Now, don't take offense, you shoudl be able to understand where I'm coming from when I say that. Someone has a stupid opinion (not that yours is), it's really hard to respect it.

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

Give me hard evidence. Say I'm from Missouri. (Sheesh, I hope THAT statement didn't inadvertently offend anyone. Hell. I'm from Iowa; Missouri jokes abound here!)

But sorry, I prefer my truths to be supported by solid evidence. Not just firm and organized wishful thinking, which is MY opinion and I have a right to it. Others who operate on another kind of "truth," the kind born from faith in whatever, that is their right as well. But the truths that make up reality tend to be supported by fact, and many of those facts have been presented in posts I've made in this thread.

About "correlation vs. experimentation": ummm... I'm not quite certain what you mean here. I'm not talking about a correlation in genetics, for Pete's sake. We're way beyond that now. The "experiment" is in progress, and has been. It's called LIFE. It's all in the genes.

And the remainder is in the rock record of the earth. Oops, at least truths concerning Earthly things. There's a big ol Universe out there, and that's when cosmology comes in to lend a hand!

[ 08-25-2002 01:43 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

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

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

Peace out.

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

I will say that we are very similar to apes and such, but I have another thing to pose for you. Where did all of us come from? I mean, its all got to start somewhere. Microevolution is sort of there, but the way we got to this part is not understood.

You call yourselves people of science but you leave out some certain things that science has also "proved". Although science is never proven, it is only worked on. There is no way to evolve new genes. You can mess with the code of a gene, but you cannot make a new gene.

Then there is an issue of complexity, or order, which ever you prefer, but I'll just point you to a site, instead of going on and on about it myself.
http://www.theory-of-evolution.org/Introduction/evolution.htm

You will like that site, because it looks at the facts of science. It has trouble with the theory of evolution also.

For Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., the complexity is too extreme for Darwinism to be plausible. He argues that many systems in living organisms are irreducibly complex. They consist of several parts, all of which must be present for the system to work.

You take out one part, the cell works no more. Think of it as a car. You can add one peice at a time, and expect it to work while its still missing parts. So how can something evolve into something bigger, when it would need to create many complex parts all at one time to continue.

quote:

---

DNA is replicated by DNA polymerase during mitosis and meiosis. While this replication is very accurate, it is not perfect. When a mistake is made, it is called a mutation. Such mistakes rarely result in a gene that encodes a better protein. In fact, most mutations are harmful.

Mutations change the steps in a DNA strand. Three types of change are possible, substitution, insertion, and deletion. Substitutions are changes to an existing step. For example, an A-T step may be replaced with a G-C step. When one step is replaced by a new one, the mutation is called a point mutation. Since the genetic code is read three steps at a time, point mutations can change at most one amino acid in a protein.

Deletions result when an existing step is lost from a DNA strand, and insertions result when a new step is added. Such mutations are collectively known as frame shift mutations. Frame shift mutations shift the reading frame of RNA polymerase. As a result, all of the codons found in a gene are grouped differently. One insertion or deletion will completely alter a gene and the resulting protein. The following two examples illustrate this idea.

Given the following DNA sequence: ATG-AAA-CAC-TTG-T which codes for the amino acids, methionine-lysine-histidine-leucine.1) What happens if the first "A" mutates to a "T" (a point mutation). The new sequence reads TTG-AAA-CAC-TTG-T and it codes for tryptophan-lysine- histidine-leucine.2) What happens if the first letter is deleted (a frame shift mutation). The new sequence reads TGA-AAC-ACU-TGT, and it codes for STOP-asparagine-threonine-cysteine. This mutation changes 3 amino acids, and it creates a stop codon.

As this example shows, only point mutations can create useful proteins. Point mutations change at most one amino acid in the final protein. In contrast, frame shift mutations change multiple amino acids and create multiple stop codons. Frame shift mutations only create garbage. Point mutations are the only way to alter an existing protein in a meaningful way. Traits that depend on one protein ( like pea color) can be optimized through point mutations.

New alleles are produced by point mutations. For example, at one time in history, all peas may have been round. One or more point mutations to the round allele created the wrinkled allele. Point mutations create genetic variation by creating new alleles. Natural selection operates on this variability by selecting the best alleles. Today most new alleles are harmful. The proteins found in life have been around for a very long time. They have already been optimized by natural selection; and as result, most changes observed by scientists today are harmful. Alleles that are not harmful are almost always neutral. Neutral alleles are no better or worse than the original gene. They are simply two variations of the same gene. Both genes are equally fit in the eyes of natural selection.

---

Another evidence in science, that changing DNA mostly ends up as either neutrul or negative effects.

Hmm, yet another article...

I'm not really in the mood to type much today, but I have a few more things to say...

Joey, how can you assume we are ignorant of the facts presented? I have seen the "facts" you have been presented and I think you need to look at more than just those facts. There is more out there than you are reading. Apparently you have read as much as you would like us to think you have. I read over 8 books on this subject within the past year. I am well informed on the facts. If anyone would like any references to the books I have read, and the websites I have referenced. Just email me. Some of the stuff you might find is that, nothing is proven about evolution. There is just as much to disprove it as there is to prove it.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but some of you need to stop thinking people like me and Mara are stupid because we beleive in something that you do not beleive in. Me and her have both studied about things like this, and we are not ignorant to facts. There is more than one side to everything.

See ya later!

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

"Can't you hear my motored heart? Your the one that started it!"

-Foo Fighters "Generator"

Cogito ergo sum

Maybe I'm missing something completely in how thought works, but I see the facts of evolution, so much so that I don't question it in my mind anymore, because it's right there in front of me.

Blake, science is not complete. No one claims to know everything. Your "faith" blinds you from seeing the facts. It's very hard to stop believing in something that you believe in so strongly, but I don't have the slightest clue why you can't admit that you COULD be wrong.

Instead of looking for proof of evolution (which would say the bible is wrong), you look for proof that evolution is wrong. Start looking for the proof, if you can't find it, then be happy, join a monastery.

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

Do you mean an ADDITIONAL one to all those in the genomes that already exist? Perhaps not enough geological time has passed yet; good grief, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and man has only been kicking around for the last couple million. That's not enough time for a brand new gene to evolve; anyway, perhaps some have but the offspring were not viable. Not to mention that we've only begun learning about DNA for less than 100 years, sheesh, like we're so damned important genes are going to roll over and evolve right in front of our noses because WE ARE MAN, DAMMIT, AND IT JUST BETTER DO IT.

What a sad kind of image that makes.

Evolution is an extremely lengthy process, bit by bit random mutations which are then subjected to the harsh environment of reality to see if the new trait/organism will pan out. The majority of the time, nothing major happens or something bad occurs. Who knows? Maybe that's why we have so much "non-functioning" or "junk" DNA... it's the safety buffer. Nothing happens if those alleles mutate, and since there is way more of that than the directional kind, statistics say on the average nothing much would happen to the organism OVER TIME. ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I guess the bottom line would be: Occam's Razor. I can't see genetics -- HEREDITY -- working for every other living organism on the face of the earth EXCEPT man. Nope, too many variables arise to appease that hypotheses, and the simplest answer is quite often the correct one. The fact is that we see the SAME GENES in ourselves that we do in other living organisms... our genome is just bigger because it has evolved into a more complex organism. Or, we've evolved into a more complex organism because of the gradual mutation and lengthening of the human genome.

Another thing: guys, I've noticed two things:

1. People who disagree with evolution tend to fly off the handle about it, and get all defensive. Why?

2. Those of you disagreeing with the evolution posts that have been put up here have all but outright accused those supporters of it of calling you ignorant. EXCUSE ME. Where did we call you ignorant? I know I certainly never did. Our posts are straightforward, but many have been misread and misinterpreted. Anakin stated that he thought a particular statement was ignorant, but c'mon folks, let's separate the wheat from the chaff... er, that is, the statement from the individual. That is two completely separate things.

Anyway: Freudian slip? I don't know. I'm just presenting facts as I've learned, and as keep being discovered, and waiting for someone to come up with evidence to the contrary. Haven't seen it yet... and the majority of scientists don't either.

They see what works.

Oh by the way, I thought I mentioned somewhere earlier about science always seeking the truth. But not as a result of personal beliefs or wishful thinking.

Hard, reproducible facts. End of the story.

[ 08-26-2002 04:31 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

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

Gene Separates Early Humans from Apes
Reuters
Aug 26 2002 4:00PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gene that separates humans from the apes and all other animals seems to have disappeared from humans up to three million years ago, just before they first stood upright, researchers said on Monday.
Most animals have the gene but people do not -- and it may be somehow involved in the expansion of the brain, the international team of researchers said.

The gene controls production of a sialic acid -- a kind of sugar -- called Neu5Gc, the researchers write in an advance online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This mutation occurred after our last common ancestor with bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) and chimpanzees, and before the origin of present-day humans," they wrote. Neanderthal skeletons, the oldest early humans from who DNA has been obtained, also lack the sugar.

"It happens to be first known genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees where there is a major outcome," Ajit Varki of the University of California San Diego, who led the research, said in a telephone interview. "We are exploring the consequences of this."

Varki said the role of the gene is not fully understood.

"The gene itself is involved in changing the surfaces of all cells in the body," he said. "The surface of all cells in the body is covered with sugars. This one is missing only in humans."

It may help influence how viruses and bacteria infect cells, and with how cancer cells interact, Varki said. "There are some clues that it might have something to do with brain plasticity," he added.

Humans and chimps share more than 98 percent of their DNA, so a few genes must make a big difference. Chimps and humans split from a common ancestor 6 million to 7 million years ago.

The collaboration of some of the top experts in various fields, ranging from anthropology to the genetic differences between people and apes, determined that this gene disappeared from humans between 2.5 million and 3 million years ago.

"It happened after the time that our ancestors stood upright, when their hands and so on were like ours, but their brains are still same size as that of chimpanzees," Varki said.

"That just tells you the timing is appropriate for the possibility that this may have something to do with brain expansion."

The team included anthropologist Meave Leakey of the Leakey Foundation in Nairobi, Kenya, an expert in early humans, and Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who helped study the first Neanderthal DNA.

Earlier this month Paabo's team reported that the had found mutations in a gene called FOXP2 that seems to be involved in the face and jaw movements necessary for speech. A relatively small change makes the human version of the gene different from the version found in apes, the researchers found.

08/26/02 15:58 ET

RTR/SCIENCE-SCIENCE-APES-DC/
Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved

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

I really have looked for answers in evolution also, but looking just for answers and not for ways to disprove it would be just plain ignorant. So Joey has no right to think my ideas are "stupid" or "ignorant".
Here is a non-creationist scientists who questions evolution.
Questioning of my faith, and the Bible, both sides are put to the test...

So I can't prove that there is God, and I never will. Some people that I consider friends may think me as ignorant or stupid, because I beleive that Jesus Christ was and is my savior, but I'm gonna keep religion out of this.

I beleive that evolution right now is only a theory. There is much to beleive it is not right, and there is a little to make me beleive it is right. I really do look at both sides, whether Joey beleives me or not.

I put my faith in something, and I try to back it up. This is called Apolgetics. I'm not gonna say anymore, if you would like to veiw my side of the story, you can email me and I will give you a list of books and websites that you can read to be even more informed than you already are.

I hope you continue you search for the truth, but until your "truth" is proven. I will rely on my faith of creationism.

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

"Can't you hear my motored heart? Your the one that started it!"

-Foo Fighters "Generator"

Cogito ergo sum

(But ok, just to be fair, I'll go have a look. They better have hard fact to back themselves up.)

Don't think I'm misinformed or overly biased, either. I was brought up in the Lutheran church... and then went to a Christian one (!!!!)... and when I was younger I was the most devout believer you'd ever want to see.

Then I started reading beyond the box... and simply walked away into reality. I've let go of the apron strings. I don't need a "Daddy" watching out over me any longer. But that's me.

Faith and reality will never meld, I don't think. And as long as there is an overabundance of faith in the world, this world is going to continue having problems. (And that's all I'm going to say about THAT.)

I just can't understand how people can totally dismiss overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence that is staring them smack in the eye, and adhere to the ideas of unproven hypotheses jus because they go along with pre-held beliefs. That is no way to ever get to the truth. That is molding the environment to fit personal reality, and personal reality is a very, very subjective thing.

Ahhh well, I should agree with Loban at this point... but I'll continue to post new evidence as I come across it.

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

1. I get defensive because I strongly dislike even anything I SAY being called "ignorant" or "stupid." I don't care how many times you say "seperate the two," if it were you and not me, you'd find yourself getting defensive too. I believe it's called the limbic system? When one believes in something strongly (Religion OR science) they tend to not like it being slammed. And this IS a discussion. I'm going to "defend" what I believe just as much as you are. That's what makes discussion. And aside from one or two comments, I haven't said a THING about creationism. You all brought that into this because you know I'm a Christian.

2. See number 1.

And ALSO, since when is it scientific to look for the things that simply PROVE what you already believe is true? We talked about this in Psychology class and in Research classes and everything else. It's sorta like a self-fullfilling prophecy (there's a science term for it, but I can't drag it from my brain at the moment). If you believe something to be true, it is. And when you only argue with things that support your theory, then you're not even daring to explore the other possibilities. For God's sake (pun intended), how do you think they ever came up with the theory of evolution? By simply going along and finding facts to prove what they already believed?

We all know the answer to that one. Scientific research RELIES ON experimentation to test theories. This requires constantly questioning the things you believe are true to make certain that they are. THAT'S science. HARD FACTS. TESTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER FOR RELIABILITY.

So, in saying you AREN'T going to visit the sites Blake has mentioned seems to implicate something to me. I'm solid in my religion. I don't question it. You too are solid in your scientific beliefs, and you aren't questioning those, even though there are apparently people out there who dare to disagree. The Galileos of today, if you will. The theory of evolution started with a guy who disagreed with everyone else. It's what's "in" these days, so it's easy to look at all the supporting evidence.

But what about the evidence that might not support it? And how can any of you, who clearly aren't questioning what you believe, point the finger at those of us who believe in something else for not questioning what we believe in either?

Excepting the fact, of course, that you think you are right, and we are wrong.

Ok, shutting up now.

P.S. I get highly defensive too because many people assume that, simply because I'm religious that I'm weak somehow. If you can honestly think that of me, you don't have a clue what I've been through in life. (Not that I'm saying anyone here thinks this, but I've gotten it before, and it quite frankly is a load of crap).

[ 08-26-2002 11:57 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Mara1Jade ]

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

"And ALSO, since when is it scientific to look for the things that simply PROVE what you already believe is true? We talked about this in Psychology class and in Research classes and everything else. It's sorta like a self-fullfilling prophecy (there's a science term for it, but I can't drag it from my brain at the moment). "

That is exactly what Blake does every time we have a discussion. I went to those sites the first time blake gave them to me, I saw that the people there do the same thing the quote says. They looked for evidence that went along with what they already believed. I've read plenty of stuff for and against evolution, and I know the majority of clear thinking people can connect the dots, and would agree with the theory (not saying you aren't clear thinking).

People who try to disprove evolution because there is a hole in the theory are just wrong. Science has holes, it isn't complete. There is NO clear and convincing evidence that evolution could not have happened. There are holes in the theory, give it time if you don't already believe in it, we're still learning.

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

((From the site reached through the link in Bob's last post)):

1. "...Time magazine, in its August 23, 1999 issue, ran, as its cover story, a piece on "amazing new discoveries" that add to the already "convincing" evidence that human beings evolved from an ape-like ancestor over the course of the last 4 to 6 million years.5 The article's opening tone is condescending to "creationists and their intellectual allies." The writers of this piece would have the readers believe that it is all but a foregone conclusion from the scientific evidence that man is nothing more than the latest ape to be 'served up on the evolutionary palette.' In support of this, the authors of the piece site four recently discovered hominid 'species' to support this assertion. However, we find this piece to be unbalanced. The importance and the general response of paleoanthropologists to these newly identified species are exaggerated by the authors of the Time article..."

Ummm... where is the original article, so we may read it? I happen to have read one of the scientific papers regarding the discovery of the one hominid; there is nothing exaggerated about it. It is a very detailed anatomical description of the commonalities this newly-found fossil has to the hominid line (man) and the "ape" line (all the other apes we descended from and alongside of.) Not to mention the fact that the writers for Time are members of the media, who as a rule have a tendency to sensationalize. It's a mark of their trade. But sensational or dry, the facts are simply remarkable if anyone would care to go read the actual report....

2. "...Likewise, we regard the hominids assigned to early Homo such as Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo hedeilbergensis, and Homo neandertalensis as being upright walking primates that possessed intelligence, will and emotion. There is no evidence that these animals possessed a spirit, since no religious activity can be seen in the archeological record. Although these animals used tools, the tools used, even by Neandertals, were not as sophisticated as those used by modern humans. Moreover, Neandertals showed different behavior and in all likelihood did not possess language capacity..."

Excuse me, but these guys neglect to mention that Homo neandertalensis buried his dead, and crude artifacts have been discovered in burial sites. I can dig this information up for people if anyone would like me to (no pun intended.) Not to mention that the so-called "spirit" or "morality" or whatever you want to call it is a component of higher-functioning entities, and quite probably was in existence only in a proto-stage at the time of Neanderthal Man. Not to shock anybody, but we're closing in on the genes which determine behavior as well as physical traits. It's already been proven that while "educational nurturing" might "momentarily increase" a child's ability to learn, studies have gone on to show that in the long run of each individual's life he or she finally "settles" on an already (I hate to put it this way, but it's difficult not to) "inherited" IQ. What they're finding is that heredity emplaces us with the innate ability to learn up to a given potential, and the environment accelerates this. But that's another story.... And while I'm on this, there is much genetic evidence supporting the fact that our ability to learn a language is related to genes found on chromosome 7... in fact they ARE on chromosome 7. A gene which is there now, and which probably didn't evolve in the predecessors up to Neandertal Man.

This article then goes on in great detail about the physical characteristics of various hominids, linking them together physically... so far in agreement with anthropological studies ...but then has a tendency to zero in partially regarding evidence which would continue to support science. Disagreement between brain size of early hominids is brought forth as though we should expect the size to determine the result now. Science has recently uncovered the gene missing in us which seems to have inhibited brain expansion; what is unknown would be the amount of expansion this gene repressed. We can only go by the rest of the evidence in the rock record, studying the links between successively complex and modernistic hominids, which we trace by their anatomy.

OK, time to research and read their source material.... More later.

[ 08-27-2002 06:27 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

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

OK, so far a simple online search has found this:

(From: <http://www.loreoftheland.com.au/land/eras/60000.html> )BP
55,000 - 60,000 BP: At a site in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, a rock shelter was used by people about 60,000 years ago.
45,000 BP: Rock engravings discovered in South Australia date back 45,000 years.

Another: "...coevolution is the key to survival of all species, maintains Flannery, a senior research scientist in mammalogy at the Australian Museum in Sydney. Just as human immunities have failed when confronted with previously isolated viruses, so entire ecosystems have crumbled with the introduction of man. Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia and New Guinea make for an interesting case study: though once conjoined, they later separated, developing disparate climates and soil types. Equally important, they were colonized at different times, with man reaching Australia 45,000 to 60,000 years ago..."

I'll keep looking, but I think the authors need to consider other parts of the world. Just MHO....

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

Cave find dates dawn of creativity
By: Roger Highfield - News
news..telegraph.co.uk
January 11, 2002 9:40 am ET

TWO pieces of ochre - a form of iron ore - engraved with geometrical patterns more than 70,000 years ago reveal that people were able to think abstractly and behave as modern humans much earlier than previously thought.

The discovery in a South African cave suggests that humans have created art for twice as long as suggested by previous discoveries, notably by cave paintings from France that have been dated to less than 35,000 years ago.

The surfaces of the red ochre, measuring two and three inches long, were first scraped and ground smooth. They were then marked with cross hatches and lines.

Prof Christopher Henshilwood of the State University of New York, Stony Brook, and the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town, said: "Deliberate depictions, whether abstract or pictorial, signify modern human behaviour.

"These finds point to Africa as the cradle of both human anatomical modernity and behavioural modernity.

"The importance is that African people, from whom we are all descended, were modern in their behaviour long before they got to Europe as Cro-Magnons and replaced Neanderthals."

Prof Henshilwood and colleagues recovered the two pieces of ochre from the Middle Stone Age layers at Blombos Cave, a site on the southern Cape shore of the Indian Ocean, 180 miles east of Cape Town.

"We have no idea what the engravings represent," said Prof Henshilwood. "They are abstract and one is fairly complex.

"They almost certainly had significance to the makers and this meaning was probably conveyed and is associated with modern syntactical language."

Ochre is frequently found in Stone Age sites less than 100,000 years old and may have been used symbolically as a body or decorative paint and possibly also for skin protection and tanning animals' hides.

While genetic and fossil evidence suggests that humans were anatomically modern in Africa before 100,000 years ago, scholars are not yet able to agree on whether human behaviour and physique developed in tandem.

Some believe that modern behaviour arose relatively late and rapidly, 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, while others believe that it evolved earlier and more gradually.

The diversity of views reflects the lack of agreement among scientists on what behaviour best defines the difference between modern humans and their earlier ancestors.

But there is a general consensus that a clear marker of modern behaviour are the cognitive abilities that would be used, for example, to create abstract or depictional images.

"Archaeological evidence of abstract or depictional images indicates modern behaviour," Prof Henshilwood said. "The Blombos Cave engravings are intentional images."

Blombos Cave is a rich site that has yielded early evidence of bone tool manufacture and fishing, both also widely regarded as markers of modern human behaviour.

"At Blombos there is evidence for fishing, manufacture of very finely crafted bone tools, sophisticated manufacture of bifacially flaked bone tools, symbolic use of ochre possibly for body decoration and now the production of engraved objects," the professor said.

The ochre pieces were found in 1999 and 2000 and both were located close to hearths and in an undisturbed deposit of ash and sand.

To determine their age, two dating methods were applied. One dates the burnt stone found in the same layer as the engraved ochres and the second the sand grains from the dune sand that overlies these layers.

Dr Geoff Duller of the Aberystwyth Luminescence Laboratory, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, said: "Dating of burnt rock fragments associated with the ochre pieces and an overlying dune suggest that the pieces are approximately 77,000 years old, supporting the model of an earlier rise of modern human behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa."

[ 08-27-2002 08:57 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

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

"...The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis 1989)

This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.."

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

(Oops, Loban! ~ There, I said it!)

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

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

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

No, I just decided to agree to disagree, because we all know that neither of our sides are cut and dry proven. So pretty much I'm just staying out of it now. Maybe I'll feel like posting later, but seriously I don't really want to discuss it anymore, because it will go no where.

I do say I respect what you do beleive in, no matter if I disagree with it. You are trying to reveal something you beleive is the truth, and if it happens that it is true, and can be proven without a doubt. I will be more than happy to beleive it.

I will leave you guys with one last link though, if you want to do even more research, on why I beleive that evolution at this point has way to many holes.Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Design

[ 08-29-2002 10:46 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by BobPalpatine ]

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

"Can't you hear my motored heart? Your the one that started it!"

-Foo Fighters "Generator"

Cogito ergo sum