Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63837 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh and Dan, Don't forget the accumulating effects of beneficial mutations were overwhelmingly negative. That is on top of the research on the deteriorating genome. Do I need to repost the articles again?
I have not misrepresented the research either. Indeed I suugest the researchers did not explain how the genome has survived the costs and have left that question up in the air with maybe's and perhaps's.
Let me point you in the right direction... What have you got in the way of explaing the above? If you can't then there is no use babbling on with asides like somatic change, and misrepresented fossils, that make you appear all the more ignorant of your own science.
No, you misread the article. And you know that you did. If you had read it correctly and your claim was true you could have quoted from the article to support your bogus claim.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63838 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be because despite all the rhetoric and similarity many non closely related species share, only mankind, a furless, obligate bipedal primate, can make meaning of the world and conceive the concept of a God and afterlife. Despite sign language a fur laiden ape will never conceive of a God, no matter how many generations of signing you evoke.
The mind of God is where we refect the likeness of God, not in the limbs tetrapods and whales are supposed to share which is ridiculous, nor the neural spindles primates share with whales and nothing in between.
This is because man made god in his image, not in apes image and I suppose most apes (except some homo sapiens) don’t give a sh|t

The mind of god is where you think, your imagination

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63839 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So we are going to start again are we? That is your strategy?
How does a deteriorating genome support TOE again??????????
Oh that's right, YOU have NO idea!
Maz, you listed a series of papers that support the theory of evolution, without any quotes that support your bogus claim. All that it takes to debunk your claim is a hand wave since all you had less than a handwave argument in the first place.

I have still to see you were wrong about the whale bones. Where is your apology for that bullshit that you insisted was legit.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63840 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh and Dan, Don't forget the accumulating effects of beneficial mutations were overwhelmingly negative. That is on top of the research on the deteriorating genome. Do I need to repost the articles again?
I have not misrepresented the research either. Indeed I suugest the researchers did not explain how the genome has survived the costs and have left that question up in the air with maybe's and perhaps's.
Let me point you in the right direction... What have you got in the way of explaing the above? If you can't then there is no use babbling on with asides like somatic change, and misrepresented fossils, that make you appear all the more ignorant of your own science.
If you would spend less time babbling on about subjects you obviously no nothing about and get straight to the point, it would save us a lot of garbage to read through.

Why don't you post what I asked for? You said you could do it. Were you just lying and misrepresenting again? Come on gutless, lets see it.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63841 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, you listed a series of papers that support the theory of evolution, without any quotes that support your bogus claim. All that it takes to debunk your claim is a hand wave since all you had less than a handwave argument in the first place.
I have still to see you were wrong about the whale bones. Where is your apology for that bullshit that you insisted was legit.
Maz is using a propaganda technique that saw it's golden days in 1930' and 1940's Germany and is experiencing a massive revitalization in discussions of modern politics and religion. Tell a lie. Repeat that lie as often as possible. When the lie has been repeated often enough, it will begin to be accepted as truth. What is sadly amusing is that avowed Christians are using that tactic to support and drive their beliefs like "Thous shall not lie."
Ms Moo

Plymouth, MN

#63842 Dec 7, 2012
Religion is belief. One either believes or not. As such, the subject of the belief is not subject to veracity (independent proof). Rather, what can be questioned is whether the individual actually believes or not. E.g., a belief in God. God can't be proven except by relying on more beliefs. What can be proven is whether the individual actually believes in God.

Science is the direct opposite. It's about facts. Facts are, by definition, subject to veracity. Beliefs of facts is nonsense; the facts exists whether you believe in them or not. E.g., fire is hot. It can be proven that fire is hot. Try it.

Ergo, a belief in God is akin to a belief in unicorns.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63843 Dec 7, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is an alteration of the genome that is expressed as an ability to digest lactose. Do you not understand anything you are railing on about?
And it is somatic change and there are dozens of them... The ability to digest lactose is somatic change and no more of a big deal!

It is no different that the somatic change Darwin noticed in his finches that was somatic change being below germ line level.

http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...

It has nothing to do with anything I have spoken to at all.

Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature (NOT a creationist publisher)2009.

David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2

Abstract:
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...

Hence, by the evolutionary researchers words above, these lab style experiments reflect adaptation and DO NOT demonstrate an unlimited ability to adapt as evos often like to misrepresent and chase their tails/tales around about. These experiments neither demonstrate an organisms limletless ability to adapt nor negative epistasis not the deteriorating genome. Get it?????

"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

"Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.

How can life have gone on for billions of years due to the epistatic cost, as well as the deteriorating genome that has deteriorated despite, what evos call beneficial mutations? The data suggests negative results and on top there is plenty to support the deteriorating genome.

Your jabber and reference to adaptation does not address this AND you would have to be ignorant to suggest that such a simplistic reply does. Back to BIO101 for you!.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63844 Dec 7, 2012
Dan..this is what backing ones view looks like while evos chase their tail like a mad woman running down the street and all over the place.

You can't win any point so you resort to opinionated balther and ridicule. Thankyou for confirming TOE is based on philosophy when it comes down to it!

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#63845 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU learn to read and comprehend together like a human being is supposed to be able to do. This is what the article says...
"Modern birds—or avian dinosaurs—share a different set of traits, such as hollow bones and rapid growth, than those exhibited by their prehistoric predecessors."
IOW.. Modern birds HAVE a DIFFERENT set of traits, including hollow bones than their predecessors, eg Arch. In my other article ARCH HAS A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE TO BIRDS and LIKE DINOSAURS.
ARCH DID NOT HAVE HOLLOW BONES, you and the rest of the gaggle of geese! Nor did it have a furcula that looked anything like a modern bird, nor are feathers solely an avian trait, nor are dino beaks, and the entirely of evolutionary theory is based on ROT, yet my 6 points stand strong.
That's why it's an intermediary between dinos and birds.
For a dino to evolve into a bird it has to loose some features and gain others. In between we will find animals with a mix of both and that's what the article is describing.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63846 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And it is somatic change and there are dozens of them... The ability to digest lactose is somatic change and no more of a big deal!
It is no different that the somatic change Darwin noticed in his finches that was somatic change being below germ line level.
http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...
It has nothing to do with anything I have spoken to at all.
Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature (NOT a creationist publisher)2009.
David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2
Abstract:
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
Hence, by the evolutionary researchers words above, these lab style experiments reflect adaptation and DO NOT demonstrate an unlimited ability to adapt as evos often like to misrepresent and chase their tails/tales around about. These experiments neither demonstrate an organisms limletless ability to adapt nor negative epistasis not the deteriorating genome. Get it?????
"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
"Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.
How can life have gone on for billions of years due to the epistatic cost, as well as the deteriorating genome that has deteriorated despite, what evos call beneficial mutations? The data suggests negative results and on top there is plenty to support the deteriorating genome.
Your jabber and reference to adaptation does not address this AND you would have to be ignorant to suggest that such a simplistic reply does. Back to BIO101 for you!.
It is evidence of a change in the genome. New information was selected for which renders the carriers of that new information capable of digesting lactose throughout their lives. You keep repeating the word somatic as if it is going to magically change the facts. It will not and no matter what you say, it is evidence that refutes this alledgedly deteriorating genome.

Clearly you do not understand and all you are going to do is fall back into a corner like a frightened ratt and make childish taunts.

As long as you keep posting your nonsense claims, we will be here to school you and send you back to your base. Remember that.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63847 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Dan..this is what backing ones view looks like while evos chase their tail like a mad woman running down the street and all over the place.
You can't win any point so you resort to opinionated balther and ridicule. Thankyou for confirming TOE is based on philosophy when it comes down to it!
Maz, you are referring to yourself. Look at the blather and ridicule you post while chasing your tail like a mad woman.

Please, quickly and briefly explain epistasis and the impact it has on the genome.

Please answer my questions and leave the ridicule out. If you don't do it, we will probably stop doing it, but since you drew first don't cry and whine when it is given back to you.
bohart

Newport, TN

#63848 Dec 7, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical creotard feelings about women...why the hell would any women want to reproduce with creatures like this?
Hah! a typical defense reponse from the sidekick of the Stygian witch, the slut of Beelzebub.As you sit stewing in the bubbling pool of Satans semen carefully lift the Devils nutsack out of your eyes and commence your fornicaton with the evolutionist whore of Babylon that your offspring may populate the bowels of Satan to prepare for the apocalypse.
Hail the Goo!

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63849 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And it is somatic change and there are dozens of them... The ability to digest lactose is somatic change and no more of a big deal!
It is no different that the somatic change Darwin noticed in his finches that was somatic change being below germ line level.
http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...
It has nothing to do with anything I have spoken to at all.
Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature (NOT a creationist publisher)2009.
David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2
Abstract:
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
Hence, by the evolutionary researchers words above, these lab style experiments reflect adaptation and DO NOT demonstrate an unlimited ability to adapt as evos often like to misrepresent and chase their tails/tales around about. These experiments neither demonstrate an organisms limletless ability to adapt nor negative epistasis not the deteriorating genome. Get it?????
"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
"Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.
How can life have gone on for billions of years due to the epistatic cost, as well as the deteriorating genome that has deteriorated despite, what evos call beneficial mutations? The data suggests negative results and on top there is plenty to support the deteriorating genome.
Your jabber and reference to adaptation does not address this AND you would have to be ignorant to suggest that such a simplistic reply does. Back to BIO101 for you!.
It is different. It is new information and it is heritable. In fact, it is appears to be polygenic. You are talking about natural variation within a population to refute discussion of a real trait with a genetic basis, that was selected for and entered the human population less than 10,000 years ago.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#63850 Dec 7, 2012
Snark Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>If you have a question that is truly bothering you about evolution...there's a deal called goggle....intellectual laziness isn't a valid argument for creationism.

Einstein was right when he said, "two things are infinite. The Universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former."

Science has pretty much nailed down that human morality increases with evolution but with religion fighting evolution every step of the way, can we evolve in time?

Crea
tionism is dangerous. It like a continuing education making various myths legitimate. Where do we draw the line when it comes to our children's education? Do we continue the Santa myth or leprechauns into secondary education, with their only evidence of fact is a book filled with talking snakes and animals, fiery serpents and vipers, giants, magic and witches, death, destruction, vengeance and bronze age gossip.

Creationist (as a cult) tend to be right-wing white supremacists, they fear equality, sex, change, women and have abnormal sexual perversion tendencies....they develop a patriarchal mentality that has failed mankind miserably. Scientific savvy in the US is disgraceful when compared other developed nations...and that can be laid at the Pearly Gates of creationism.

While I think a Leprechaun riding a Glitter Farting Unicorn would be cute and interesting, would it be healthy for children to be brainwashed into believing it is real or factual?
If right wing people tend to be racist sexist perverts.
Than liberal lefties are tree hugging baby killing socialists.
This isn't about politics and as NO ONE has said anything about unicorns leprechauns accept the evo atheists. So really who believes what?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#63851 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
"Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.
“decelerating fitness gains” means the rate at which fitness increases slows down not that it becomes negative. The beneficial mutations are still improving the bacterias adaption to its environment.

And beneficial mutations are evolution!

The full abstract.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
“Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation. We generated combinations of beneficial mutations that arose in a lineage during rapid adaptation of a bacterium whose growth depended on a newly introduced metabolic pathway.”

So beneficial mutations can and do happen.

“The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto more fit backgrounds.”

When the bacteria were moved onto a more fit background the mutations were less needed and so selection slowed down (It didn't stop).

“These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway.”

Three of the mutations reduced defects so increasing fitness of the bacteria.

“A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs effectively predicted the interactions between them. These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.”

All was as predicted by evolutionary models.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#63852 Dec 7, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And it is somatic change and there are dozens of them... The ability to digest lactose is somatic change and no more of a big deal!
It is no different that the somatic change Darwin noticed in his finches that was somatic change being below germ line level.
http://testifyingtotruth.wordpress.com/2012/0...
It has nothing to do with anything I have spoken to at all.
Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature (NOT a creationist publisher)2009.
David N. Reznick1 & Robert E. Ricklefs2
Abstract:
Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief. Biologists often forget that Charles Darwin offered a way of resolving this issue, and his proposal is ripe for re-evaluation in the light of recent research.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...
Hence, by the evolutionary researchers words above, these lab style experiments reflect adaptation and DO NOT demonstrate an unlimited ability to adapt as evos often like to misrepresent and chase their tails/tales around about. These experiments neither demonstrate an organisms limletless ability to adapt nor negative epistasis not the deteriorating genome. Get it?????
"These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
"Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Sign epistasis was rare in this genome-wide study, in contrast to its prevalence in an earlier study of mutations in a single gene."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
The above suggests the results of accumulating so called beneficial mutations (eg ability to digest lactose in your case) are negative.
How can life have gone on for billions of years due to the epistatic cost, as well as the deteriorating genome that has deteriorated despite, what evos call beneficial mutations? The data suggests negative results and on top there is plenty to support the deteriorating genome.
Your jabber and reference to adaptation does not address this AND you would have to be ignorant to suggest that such a simplistic reply does. Back to BIO101 for you!.
Folks here is an example of misuse and misrepresentation of references to real scientific work. Maz is citing an article about the link between micro- and macroevolution to refute my comment about the deteriorating genome. This is just slight of hand. Chicanery. She goes on to parrot comments about epistasis and other concepts she has no real notion of.

The point is that lactose digestion entered the human genome sometime in the last 10,000 years. It is a mutation not just of one gene, but more than one. It cast doubt on this so called "deteriorating genome." You can read the sources she has posted, they are very interesting, but don't refute my point.
bohart

Newport, TN

#63853 Dec 7, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or it could be a natural use of His power. God created the trees, right? They reproduce naturally. Now if you wanna say that it's the "Will of God" or whatever, then be my guest. But there's no great mystery behind it. Ya know, seeds, water, sunlight, yadda yadda. Once there was a time we did not know that and "Godmagic" was enough. Hence, abio, like plant reproduction, would merely be a *natural* extension of His power.
It's just a shame that whether a God did anything at all (or even exists for that matter) can't ever be determined because it's a non-scientific concept.
There. I dared. Whaddya gonna do about it?
Jack. That's what.
Oh, maybe you'll make a few lame puddle goo jokes before running away again. That'll sure up your credibility.
<quoted text>
Bub, I've said that from the beginning. I know you prefer to paint me as a fundamentalist atheist who is "close-minded" on the possibility of a God, but that's simply not the case. 2,000 posts later and you're finally realizing I don't fall under the category of the typical fundie-caricature atheist?
Well you never were very observant.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Yeah, you keep saying that but always resort to ad-hom instead of addressing the content of my posts. So you'll excuse me if you're not taken very seriously. Except maybe by your fellow dumb people.
<quoted text>
(yawn)
Yeah, you have nothing of substance to say, but you just gotta get it off your chest that you don't like "puddle-goo atheists!" Big whoop. Have fun with your lame limericks.
Ahh the Dude! further proof that all fools do not die young

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63854 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the historical writings of early civilizations, transcribed and passed along thousands of years, from antiquity?
World Civ History is a cool subject too.
Yes, but why stop learning at the point thousands of years ago, and ignore what more has been figured out since?

If Grimms fairy tales were 3,000 years old. Would you take them as gospel too?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63855 Dec 7, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
So do you want to debate or is nonsense all you have?
Of course it is impossible for a creationist to win a scientific debate about evolution.
No one "wins" if no one gains new insight.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63856 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. And you think everything in our history books are true?
As soon as words like "every"thing start showing up in a debate, you know someone is trying to jam the discussion into the "absolutist" corner, and the value of the conversation is being sacrificed for purposes of scoring empty rhetoric points.

The point is not the absence of all errors, but rather which book contains more errors, and how frequent and important they are, and if there is a major difference in that overall respect.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 5 min Crystal_Clear722 31,518
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 6 min _FLATLINE-------- 7,798
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 7 min CJ Rocker 825
Bill & Hillary ( Haiti Earthquake ) 11 min Alias -_- 13
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 15 min CJ Rocker 78,883
"man" words 22 min Angel in LA 657
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 26 min Grace Nerissa 83
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 58 min I Am No One_ 161,357
motorcycle traveling stories 1 hr Mega Monster 631
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 1 hr Spotted Girl 88
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 2 hr mr goodwrench 8,327
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 18,190
More from around the web