http://www.cocomment.com/blog/160719 Copyright 2007 coComment.com 2009-11-22T11:43:54.951+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548071 DaKrazyJokesta Creationism/ Intelligent design = FAIL 2009-11-17T23:01:54.060+01:00 2009-11-17T23:01:54.060+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548070 tubewatch59 Oh no, it's this way: Creationism / Intelligent design = TRUE Macroevolution / abiogenesis = FALSE 2009-11-17T14:43:10.759+01:00 2009-11-17T14:43:10.759+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548069 types10000 just like to point out that evolution takes place in a population of organisms that reproduce with variation and are subject to natural selection. gravity also doesnt explain the bacterial flagellum, does that mean it's wrong too? this is what happens when idiot creationists bring up things that are completely unrelated. 2009-11-17T06:24:27.458+01:00 2009-11-17T06:24:27.458+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548068 TeamDarwin1809 wow, you could go all day about this Behe dude 2009-11-16T22:05:44.157+01:00 2009-11-16T22:05:44.157+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548067 tubewatch59 I think I remember reading about that - this business of the 20000 generations was completely in agreement wth what Behe had been saying all along. If I remember corrctly, he had said that it took 20000 generations to get ONLY 2 mutations that would become a future part of an irreducibley complex system! That does nothing but support what Behe was saying. 2 mutations is A LONG LONG WAY from being an actual irreducibly complex system!! And it gets exponentially worse as you go on to 3,4 ... 2009-11-16T13:47:00.856+01:00 2009-11-16T13:47:00.856+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548066 ExtantFrodo your selective memory problems are hysterical. The simulation was optimized for making evolution as difficult as possible. 2009-11-16T05:28:17.555+01:00 2009-11-16T05:28:17.555+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548065 ExtantFrodo "we're talking about natural selection" DUDE! What in god's name do you think natural selection IS? 2009-11-15T21:09:34.254+01:00 2009-11-15T21:09:34.254+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548064 ExtantFrodo While Pheonix here is trying to come up with the answer "an ant in an ant colony" I thought I'd take a moment to point out that the cell of a multicellular body are analogous to those non- reproducing ants. The UNIT of heritability is the germline, not the somatic line. We ego centric beings tend to forget that point. 2009-11-15T12:50:50.953+01:00 2009-11-15T12:50:50.953+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548063 ExtantFrodo "Creatures with a mutation always revert back to wild-type within one or two generations" Oh if only that were the case. We'd never have cancer. 2009-11-15T04:32:07.652+01:00 2009-11-15T04:32:07.652+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548062 ExtantFrodo Sorry, but no. You are talking about REadaptaion. 5 generations is not enough for speciation to occur. Rapidly induced morphological change through artificial selection does so by stealing lots of natural variations from each generation. These almost invariably lead to cul de sacs which are rifled with inferior genes. When cross bred with wild types the wild type alleles usually overwhelm those and all those selected alleles end up on the back shelves of the genomes. 2009-11-14T20:13:24.351+01:00 2009-11-14T20:13:24.351+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548061 krnr well ID is the same as creationism which is why it fails soo hard. 2009-11-14T11:54:41.050+01:00 2009-11-14T11:54:41.050+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548060 krnr well the US court did not consider ID/creation to be science and did in fact show that it was religion and had nothing to do with Fact and the real world. you are the fail. 2009-11-14T03:35:57.749+01:00 2009-11-14T03:35:57.749+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548059 ExtantFrodo In many cases genetics can be likened to hill climbing algorithms. Then can and often do get stuck on local minimums. Occasional re-infusion of earlier genes solutions to environmental problems can add to diversity if sufficient time has passed that exact copies of it no longer exist. Think how we introduce wild type pollination to our prize horticultural products. It's not exactly the same thing, but you get the picture. 2009-11-13T19:17:14.448+01:00 2009-11-13T19:17:14.448+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548058 ExtantFrodo For there is another aspect to touch on first.. your misapprehension of evolutionary concepts and mechanisms in general. If there's anything in the past couple paragraphs that you can not get, let's clear that up first. After, we can get into the historical evidence that illustrates how descendancy of such single mutation facilities covers and encompasses every last aspect of evolution. The rest are just particular events which result from that. 2009-11-13T10:58:31.147+01:00 2009-11-13T10:58:31.147+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548057 CzarAleksandr We are not "amidst features exhibiting various intelligent designs" ...no, we are amidst features that are complex and that upon first glance one fails to see a mechanism of evolution for. If one ignores recent developments , or is ignorant of them, then it's easy to remain convinced. Irreducibility is only a speed bump. This flagellum issue is dead, check out he video to your right . Just because we can't see how it evolved doesn't mean its up for ID to take credit for. 2009-11-13T02:39:47.846+01:00 2009-11-13T02:39:47.846+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548056 tubewatch59 You may not agree with the approach of critiquing evolution to gain support for ID, but there really isn't anything wrong with it. I think it seems in a sense to be "fairer" to present positive proof for an idea rather than negative evidence against the opposition idea, but ID already has it's - what I would call - indirect positive evidences - that don't so much critique evolution as explain why ID is a better inference. Both sides critique each other though. It's impossible to stop it. 2009-11-12T18:21:04.545+01:00 2009-11-12T18:21:04.545+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548055 CzarAleksandr first of all, its evolutionarily unfavorable to continue on with one organism i.e. it produces no mutations. so "solving the problem of death/old age would be self defeating. organisms live until they are able to reproduce and maybe (if in a social species case) protect each other. after that they are evolutionarily useless. 2009-11-12T10:02:21.244+01:00 2009-11-12T10:02:21.244+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548054 jmui011 The clip forgot to include the odometer and the owners manual that Michael Behe found in the clove box.... 2009-11-12T01:43:37.943+01:00 2009-11-12T01:43:37.943+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548053 thepoet82 Didn't the whole concept of irreducible complexity break down in the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial? Ken Miller showed how parts of the flagellum bacteria and blod cloting system works even if you take away lots of parts. This was their best case against evolution, but it failed. It's appalling that they are still trying to use political and legal measures to change the science curriculum as opposed to doing actual science and earning their part in it. Evolution = nature. Creation = magic. 2009-11-11T17:24:54.642+01:00 2009-11-11T17:24:54.642+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548052 ExtantFrodo Even more damning was Behe attempting to perjure himself by lying about the results of his computer simulations. He's lucky he backed down from his lie that they simulations were unable to produce irreducibly complex systems because in fact he most certain and admittedly HAD produced IC systems in as few as 20,000 generations under conditions optimized for making IC as difficult as possible. 2009-11-11T09:06:11.341+01:00 2009-11-11T09:06:11.341+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548051 tubewatch59 Now you talk about how evolution is demonstrated to be an actual law by stem cell research, the matching of drugs, etc. I find that rather unlikely. What is a further link to this? Most of the time when I hear these kinds of assertions, it turns out that they were nothing like they were made out to be. I'm not calling you a liar, but I think you've swallowed some hype. I'm the "happy creationist" - and I'm here to help. I only charge $180 per hour. So, what's your bank account number? 2009-11-11T00:47:28.040+01:00 2009-11-11T00:47:28.040+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548050 ExtantFrodo It was just a guess as to one doctor that might not use evolution in his profession. Not to suggest that it wasn't but that although tubie may find a doctor or two who can say he doesn't use any knowledge of evolution in his profession it certainly doesn't mean that all medical research fall into that category. I'm sure tubie will quip that blood typing can easily fall under the category of kinds because humans and humans ARE the same kind. (i know it's stupid terminology theirs not mine) 2009-11-10T16:28:44.739+01:00 2009-11-10T16:28:44.739+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548049 ExtantFrodo Speculative? Nope, not when the DNA of adjacent species absolutely supports the common ancestor aspect of the theory. Do I reject it? No I don't. So far you guys' attempts to raise one continues to motivate scientists the world over to answer the call to arms and we've yet to fail. There is of course a finite number of organs and such that exist so eventually (say 20,000 years) you'll have to concede what we knew all along. That evolution is a powerful assembler of complex systems. 2009-11-10T08:10:01.438+01:00 2009-11-10T08:10:01.438+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548048 tubewatch59 Evolution makes all kinds of predictions! How many were demonstrated to be true, versus those demonstrated to be false? Evolution can indeed "evolve" it's predictions since virtually any story can be made up and used to justify evolution based on a so called prediction. All you have to do to be convinced is to accept the few predictions that turn out to be true and ignore the many that turn out to be false. There are so many predictions, that looking only at the good ones seems convincing. 2009-11-09T23:51:18.137+01:00 2009-11-09T23:51:18.137+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548047 ExtantFrodo Have you ever eaten an uncultured banana? 2009-11-09T15:32:34.836+01:00 2009-11-09T15:32:34.836+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548045 tubewatch59 Yes, I realize that, and I don't take it too hard. Except, I've already had to pay for science I don't even agree with, which is more than you've had to do. At least you aren't forced to also pay for ID research, as I am forced to pay for evolutionary biology. I'm forced to pay for scientists doing work that will then be used against my position. Nice! No, if you want more funding, then how about you write a book, and try to raise your own money, if what you get from me isn't enough! OK? 2009-11-09T07:13:51.535+01:00 2009-11-09T07:13:51.535+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548043 momentofsciencetx tubewatch59 then I suggest you turn down getting any flu shots this year since you don't support evolution science. 2009-11-08T22:55:08.234+01:00 2009-11-08T22:55:08.234+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548041 tubewatch59 No. A few small changes doth not a major reorganization make. To get major system changes involves a disruption to the system that is temporarily very negative to fitness. The reason why cars tend to be in a mechanics workshop while they are undergoing repairs or modifications. Or assembly? During assembly, any kind of systems is usually on an "assembly line" where fitness is not a consideration. You believe "small changes" and "long periods of time" negate that? It's wishful thinking! 2009-11-08T14:36:24.933+01:00 2009-11-08T14:36:24.933+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548040 tubewatch59 Yes, but each part in it's other useage, isn't the same as what's in the flagellum. The required sequence identity is rather different. That's what I was talking about. Say you have an existing 300aa long potential flagellum part, that would work as a flagellum part if a certain twiddling of say 50 to 80 mutations were to occur. Clearly there is a huge number of possible alterations that would be compatible, enabling function. BUT - there are far more alterations that aren't compatible. 2009-11-08T06:17:41.632+01:00 2009-11-08T06:17:41.632+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548038 tubewatch59 So the problem is, how does nature (natural selection) do it's unconscious choosing (or really, favouring) of mutations to the 300aa sequence that might form the flagellum part, providing mutations from the set of tolerable are selected? It's very tricky, because it's a needle in a haystack. And it gets worse, because nature must make those right choices, for all of the various parts. AND they have to also arise in the right order, to form a progression ala. Matzke's hypothesis. 2009-11-07T21:58:58.331+01:00 2009-11-07T21:58:58.331+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548037 sonic8005 The parts of the flagellum have functions already, they just alter. You said so yourself that the parts exist in other forms and for other purposes, yet you deny the possibility that they ever had purposes before the flagellum as you know it in order to support the IC argument. So, which is more likely to survive in your argument from earlier, the bacteria which has a few of the parts already functioning, but not complete flagellum as you know it... or one that's not so lucky? 2009-11-07T13:40:15.030+01:00 2009-11-07T13:40:15.030+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548036 tubewatch59 Say a potential new function will emerge - providing the right 50 mutations occur in some duplicated gene sequence. It's uncorrelated to whether the 1st, 2nd or 3rd,... mutations are beneficial or deleterious. In fact, say the 18th mutation is neccessary for the function to be realized, but is by itself highly deleterious, then natural selection is actually going to ensure that the new potential function never evolves. Thus, new function evolution is (for all intents and purposes) random. 2009-11-07T05:21:31.729+01:00 2009-11-07T05:21:31.729+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548035 ExtantFrodo hey i wondered why you ran away fron the CDK007 video. You are hiding out here until the posts from myself and Xgral get shoved off the front page. aren't you? 2009-11-06T21:02:48.428+01:00 2009-11-06T21:02:48.428+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548033 MumblingMickey But you missed the point... its not designed... and I 100% believe you are trying to convince people with no grounding in science... I have such a grounding and for that reason know this to be untrue! If people done the science they would know otherwise and they would know that this entity is not made of parts which could not work on their own... And you know this has not only been proven scientifically but literally legally... yet you persist with this garbage science for the moronic masses! 2009-11-06T12:44:05.127+01:00 2009-11-06T12:44:05.127+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548031 momentofsciencetx Actully you are wong on all accounts. The universe what thought to be young because people like yourself took the bible literally as our understanding of the cosmos has grown through works by SCIENTIST like Hubble he are seeing the universe being OLDER not younger but if you can produce some peer reviewed journal paper etc. claiming the universe to be younger I will be glad to take a look. 2009-11-06T04:25:21.826+01:00 2009-11-06T04:25:21.826+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548029 tubewatch59 We have evidence for the existence of our creator. What evidence do you have that life came about from abiogensis, or that life "macroevolved" since the first "abiogenetically created" organisms. They are your god substitutes, and you have no more direct evidence for their existence, than we have indirect evidence for our creator. The difference being of course, is that intelligent designers are able to create functionally complex technology, while nature has not been observed to do so. 2009-11-05T20:06:38.525+01:00 2009-11-05T20:06:38.525+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548027 tubewatch59 What you are doing (without realizing it) is making the argument from ignorance far more than we are. You claim to be pro-science, yet you are ignoring the results of scientific research into what nature can and cannot do.  You put those problems aside and pretend (or hope) they'll be solved one day. While at the same time, arguing against God from a position of total intellectual ignorance. 2009-11-05T11:47:55.224+01:00 2009-11-05T11:47:55.224+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548025 tubewatch59 But the parts you say are present in other lifeforms, would have to be modified extensively, right? What's their typical sequence identity compared to the flagellum? Secondly, if you pull any of the parts off, the FLAGELLUM CEASES TO FUNCTION. If you pull off 80% of the parts, the FLAGELLUM IS STILL NOT FUNCTIONING! It is irreducibly complex. The "functional" module (T3SS) is used to unfold, transport and then refold flagellum proteins outside the cell wall during the assembly process. 2009-11-05T03:29:11.923+01:00 2009-11-05T03:29:11.923+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548022 tubewatch59 Here is your moment to be scientific, tx. Will you - (a) Accept what we do know to be true about nature - that it doesn't produce functional complexity, and therefore realize that the science itself is pointing you to the ID inference? (b) Ignore what the science is telling you, and reject ID not based on logic, but on a hunch that you think "God", "the supernatural", and all such "fairy tales" just couldn't possible be true? I'd go with where the science is pointing, if I were you. 2009-11-04T19:10:28.622+01:00 2009-11-04T19:10:28.622+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548020 sonic8005 You assume nature can't make something that's part of it. You assume that the flagellum couldn't possibly have a natural occurance, and thus that is supposed to justify a supernatural one? I don't go with the "obvious" conclusion because it's not obvious at all. It's a random guess made from a hopeful mind. If it exists, it certainly can't have a very good personality if it's gonna avoid us and tempt us to not believe in it with evidence for evolution, you know, fossils, DNA evdience... 2009-11-04T10:51:45.321+01:00 2009-11-04T10:51:45.321+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548018 sonic8005 "A lack of abiogenesis certainly does imply that we were designed. There are no other options" I'm sorry, but it's not just a two option scenario. Things are a bit more complex in the real world than false dichotomies. The oversimplification of "mindless processes" is just insulting. Things work the way they do, because they do. You expect gravity to suddenly change it's "mind" and make everything fly off the face of the planet? 2009-11-04T02:33:02.020+01:00 2009-11-04T02:33:02.020+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548016 tubewatch59 When I say two options, I don't mean specific options. But very general options, each of which has many possible solutions. When I say designer, I might immediately think God, but that isn't provable, so a designer means any possible designer. It might even be an intelliegnt alien. You can't use science to prove religion. That is a religious matter. No, all science can do is infer that design, is far more likely a culprit to explain what is certain (not all) phenomena than nature is. 2009-11-03T18:14:18.719+01:00 2009-11-03T18:14:18.719+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548014 tubewatch59 But abiogenesis and evolution ARE mindless processes, aren't they. Unless you believe in nature gods or evolution fairies or something like that. And I'm pretty sure that you don't. With the beach, it's nothing special from a design point of view, because weathering is nothing special from a design point of view. We understand how it's a natural process. But we do not understand abiogenesis. Until we do, science allows a tentative inference to design. It's a simple extrapolation. 2009-11-03T09:55:35.418+01:00 2009-11-03T09:55:35.418+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138548012 tubewatch59 Well, actually, some mindless processes are random, others such as gravity electromagnetism etc. certainly aren't, The point of labelling them as mindless is that they are unconscious. They don't think, plan, design, remember. Heck, they don't even say hello!!! And THAT really makes me mad! 2009-11-03T01:36:52.117+01:00 2009-11-03T01:36:52.117+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138547997 tubewatch59 But people have been looking into these problems for decades. It's not that we're just immediately saying "it must be designed". It's because the only proposed mechanisms for it's evolution turn out to be pretty ludicrous when examined in detail. Given that - design is, at the least, still on the table. 2009-11-02T17:17:48.816+01:00 2009-11-02T17:17:48.816+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138547996 sonic8005 I'm afraid that the idea of design has been inferred far longer than the bacterial flagellum has ever been known about, it's been assumed before any research was ever done. That, and the idea that it came from a similar structure isn't quite ludicrous at all. 2009-11-02T17:17:38.816+01:00 2009-11-02T17:17:38.816+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138547995 sonic8005 Why is it that mutations are labeled that way as opposed to just being described the way they are? I mean, why do you insist on calling it mindless as if that were somehow to affect the validity of it? It's not just mindless, it's just the way things work. I mean, comeon, the weather is mindless but that doesn't make the stuff we know about predicting the weather worthless. But on the plus side, you're able to say that natural selection isn't random, that's a plus. 2009-11-02T17:17:28.816+01:00 2009-11-02T17:17:28.816+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138547994 JimImimust Wow this video PERFECTLY shows how the Bacterial Flagellum evolved, that's a very good job. I am impressed, this video can be used to Destroy I.D and shut those religious nutcases up. I'm happy that someone finally posted a video that Helps Evolution and Harms the Idiotic I.D and the religious nimrods behind it. (Note: There is NO sarcasm here, this is how I feel. Go Science!) 2009-11-02T17:17:18.816+01:00 2009-11-02T17:17:18.816+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138547991 MorphicStates Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic, shredded this argument. 2009-11-02T17:17:08.816+01:00 2009-11-02T17:17:08.816+01:00 http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?context=explore&object=sites&mode=detail&id=160719&conv=639303&comment_id=138547989 tubewatch59 If you think you're watching it's evolution, your jeans are too short. 2009-11-02T17:16:58.816+01:00 2009-11-02T17:16:58.816+01:00