Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
For starters, the fact that you've already admitted that seeing B - Y won't change your mind. Why should anyone humor you?
Upvote
0
At what point does it become dishonest?
- Thread starter Matthewj1985
- Start date
For starters, the fact that you've already admitted that seeing B - Y won't change your mind. Why should anyone humor you?
Naraoia
Your misunderstanding my criticism of your whale intermediates. We see these creatures you see as intermediates as living at the same time and place when they were fossilized by some event. no progression here. We reject the geology presumptions.
I see these creatures as post flood others from the flood year. Anyways.
there is no evolution but simple and great variation of some creature who is in the water and its cousin close to the water and another counsin no where near the water.
quick innate change within some creature including one we call sea whales. yes the legs show their heritage. The first whale I see as anatomically different from its mother.
You are not showing intermediates because your not showing intermediate time differences.
your right about the scale and numbers needed to draw a line between a cell and a cow. its impossible. thats still your problem. Your making the incredible case of biology from small changes.
Wrong. The fossil record is not patchy but simply is proclaimed patchy because it does not show what it should. EXCUSES.
Its up to your side to show evidence of transitions between something to something worthy to persuade.
No pinprick fossils and no obvious special creatures like sea mammals with bones revealing a former life.
Its not being done here because you can't do it.
There is no transitions to prove transitional change.
Your misunderstanding my criticism of your whale intermediates. We see these creatures you see as intermediates as living at the same time and place when they were fossilized by some event. no progression here. We reject the geology presumptions.
I see these creatures as post flood others from the flood year. Anyways.
there is no evolution but simple and great variation of some creature who is in the water and its cousin close to the water and another counsin no where near the water.
quick innate change within some creature including one we call sea whales. yes the legs show their heritage. The first whale I see as anatomically different from its mother.
You are not showing intermediates because your not showing intermediate time differences.
your right about the scale and numbers needed to draw a line between a cell and a cow. its impossible. thats still your problem. Your making the incredible case of biology from small changes.
Wrong. The fossil record is not patchy but simply is proclaimed patchy because it does not show what it should. EXCUSES.
Its up to your side to show evidence of transitions between something to something worthy to persuade.
No pinprick fossils and no obvious special creatures like sea mammals with bones revealing a former life.
Its not being done here because you can't do it.
There is no transitions to prove transitional change.
Upvote
0
The bible makes no reference to whales save in general ways.
you haven't shown fossils to write home about. what you showed were special cases or minor adaptation.
Your side claims evolution turned a cell into a cow. Many other lines.
Pick one and show to creationism transitions in enough numbers between very different points.
I say evolution has none.
Yes sea mammals were land creatures but they are mammals with bones of a previous life. They are unique in nature for having evidence of former anatomical lives. Few, if any, others. They are unique because in their case its true. They are post flood adaptations to a empty sea.
we don't observe a fossil and look to its left/right. we are saying the line must be robust and not patchy. Patchy is the same as not existing in the first place.
evolution can't make a case on a important major need for evidence.
Upvote
0
agentorange20
Junior Member
- Oct 17, 2008
- 121
- 4
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
What presumptions, like radiometric dating based on physics?
So does this evidence support their evolutinary relationship, or doesn't it?
Are these patchy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_IKPSavQ4Y
Do these work?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
But the vestigial legs and pelvic bones, along with the migration of the inner ear and how sonar development is shown demonstrates these early mammals were part of that lineage.
but what about genetic comparisons in which we find the closest living relatives of whales are hippos? And the evolution of manatees, it's the same.
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
For what reason? (Oh, I think it will be the Flood. In that case, I think you still haven't explained what biblical events the first four great extinction events - Late Ordovician, Late Devonian, Late Permian and Late Triassic - mark. But I don't expect you to remember that thread, much less my post...)
Hey, I made a good prediction again! I wish science was as simple as predicting YEC behaviour (though I guess it wouldn't be interesting then...).
What are your views on radiometric dating?
I suppose I'm right but nowhere did I say that it's impossible.
Well, I'm making a credible case from LOTS of small (and sometimes not so small) changes, but you'd need an actual education to see that...
(And seeing as you seem entirely immune to education, I have little hope that you'll ever even make the effort to understand our views)
Praytell, what should it show?
Have you been out in the real world lately? Real-world carcasses (you know, the things fossils are made of) usually disappear pretty quickly. Because many things love to eat carcasses, and because the earth does everything in its power to recycle them.
Soft parts decay, bones and shells are trampled on, cracked by scavengers, heat and cold, weathered by rain (rain is slightly acidic even without human pollution), or, in the sea, crushed and ground up by waves and stone and sand (if you ever walk on a beach covered in coarse sand, you can probably see the effect of that. I was quite surprised how much of "coarse sand" is actually recognisable broken shell). Leaves and roots rot away, get eaten by earthworms and other animals; eventually even wood disappears.
(Shells and bones are far more likely to be fossilised than soft tissues because they aren't decomposed so readily - which is why most of the fossils we have are from creatures with hard parts.)
IF a dead creature somehow avoids decay (by sinking to the anoxic bottom of a lake, for example) and it ends up buried and sediment and fossilised, it can still fall victim to plate movements, metamorphism or any number of geological processes. The longer it lies hidden the higher the chance that these will destroy it. (And IIRC deep oceanic sediments are pretty much guaranteed to be cooked beyond recognition by subduction in 200 or so million years)
IF a fossil survives all of those, it still has to be exposed for us to find it.
IF it is exposed it still has to be found before it is eroded out of existence (because now that it's exposed, rain, wind etc. can access it again).
So, you see, the fossil record IS patchy, especially when it comes to soft-bodied things (which the earliest animals almost certainly were), and I think we should be grateful that we have as much as we do.
*Robert Byers sticks multiple fingers in his ears, shuts his eyes real tight and shouts loud to prevent any information from reaching him.*
And, Robert, please answer my questions. I'll not leave you alone this time.
One (the old one). Which kind does this animal belong to?
Two. What should the intermediates evolution predicts between a lobe-finned fish and a salamander-like tetrapod look like?
Answer these, please. I'll keep asking.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The converse question to that 'challenge' is, would you know enough about science to understand the answer?
Given your later admission that:
You are clearly uninterested in any credible scientific evidence, argument or theory and whatever is provided you will dismiss because it doesn’t concur with your inerrant belief in a translated version of a Hebrew myth.
Incidentally, I do hope you don't adopt the same position with your doctor when s/he offers you applied scientific evidence (i.e. treatment)!
Upvote
0
agentorange
Genetics is not transitions.
Human skulls doesn't count for many reasons and again its not a line from something very different to something else.
Legs on whales does not show evolution as the mechanism but only the reality of a past life. I see another mechanism. Anyways its not evidence of evolution but only a line of reasoning.
its still doesn't count. Come on evolution dudes and babes. WHERE IS THE LINE of a creature of note, in the fossil record, who became later a creature of note in the fossil record/alive today.
Genetics is not transitions.
Human skulls doesn't count for many reasons and again its not a line from something very different to something else.
Legs on whales does not show evolution as the mechanism but only the reality of a past life. I see another mechanism. Anyways its not evidence of evolution but only a line of reasoning.
its still doesn't count. Come on evolution dudes and babes. WHERE IS THE LINE of a creature of note, in the fossil record, who became later a creature of note in the fossil record/alive today.
Upvote
0
Naraoia
The flood year is the source of all so called geology ages under the k-t line. Including all fossilization.
your making EXCUSES with your patchy theory. Its your sides need, and need in this thread, to show evidence of your claims of intermediates in substance. PATCHY? This is admittance of failure. Your a biologist. Its your thing.
If there wasn't intermediates it also wouldn't have fossil evidence.
Lack of evidence doesn't disprove it but not having evidence doesn't prove it and you must prove it to make your case. at least one line. I'm reasonable.
These questions are irrelevant to my big question to the evolution folk here.
SHOW US CREATIONISTS ONE LINE of where transtitions tell a tale of evolution by raw evidence in fossils.
i'm betting that you can't even though you are as good as any evolutionists anywhere in the world. Smart enough but no case is no case.
The flood year is the source of all so called geology ages under the k-t line. Including all fossilization.
your making EXCUSES with your patchy theory. Its your sides need, and need in this thread, to show evidence of your claims of intermediates in substance. PATCHY? This is admittance of failure. Your a biologist. Its your thing.
If there wasn't intermediates it also wouldn't have fossil evidence.
Lack of evidence doesn't disprove it but not having evidence doesn't prove it and you must prove it to make your case. at least one line. I'm reasonable.
These questions are irrelevant to my big question to the evolution folk here.
SHOW US CREATIONISTS ONE LINE of where transtitions tell a tale of evolution by raw evidence in fossils.
i'm betting that you can't even though you are as good as any evolutionists anywhere in the world. Smart enough but no case is no case.
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
And what is the source of the ages above the K/T line?
No, friend, I'm stating facts. Which part do you disagree with, specifically? I've mentioned many processes that could destroy dead things before or after they are fossilised. Point out where I'm wrong, please, or otherwise I must conclude I'm right.
In fact the fossil record itself demonstrates best how imperfect it usually is. Most fossils are of creatures with hard parts. If you contrast these with the rare sites (called Lagerstätten) that preserve soft parts, you can see just how much is lost from the less "lucky" sites.
I'm somewhat familiar with Cambrian Lagerstatten such as Chengjiang in Yunnan province of China, or the Burgess Shale in your very own Canada. Your average Cambrian fossil site contains a few trilobites and other shelled creatures. Contrast that with Burgess shale type sites with well over 100 species, of which only a small minority have hard parts. The ones that do are often the same ones you find in more ordinary Cambrian sediments - so those more usual sites probably preserve remains of similar communities. This means that if we didn't have Lagerstatten we would only know a tiny fraction of these communities. And most fossil sites are not Lagerstatten.
Far from it. It's a description of the limitations of the fossil record, but I should've added (although you should know that by now) that despite the long odds against most creatures being preserved, the fossil record is remarkably strong evidence for evolution. Of course you first have to accept that fossils represent a huge time span and not all the organisms preserved in rocks lived at the same time, but I think I'm not good enough at geology to even have a chance of hammering that point into your head. (Geologists, you may take this as an invitation
)Although you may want to wonder
(1) Why dating a rock with different radioisotopes gives ages that are in very close agreement - and all of them rather old.
(2) How scientists can predict where to dig for a certain kind of creature (the famous Tiktaalik story, for example) if it's all just one big flood sediment laid down within a year.
Robert, we here are trying to explain things to you, and you don't show the slightest effort to understand the explanations. How about, for once in your life, you addressed specific points and showed why they are wrong, instead of declaring them wrong? (For example, show evidence that all whale fossils were laid down in a short time interval, such as a year-long flood.)
Well, setting aside the obvious fact that biologists mostly deal with things that are still alive, biology is still too big a field for any one practitioner (much less undergrad student) to know all areas well. Not to say I don't know anything about fossils; a number of years ago I wanted to be a palaeontologist, so I happen to have a cursory acquaintance with extinct creatures.
(But I, and the other science folks here, probably know far more about any area of biology (or indeed science) than you do. That doesn't mean we are right - what it does mean is it requires some effort to understand our points and perhaps counter them substantively. However, what you seem to do is put this big solid brick wall between you and our points and not even try to let anything through. I think you have a bad case of Morton's Demon?)
Precisely what case is this you're talking about?
See, Morton's Demon again. I honestly don't know how to get through to you.
Upvote
0
Baraoia
No your making excuses for why you can't use the fossil record to show just one line of a creature that became importantly another line. if there are no fossils, patchy record, then you have no evidence on this point of fossil evidence.
Above the k-t line rock creation would be from quick local events in a post flood world. I suspect a general earth action about 400 years or so after the flood for other reasons.
The whales did not exist during the flood but only moved to the sea after the flood and fossilized in the action I mentioned.
AGAIN it is your turn at bat. Its your sides chance here to show and shut up creationists by showing a single mine of transitions from point a-b. Not pinpricks but actual list of fossils showing body change from a-b.
I say you can't do it.
So far you haven't here.
If you can't then admitt it.
No your making excuses for why you can't use the fossil record to show just one line of a creature that became importantly another line. if there are no fossils, patchy record, then you have no evidence on this point of fossil evidence.
Above the k-t line rock creation would be from quick local events in a post flood world. I suspect a general earth action about 400 years or so after the flood for other reasons.
The whales did not exist during the flood but only moved to the sea after the flood and fossilized in the action I mentioned.
AGAIN it is your turn at bat. Its your sides chance here to show and shut up creationists by showing a single mine of transitions from point a-b. Not pinpricks but actual list of fossils showing body change from a-b.
I say you can't do it.
So far you haven't here.
If you can't then admitt it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MarcusHill
Educator and learner
- May 1, 2007
- 976
- 76
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
RB, you've been shown a number of transitions, and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and shout "No, that one doesn't count!". Why should anyone expend the effort to show you more transitions when you're just going to ignore them, say they're "too obvious", claim they're not "notable" or otherwise refuse to accept the overwhelming weight of the evidence put before you?
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
First of all, we have shown you more than one transitions in the fossil record. The problem isn't that we don't have them, it's that you don't accept that they represent time sequences. I think I'd better leave that for the geologists to explain, though the South African Karoo Basin and related formations (which I'm sure I mentioned to you recently) contain a good part of the reptile-mammal transition (and also, IIRC, some early dinosaur history) nicely layered. Less mammal-like creatures (for example, gorgonopsids) appear lower down in the series than more mammal-like ones (cynodonts). [But see below for more...]
I have also said that the fossil record is amazingly strong evidence for evolution despite the extremely long odds against most creatures ever fossilising. I have not used the patchiness of the record as an excuse for the lack of evidence, I used it as an explanation of why only some
transitions have fossil evidence. As far as I can tell, there's nothing I've brought up in that explanation that isn't true. And if the points I brought up about fossilisation are right then the imperfection of the fossil record is a logical consequence.
Once again, if you think I'm wrong then counter my points, don't just say I'm wrong.
Right, you "suspect".
Would you mind detailing your "other reasons"? Or in fact what that "general earth action" was?
In the action you alluded to, to be more precise.
Once again, I can, but you have to detach yourself from your flood nonsense first...
*cries out for help to the geology people*
Although, in the meantime let me give you the closest example to a "single mine" that I can think of.
Let's return to the mammal-like reptiles from the Karoo. Not quite from a "single mine" but close enough, come a large number of diverse species, which makes chronological trends easier to observe. (Unfortunately these guys and their geological environment seem badly neglected outside the technical literature, so it's hard work digging up pictures and good information
)This (Figure 1 from now on
) is a link to a series of drawings of skulls and jaws that all belong to fossil mammal-like reptiles. Out of these animals, I think, Pristerognathus, Procynosuchus and Thrinaxodon come from South Africa (in this chronological order, from Middle Permian to Early Triassic).
Pristerognathus is probably way off the direct line to mammals, so you can consider something that's closer to it - say, a gorgonopsid (an added benefit is that gorgonopsids are more primitive than any creature in Fig.1.). Many gorgonopsids were present in Middle to Late Permian South Africa, I'll pick Lycaenops because I could find a half-decent skull drawing of it on the net.
Probainognathus is South American but AFAIK it's similar (at a similar degree of mammal-likeness anyway) to South African Pachygenelus/Diarthrognathus; similar animals are Late Triassic to Early Jurassic.
Morganucodon also has a similar South African relative, Megazostrodon. These creatures, which are either classified as true mammals or very close to true mammals, appear in the Early Jurassic (or perhaps the very latest Triassic, but I'm not sure about that)
IOW, you can take Figure 1 as a series of animals from the same place, in the same order as they are preserved (bottom, obviously, being oldest).
Some trends towards mammal-likeness include
- increased differentiation of the teeth - that is, molars and incisors that start out as typical simple, conical reptilian teeth acquire the shapes and cusps characteristic of mammals (although this isn't very obvious from Fig.1, as cynodonts, which all but Pristerognathus are, are already well advanced in this trend)
- enlargement of the dentary bone - which is the only bone in the lower jaw of mammals - and reduction of the other lower jaw bones. This should be fairly apparent in these examples. Also note the Lycaenops skull - although the picture isn't very good, you can probably see that the jaw bones other than the dentary (at the back of the jaw, labelled) are fairly large.
- enlargement of the coronoid process - this is the bit on the jaw labelled "cp" in Fig.1. IIRC it's an attachment site for jaw muscles in mammals. It's not visible in the Lycaenops picture, but as you can see in another gorgonopsid skull (Dixeya), it's fairly short and thin in gorgonopsids. Also, another "prong" forms in addition to the coronoid process (and I can't for the life of me remember the name of it) look especially at Probainognathus.
- enlargement of the temporal fenestra (and later fusion with the eye socket.) The temporal fenestra is the hole behind the eye socket. It makes the skull lighter and provides space for jaw muscle attachment. Again, it's a good idea to go back to gorgonopsids as cynodonts, which make up most of Fig.1 already tend to have large TFs; the ones in Lycaenops (or Dixeya, if I've already pasted that picture let's use it) are proportionally smaller. If you go back to even more primitive mammal-like reptiles it gets even smaller than that, but I don't think our "single mine" extends far enough back in the Permian to contain those.
- appearance of a new jaw joint - reptilian jaws (including gorgonopsids) form an articulation between one of the small bones at the back of the jaw and another bone in the skull. The single bone of the mammalian jaw articulates with a different skull bone. Many (all? Heck, I'm forgetting all I know about these guys!) cynodonts have both jaw joints, and the mammalian joint gets progressively more important as the tiny bones at the back of the jaw are marginalised (incidentally, they did not all disappear. They are now our hearing bones).
- disappearance of lumbar ribs - this is thought to accompany the evolution of the diaphragm (which lets mammals run and breathe at the same time, something that your typical lizard can't do) and happens in cynodonts.
- development of a more erect stance - throughout the history of mammal-like reptiles. The hindlimbs become semi-erect and then upright first, followed by the forelimbs.
- development of a bony palate - reptiles' nostrils open into their mouths, which makes breathing while eating a bit difficult. Mammals have a bony shelf that separates the two cavities. The secondary palate, IIRC, becomes fully closed in advanced cynodonts.
These are not animals purposefully picked to give the illusion of a trend. They are representative of types of animals that inhabited the Karoo Basin from the Middle Permian to the Early Jurassic, and the groups, though overlapping, appear and disappear in the order they are in the transition.
I think it's your turn now
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Naraoia
I read all you wrote and all links.
Well its a study of critters. yet if your premise is that they are related according to present classification systems at species level or a wee bit more then creationists would just say they are varieties in a healthy society. like modern amazon.
They are not transitions from kind to kind but minor change within kind.
The fossilization process, as we see it, confirms to us this is a local area.
I read all you wrote and all links.
Well its a study of critters. yet if your premise is that they are related according to present classification systems at species level or a wee bit more then creationists would just say they are varieties in a healthy society. like modern amazon.
They are not transitions from kind to kind but minor change within kind.
The fossilization process, as we see it, confirms to us this is a local area.
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
Thanks. I appreciate the effort. (And it's kind of nice to know that my effort doesn't just dissipate into the void)
Well, if you want ranks, then they are related at the order level, all part of Order Therapsida (but note that one sub-group of that order is Class Mammalia... that's why rank-based classification doesn't make much sense). For comparison, cats and dogs are in the same order (Carnivora), as well as horses and rhinos (Perissodactyla). I would think most creationists consider cats and dogs different "kinds".
But that isn't really the point (orders and suchlike aren't an objective standard of relatedness anyway). The point is that there is a clear transition between two major groups. I don't know if the Karoo sediments contain any trace of the early part of it, but if you don't restrict the search to "a single mine" then you can follow the transition back to things like Archaeothyris, which, for all intents and purposes, looks like a generic reptile (superficially, much like a lizard). As you've just seen, at the other end are true mammals.
Are tyrannosaurs and modern birds the same kind? Because that's the kind of scale we are dealing with between gorgonopsids and mammals (or, if we start with Archaeothyris, then it's more like lizards and birds).
Sorry, what does this refer to? (The quote function is helpful
)
Upvote
0
To clarify: classes are not "subgroups" of orders. Orders are "subgroups" of classes.Naraoia said:
The order of ranks for animals is as follows:
Domain
Kingdom
Subkingdom
Phylum
Subphylum
Infraphylum
Superclass
Class
Subclass
Infraclass
Supercohort
Cohort
Superorder
Grandorder
Mirorder
Order
Suborder
Infraorder
Superfamily
Family
Subfamily
Tribe
Genus
Subgenus
Species
Subspecies; or Race, Breed
Form
Infrasubspecies; or Race
Breed, Form
Kingdom
Subkingdom
Phylum
Subphylum
Infraphylum
Superclass
Class
Subclass
Infraclass
Supercohort
Cohort
Superorder
Grandorder
Mirorder
Order
Suborder
Infraorder
Superfamily
Family
Subfamily
Tribe
Genus
Subgenus
Species
Subspecies; or Race, Breed
Form
Infrasubspecies; or Race
Breed, Form
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Naraoia
The fossilization process refers to how all fossils were quickly made from a single event at a time. So any progressions seen are really just creatures living at the same time some distance from each other.
I understand what is written about classification in creatures. Yet we see it as wrong and now used to justify evolution.
Saying cats and dogs are in a carnivor group to me is absurd. It is not a biological group because both eat other critters. Its silly.
Creatures are only in groups in which they are the same kind. Lots of change and variety from the fall, adaptation events, the flood event, etc. The bible mentions flying, creeping etc but these are just general concepts and not God.s real divisions.
The fossilization process refers to how all fossils were quickly made from a single event at a time. So any progressions seen are really just creatures living at the same time some distance from each other.
I understand what is written about classification in creatures. Yet we see it as wrong and now used to justify evolution.
Saying cats and dogs are in a carnivor group to me is absurd. It is not a biological group because both eat other critters. Its silly.
Creatures are only in groups in which they are the same kind. Lots of change and variety from the fall, adaptation events, the flood event, etc. The bible mentions flying, creeping etc but these are just general concepts and not God.s real divisions.
Upvote
0
CACTUSJACKmankin
Scientist
cats and dogs and weasels and racoons have much more in common than diet alone. genetic and fossil evidence supports their alliance. there are plenty of carnivorous mammals that arent in carnivora.
how is it that at the same location you can have a layer containing a complete aquatic ecosystem, go a few feet up in strata
Upvote
0
CACTUSJACKmankin
Scientist
how is it that at the same location you can have a layer containing a complete aquatic ecosystem, go a few feet up in strata and you have a terrestrial ecosystem? flood sorting simply cannot account for that.
Upvote
0
I find it helps put arguments like this into perspective by placing them in other scenarios.
Imagine a trial where the judge said 'Now show me your evidence. And by the way, no amount of evidence you show me will change my mind."
There's no point even bothering trying to teach someone if they refuse to accept anything you offer them, other than for the benefit of lurkers watching.
And the ironic thing is, the same creationists who demand implausible detail of transitional fossils, usually accept their literal interpretation of the bible without question.
Imagine a trial where the judge said 'Now show me your evidence. And by the way, no amount of evidence you show me will change my mind."
There's no point even bothering trying to teach someone if they refuse to accept anything you offer them, other than for the benefit of lurkers watching.
And the ironic thing is, the same creationists who demand implausible detail of transitional fossils, usually accept their literal interpretation of the bible without question.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It wouldn't be flood sorting like in chaos of remains being sorted. Rather creationism would see whole areas swept up in a current and a area ten miles away swept up in a different current and one laid on the other at some place they both settle. One area under another from different hours and so great currents. perhaps different days or weeks. the geologic column shows different strata from different origins. However they are just from times during the flood. so equally possible to have different contents.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
