|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:10:26
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
Please - let's not get this thread locked arguing about religion.
My response is entirely on-topic. The thread starts with a request for scientific info. about evolution, there's a response that says read the Bible, it's got all the answers. I respond by saying that the Bible may be many things but it does not provide that kind of information. Finally, I'm not arguing anything, I'm stating fact. I don't think there's a single person here at BHO who would describe the Bible as a scientific textbook.
Some of the common definitions of "argument": 1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate 2. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood 3. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reasonIf someone says that something is THIS and you reply that it's not - it's THAT - then you are engaged in an argument. If you'd rather call it "debate" or even call it "offering FACTS to disprove a statement" then go ahead - but whatever you call it, and regardless of how politely you present your view, it is still an argument and if it involves religion on either side - it's PROHIBITED on this forum.  "Defender of the Sacred Cod" Capio pisces, ergo sum
Edited by - BConk on 11/13/2009 08:11:52
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:16:20
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
Please - let's not get this thread locked arguing about religion.
My response is entirely on-topic. The thread starts with a request for scientific info. about evolution, there's a response that says read the Bible, it's got all the answers. I respond by saying that the Bible may be many things but it does not provide that kind of information. Finally, I'm not arguing anything, I'm stating fact. I don't think there's a single person here at BHO who would describe the Bible as a scientific textbook.
Some of the common definitions of "argument":
1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate
2. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood
3. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason
If someone says that something is THIS and you reply that it's not - it's THAT - then you are engaged in an argument.
If you'd rather call it "debate" or even call it "offering FACTS to disprove a statement" then go ahead - but whatever you call it, and regardless of how politely you present your view, it is still an argument and if it involves religion on either side - it's PROHIBITED on this forum.
If someone brings up a point in this thread that I don't agree with I will respond, if I feel like it. You should direct your comments to those who bring prohibited topics into the thread, which I did not do.
Edited by - bosborne on 11/13/2009 08:18:56
KE - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:22:11
Mayr book is at my local library branch ready for pickup! Seems the place to start (but it's a long list.)
If for some reason I don't get the chance, thanks to all for the recommendations and the GREAT dialog. Any day you learn something is a good day, and its been a GOOD couple of days.
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:27:39
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
If someone brings up a point in this thread that I don't agree with I will respond, if I feel like it. You should direct your comments to those who bring prohibited topics into the thread, which I did not do.
You're assuming that I wasn't addressing BOTH? Both parties are violating the rules - and when I see that I will respond as I see fit. Perhaps you should direct your comments to the moderators - though I fear you'll find they'd sooner support my position than yours. "Defender of the Sacred Cod" Capio pisces, ergo sum
Brian T - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:37:57
Recent published research in science usually turns up pretty quickly in
www.sciencedaily.com.
They have astounding archives.
We do not know where we are going.
Nor do most of us care.
For us, it is enough that we are on our way.
Le Matelot
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:50:23
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
You're assuming that I wasn't addressing BOTH?
Both parties are violating the rules - and when I see that I will respond as I see fit. Perhaps you should direct your comments to the moderators - though I fear you'll find they'd sooner support my position than yours.
I'm amused by your picture over there on the left. Is that you as a boy? Standing guard? Very appropriate.  We can call a truce now. Or would you care to continue?
Edited by - bosborne on 11/13/2009 08:51:50
KE - Posted - 11/13/2009: 08:58:14
I vote truce. No more chlorine in the gene pool.
Edited by - KE on 11/13/2009 09:04:12
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 09:04:45
a truce would be OK with me - I'll just interpret your offer as total capitulation
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 09:11:11
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
a truce would be OK with me - I'll just interpret your offer as total capitulation
Brian, we are cut from similar cloth, this would just go on forever. Guess what my favorite song is right now, to sing and play on banjo? Won't Back Down.
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 09:28:27
ah I see...haven't had enough, eh?
well....
I would like to point something out.
You wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
You should direct your comments to those who bring prohibited topics into the thread, which I did not do.
BUT - if you look at what I initially wrote that inspired you to respond to my comments in the first place you'll find that I said: quote:
Originally posted by BConk
As far as I'm concerned, those posters in this thread that bring up religious alternatives to evolution are violating the rules of the forum by engaging in religious debate.
So it seems you've taken umbrage at a comment of mine - yet you later accuse me some of not embracing the very comments I made in the first place? My view of an argument cleaves to the definition that allows that the first person that makes a statement and offers it to establish a truth has started an argument. The person that responds has joined that argument. Most people see the definition as only applying to the person that joined the argument. Regardless - if the argument is about religion it is prohibited here. "Defender of the Sacred Cod" Capio pisces, ergo sum
Edited by - BConk on 11/13/2009 09:32:02
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 09:35:52
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
ah I see...haven't had enough, eh?
well....
I would like to point something out.
You wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
You should direct your comments to those who bring prohibited topics into the thread, which I did not do.
BUT - if you look at what I initially wrote that inspired you to respond to my comments in the first place you'll find that I said:
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
As far as I'm concerned, those posters in this thread that bring up religious alternatives to evolution are violating the rules of the forum by engaging in religious debate.
So it seems you've taken umbrage at a comment of mine - yet you later accuse me some of not embracing the very comments I made in the first place?
My view of an argument cleaves to the definition that allows that the first person that makes a statement and offers it to establish a truth has started an argument. The person that responds has joined that argument.
Most people see the definition as only applying to the person that joined the argument.
Regardless - if the argument is about religion it is prohibited here.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
Brian, I'm not following you. When I suggested a truce I meant it. We could go on forever but I've got other things to do. Done. Finished. Last post on this sub-thread, back to evolution now.
KE - Posted - 11/13/2009: 09:40:23
During the preceding interlude, I've been reading up on nylonase. Fascinating example. Bacteria were found in a waste pond in Japan that had developed the ability to process nylon manufacturing waste products by a simple frame shift mutation. The enzymatic mechanism was not pre-existing, and was apparently developed since 1935 when nylon was first synthesized.
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:04:47
quote:
Originally posted by KE
During the preceding interlude, I've been reading up on nylonase. Fascinating example. Bacteria were found in a waste pond in Japan that had developed the ability to process nylon manufacturing waste products by a simple frame shift mutation. The enzymatic mechanism was not pre-existing, and was apparently developed since 1935 when nylon was first synthesized.
Yes, and the gene for this same enzyme was randomly mutated in vitro, in the laboratory, and they discovered new versions that were even more effective at degrading nylon than the version found initially. One of the most powerful arguments for evolution is based on experiments like these, using genes or microbes. Another one: It was once thought that one feature that defined the bacterium Escherichia coli was its inability to grow on the carbon source citrate. If you grow Escherichia coli on limiting glucose (I think it was glucose, anyway) and plenty of citrate for many thousands of generations you eventually find, through lab evolution, a strain that can grow on citrate alone. It turns out that this is not due to a single mutation, but many. One criticism leveled at evolution is that it can not be possible to create new traits if the trait depends on multiple mutations, but experiments like this one are demonstrating that such complex traits can evolve. You can do this kind of experiment if the organism you study divides, or reproduces, every 20 minutes! I don't think the Mayr book gets into this much, evolution in the laboratory.
Voyageur - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:07:21
I'm excited about Richard Dawkins' newest book, The Greatest Show on Earth. Take a look at http://richarddawkins.net; be sure to watch the video.
Mary
"Do not pray for an easy life. Pray to be stronger. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks."
- Fr. Solanus Casey
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:20:12
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
One criticism leveled at evolution is that it can not be possible to create new traits if the trait depends on multiple mutations, but experiments like this one are demonstrating that such complex traits can evolve. You can do this kind of experiment if the organism you study divides, or reproduces, every 20 minutes!
I don't think the Mayr book gets into this much, evolution in the laboratory.
I'm not sure I understand their criticism. The way I imagine it, mutations that have no benefit to the organism can persist in the offspring of that organism as long as they're not deleterious to the organisms with that trait. If that mutation were later to combine with another new mutation that then enabled the organism to capitalize on a food source (like nylon) that was previously denied to them - then the critters blessed with both mutations will benefit and behold - nylon eating bacteria. "Defender of the Sacred Cod" Capio pisces, ergo sum
Edited by - BConk on 11/13/2009 10:22:13
Andy McC - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:32:05
Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
Andy
"And it is in his own image,man created god"
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:33:14
I hope the bacteria thriving in my upper respiratory tract haven't evolved to the point that they can convert Levaquin into a nutrient. If they can, I'll be giving them 500 MG of food every day for 14 days.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:53:58
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
quote:
Originally posted by bosborne
One criticism leveled at evolution is that it can not be possible to create new traits if the trait depends on multiple mutations, but experiments like this one are demonstrating that such complex traits can evolve. You can do this kind of experiment if the organism you study divides, or reproduces, every 20 minutes!
I don't think the Mayr book gets into this much, evolution in the laboratory.
I'm not sure I understand their criticism. The way I imagine it, mutations that have no benefit to the organism can persist in the offspring of that organism as long as they're not deleterious to the organisms with that trait.
If that mutation were later to combine with another new mutation that then enabled the organism to capitalize on a food source (like nylon) that was previously denied to them - then the critters blessed with both mutations will benefit and behold - nylon eating bacteria.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
Right, you've got mutations that have no effect at all (silent mutations) on genes and their proteins, you have mutations that do change the gene and its protein in some way but are not deleterious, you have mutations that are immediately beneficial, and then immediately deleterious mutations. There's also a phenomenon called pleiotropy where one mutation affects more than one feature of an organism (e.g. classic example, a specific mutation in human hemoglobin causes sickle cell anemia and also confers greater resistance to malaria). So the argument has been specifically directed at those cases where many genes (and their proteins) work together to create a single structure, like the flagellum of a bacterium (this is that whiplike "tail" that some bacteria have) or the mammalian eye. So the argument goes like "Evolution could not have made this structure because a whole bunch of genes must have mutated or changed to make this structure. This would be too deleterious, because of pleiotropy." So people have been studying pleiotropy, as in "how many genes actually have pleiotropic effects when mutated" and "how many traits are effected when one of these genes is mutated". The results are saying that the burden of pleiotropy or the burden of complexity is not as great as the critics imagine. This is a big deal in evolutionary research, because it really gets into the heart of the matter. What does mutation really do? How much variation, or mutation, can we tolerate? How much "neutral" variation is there in our genomes? The kind you were referring to.
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 10:59:45
"Evolution could not have made this structure because a whole bunch of genes must have mutated or changed to make this structure. This would be too deleterious, because of pleiotropy."
Well - obviously this is untrue - considering there are all sorts of traits that involve hundreds if not thousands of mutations to come about.....ooops - that's not a logical argument, is it?
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
minstrelmike - Posted - 11/13/2009: 11:34:43
meta-conversation about the rules.
Here's a perfect example. It seems to me if we dumped two posters ion this thread, the rest of this is just a conversation, not an argument.
Mike Moxcey
http://moxcey.net/mike/minstrel/index.html
Brian T - Posted - 11/13/2009: 11:59:27
At the end of the day, single mutations are (not always) but commonly dangerous. They seem to degrade survivorship. You don't see many of them as the expression made them unfit and they are either outright dead or have failed to reproduce. The whole beast must always remain optimally fit for survivorship.
Jump in the lake and evolve :) grow gills. That's complex anatomy. Now you can't hang with the other humans and gills won't make you a successful fish.
We do not know where we are going.
Nor do most of us care.
For us, it is enough that we are on our way.
Le Matelot
pick1936 - Posted - 11/13/2009: 12:37:06
Hey Bconk, Your Bacteria hasn't evolved, It has Mutated. and Religion is the opposite of Evolution, so any time evolution is brought up, Then Naturally Religion has to come into it, We don't have to argue this, You beleave Your Way I'll beleave Mine, I don't like to judge people, Your probably a real nice guy, BUT It seems like almost any controversual post comes up, You are very fast to jump in..,
Rings Like Silver
But It's Wood
Nechville. In higginsville.
Lee Kelso
KE - Posted - 11/13/2009: 12:40:36
There you go, Lee. It hasn't evolved -- it's mutated to a form which gives an advantage to the survivability of the bacteria, such that they multiply and become the dominant species in their niche. Works for me.
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 12:55:42
quote:
Originally posted by pick1936
Hey Bconk, Your Bacteria hasn't evolved, It has Mutated. and Religion is the opposite of Evolution, so any time evolution is brought up, Then Naturally Religion has to come into it, We don't have to argue this, You beleave Your Way I'll beleave Mine, I don't like to judge people, Your probably a real nice guy, BUT It seems like almost any controversual post comes up, You are very fast to jump in..,
Rings Like Silver
But It's Wood
Nechville. In higginsville.
Lee Kelso
Lee - it's pretty clear to me that you have little or no respect for the rules of this forum. You point out that I'm always quick into controversial posts - but if you read my comments, very rarely do I break the rules of this forum. I wish I could say that same about you but even this post of yours to which I'm responding is just another in a long string of examples of your violations of the forum rules. When I was a mod - people that repeatedly violated the rules were banned from posting. I don't know what's happened but I'm beginning to think maybe I ought to see if I can get my old job back. "Defender of the Sacred Cod" Capio pisces, ergo sum
dawgdoc - Posted - 11/13/2009: 13:26:49
quote:
Religion is the opposite of Evolution
Lee Kelso
Simply untrue. Ask the Pope.
edavidt - Posted - 11/13/2009: 13:34:32
How is it that beeliner, on multiple threads, is allowed to continually bring in religion. And that is all he brings in.
Dave T.
guitdawg - Posted - 11/13/2009: 13:36:48
quote:
Originally posted by edavidt
How is it that beeliner, on multiple threads, is allowed to continually bring in religion. And that is all he brings in.
Dave T.
To quote Mel Brooks, "Harumph!"
beeliner - Posted - 11/13/2009: 13:46:04
quote:
Originally posted by guitdawg
quote:
Originally posted by edavidt
How is it that beeliner, on multiple threads, is allowed to continually bring in religion. And that is all he brings in.
Dave T.
To quote Mel Brooks, "Harumph!"
Dave, have you read all my 3201posts? beeliner.
Edited by - gottasmilealot on 11/22/2009 18:40:53
musicman93 - Posted - 11/13/2009: 13:49:54
quote:
Originally posted by dawgdoc
quote:
Religion is the opposite of Evolution
Lee Kelso
Simply untrue. Ask the Pope.
op·po·site (p-zt) adj. 1. One that is opposite or contrary to another. 2. An opponent or antagonist. Evolution and religion seem to fit these definitions to me. -John "Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." -John S. Tilly
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 13:59:19
Beeliner - I just don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.
But I do see yet another violation of the rules on your part.
I respectfully ask that you show some respect for this forum and its members by NOT breaking the rules.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
guitdawg - Posted - 11/13/2009: 14:38:50
quote:
Originally posted by beeliner
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
Beeliner - I just don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.
But I do see yet another violation of the rules on your part.
I respectfully ask that you show some respect for this forum and its members by NOT breaking the rules.
Bconk, it has everything to do with it. You said the bible wasn't a scientific book. How much more scientific could you get when it told the world that the earth was round hundreds of years before science figured it out.
Well, the Greeks and the Egyptians knew it hundreds, if not thousands of years before the book you cite. And wasn't there a definition of "scientific theory" posted somewhere in this thread. Maybe a re-read is in order. I, for one, have been very interested in this topic and would prefer to let those with knowledge intelligently discuss the topic (there sure are a lot of smartypants peoples here!  ) w/o the Religulous Thread Hi-Jacking! In fact, Kudos to all the members here who have gently steered the discussion back to topic and not into the realm of rule violations. I am gonna lurk here, from this point on, and do my best to ignore those that tell others how to think
Edited by - guitdawg on 11/13/2009 14:42:44
BanjoPicker96 - Posted - 11/13/2009: 14:39:31
quote:
Originally posted by beeliner
quote:
Originally posted by BConk
Beeliner - I just don't see what that has to do with what I was saying.
But I do see yet another violation of the rules on your part.
I respectfully ask that you show some respect for this forum and its members by NOT breaking the rules.
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
Bconk, it has everything to do with it. You said the bible wasn't a scientific book. How much more scientific could you get when it told the world that the earth was round hundreds of years before science figured it out. A lot of science is just theory and not fact. Evolution is a theory and not a FACT. Scientists have never shown one shred of evidence that evolution is a fact. I think people on this forum needs to understand that.
beeliner. Revis Martin. When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him. Proverbs 16:7 [KJV]
Amen to that. Now, let's get back to picking! "There once was a picker named Bruno who said "If there's one thing I do know, guitars are fine, and mandolins devine, but banjos are numero uno" Forever Bluegrass.
musicman93 - Posted - 11/13/2009: 14:44:25
quote:
Originally posted by dawgdoc
quote:
op·po·site (p-zt)
adj.
1. One that is opposite or contrary to another.
2. An opponent or antagonist.
Evolution and religion seem to fit these definitions to me.
Neither of the definitions fit at all (most church doctrines freely accept both concepts), but this is my last comment on the matter as it's borderline inappropriate not only for the thread but for the rules.
I respectfully disagree. But out of respect for this forum and Mr. KE I will try to refrain from further posts on this matter. -John "Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." -John S. Tilly
jbanjoist - Posted - 11/13/2009: 14:45:04
Time to post unto others as we would have them post unto us?
Regardless of the HO rules BOTH subjects obviously cause angst and conflict among the members of this site so why discuss them even if one is supposedly allowed?
Just cause you can?
Jbanjoist
I'm a NECHVILLIAN!
EDUMACATE YOSEF!
You don't know until you KNOW.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
musicman93 - Posted - 11/13/2009: 14:53:27
quote:
Originally posted by jbanjoist
Time to post unto others as we would have them post unto us?
Regardless of the HO rules BOTH subjects obviously cause angst and conflict among the members of this site so why discuss them even if one is supposedly allowed?
Just cause you can?
Jbanjoist
I'm a NECHVILLIAN!
EDUMACATE YOSEF!
You don't know until you KNOW.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
I believe Mr. KE was in the noble pursuit of a higher education. But you're right, this subject only breeds animosity. -John "Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." -John S. Tilly
jbanjoist - Posted - 11/13/2009: 14:59:37
That education was better available in infinitely more places than at a banjo site.
I have my theories and that's all I'm gonna say about that.
See last sig line. lol
Jbanjoist
I'm a NECHVILLIAN!
EDUMACATE YOSEF!
You don't know until you KNOW.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
BConk - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:22:38
Ahh crap...now we've got Politics in here too??
"Defender of the Sacred Cod"
Capio pisces, ergo sum
Edited by - BConk on 11/13/2009 15:27:59
edavidt - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:28:52
Sorry, but I didn't consider my factual comment about a supreme court ruling on the definition of science to be political. I will take it off you think that it is.
KE - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:40:34
Sorry. My cable and internet are down (something about being struck by lightning?) I still have blackberry service but it is the pits.
How about we just ignore the off-topic posters?
Back to our regular programming.
jbanjoist - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:41:01
From "Foghorn Leghorn".
"That's a joke son, don't you get it?"
Jbanjoist
I'm a NECHVILLIAN!
EDUMACATE YOSEF!
You don't know until you KNOW.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
edavidt - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:45:09
quote:
Originally posted by jbanjoist
From "Foghorn Leghorn".
"That's a joke son, don't you get it?"
Yes I get it. He didn't have the photo on the first post, it was added, so I wasn't sure. I am going to take teh advice of KE and just ignore anything that is off topic. Dave T.
bosborne - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:45:47
quote:
Originally posted by KE
How about we just ignore the off-topic posters?
Yes, let's try that and see what happens. If you really feel you must respond go to the "Improvements and Suggestions" section.
musicman93 - Posted - 11/13/2009: 15:51:32
quote:
Originally posted by musicman93
quote:
Originally posted by jbanjoist
Time to post unto others as we would have them post unto us?
Regardless of the HO rules BOTH subjects obviously cause angst and conflict among the members of this site so why discuss them even if one is supposedly allowed?
Just cause you can?
Jbanjoist
I'm a NECHVILLIAN!
EDUMACATE YOSEF!
You don't know until you KNOW.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.
I believe Mr. KE was in the noble pursuit of a higher education. But you're right, this subject only breeds animosity.
-John
"Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but,
crushed or not the truth is still the truth." -John S. Tilly
quote:
Originally posted by edavidt
quote:
Originally posted by J-Walk
Beeliner is correct about the Bible being a science book. Ever read Genesis 30:37-39? It's the foundation of modern genetics.
The Arkansas Supreme Court, back in 1985, I believe, ruled on this exact statement. The judge was William Overton. And a number of high courts have ruled on it since. The Bible is not considered a science book, at least according to a number of state constitutions and the US Constitution.
I believe I posted an informal, but generally accepted definition of scientific theory a page or two back. That should be a guide for what is permitted on this thread.
Also, someone made a comment that this thread is creating animosity, and therefore should be locked. That response would give power to anyone on any thread who didn't like what he/she was reading.
Dave T.
I was commenting on the nature of the subject. I did NOT say that the thread needs to be locked. -John "Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is still the truth." -John S. Tilly
Brian T - Posted - 11/13/2009: 16:50:21
To revert to the discussion about the concept of evolution.
If you lop off the third base from each triplet in the DNA code, you get a doublet code which has Start, Stop and approx 15 amino acids which represent all 4 of the functional types (nonpolar, polar, + charged and - charged) needed for complex protein shape.
I think it's interesting that the code can be simplified so brutally and still signify proper form and function in protein expression.
What ever happened to the prokaryote gang and the notion of a single strand RNA hereditary code?
As eveybody knows, star ships dump their garbage before they go to light speed. Harrison Ford said so. Somebody tossed the kitchen scraps and that's the first DNA on Earth. What a gene pool! What if, what if the Panspermia thing turns out to be the best answer of all?
We do not know where we are going.
Nor do most of us care.
For us, it is enough that we are on our way.
Le Matelot
Texasbanjo - Posted - 11/13/2009: 16:55:43
Enough is enough.
Let's Pick!
Texas Banjo Page: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Feeds
