Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Vestigial Organs evolution myth

Jump to new
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

So_Cynical said:
Ok so i actually read the story and if anything it supports evolution...can someone
explane what myth bit the dust?...i don't get it. :dunno:
Click to expand...

So Cynical,

Good to see that you have red the artcile and grasped what a lot of posters seem to have failed to grasp that it is not an attack on evolution itself.

The myth I refer to is the premise behind the idea of vestigial organs that our bodies contain “evolutionary leftovers”””once biologically necessary but now unimportant. In this article it is the spleen which was formerly considered vistigial because it can be removed without killing the patient, but now has been found to have a function.

See also the link to the artcile on the appendix in the previous post I made. Hope that clears it up for you.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta said:
As I have said, why bring religion into this? Vistigial organs as proof for evolution as once proudly taught in schools is now a myth. Science is showing that this is wrong.

One of the definitions of myth in the oxford dictionary is "a widley held but false notion".

Sounds like a myth to me.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with others here, where is the myth? I have just read the article and right from the start it, itself is a new theory - not fact, so by your definition a myth! And I have to say, that starting an article with "Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide).

Sure, the spleen””kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen””helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live."

… just seem's like the most pointless statement. I can lose a leg and still live! Losing a spleen up until now might have meant you could still live, not very well as I know several people who have had it removed for one reason or another and their life is not one of star-jumps and fun. Lots of drugs, careful how they handle themselves etc.

As for religion being called upon by those to speak against creationism, well what else is there? I mean that’s what it is. Ever seen the Family Guy, if not look at their take on being "required" to show how it all came into existence.

I think the one thing that should be clearly stated in this thread is that ktrianta should declare where she is coming from with all of this. Nothing you have said so far has anything to do with a discussion, it comes across, and it has to be said very clearly, that you are a creationist, and pushing a doctrine, and not just a chat topic.

Correct me if I am wrong, yet the anger you clearly demonstrate at the neo Darwinian zealots is just teetering on religious intolerance (that is, your intolerance based on religion of others) and not just an opinion.

And ... just too obviously pis* you off more, your defensive attitude reeks of religious superiority and intolerance to people who differ with you. No one, as far as I can reed have mentioned anything about 'religion' in the guise of dismissing it, or pouring scorn on its belief system. You use your very badly hidden intolerance of evolution and science to associate the neo Darwinian zealots with science - which is more the case, yet you cry in shame and indignation when someone rightly mentions creationism and religion.

Ummm ... glass houses? Cake and eat it too?

Some examples to back my case (non religious or scientific, just observation):

"Good to see that the ferals are out in force."

"Does it matter what I post on?" (you can really feel the anger in which this was typed)

"Have you people ever heard of free speech????" (nice one, the ol' chestnut, and what the hell is YOU PEOPLE???)

"I started threads on topics of interest to me and have tried try to keep religion out of it because of the nonsense that some people come up with when you bring religion into it." (so bringing up religion by anyone else other than you is nonsense?)

"It seems to me that you people (I added the bold) are so insecure in your own beliefs on the neo Darwinian evolutionary model that anything that shows one aspect of your belief system is wrong is met with howls of protest and is assumed to be an attack on the whole theory. Maybe you believe that your theory stands on flimsy ground and are too scared to confront it so any challenge is an attack on your belief system." (nice try, yet this pre-school yard tactic has no weight, he took my ice-cream so I punched him, that’s a good reasons isn’t it?)

"Well harden up people and grow some balls!!! Any belief which cannot be challenged is not worth having." (will leave this one alone I think)

"This may actually surprise people, but people post on things that actually interest them." (your right yet typically it is prefaced with their position, and not dressed up as something it isn’t. isn’t one of the rules on this site that if you have an 'interest' you need to declare it? or do you think that only applied to those who are taking about stocks?)

"Other people may find the topic of interest without you neo darwinian zealots frothing at the mouth at the hint of a challenge to anything to do with evolution. " (and the lowest form of conversation, resorting to name calling when you have nothing else left to explain your position)
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

trainspotter said:
I know quite a few people who have a brain but do not use it. Does this count as a vestigial organ? If God was so smart why did he put the testicles on a man ON THE OUTSIDE?

1) The wings on flightless birds.
2) Hind leg bones in whales.
3) Erector Pili and Body Hair
4) The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
5) The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus (born with eyes that cannot see)
6) Wisdom Teeth in Humans (unless you are a neanderthal)
7) The Sexual Organs of Dandelions (They clone themselves)
8) Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (they reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual.)
9) Male Breast Tissue and Nipples (testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus)
10) The Human appendix (Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured.)
Click to expand...

Ohhh you are a funny bugger at times!!!:D
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta,

Sorry i did not realise that this was an investment forum
Click to expand...

You're right, it is a forum about putting people into wooden contraptions so that their feet and arms cannot move, based upon medieval traditions in Aussieland.

We do it to others for kicks, to throw rotten vegetables at them.

brty
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

stocksontheblock said:
I have to agree with others here, where is the myth? I have just read the article and right from the start it, itself is a new theory - not fact, so by your definition a myth! And I have to say, that starting an article with "Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide).

Sure, the spleen””kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen””helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live."

… just seem's like the most pointless statement. I can lose a leg and still live! Losing a spleen up until now might have meant you could still live, not very well as I know several people who have had it removed for one reason or another and their life is not one of star-jumps and fun. Lots of drugs, careful how they handle themselves etc.

As for religion being called upon by those to speak against creationism, well what else is there? I mean that’s what it is. Ever seen the Family Guy, if not look at their take on being "required" to show how it all came into existence.

I think the one thing that should be clearly stated in this thread is that ktrianta should declare where she is coming from with all of this. Nothing you have said so far has anything to do with a discussion, it comes across, and it has to be said very clearly, that you are a creationist, and pushing a doctrine, and not just a chat topic.

Correct me if I am wrong, yet the anger you clearly demonstrate at the neo Darwinian zealots is just teetering on religious intolerance (that is, your intolerance based on religion of others) and not just an opinion.

And ... just too obviously pis* you off more, your defensive attitude reeks of religious superiority and intolerance to people who differ with you. No one, as far as I can reed have mentioned anything about 'religion' in the guise of dismissing it, or pouring scorn on its belief system. You use your very badly hidden intolerance of evolution and science to associate the neo Darwinian zealots with science - which is more the case, yet you cry in shame and indignation when someone rightly mentions creationism and religion.

Ummm ... glass houses? Cake and eat it too?

Some examples to back my case (non religious or scientific, just observation):

"Good to see that the ferals are out in force."

"Does it matter what I post on?" (you can really feel the anger in which this was typed)

"Have you people ever heard of free speech????" (nice one, the ol' chestnut, and what the hell is YOU PEOPLE???)

"I started threads on topics of interest to me and have tried try to keep religion out of it because of the nonsense that some people come up with when you bring religion into it." (so bringing up religion by anyone else other than you is nonsense?)

"It seems to me that you people (I added the bold) are so insecure in your own beliefs on the neo Darwinian evolutionary model that anything that shows one aspect of your belief system is wrong is met with howls of protest and is assumed to be an attack on the whole theory. Maybe you believe that your theory stands on flimsy ground and are too scared to confront it so any challenge is an attack on your belief system." (nice try, yet this pre-school yard tactic has no weight, he took my ice-cream so I punched him, that’s a good reasons isn’t it?)

"Well harden up people and grow some balls!!! Any belief which cannot be challenged is not worth having." (will leave this one alone I think)

"This may actually surprise people, but people post on things that actually interest them." (your right yet typically it is prefaced with their position, and not dressed up as something it isn’t. isn’t one of the rules on this site that if you have an 'interest' you need to declare it? or do you think that only applied to those who are taking about stocks?)

"Other people may find the topic of interest without you neo darwinian zealots frothing at the mouth at the hint of a challenge to anything to do with evolution. " (and the lowest form of conversation, resorting to name calling when you have nothing else left to explain your position)
Click to expand...

What he said, ...

Nice post
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Did a google search and found this definition.

From live science this is the definition of vistigial organs:

In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.

The point of this thread really is to show that maybe this whole concept is wrong, a myth. The article referred to shows that the spleen, can no longer be referred to as vistigial.

These "non-functional organs" were in fact organs whose "functions had not yet been discovered." The best indication of this was the gradual yet substantial decrease in evolutionists' long list of vestigial organs.

S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173

In a nutshell that is what this thread is about. Not religion.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta said:
In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.

The point of this thread really is to show that maybe this whole concept is wrong, a myth. The article referred to shows that the spleen, can no longer be referred to as vistigial.
Click to expand...

Did a google search too:

Spleen: An organ located in the upper left part of the abdomen near the stomach. The spleen produces lymphocytes; it is the largest lymphatic organ in the body. The spleen also filters the blood, serves as a major reservoir for blood and destroys blood cells that are aged.
Click to expand...

Hardy vestigial to start with.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

spooly74 said:
Did a google search too:



Hardy vestigial to start with.
Click to expand...

Spooly,

Maybe you should read the article that was the reason behind starting this thread and you will find that that is what the whole article was about.

No wonder so many on this thread were so irrational.

Guess if more people read the article we would not have the paranioa that was displayed in this thread. Couple who read the article , stated they did not see the problem and did not see it as an attack on the neo darwinian view and I think trainspotter, to his credit, at least tried to raise issues in relation to this topic.

Too many people on this thread were just jumping at shadows.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta said:
Spooly,

Maybe you should read the article that was the reason behind starting this thread and you will find that that is what the whole article was about.

No wonder so many on this thread were so irrational.

Guess if more people read the article we would not have the paranioa that was displayed in this thread. Couple who read the article , stated they did not see the problem and did not see it as an attack on the neo darwinian view and I think trainspotter, to his credit, at least tried to raise issues in relation to this topic.

Too many people on this thread were just jumping at shadows.
Click to expand...


Maybe the people on this thread, "The Ferals" as you referred to them , found your title somewhat antagonistic " another evolution myth bites the dust."

Also the way you wanted to argue with anyone who didn't adhere to your views as opossed to guided discussion could also have been a catalyst for the way people treated your thread.

I suppose all the name calling you did on here may have also stopped anyone from being endeared to your agender. But this is only MO .

Others on here may choose to agree or disagree with me, but i certainly won't be reduced to calling them "ferals" or attacking their opinion.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Both the definitions you have chosen to use, state that vestigial implies that something whose function ranges from useless or degenerate to diminished or reduced.

ktrianta said:
In Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) and in his later works, he referred to several "vestiges" in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines vestigial organs as organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form. This is the accepted biological definition used in the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

You are basing the vestigial organs are a "myth", and therefore that that line of evidence is defunct as support for the Theory of Evolution, on the assumption that vestigial organs are totally useless and that if any proposed vestigial organ has any function at all it is therefore not a vestigial organ.
ktrianta said:
Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

There remain many other organs and parts that are present and can be classed as vestigial. A good example is the coccyx. If you have a search around you will find articles/comments where people state that as it still has muscles attached to it and it is necessary to sit comfortably that it can no longer be classed as vestigial because of this. However it is the fused remnant of a tail, a feature present in most mammals. It remains in humans in a vestigial form.

trainspotter listed quite a few other vestigial features in nature. Here is some of that list with some additions. All of which are vestigial features.
1) The wings on flightless birds.
2) Hind leg bones in whales.
3) Erector Pili and Body Hair
4) The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
5) The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus (born with eyes that cannot see)
6) The Blind Mole Rat (tiny eyes covered in skin)
7) Some snakes with pelvic remnants
8) legless lizards (have non functioning rudimentary limbs)
9) reduced or absent left lung in snakes
10) crabs tails
11) human ear muscles (unless ear wiggling can be found to have a critical function)

To class something as vestigial is not a knife edge definition. There are ranges of loss of function and redundancy. This is exactly what is to be expected in evolution and it is indeed what we see in nature. You cannot base your argument on two human organs having more functionality than previously thought. There are many other examples within the human body and within the plant and animal kingdoms that show that vestigiality supports the process of evolution.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

darkside said:
Maybe the people on this thread, "The Ferals" as you referred to them , found your title somewhat antagonistic " another evolution myth bites the dust."

Also the way you wanted to argue with anyone who didn't adhere to your views as opossed to guided discussion could also have been a catalyst for the way people treated your thread.

I suppose all the name calling you did on here may have also stopped anyone from being endeared to your agender. But this is only MO .

Others on here may choose to agree or disagree with me, but i certainly won't be reduced to calling them "ferals" or attacking their opinion.
Click to expand...

Darkside,

You might not call people feral, but you accuse people of ideological and misguided rants and then are happy to accuse people of lying and question peoples motives when I stated quite categorically that this thread is not about religion.

The more reasoned posters who actually bothered to read the article saw no problem with the article.

Happy to apologise for calling people feral if those same people give me an apology for accusing me of lying, duplicity, hidden agenda's etc. despite the fact that i repeatedly tried to steer this away from religion.

Read the thread and see how many times i tried to get it back on track and then it was only when personal attacks were made on my integrity I responded to those attacks by calling people feral to describe the nature of those attacks.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

derty said:
You are basing the vestigial organs are a "myth", and therefore that that line of evidence is defunct as support for the Theory of Evolution, on the assumption that vestigial organs are totally useless and that if any proposed vestigial organ has any function at all it is therefore not a vestigial organ.
.
Click to expand...

Refer quote previously supplied which is what this thread is all about - namely how at high school science we were taught that vistigial organs were proof of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Hey there ktrianta ... take the foot off the accelarator. Keep your hands on the wheel and keep your eyes on the road. Your'e doing a great job thus far of attempting to convert us to your ideals of "myths" under the guise of a non religious thread. Like everything that one reads, hears and sees, only take out the bits you want that will make you a better person. Reject the rest as useless garbage that does not need to be carried around.

Upon saying this: Scientists are using these vestigial (note the spelling) indicators to support their theory of evolution. Just the same as Religious people want us to believe in some omniscient being that created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Must be tiring creating supernovas and quarks and black holes I reckon.

BOTH are taught in school (well it was when I went to school) take from it what you will and remember that somewhere in between is the truth. Might not be your version but it will do for now until that great big deity in the sky comes back to reclaim the chosen few.:cool:
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta said:
S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory:

Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.

S. R. Scadding, "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?," Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173
Click to expand...

...................................................................................................

Quote-mining is a classic creationist technique where the views of some "authority" are misrepresented to make it sound as if they meant something they did not intend. In other instances, creationists simply cite people who were wrong and ignore the counter citations that demonstrate the error. One such example is the use of a 1981 paper written by developmental biologist, Steve Scadding, and published in the journal, Evolutionary Theory. In that paper, Scadding argued that vestigial organs offered no evidence for evolution other than the evidence they already provide as examples of homology.


Before we turn to the paper itself, we must make a note about the journal that published it. The irregular journal, Evolutionary Theory (more recently known as Evolutionary Theory and Review) was not your typical scientific journal. It specialized in presenting eclectic and unorthodox papers dealing with the evolutionary half of biology. Its peer review was not as stringent as other journals, as this description from the 1982 edition demonstrates.

This is an open journal. We welcome speculations and critical discussion of books, papers, or ideas. Short papers or even a few lines are appropriate, with no limit on maximum length. So are research suggestions or queries. We prefer a higher than usual probability of error to exclusion of new ideas, which are unorthodox by definition. Good taxonomic and other factual papers are welcome. Papers that disagree with the editors' views have a higher probability of acceptance than those that agree. Comments can be made on relevant papers in any journal at any time, or on more general questions. Comments and replies are reviewed like any other paper.
Click to expand...

The fact that Scadding (1981) appeared in such a journal definitely raises questions about any argument using it as the lone reference. This is not to say that Scadding was wrong because he published in Evolutionary Theory, but it does explain why it was published with its major flaws. It also explains why Scadding (1981) appears to be the only published scientific paper that creationists have found that questions in toto whether vestigial structuress are special evidence for evolution.

Creationists who quote from the abstract are guilty of quote-mining because it does not accurately represent the view put forth by Scadding in the body of his paper. Scadding argued that vestigial structures do not offer any evidence for evolution beyond the fact that they are homologous. This is why Scadding uses the phrase "special evidence":

Vestigial organs represent simply a special case of homologous organs. . . . While homologies between animal species suggest a common origin, the argument . . . asserts that vestigial organs provide special additional evidence for evolution.

(Scadding 1981, p 173)
Click to expand...

Naylor states that ... "[vestigial organs] would still provide powerful evidence for the theory of evolution." I agree with this, but I suggest that this evidence is due to the homologies these organs illustrate and not to their vestigiality.
(Scadding 1982, p 172)
Click to expand...


Anyone who cites Scadding (1981) as evidence that the appendix, coccyx, equine leg bones, or similar structures are not evidence for evolution is misrepresenting the paper. Scadding clearly recognizes that vestiges' homologies with structures in other lineages are evidence for common descent. However, Scadding was wrong to argue that vestigial structures offer no evidence beyond being homologous.


Conclusion:
In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience.
Here
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

spooly74 said:
...................................................................................................

Quote-mining is a classic creationist technique where the views of some "authority" are misrepresented to make it sound as if they meant something they did not intend. In other instances, creationists simply cite people who were wrong and ignore the counter citations that demonstrate the error. One such example is the use of a 1981 paper written by developmental biologist, Steve Scadding, and published in the journal, Evolutionary Theory. In that paper, Scadding argued that vestigial organs offered no evidence for evolution other than the evidence they already provide as examples of homology.


Before we turn to the paper itself, we must make a note about the journal that published it. The irregular journal, Evolutionary Theory (more recently known as Evolutionary Theory and Review) was not your typical scientific journal. It specialized in presenting eclectic and unorthodox papers dealing with the evolutionary half of biology. Its peer review was not as stringent as other journals, as this description from the 1982 edition demonstrates.



The fact that Scadding (1981) appeared in such a journal definitely raises questions about any argument using it as the lone reference. This is not to say that Scadding was wrong because he published in Evolutionary Theory, but it does explain why it was published with its major flaws. It also explains why Scadding (1981) appears to be the only published scientific paper that creationists have found that questions in toto whether vestigial structuress are special evidence for evolution.

Creationists who quote from the abstract are guilty of quote-mining because it does not accurately represent the view put forth by Scadding in the body of his paper. Scadding argued that vestigial structures do not offer any evidence for evolution beyond the fact that they are homologous. This is why Scadding uses the phrase "special evidence":






Anyone who cites Scadding (1981) as evidence that the appendix, coccyx, equine leg bones, or similar structures are not evidence for evolution is misrepresenting the paper. Scadding clearly recognizes that vestiges' homologies with structures in other lineages are evidence for common descent. However, Scadding was wrong to argue that vestigial structures offer no evidence beyond being homologous.


Conclusion:
In conclusion, creationists who use Scadding (1981) to support their contention that vestigial organs are not evidence for evolution are using a paper published in a minor, eclectic journal that was refuted soon after it initially came out. They cite someone who was wrong as "proof" that they are right. As such, it is another example of poor scholarship performed for the sake of pseudoscience.
Here
Click to expand...

Wow you are a clever bugger!!! :D

If I wasnt already convinced before, I am now.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

Spooly,

You just can't keep religion out of it.

Think it just goes to show that as i said before in the area of evolutionary belief, there is a lot of speculation and supposition hence the reasons why there is o many contrary positions.

There may be a majority position but that does not mean it is right.
 
Re: Vistigial Organs evolution myth

ktrianta said:
Spooly,

You just can't keep religion out of it.

Think it just goes to show that as i said before in the area of evolutionary belief, there is a lot of speculation and supposition hence the reasons why there is o many contrary positions.

There may be a majority position but that does not mean it is right.
Click to expand...

Cut the $hit KT, you're fooling nobody.
 

Attachments

  • stupid-*******-retards.jpg
    stupid-*******-retards.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 100

Similar threads

sptrawler
Retirement Village scam?
Replies
1
Views
465
SirRumpole
SirRumpole
ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
20K
ducati916
ducati916
ducati916
February 2025
2 3
Replies
58
Views
5K
ducati916
ducati916
Craton
Battery technologies for a fast charging and changing world
2 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
SirRumpole
SirRumpole
R
First, Kill Your Ideas
Replies
2
Views
1K
finicky
finicky
Top