helps you but Dawkins was stuck for an answer.lol

I accept mutations take place, what has not been demonstrated is that such mutations are capable of producing new species not different coloured leaves or different body colouring on existing species.
What is known is that 99.95% of mutations have deleterious or do nothing
consequences. I make up the number but the point is valid.

And so the information claim is abandoned and the attack against a man rather than the facts is continued.

Dawkins had been lied to about the purpose of the film and was flustered by the ambush in precisely the same way targets of 60 Minutes style ambush interviews are. It means nothing except that creationists will misuse someone taking a moment to respond to something as a propoganda victory which shows how desperate your side is.

Now as to new species emerging here is an article detailing observed speciation events and in some cases precisely what mutation(s) were responsible:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 108

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 7:36:03 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
I accept mutations take place, what has not been demonstrated is that such mutations are capable of producing new species not different coloured leaves or different body colouring on existing species.

Speciation occurring is an excellent explanation for the huge number of species of Drosophila flies on Hawaii.

Look, seeks, being interested in the principles of things is not sufficient to talk about them; one requires pertinent knowledge as well. To discourse with a biologist, one has to be a biologist. There are plenty of college text books (genetics, population genetics, anatomy, palaeontology, evolution theory, etc.) on this subject that may be studied and after that there are thousands of scientific journals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
What is known is that 99.95% of mutations have deleterious or do nothing
consequences. I make up the number but the point is valid.

Yes, the point is valid. And natural selection and sexual selection have their way with those mutations. But it does not end there. There is such a thing as the Drunk Man's Walk, which is to say that a series of deleterious or neutral mutations may result nevertheless and eventually in an advantageous mutation.

Such deleterious mutations that accumulate in certain human populations do demonstrate that those populations are accursed by the Creator. Nevertheless it is my hope that eventually in such an accursed population - and it is a rare chance, but miracles do occur sometimes - the deleterious allele will mutate into one that is advantageous to the species.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 109

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 7:47:37 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
What I find interesting though is that we have two species - the lion and the tiger, who are reproductively compatible. Does this mean they are one species really, or is it that there has not been sufficient mutation in one or the other since the two diverged?

According to the definition of what a species is, i.e. not producing fertile offspring with an individual from another gene pool, the tiger and the lion by definition belong to the same species. I do not know what the view of an expert is, though.

It seems to me that the lion is a societal plains predator, whereas the tiger is a solitary jungle predator. Hence the difference in phenotypes.

There used to be more varieties of lion than there are today.

Thank you for the speciation event link, DK. I will read it at a later time; looks to be very interesting.

< Message edited by Rule -- 3/21/2008 7:55:48 AM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 110

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:06:01 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

LadyE is describing punctuated equilibrium a fairy tale concocted to explain away the inconvenient truth that the fossil record does not show continuosly evolving species but species appearing out of the blue so to speak.
Note also the convenient convenience of mostly members of variant AB getting lost, the fools, then evolving into new species. Never happened my dear, never happened. They just stubbornly remained variant AB with no doubt some As reappearing.
eg on the Galapogos were found variants of existing species, Finches and Tortoises, not new species.
In fact this is the basis of Darwin's Delusion. he leapt from variation of existing species being observed to concluding that such variants would eventually become genuinely new species in the sense that an ant and an elephant are different species.

DomKen's link has speciation falling back on the weak argument of a new species being defined as existing if it cant breed with other members of what are obviously the same species.

When the concept of race is so defined to exist the sentimentalists get out their hankies have a good cry then tell me how ignorant I am. lol

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 3/21/2008 8:21:00 AM >

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 111

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:12:12 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
What I find interesting though is that we have two species - the lion and the tiger, who are reproductively compatible. Does this mean they are one species really, or is it that there has not been sufficient mutation in one or the other since the two diverged?

According to the definition of what a species is, i.e. not producing fertile offspring with an individual from another gene pool, the tiger and the lion by definition belong to the same species. I do not know what the view of an expert is, though.

It seems to me that the lion is a societal plains predator, whereas the tiger is a solitary jungle predator.

First off species aren't really that cut and dried. For living species that reproduce sexually the definition you give above, called the biological species concept(BSC), is the most commonly used but is of course useless when dealing with asexual organisms and fossil organisms.

In regards to the BSC at present the definition is more or less "a population that under normal conditions in the wild does not interbreed successfully with other populations." This accounts a little better for the fuzziness of the reality versus the folk idea of species.

Hybridization of different species of animal may be a good guide to how closely related the species are but most people would find defining species strictly on hybridizing fertile offspring unsatisfying:

Horses and donkeys produce mules which are almost always sterile. But individual fertile mules have been documented.

Lions and tigers can breed, in captivity and perhaps occasionally in the wild before their ranges ceased to intersect, but only the female offspring are fertile.

Wolves and coyotes and dogs are all fully interfertile but in the wild wolves and coyotes rarely mate.

Other less well known animals have even more murky relationships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Hybridization as determinant of species is virtually useless in plants as well. Very different and only very distantly related plants can successfully hybridize.

For a better treatment of species concepts see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 112

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:16:24 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Note also the convenient convenience of mostly members of variant AB getting lost, the fools, then evolving into new species. Never happened my dear, never happened. They just stubbornly remained variant AB with no doubt some As reappearing.

Yet again - you read and do not comprehend what is written and then come up with a point which has no foundation because your comprehension of the point to which you respond was faulty.

I never said mostly A or mostly AB were isolated in my scenario. I said that a total population of A and AB was divided, so that each isolated population had A and AB in it. Given the right circumstances, the A in one isolated population die off, leaving only the AB in one isolated population and the A and AB in the other population. The AB only population would then be reproducing with one another and perhaps further mutation could then occur within that isolated population to produce a population which was no longer reproductively compatible with the A form or indeed the AB form left in the other isolated population.

Thus we might have a new species "C" in one pocket, and a species A which has a variant AB in another pocket.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 113

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:24:44 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Fair point but then we have to have the convenient convenience of the environment being 'just so' to aid the ABs

In other words the scenario is an after the event interpretation to explain away a glaring hole in the theory Evo. by Natural Selection.
The Punctated Fossil record

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 3/21/2008 8:27:35 AM >

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 114

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:48:40 AM

RealityLicks

Posts: 1615
Joined: 10/23/2007
Status: offline

LE I didn't name you because as I said, I chose a post fairly randomly. Your narrative on slavery is still faulty btw but I didn't and don't ascribe anything malign to your part in this thread. Again, bigots and mouth-breathers - not my scene. To all others; enjoy.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 115

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:49:06 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

Absolutely Seeks - it all has to be just right.

But then if we are talking here in terms of millions of years and all the changes to climate, geographical conditions etc in that time, its quite possible that the just right conditions happen time after time, and more than likely that such changes lead to the wrong conditions too.

Did you see the Brainiac programme? They did some experiments on fat vs thin people, one of which was to test the idea that fat people could take the cold better than thinner people. Turned out to be correct. Put this alongside the idea that the tendency to become overweight is a genetically inherited trait, and imagine the world suddenly turns colder - much colder towards the poles and doesnt change much nearer the equator. Lets call humans in general species A, and the "fat gene" denoting variant AB.

The AB near the poles are more likely to survive the cold to grow to reproductive age. The AB also become more attractive reproductive partners for related reasons. Within a fairly short time, the population near the poles becomes one in which the "fat gene" is dominant, and the population is exclusively derived from it. All the A people die off or else cant find partners. Meanwhile near the equator where things are more normal, there is still the ordinary human population with both A and AB.

Assuming isolation in our wintry polar proximity for long enough, the AB population reproducing only with itself might well lead to genetic mutations which exceed the advantages of the AB form; form C. Form C though cant reproduce with the AB population because of the mutations, though they are more efficient and more likely to survive if things turn worse and the ABs start dying off. If such an adverse change occurs, then within a fairly short time, the near polar areas are found to be populated by C. Meanwhile near the equator, life goes on as before with As and ABs.

Lots of suitable coincidences of course, but over the time periods required, lots of opportunities for such suitable coincidences to occur. And just as likely that changes in environment can prove deadly to the mutated forms, the new form C or the entire scenario.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 116

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:49:15 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

LadyE is describing punctuated equilibrium a fairy tail concocted to explain away the inconvenient truth that the fossil record does not show continuosly evolving species but species appearing out of the blue so to speak.
Note also the convenient convenience of mostly members of variant AB getting lost, the fools, then evolving into new species. Never happened my dear, never happened. They just stubbornly remained variant AB with no doubt some As reappearing.

PE is not what she is describing but allotropic speciation. That is a physical isolation of a population into two or more smaller populations that cannot exchange genes due to some exterior barrier. The isolation of tundra species on mountain peaks in California after the end of the last ice age is an example.

Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis on how some speciation may occur. The idea is fairly simple and is not terribly controversial except in how commonly it occurs. Briefly a population is in a stable environment and is therefore experiencing little if any selective pressure and therefore may appear to be in stasis then some change(s) in the environment exert new selective pressures on the population and it undergoes a, geologically speaking, rapid transition to a new species where it once again enters into a static period. Creationists have tried to make hay over this since it was first discussed back in the 70's.

quote:

eg on the Galapogos were found variants of existing species, Finches and Tortoises, not new species.
In fact this is the basis of Darwin's Delusion. he leapt from variation of existing species being observed to concluding that such variants would eventually become genuinely new species in the sense that an ant and an elephant are different species.

Darwin's finches comprise at least 12 species across 4 genus. You are welcome to acquire any of the non endangered species and try hybridizing them your self.

quote:

DomKen's link has speciation falling back on the weak argument of a new species being defined as existing if it cant breed with other members of what are obviously the same species.

When the existance of race is so defined to exist the sentimentalists get out their hankies have a good cry then tell me how ignorant I am. lol

Pardon? If you have two populations of organisms and they cannot interbreed successfully no matter what they look like to you isn't that pretty clear indication that there are some rather significant differences under the hood so to speak? You said no species, I gave you species. Now you want major morphological change and I'm going to guess a dramtic change in size and shape of a bird's beak in 20 years is going to get dismissed as well. For others interested check out Darwin's Medium Ground Finch, G fortis.

As to your bigoted race BS, we've already been over this in this thread. There is nothing you can use to identify such so called races. If you think there is please present them.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 117

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:50:09 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RealityLicks

LE I didn't name you because as I said, I chose a post fairly randomly. Your narrative on slavery is still faulty btw but I didn't and don't ascribe anything malign to your part in this thread. Again, bigots and mouth-breathers - not my scene. To all others; enjoy.

I'd be interested to know where my argument is at fault?

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to RealityLicks)

Post #: 118

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 8:53:48 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

There are fossil series known that do show gradual change in phenotype in a species, seeks.

As for speciation, that occurs when a niche opens up. Mass speciation occurs after a catastrophic event, such as a comet impact.

There is also such a phenomenon as the genetic clock, that functions because between punctuated equilibria the gene pool of a species is not static, but accumulates proportional to time elapsed new alleles.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Post #: 119

RE: The Human Race 2 - 3/21/2008 9:59:07 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

There are fossil series known that do show gradual change in phenotype in a species, seeks.

One of my favorites is the reptile to mammal series which quite clearly shows how 6 bones from the reptilian jaw became the bones of the inner ear in mammals.

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Human Race 2

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.250