Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Origin of Life Research
#1

Origin of Life Research
Is Contemporary Origin of Life Research Misleading?
 
Evolution is an interesting subject; however, I have recently learned that since the Yuri Miller experiment over 60 years ago, there has been little in the way of progress in OOL research/experimentation.

I am both alarmed and perplexed because I was under the impression that Biochemistry had successfully synthesised basic cell structures. However, it appears that the scientific community has misled the wider public.

School textbooks often depict an organism slithering out of a pool of prebiotic soup. Such illustrations suggest that science has successfully resolved the OOL process.  

Constructing biological systems require constant scrutiny, basic errors lead to catastrophic events. When errors occur, a redesign is required, which takes the synthesis back to stage 1. As Natural Selection is ‘Blind’ and lacks foresight, then there can be no redemptive process. Molecules don’t know they are moving towards life, there is no agency involved. If system errors do occur, then how does Natural Selection retrace it steps to the beginning of the process? Natural Selection does not keep notes!

The Synthesis Problem—Natural Selection does not know how to stop the process after it begins and since there is no active agent involved, there’s no deliberate target. Under laboratory conditions, you’re actively moving towards a specific outcome.

Time, although claimed to aid abiogenesis, inhibits the development process. Carbohydrates (essential components of life) are kinetic products and prone to Caramelization. If you heat sugar it turns brown. If the process continues Carbohydrates decompose. Great care is required, and the reaction must be monitored constantly and stopped at certain time intervals. As Natural Selection is blind how does it intervene at crucial junctures?

A prebiotic (before biology) system lacks a purification process. In the laboratory you run a reaction and stop, you purify and continue, and do so throughout the reaction event. Nature does not possess a viable purification system.

Reagent Order—Is essential. The components of life must be introduced in a specific order, at certain times.  UV light, or no light PH levels atmospheric gasses (geochemistry) must be carefully controlled in order to build complex molecular structures. The characterization at each step is important for a Chemist, but it is very difficult in the absence of an active agent overseeing the process. All conditions must be optimal for life to successfully emerge.

Enzymes check each molecular structure. If the structure is incorrect, other enzymes intervene in order to adapt the structure and change it to make it viable. However, in a prebiotic world, there are no enzymes. How does Natural Selection rectify this, considering the regulatory system is more complex than the system being rectified?

The Mass Transfer Problem—Life requires more and more material to successfully process the yields and then repeat the process until you have enough. When all the components of life are used (lipids, carbohydrate, amino acids, proteins, nucleotides) where do the core components come from? Can a blind undirected process return to the beginning and create more?

Natural Selection does not keep notes. One missing compound, molecule, element, leads to catastrophic failure. Life can’t traverse the spectrum of time and correct the mistake, considering there are no predefined parameters or foresight.

A simple Carbohydrate molecule requires lipids and nucleic acids and proteins.

Prominent Biochemists have posited that there would have been an abundance of nucleotides during the first stages of Life. However, there would have to have been a large volume of such nucleotides, significant concentrations which require specific arrangements to be functional.

Lipid bilayers surround the subcellular organelles such as nuclei and mitochondria, which are themselves microsystem assemblies. Each of these has their own lipid composition, different from the last vesicle (specificity). Lipid bilayer act like a barrier. A portion of the bilayers points outwards towards water and some point towards the interior of the cell. The ones on the outside are different than those on the interior. It is still not known how this complex function developed.

Protein lipid complexes act as transport cites and active pumps for the passage of ions and molecules through bilayer membranes, often displaying high specificity. Ionosphers allow certain molecules in and others out. Certain ions are allowed in and other kept out, which allows for optimization levels and overall maintenance of the cell. Ionic imbalance leads to cell death. No artificial protocell has yet been constructed with such functionality.

All lipid bilayers have a vast number of polycarbonate appendages known as Glycons. Glycons are important for cell regulation. Eliminating any class of carbohydrates from an organism results in the cells death.

A cell is covered in Glycons, this is how cells recognise one another, each cell has an inbuilt recognition system. No synthetically engineered cell displays such complexity.

Nobody knows how a fully functional cell emerges from the massive combinatorial complexity (that is locating an optimal object from a finite set of objects)

Interactomes—is the entirety of molecular interactions inside a cell e.g protein to protein interaction.

If you merely consider protein to protein interactome combination in a single yeast cell, the result is an estimated 10⁷⁹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ combinations. (Tampa et al Protein Science 2011)

Furthermore, if you consider that 10 to the power 17  seconds have elapsed since the big bang, that there are 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe and Quantum Physics limits the amount of states an atom can go through to 10 to the power 43; it seems reasonable to say that there have been 10 to the power 140 (by adding all the previous together) chemical reactions since the inception of the Universe: there has not been enough time for a single yeast cell to cycle through all the interactome combinations!
 
 
 
 
Reply
#2

Origin of Life Research
It's called abiogenesis and we have the proof and evidence to support it
there wasn't always life and there is life now
not much more to it other than politics
First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.
The following 1 user Likes Schrodinger's Outlaw's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#3

Origin of Life Research
OP: Where did this copy/paste come from?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 6 users Like brewerb's post:
  • Phaedrus, Dancefortwo, Fireball, Thumpalumpacus, Full Circle, Deesse23
Reply
#4

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 12:24 AM)Schrodinger's Outlaw Wrote: It's called abiogenesis and we have the proof and evidence to support it
there wasn't always life and there is life now
not much more to it other than politics

And no gods are needed.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#5

Origin of Life Research
Shoddy copy & paste job.

Deadpan Coffee Drinker

And, of course, Ninja'd by the @brewerb
Reply
#6

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: Carbohydrates (essential components of life) are kinetic products and prone to Caramelization. If you heat sugar it turns brown. If the process continues Carbohydrates decompose. Great care is required, and the reaction must be monitored constantly and stopped at certain time intervals. As Natural Selection is blind how does it intervene at crucial junctures?

Abiogenesis happened before there were large concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere, and in any case occurred in the oceans.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Dancefortwo
Reply
#7

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: Evolution is an interesting subject; however, I have recently learned that since the Yuri Miller experiment over 60 years ago, there has been little in the way of progress in OOL research/experimentation.

You have been misled.

This is a lovely batch of copy-N-pasta. Where exactly did you get it? Sadly it boils down to the absurdity that can be summarized as "Scientists don't know how it happened but we know that it couldn't have happened that way!" Complete tripe shat out by dolts who think that the mistranslated origin stories of bronze age goat herders is more valid than modern science.
The following 6 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Fireball, Full Circle, grympy, brunumb, Gwaithmir, mordant
Reply
#8

Origin of Life Research
Over/under on post count for our latest drive-by member?

I won't take the over if it's any higher than 1.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 2 users Like TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Mark, Minimalist
Reply
#9

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: ]I am both alarmed and perplexed because I was under the impression that Biochemistry had successfully synthesised basic cell structures.

Your impression is wrong.

(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: However, it appears that the scientific community has misled the wider public.

It hasn't. Reading scientific papers requires not just reading comprehension, but an understanding of the science involved.

A little education goes a long ways. Do avail yourself of it before shitposting like this again.

You're easily-spotted and not nearly so subtle as you think. Up your game, dingbat.
"What senses do we lack that we cannot see or hear another world all around us?" -- Frank Herbert
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Phaedrus, brunumb, Paleophyte
Reply
#10

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: Is Contemporary Origin of Life Research Misleading?
 
Evolution is an interesting subject; however, I have recently learned that since the Yuri Miller experiment over 60 years ago, there has been little in the way of progress in OOL research/experimentation.

I am both alarmed and perplexed because I was under the impression that Biochemistry had successfully synthesised basic cell structures. However, it appears that the scientific community has misled the wider public.


I am neither alarmed nor perplexed that not every question which science might very well eventually answer has not yet been.  Being a lay person whose scientific understanding completely depends on riding the coat tails of others, I am disinclined to snap my fingers and wonder why the service they provide me isn't better.  I'm just grateful to come along for free.

I am more excited to learn what can be known about the inorganic/organic transition.  Heck even the religious stories are pretty fun.  But the real excitement comes from actually finding out how it really happened.


(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote:
As Natural Selection is ‘Blind’ and lacks foresight, then there can be no redemptive process. Molecules don’t know they are moving towards life, there is no agency involved.


This makes me wonder if you are equally flummoxed regarding how molecules come together to form crystals.  After all there is no agency involved to get them all lined up, so how do they know how to do this?  The answer, of course, is that they don't know how to do it and neither are they dependent upon any agency to help them out.  It is an intrinsic potential of the materials themselves.  Pretty wonderful I'd say.


(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote:
A cell is covered in Glycons, this is how cells recognise one another, each cell has an inbuilt recognition system. No synthetically engineered cell displays such complexity.

Nobody knows how a fully functional cell emerges from the massive combinatorial complexity (that is locating an optimal object from a finite set of objects) 

I think that is right.  So far as I know no one yet has all the answers.  But we have clues.  For one thing, there is very good reason I'm sure you would agree to believe that there have been billions of years for all this to play out.  Perhaps in time we will have a well supported natural science model.  In the meantime though I have no interest in models based on supernatural magic.  That is simply no way to do science.

Welcome to the forums by the way.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 2 users Like Mark's post:
  • Alan V, Paleophyte
Reply
#11

Origin of Life Research
Google You tube, abiogenesis. Lots of explanations of the science of abiogenesis to be found here. You don't even have to read much.

Google abiogenesis books for books on the subject that can be obtained and read.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#12

Origin of Life Research
Please spare us further drivel and tell us right away: what religion/denomination are you trying to sell?
cetero censeo religionem esse delendam 
Reply
#13

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: Is Contemporary Origin of Life Research Misleading?

 

I am the servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Arnor. The dark fire will not avail you. Go back to the Shadow! You shall not……..PASS!!!
Gandalf
The following 3 users Like Gwaithmir's post:
  • Phaedrus, mordant, brunumb
Reply
#14

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 11:40 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: Is Contemporary Origin of Life Research Misleading?

 

I am the servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Arnor. The dark fire will not avail you. Go back to the Shadow! You shall not……..PASS!!!
Gandalf


[Image: DYTebye.gif]


[Image: CWeyzVR.gif?noredirect]
                                                         T4618
Reply
#15

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: Is Contemporary Origin of Life Research Misleading?
 
Evolution is an interesting subject; however, I have recently learned that since the Yuri Miller experiment over 60 years ago, there has been little in the way of progress in OOL research/experimentation.

I am both alarmed and perplexed because I was under the impression that Biochemistry had successfully synthesised basic cell structures. However, it appears that the scientific community has misled the wider public.

School textbooks often depict an organism slithering out of a pool of prebiotic soup. Such illustrations suggest that science has successfully resolved the OOL process.  

Constructing biological systems require constant scrutiny, basic errors lead to catastrophic events. When errors occur, a redesign is required, which takes the synthesis back to stage 1. As Natural Selection is ‘Blind’ and lacks foresight, then there can be no redemptive process. Molecules don’t know they are moving towards life, there is no agency involved. If system errors do occur, then how does Natural Selection retrace it steps to the beginning of the process? Natural Selection does not keep notes!

The Synthesis Problem—Natural Selection does not know how to stop the process after it begins and since there is no active agent involved, there’s no deliberate target. Under laboratory conditions, you’re actively moving towards a specific outcome.

Time, although claimed to aid abiogenesis, inhibits the development process. Carbohydrates (essential components of life) are kinetic products and prone to Caramelization. If you heat sugar it turns brown. If the process continues Carbohydrates decompose. Great care is required, and the reaction must be monitored constantly and stopped at certain time intervals. As Natural Selection is blind how does it intervene at crucial junctures?

A prebiotic (before biology) system lacks a purification process. In the laboratory you run a reaction and stop, you purify and continue, and do so throughout the reaction event. Nature does not possess a viable purification system.

Reagent Order—Is essential. The components of life must be introduced in a specific order, at certain times.  UV light, or no light PH levels atmospheric gasses (geochemistry) must be carefully controlled in order to build complex molecular structures. The characterization at each step is important for a Chemist, but it is very difficult in the absence of an active agent overseeing the process. All conditions must be optimal for life to successfully emerge.

Enzymes check each molecular structure. If the structure is incorrect, other enzymes intervene in order to adapt the structure and change it to make it viable. However, in a prebiotic world, there are no enzymes. How does Natural Selection rectify this, considering the regulatory system is more complex than the system being rectified?

The Mass Transfer Problem—Life requires more and more material to successfully process the yields and then repeat the process until you have enough. When all the components of life are used (lipids, carbohydrate, amino acids, proteins, nucleotides) where do the core components come from? Can a blind undirected process return to the beginning and create more?

Natural Selection does not keep notes. One missing compound, molecule, element, leads to catastrophic failure. Life can’t traverse the spectrum of time and correct the mistake, considering there are no predefined parameters or foresight.

A simple Carbohydrate molecule requires lipids and nucleic acids and proteins.

Prominent Biochemists have posited that there would have been an abundance of nucleotides during the first stages of Life. However, there would have to have been a large volume of such nucleotides, significant concentrations which require specific arrangements to be functional.

Lipid bilayers surround the subcellular organelles such as nuclei and mitochondria, which are themselves microsystem assemblies. Each of these has their own lipid composition, different from the last vesicle (specificity). Lipid bilayer act like a barrier. A portion of the bilayers points outwards towards water and some point towards the interior of the cell. The ones on the outside are different than those on the interior. It is still not known how this complex function developed.

Protein lipid complexes act as transport cites and active pumps for the passage of ions and molecules through bilayer membranes, often displaying high specificity. Ionosphers allow certain molecules in and others out. Certain ions are allowed in and other kept out, which allows for optimization levels and overall maintenance of the cell. Ionic imbalance leads to cell death. No artificial protocell has yet been constructed with such functionality.

All lipid bilayers have a vast number of polycarbonate appendages known as Glycons. Glycons are important for cell regulation. Eliminating any class of carbohydrates from an organism results in the cells death.

A cell is covered in Glycons, this is how cells recognise one another, each cell has an inbuilt recognition system. No synthetically engineered cell displays such complexity.

Nobody knows how a fully functional cell emerges from the massive combinatorial complexity (that is locating an optimal object from a finite set of objects)

Interactomes—is the entirety of molecular interactions inside a cell e.g protein to protein interaction.

If you merely consider protein to protein interactome combination in a single yeast cell, the result is an estimated 10⁷⁹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ combinations. (Tampa et al Protein Science 2011)

Furthermore, if you consider that 10 to the power 17  seconds have elapsed since the big bang, that there are 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe and Quantum Physics limits the amount of states an atom can go through to 10 to the power 43; it seems reasonable to say that there have been 10 to the power 140 (by adding all the previous together) chemical reactions since the inception of the Universe: there has not been enough time for a single yeast cell to cycle through all the interactome combinations!




It's "interactive", not "interactome". Didn't Jebus tell you to be careful ?
Thanks.
You are right on time.
We tolerate and schedule one ignoramus at a time, and you were scheduled for Friday the 13. We have many others waiting, so please be aware you have once week. LMAO

In fact all your statements are totally false.
There is no point reading anything beyond your first sentence, as it betrays your total ignorance of the subject.

In fact there has been, and continues to be a great deal of on-going research, including by researchers who have received Nobel prizes for their work. You really should update yourself, and stop making a fool of yourself.

Go to your Apologetics/Creationism office, and demand your money back.



Quote:A simple Carbohydrate molecule requires lipids and nucleic acids and proteins.

No they don't. 100 % false. Please go back and retake the biochem course you obviously failed.
Carbohydrates (also called saccharides) are molecular compounds made from just three elements: carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Monosaccharides (e.g. glucose) and disaccharides (e.g. sucrose) are relatively small molecules. They are often called sugars.
The following 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • Alan V, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#16

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 03:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:


Did you watch this video all the way through?  I made it to the 7+ minute mark and just before that he talks hypothetically about the kinds of experiments they're trying to do to establish a sequence of steps by which the inorganic might become organic.  So far that's it.  No claims of having established such a sequence is made - unless it comes later.

I see no reason to overstate the case for abiogenesis.  Naturally I assume that one day science will establish that sequence of events, even if pulling it off in a laboratory proves unworkable.  But no one is justified in extrapolating supernatural magic from that failure.  After all it may have required millions of years for the sequence to establish simple, primitive life as we know it.  We may not be long lived enough to wait so long.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 1 user Likes Mark's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#17

Origin of Life Research
I still need to watch that video myself. Kind of lacking of me not to watch it considering abiogenesis is relevant to my own research in self organisation.
The following 1 user Likes Mathilda's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#18

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 06:07 PM)Mark Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 03:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:


Did you watch this video all the way through?  I made it to the 7+ minute mark and just before that he talks hypothetically about the kinds of experiments they're trying to do to establish a sequence of steps by which the inorganic might become organic.  So far that's it.  No claims of having established such a sequence is made - unless it comes later.

I see no reason to overstate the case for abiogenesis.  Naturally I assume that one day science will establish that sequence of events, even if pulling it off in a laboratory proves unworkable.  But no one is justified in extrapolating supernatural magic from that failure.  After all it may have required millions of years for the sequence to establish simple, primitive life as we know it.  We may not be long lived enough to wait so long.

I've watched it entirely all the way through, many times as well as all the others in the set.
I did not say there was a sequence of steps established ... there would be MANY, as life arises in many conditions, including thermal vents and very harsh conditions. I posted it to show there is a lot of research since Miller-Urey. I over-stated nothing, and neither does Szostak.
Reply
#19

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 06:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 06:07 PM)Mark Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 03:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:


Did you watch this video all the way through?  I made it to the 7+ minute mark and just before that he talks hypothetically about the kinds of experiments they're trying to do to establish a sequence of steps by which the inorganic might become organic.  So far that's it.  No claims of having established such a sequence is made - unless it comes later.

I see no reason to overstate the case for abiogenesis.  Naturally I assume that one day science will establish that sequence of events, even if pulling it off in a laboratory proves unworkable.  But no one is justified in extrapolating supernatural magic from that failure.  After all it may have required millions of years for the sequence to establish simple, primitive life as we know it.  We may not be long lived enough to wait so long.

I've watched it entirely all the way through, many times as well as all the others in the set.
I did not say there was a sequence of steps established ... there would be MANY, as life arises in many conditions, including thermal vents and very harsh conditions. I posted it to show there is a lot of research since Miller-Urey. I over-stated nothing, and neither does Szostak.


Here you are assuming what has not been demonstrated.  I too assume it.  But I wouldn't present what that video says by way of arguing that abiogenesis has been demonstrated.  Though I expect it will be, from what I gather in the first seven minutes of that video, it hasn't yet been.  So while I agree that Szostak, the video's speaker, does not over state his case, it seems you are more than willing to do so.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply
#20

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 07:04 PM)Mark Wrote: Here you are assuming what has not been demonstrated.  I too assume it.  But I wouldn't present what that video says by way of arguing that abiogenesis has been demonstrated.  Though I expect it will be, from what I gather in the first seven minutes of that video, it hasn't yet been.  So while I agree that Szostak, the video's speaker, does not over state his case, it seems you are more than willing to do so.

I assume nothing.
I never said abiogenesis has been demonstrated.
What I did say is that I posted the video as an example of the state of current research, and that the claim in the OP is false concerning the state of research since Miller-Urey. What YOU did, is make wrong assumptions about what I was saying and why I posted the video.
Reply
#21

Origin of Life Research
(09-12-2019, 11:43 PM)Ardent Wrote: ...

[Image: 121d94d258314323713504305962ef41.jpg]
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 3 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Mark, Paleophyte, Deesse23
Reply
#22

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 07:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 07:04 PM)Mark Wrote: Here you are assuming what has not been demonstrated.  I too assume it.  But I wouldn't present what that video says by way of arguing that abiogenesis has been demonstrated.  Though I expect it will be, from what I gather in the first seven minutes of that video, it hasn't yet been.  So while I agree that Szostak, the video's speaker, does not over state his case, it seems you are more than willing to do so.

I assume nothing.
I never said abiogenesis has been demonstrated.
What I did say is that I posted the video as an example of the state of current research, and that the claim in the OP is false concerning the state of research since Miller-Urey. What YOU did, is make wrong assumptions about what I was saying and why I posted the video.

I'm no scientist so take this into consideration but recent research seems to be getting closer to abiogenesis.   I think the Jack Szostak video has some outdated material in it already but I haven't watched in it a while.  I do know that abiogenesis research is probably the most underfunded of the scientific specialities.  It's always on the backburner,  scraping together research money.
                                                         T4618
Reply
#23

Origin of Life Research
(09-13-2019, 07:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:
(09-13-2019, 07:04 PM)Mark Wrote: Here you are assuming what has not been demonstrated.  I too assume it.  But I wouldn't present what that video says by way of arguing that abiogenesis has been demonstrated.  Though I expect it will be, from what I gather in the first seven minutes of that video, it hasn't yet been.  So while I agree that Szostak, the video's speaker, does not over state his case, it seems you are more than willing to do so.

I assume nothing.
I never said abiogenesis has been demonstrated.
What I did say is that I posted the video as an example of the state of current research, and that the claim in the OP is false concerning the state of research since Miller-Urey. What YOU did, is make wrong assumptions about what I was saying and why I posted the video.



If I misunderstood I apologize if that was insulting to you.  But I'll just take one more whack at that dead horse by way of explaining what led me to that assumption.  Then I'll leave dead horses be.

You said "as life arises in many conditions, including thermal vents and very harsh conditions" and that certainly seems to be proclaiming that life arises in multiple settings when that has not been established.  Why not simply say that you very reasonably make that assumption as do I.  It is an easy concession to make that costs us nothing.

https://images.app.goo.gl/bUi9k1d4Qb6Az7pE9
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)