Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Science, Inventions & Space
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Science, Inventions & Space Discuss Evolution. Yes? or No? at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by faithful_servant It also speaks to the idea of the engine behind the changes. Mathematically, it's virtually impossible ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:03 PM
lizzie's Avatar
Zen Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: a state of being
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,976
Thanks: 4,658
Thanked 3,786 Times in 2,306 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
It also speaks to the idea of the engine behind the changes. Mathematically, it's virtually impossible for random evolution to have generated the necessary number of changes needed for homo Sap. to have evolved. The time scale involved REQUIRES a guiding intelligence.
Not necessarily. Changes occur in response to stress. The more stressed an organism (or group of organisms), the more rapid the mutations can occur. The larger the problem, the harder the organism will work in order to solve it.
Reply With Quote
  #122 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:07 PM
lizzie's Avatar
Zen Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: a state of being
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,976
Thanks: 4,658
Thanked 3,786 Times in 2,306 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xolo View Post

Of course I like being asked questions, especially from you, you forum rock star, you. And smart Lizzie too.
Hmm- I'm thinking that we need to advise Oftencold that he has competition in the arena of creative insults.
Reply With Quote
  #123 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:11 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 5,850
Thanks: 1,926
Thanked 2,035 Times in 1,456 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
That's not how scientific theories and laws work.

No thanks, I already know what scientific theories and laws are. I think I'm good.
Pray allow me to bask in your "superior" understanding of science by elaborating on theory and laws.


Quote:
There is no alternative theory. The alternative is mythology.
How very medieval an outlook. So it is written and taught so it must be true. I read something somewhere about the greatest failure to try. Perhaps you might want to take this advice to heart by trying to understand the alternative theories to Darwinism or at least it's faults.

Quote:
The idea of a deity is in the realm of mythology, not science. And as such, it's taught there.
No, the idea of a deity has corporeal world ramifications. In the absence of a Creator we have no unalienable rights, which explains Darwinisms attractiveness for Progryssves. Moreover Darwinism provides a pretext for licensing abortion and rationing medical care in the name of "natural" selection. As Darwin wrote resources spent on the poor and unfortunate are wasted from a survival of the fittest perspective. This philosophy gives rise to the modern version of "selections" like those of the Nazi's without the fuss and muss of large-scale concentration camps.

Quote:
But yes, evolution does not speak to the origins of life. Period.
So that is why Darwin's book expounding on his theory was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"? We ought to indoctrinate our children at State schools with Darwin's atheism and racism as controvertible fact. But turn them away when they ask how life began. I am sure the course content has changed somewhat since I attended school in the dark ages but our teachers and scientists nattered on about the primordial soup giving rise to the first single celled organism by some chance concurrence of circumstances that just happen to support Darwin's theory. No doubt this article of Progryssve faith has been dressed up to appeal to today's students but that doesn't make it any less questionable.
Reply With Quote
  #124 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 01:51 PM
lizzie's Avatar
Zen Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: a state of being
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,976
Thanks: 4,658
Thanked 3,786 Times in 2,306 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xolo View Post

Mutations occur about once every 32,000 years or so. Man has been in the works for 5 million years. That's a lot of mutations. Beyond my ability to figure out without a calculator.
What is your source for the 32,000 year time period? It doesn't correlate with any other information I am aware of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xolo View Post
We are all 99.99% African, except with a few recessives where Africans have dominants hiding their recessives.
Frankly, I find that of little importance or significance. Humans are not the sum total of their genetic code unless one believe he is a slave to it.

Here's a couple of excerpts from internet sources some here may find interesting reading:

Quote:
Although the study of natural selection in humans is still in an early stage, the new data, building on decades of earlier work, are beginning to reveal some of the landscape of selection in our species. In fact, researchers have identified many genetic loci at which selection has likely occurred, and some of the selective pressures involved have been elucidated. Three significant forces that have been identified thus far include changes in diet, changes in climate, and infectious disease.

Lactose Tolerance
The domestication of plants and animals roughly 10,000 years ago profoundly changed human diets, and it gave those individuals who could best digest the new foods a selective advantage. The best understood of these adaptations is lactose tolerance (Sabeti et al., 2006; Bersaglieri et al., 2004). The ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk, usually disappears before adulthood in mammals, and the same is true in most human populations. However, for some people, including a large fraction of individuals of European descent, the ability to break down lactose persists because of a mutation in the lactase gene (LCT). This suggests that the allele became common in Europe because of increased nutrition from cow's milk, which became available after the domestication of cattle. This hypothesis was eventually confirmed by Todd Bersaglieri and his colleagues, who demonstrated that the lactase persistence allele is common in Europeans (nearly 80% of people of European descent carry this allele), and it has evidence of a selective sweep spanning roughly 1 million base pairs (1 megabase). Indeed, lactose tolerance is one of the strongest signals of selection seen anywhere in the genome. Sarah Tishkoff and colleagues subsequently found a distinct LCT mutation also conferring lactose tolerance, in this case in African pastoralist populations, suggesting the action of convergent evolution (Tishkoff et al., 2007).

Pigmentation
As proto-Europeans and Asians moved northward out of Africa, they experienced less sunlight and colder temperature, new environmental forces that exerted selective pressure on the migrants. Exactly why reduced sunlight should be a potent selective force is still debated, but it has become clear that humans have experienced positive selection at numerous genes to finely tune the amount of skin pigment they produce, depending on the amount of sunlight exposure.

The role of selection in controlling human pigmentation is not a new idea; in fact, it was first advanced by William Wells in 1813, long before Darwin's formulation of natural selection (Wells, 1818). In recent years, signals of positive selection have been identified in many genes, with some signals solely in Europeans, some solely in Asians, and some shared across both continents (Lao et al., 2007; McEvoy et al., 2006; Williamson et al., 2007). Evidence for purifying selection has also been found to maintain dark skin color in Africa, where sunlight exposure is great.

A good example of selection for lighter pigmentation is the gene SLC24A5, which was one of the first to be characterized. Rebecca Lamason and her colleagues identified a mutation in the zebrafish homologue of this gene that is responsible for pigmentation phenotype. The investigators then demonstrated that a human variant in the gene explains roughly one-third of the variation in pigmentation between Europeans and West Africans, and that the European variant had likely been a target of selection (Lamason et al., 2005). In related work, Angela Hancock and her colleagues examined many genes involved in metabolism, and they showed that alleles of these genes show evidence of positive selection and correlate strongly with climate, suggesting that humans adapted to cooler climates by changing their metabolic rates (Hancock et al., 2008).
Evolutionary Adaptation and Positive Selection in Humans | Learn Science at Scitable
----------------

Quote:
Geneticists at Stanford now have laid this question to rest. Their results, scheduled to be published Jan. 16 online in Public Library of Science Genetics, show adaptation-the process by which organisms change to better fit their environment-is indeed a large part of human genomic evolution.
"Others have looked for the signal of widespread adaptation and couldn't find it. Now we've used a lot more data and did a lot of work cleaning it up," said Dmitri Petrov, associate professor of biology at Stanford University and one of two senior authors of the paper. "We were able to detect the adaptation signatures quite clearly, and they have the characteristic shape we anticipated."

All genetic mutations start out random, but those that are beneficial to an organism's success in their environment are directly selected for and quickly perpetuate throughout the population, providing a uniform, traceable signature.

With the help of post-doctoral researcher James Cai and recent graduate student Michael Macpherson, Petrov and co-senior author Guy Sella, a biologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, used different methodology from what's been used before to look for signatures of adaptation left in the human genome.

"We detected a number of signatures that suggest adaptation is quite pervasive and common," Petrov said.
Humans have a very complex history from traveling around the globe, and the human genome is also highly structured, making it complicated and difficult to work with, he said.

To find the adaptation signal, Petrov and his colleagues looked for regions of the genome that "hitchhiked" along with an adaptation. When a genetic adaptation occurs and is passed on to offspring, other genes on both sides of the adaptation typically accompany it. The result is a whole region of the genome where all humans are unusually similar to each other, referred to as a "selective sweep," that researchers can identify and trace through human genetic history.

"Adaptation becomes widespread in the population very quickly," Petrov said. "Whereas neutral random mutation doesn't and would not have the selective sweep signature."

"We tried to see if these regions of unusual similarity among all humans tended to be in particular places in the genome as the theory predicts they should be, and indeed we find them there," Petrov said. "The work suggests human beings have undergone rampant adaptation to their environment in the last 200,000 years of history."

In the past, these sweeps were difficult to discern because the data were not sufficiently abundant and were filled with noise. Depending on the methodology, estimates of the degree of adaptation in humans ranged from as high as 30 percent down to zero. Signatures were impossible to interpret with confidence.

"People would find changes in specific genes suggesting that recent adaptations in humans might be common but could not find genome-wide signatures of pervasive adaptation. That was unsettling," Petrov said. "I'm hoping that people will react with relief that things are starting to make sense."

Petrov hopes that researchers can now do a much better job of finding the regions within the genome responsible for specific human adaptations and relate them to changes in human history or past environments. For example, one could trace the arrival of lactose tolerance to the domestication of cattle and the introduction of milk into our adult diet.

"As the data are going to grow, we should be able to locate specific adaptive events quite well," Petrov said. "By identifying specific genes, we can unravel this evolutionary history of adaptive change."

Another possibility is tracing the origin of skin pigmentation genes, which give people their different skin-color types. Many of these genes are linked to skin cancer. Researchers may be able to recreate past environments while better understanding how adaptation comes into play.

"We see signatures of possibly hundreds of recent adaptive events, and now we can ask what are they doing there," he said. "It's both exiting and puzzling."

This paper follows similar work in bacteria and fruit flies indicating adaptation is a significant contribution to evolution as a whole.
"We are on a crest of a wave showing that adaptation is a lot more prevalent than we thought," Petrov said
Adaptation Plays Significant Role In Human Evolution
Reply With Quote
  #125 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 02:09 PM
rivrrat's Avatar
Queen of Awesomeness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Charlottesville
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,071
Thanks: 2,861
Thanked 8,893 Times in 5,038 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Pray allow me to bask in your "superior" understanding of science by elaborating on theory and laws.
Simple. To save myself the typing, I'll quote from another source.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.


Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.


In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Gravity is both a theory AND a law, for instance. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.


A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.


Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.

And this is key:

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence.


Quote:
How very medieval an outlook. So it is written and taught so it must be true. I read something somewhere about the greatest failure to try. Perhaps you might want to take this advice to heart by trying to understand the alternative theories to Darwinism or at least it's faults.
There are no other scientific theories. There's mythology. And conjecture. Things like some magic man in the sky took a **** and here we are, or some alien lifeforms came from another planet in another galaxy and put us here. I'm more inclined to believe the latter. But neither are scientific theories.


Quote:
No, the idea of a deity has corporeal world ramifications. In the absence of a Creator we have no unalienable rights, which explains Darwinisms attractiveness for Progryssves.
We don't have any inalienable rights.

Quote:
Moreover Darwinism provides a pretext for licensing abortion and rationing medical care in the name of "natural" selection. As Darwin wrote resources spent on the poor and unfortunate are wasted from a survival of the fittest perspective. This philosophy gives rise to the modern version of "selections" like those of the Nazi's without the fuss and muss of large-scale concentration camps.
And?

None of this has anything to do with the FACT that the notion of a deity is the realm of mythology and not science, and as such is taught there.


Quote:
So that is why Darwin's book expounding on his theory was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?
I don't give a flying **** what darwin's book was on. The theory of evolution doesn't speak to the origin of the universe, the planet, or life. Period.

Quote:
We ought to indoctrinate our children at State schools with Darwin's atheism and racism as controvertible fact. But turn them away when they ask how life began. I am sure the course content has changed somewhat since I attended school in the dark ages but our teachers and scientists nattered on about the primordial soup giving rise to the first single celled organism by some chance concurrence of circumstances that just happen to support Darwin's theory. No doubt this article of Progryssve faith has been dressed up to appeal to today's students but that doesn't make it any less questionable.
How life began is a topic separate from evolution.
__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks
Reply With Quote
  #126 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 04:04 PM
Bodhisattva
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: 996
Thanks: 530
Thanked 307 Times in 243 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule View Post
Or soooooooo.....burp......pfffffffffffffffft.
Thanks... good to know that you accept being a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #127 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 06:28 PM
Xolo's Avatar
Peace Love & America!
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 1966
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,488
Thanks: 820
Thanked 790 Times in 568 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
Hmm- I'm thinking that we need to advise Oftencold that he has competition in the arena of creative insults.
That is not insulting, I am speaking the truth. I'm shamelessly flattering you two.
__________________
Quote:
We are all, by nature, clearly oriented toward the basic human values of love and compassion. We all prefer the love of others to their hatred. We all prefer others’ generosity to meanness. And who is there among us who does not prefer tolerance, respect and forgiveness of our failings to bigotry, disrespect, and resentment? Dalai Lama
Reply With Quote
  #128 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 07:00 PM
lizzie's Avatar
Zen Warrior
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: a state of being
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,976
Thanks: 4,658
Thanked 3,786 Times in 2,306 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xolo View Post
That is not insulting, I am speaking the truth. I'm shamelessly flattering you two.
In that case, I offer my apology- I thought you were being facetious.
Reply With Quote
  #129 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 07:14 PM
Xolo's Avatar
Peace Love & America!
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 1966
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,488
Thanks: 820
Thanked 790 Times in 568 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
What is your source for the 32,000 year time period? It doesn't correlate with any other information I am aware of.
TYPO 3,200, same range as you said.



Quote:
Frankly, I find that of little importance or significance. Humans are not the sum total of their genetic code unless one believe he is a slave to it.
They are the Gestalt of which genes are the building blocks. Man is, of course, more than the sum of his parts.

Quote:
Here's a couple of excerpts from internet sources some here may find interesting reading;Evolutionary Adaptation and Positive Selection in Humans | Learn Science at Scitable
----------------
Adaptation Plays Significant Role In Human Evolution
I read them. They dig deeper than the layman language I am using. Nevertheless, they do not contradict me. Not at all.
Quote:
A good example of selection for lighter pigmentation is the gene SLC24A5, which was one of the first to be characterized. Rebecca Lamason and her colleagues identified a mutation in the zebrafish homologue of this gene that is responsible for pigmentation phenotype. The investigators then demonstrated that a human variant in the gene explains roughly one-third of the variation in pigmentation between Europeans and West Africans,
The variant of the slc gene works on a continuum. It is a lightening gene. If one starts out very dark, it will only lighten to a certain degree. When this gene is passed to lighter skins, it lightens more, when it gets into a recessive groups of genes, it will lighten to blond blond. This is the same gene in another variant that has been around a long time, that controls albinism. Positive selection means that once this gene appears in a population, it will be selected for. But that hypothesis is yasterday's news. It from 2009
Here's an article from the same site from 2 weeks ago.
Quote:
Subtle Shifts, Not Major Sweeps, Drove Human Evolution
enlarge

Researchers examined the sequences of nearly 200 human genomes, and discovered new evidence arguing against selective sweeps as the dominant mode of human adaptation. (Credit: iStockphoto/Claude Dagenais)

ScienceDaily (Feb. 28, 2011) — The most popular model used by geneticists for the last 35 years to detect the footprints of human evolution may overlook more common subtle changes, a new international study finds.

Classic selective sweeps, when a beneficial genetic mutation quickly spreads through the human population, are thought to have been the primary driver of human evolution. But a new computational analysis, published in the February 18, 2011 issue of Science, reveals that such events may have been rare, with little influence on the history of our species.

By examining the sequences of nearly 200 human genomes, researchers led by Ryan Hernandez, PhD, assistant professor of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences at the University of California at San Francisco, found new evidence arguing against selective sweeps as the dominant mode of human adaptation.

The reversal suggests that smaller changes in multiple genes may have been the primary driver of changes in human phenotypes, and that new models are needed to retrace the genetic steps of evolution.

"Our findings suggest that recent human adaptation has not taken place through the arrival and spread of single changes of large effect, but through shifts of frequency in many places of the genome," said Molly Przeworski, PhD, professor of Human Genetics and Ecology & Evolution at the University of Chicago and co-senior author of the paper. "It suggests that human adaptation, like most common human diseases, has a complex genetic architecture."

Under the classic selective sweep model, a new, advantageous gene appears and quickly spreads through the population. Because of its rapid rise, the gene becomes fixed in the genome with less variation than a gene that spread more slowly and was subject to the shuffling effects of recombination.

Geneticists have used this model to look for genetic segments surrounded by "troughs" of low variation, the theoretical footprint of a selective sweep. Applying the model has identified more than 2,000 genes -- roughly 10 percent of the human genome -- suggesting that selective sweeps were a frequent occurrence that drove the evolution of humans away from their primate ancestors.

"The selective sweep model was introduced in 1974 and has pretty much been the central model ever since," Przeworski said. "It is fair to say that it is the model behind almost every scan for selection done to date, in humans or in other organisms."

However, areas of low diversity around gene segments might also be produced by other evolutionary mechanisms. To test whether selective sweeps were the predominant cause of these troughs, a group of scientists from the University of Chicago, the University of California at San Francisco, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the University of Oxford used data from179 subjects in the 1000 Genomes Project, an international effort to catalogue human variation.

"This is really a groundbreaking dataset that allowed this type of analysis to be done for the very first time," Hernandez said.

The research team looked at genes with human-specific substitutions, where the nucleotide sequence is different from close primate relatives. In some cases, the new sequence switches an amino acid in the protein the gene encodes, a replacement that likely improved the protein's function. In other genes, the sequence change is "synonymous," coding for the same amino acid as before and leaving the protein's function unperturbed. Under the classic selective sweep model, genetic diversity would be lower surrounding the first group of mutations, those that produced beneficial changes in function, because of their quick spread.

But when the two groups were compared, the troughs of low diversity were similar for genes that produce functional changes and genes with synonymous substitutions that do not. The result suggests that classic selective sweeps could not have been the most common cause of these low diversity troughs, leaving the door open for other modes of evolution.

"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."

Further evidence against common selective sweeps was provided by comparing genome variation in different populations. Because Nigerian, European, and Chinese/Japanese populations separated roughly 100,000 years ago and subsequently adapted to different environments, frequent selective sweeps would be expected to fix clear genetic differences between the populations.

However, comparing genomes of different populations from the 1000 Genomes Project detected only subtle differences in allele frequencies, representative of small changes over time rather than rapid sweeps.

"It dovetails quite well with findings coming out of medical mapping studies, which also suggest that many loci of small effect influence disease risk," Przeworski said. "These findings call into question how much more there is to find using the selective sweep approach, and should also make us skeptical of how many of the findings to date will turn out to be validated."

Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
__________________
Quote:
We are all, by nature, clearly oriented toward the basic human values of love and compassion. We all prefer the love of others to their hatred. We all prefer others’ generosity to meanness. And who is there among us who does not prefer tolerance, respect and forgiveness of our failings to bigotry, disrespect, and resentment? Dalai Lama
Reply With Quote
  #130 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2011, 07:24 PM
Xolo's Avatar
Peace Love & America!
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: 1966
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,488
Thanks: 820
Thanked 790 Times in 568 Posts
Default Re: Evolution. Yes? or No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
In that case, I offer my apology- I thought you were being facetious.
I am too serious to be facetious, let alone fecetious. I forget the humor sometimes.
__________________
Quote:
We are all, by nature, clearly oriented toward the basic human values of love and compassion. We all prefer the love of others to their hatred. We all prefer others’ generosity to meanness. And who is there among us who does not prefer tolerance, respect and forgiveness of our failings to bigotry, disrespect, and resentment? Dalai Lama

Last edited by Xolo; 03-15-2011 at 07:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
evolution, yes

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0