Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216597 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, 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

#105339 Nov 8, 2013
Here is the very first article that I ran across on how the blood clotting cascade evolved. Please note, it is by Professor Ken Miller, one of the heroes of the Dover Trial. If you ever saw the videos about that trial you would know that Behe looked like a fool in it:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clo...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105340 Nov 8, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a wonderful way of meandering around a question.
I'll stick with the explanation provided by Norbert Weiner, father of cybernetics. He has a tad more credibility.
And what explanation was that, precisely? I was NOT wandering around the question. I was addressing exactly how information is created in the real world: through interactions that change the state of something. That changed state *is* information. Weiner worked a LOT on cybernetics, but that is not the same subject as information theory. And Wiener's ideas are certainly not the last word on the subject. You might also look into the work of Shannon, for example.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105341 Nov 8, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a wonderful way of meandering around a question.
I'll stick with the explanation provided by Norbert Weiner, father of cybernetics. He has a tad more credibility.
How do you think that Wiener's work supports your claim? I looked for valid sources and none seem to indicate that he had anything to say about evolution or creationism. And please, no joke sources.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105342 Nov 8, 2013
Since SBT likes to quote from his idiot sources let's see what someone who actually knows what he is talking about has to say:

"Mining the Biochemical Past

Can we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas.

Even a general scheme, like the one I've just presented, leads to a number of very specific predictions, each of which can be tested. First, the scheme itself is based on the use of well-known biochemical clues. For example, most of the enzymes involved in clotting are serine proteases, protein-cutting enzymes so-named because of the presence of a highly reactive serine in their active sites, the business ends of the protein. Now, what organ produces lots of serine proteases? The pancreas, of course, which releases serine proteases to help digest food. The pancreas, as it turns out, shares a common embryonic origin with another organ: the liver. And, not surprisingly, all of the clotting proteases are made in the liver. So, to "get" a masked protease into the serum all we'd need is a gene duplication that is turned on in the pancreas' "sister" organ. Simple, reasonable, and supported by the evidence.

Next, if the clotting cascade really evolved the way I have suggested, the the clotting enzymes would have to be near-duplicates of a pancreatic enzyme and of each other. As it turns out, they are. Not only is thrombin homologous to trypsin, a pancreatic serine protease, but the 5 clotting proteases (prothrombin and Factors X, IX, XI, and VII) share extensive homology as well. This is consistent, of course, with the notion that they were formed by gene duplication, just as suggested. But there is more to it than that. We could take one organism, humans for example, and construct a branching "tree" based on the relative degrees of similarity and difference between each of the five clotting proteases. Now, if the gene duplications that produced the clotting cascade occurred long ago in an ancestral vertebrate, we should be able to take any other vertebrate and construct a similar tree in which the relationships between the five clotting proteases match the relationships between the human proteases. This is a powerful test for our little scheme because it requires that sequences still undiscovered should match a particular pattern. And, as anyone knows who has followed the work in Doolittle's lab over the years, it is also a test that evolution passes in one organism after another.

There are many other tests and predictions that can be imposed on the scheme as well, but one of the boldest was made by Doolittle himself more than a decade ago. If the modern fibrinogen gene really was recruited from a duplicated ancestral gene, one that had nothing to do with blood clotting, then we ought to be able to find a fibrinogen-like gene in an animal that does not possess the vertebrate clotting pathway. In other words, we ought to be able to find a non-clotting fibrinogen protein in an invertebrate. That's a mighty bold prediction, because if it could not be found, it would cast Doolittle's whole evolutionary scheme into doubt.

Not to worry. In 1990, Xun Yu and Doolittle won their own bet, finding a fibrinogen-like sequence in the sea cucumber, an echinoderm. The vertebrate fibrinogen gene, just like genes for the other proteins of the clotting sequence, was formed by the duplication and modification of pre-existing genes."

From my earlier source.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105343 Nov 8, 2013
Oops, started at the wrong spot:

"To paraphrase Darwin, the notion that evolution could have produced a system as intricate as the blood clotting cascade seems, we might freely confess, "absurd in the highest possible degree." This is especially true if you believe, as Behe seems to, that clotting is not possible until the entire cascade of factors is assembled.

But we already know that evolution doesn't start from scratch, and it doesn't need fully-assembled systems to work. Remember the lobster system as an example. Blood clotting evolved there from two pre-existing proteins, normally found in separate compartments of the body, that had a fortuituous interaction when damage to a blood vessel brought them together. Once that interaction was established, natural selection did the rest.

Could something like this have happened here?

Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.

Why would a sudden gusher of cAMP in a wound be significant? Well, it turns out that vertebrates use cAMP as a signalling molecule to control the contractions of smooth muscle cells, the very sort of muscle cells that surround blood vessels. Therefore, the release of internal cAMP from broken cells would automatically cause smooth muscles around a broken vessel to contract, limiting blood flow and making it more likely that the blood's own sticky white cells would be able to plug the leak. That means that we already have some ability to limit damage and plug leaks in a primitive, low-pressure system. Not a bad place to begin."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105344 Nov 8, 2013
"Our next step is to consider the nature of blood itself. For reasons relating to osmotic pressure, the tendency of water to move across cell membranes, blood plasma is a viscous, protein-laden solution. And it's also important to note that the extracellular environment of ordinary tissue is very different from blood. These spaces are laden with protein signals, insoluble matrix molecules, and extracellular proteases that cut and trim these molecules to their final shapes and sizes. In fact, such proteases constitute one of the major forms of extracellular signalling. So the tissues of our ancestral vertebrate would be laden with protein-cutting enzymes for reasons completely unrelated to clotting.

Keeping all of this in mind, what would happen when a blood vessel broke in such an organism?

Well, protein-rich plasma flows into an unfamiliar environment, and sticky white cells quickly "glom" up against the fibers of the extracellular matrix. Tissue proteases, quite accidentally, are now exposed to a new range of proteins, and they cut many of them to pieces. The solubility of these new fragments vary. Some are more soluble than the plasma proteins from which they were trimmed, but many are much less soluble. The result is that clumps of newly-insoluble protein fragments begin to assumulate at the tissue-plasma interface, helping to seal the break and forming a very primitive clot.(Could one object that this is too primitive and too nonspecific to work? That it wouldn't be sufficient to seal breaks? Well, it turns out that you can't make this objection for the very simple reason that this is pretty much the clotting mechanism used today by a large number of invertebrates. Works for them, and therefore there is no reason why it wouldn't have worked for the ancestors of today vertebrates, either!)

Now we get down to business. A mutation duplicates an existing gene for a serine protease, a digestive enzyme produced in the pancreas. Gene duplications happen all the time, and they are generally of such little importance that they are known as "neutral" mutations, having no effect on an organism's fittness. However, the original gene had a control region that switched it on only in the pancreas. During the duplication, the control region of the duplicate is damaged so that the new gene is switched on in both the pancreas and the liver. As a result, the inactive form of the enzyme, a zymogen, is relesased into the bloodstream.

This causes no problem for the organism - most pancreatic proteases are inactive until a small piece near their active sites can be cut away by another protease. However, when damage to a blood vessel allows plasma to seep into tissue, suddenly our previously inactive plasma serine protease is activated by tissue proteases, increasing the overall protein-cutting activity at the site of the hemorrage. Blood clotting is enhanced, so our duplicate gene (with the mistargeted protein) is now favored by natural selection."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105345 Nov 8, 2013
"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.

The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.

In a flash, the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease. As a result, high concentrations of the circulating protease bind directly to the surfaces of cells near a wound. The proteases are activated in the same way, but now their proteolytic activities are highly localized. The production of a clot of insoluble protein fragments is now faster and more specific than ever. Organisms with the new EGF-protease can clot their blood much more quickly than before, and therefore are favored by natural selection. To emphasize its role in the clotting process, that cell surface protein with the EGF receptor is called Tissue Factor.

What happens next? Well, remember the case of the lobster in which a duplicate of a circulating protein (vitellogenin) became specialized to produce a clot-forming protein (lobster fibrinogen)? Once we have a situation in which every hemorrage activates a protease bound to tissue receptors, a gene duplicate of one of the major plasma proteins would then be under strong selective pressure to increase its ability to interact with the bound protease. Fibrinogen, the soluble protein that now is now the primary target of proteolysis in the clotting cascade, clearly arose in this way. Natural selection would favor each and every mutation or rearrangement that increased the sensitivity of fibrinogen to the plasma protease, dramatically enhancing the ability of the new protease to form specific clots of insoluble protein.

There is no doubt that these three steps, each one supported by classic Darwinian mechanisms, would have been sufficient to fashion a rudimentary clotting system. This would leave us with system in which circulating plasma contains both an inactive serine protease and its fibrinogen target. The protease would activated by contact with tissue factor, and the active protease, in turn, would cleave sensitive sites in fibrinogen to form a clot. This system wouldn't be nearly as quick, as responsive, or as sensitive as the current system of vertebrate clotting, but it would work a little better than the system that preceeded it, and that's all that evolution requires."

He goes on to describe how complexity was added to the cascade and how it improved the reaction.

All from:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clo...

Remember the simple idea of brick arch over a window:

http://tinyurl.com/kgdng57

What Behe is doing is to claim that that arch had to be miraculously built since if one brick was missing the whole thing would collapse. He forgot that it still could have been built one brick at a time if it had a now missing support structure. In other words Behe's problem is that he only looks at systems the way they are today. Now what led up to the systems of today.

There is a reason he is the laughing stock of biological theoreticians.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105346 Nov 8, 2013
And a short video by Ken Miller where he shows that the basic claims of Behe are wrong:



SBT, when you hitch your wagon to a star you should make sure that you have not hitched it to a dim bulb.
Joy Beasley

Cincinnati, OH

#105347 Nov 8, 2013
I hope no one minds if I ask a question here that I find a bit unsettling. I know God created everything, but where did He come from? Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but the answer to the question of origin of everything seems incomplete. Does that make sense? I asked our minister and he said that God is eternal, an answer that seems to me to gloss over the question rather than answer it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105348 Nov 8, 2013
Joy Beasley wrote:
I hope no one minds if I ask a question here that I find a bit unsettling. I know God created everything, but where did He come from? Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but the answer to the question of origin of everything seems incomplete. Does that make sense? I asked our minister and he said that God is eternal, an answer that seems to me to gloss over the question rather than answer it.
Seriously if someone wants to claim that God is forever there is no reason that we cannot say "matter is forever". Does God even exist? Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know yet." The important fact is that though we may not be able to answer all questions, we can still answer some of them.

Let's take a mathematical example. Now you may not be able to take the derivative of the formula y = e^x . It is actually a fairly easy one to remember, though most people do not understand the "why". Yet that does not mean that you do not know that 1 + 1 = 2 .

For all of us there are questions that we can answer and questions that we can't. Too many creationists seem to think that because there are some questions that we can't answer that means we can't answer anything. I hope my simple math analogy put that to rest.

And for those who want to know why the derivative of e^x is what it is and have had at least a smattering of calculus remember the Taylor's series expansion of e^x:

e^x = the sum of ((x^n)/(n!)) for n = 0 to infinity. If you take the derivation of the sum you will see why.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#105349 Nov 8, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a wonderful way of meandering around a question.
I'll stick with the explanation provided by Norbert Weiner, father of cybernetics. He has a tad more credibility.
I like your answers, bohart. They are nice and short. You don't dump loads of material on here in an effort to pretend you know anything.
HELPER

London, KY

#105350 Nov 8, 2013
Joy Beasley wrote:
I hope no one minds if I ask a question here that I find a bit unsettling. I know God created everything, but where did He come from? Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but the answer to the question of origin of everything seems incomplete. Does that make sense? I asked our minister and he said that God is eternal, an answer that seems to me to gloss over the question rather than answer it.
Joy; The only real answers we have to this question are in the Bible and according to the words of Jesus, God is a Spirit and the Bible says in the beginning his Spirit moved and then he said 'Let there be light and there was light'. The Bible also says that the Word of God created all things and we do not have any information that there was another beginning other than the one event mentioned. This mystery occured and unfolded because God said for it to happen and the Bible also says the Word of God is like a seed which was very small, then it branched out to become great. The Bible says that God is the beginning and the end and this heaven and earth will have an end at some point and there will be a New Heaven and Earth, but no where does the Bible say there was not a beginning of all things. It is what it is, because God said for it to be so and it will be accomplished according to his Word.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#105351 Nov 8, 2013
Joy Beasley wrote:
I hope no one minds if I ask a question here that I find a bit unsettling. I know God created everything, but where did He come from? Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but the answer to the question of origin of everything seems incomplete. Does that make sense? I asked our minister and he said that God is eternal, an answer that seems to me to gloss over the question rather than answer it.
A very good question, but one that will never be answered by ANY minister. He gave you one of many cookie-cutter answers that they all use to keep the congregation from questioning any aspect of religion and making waves.

I am an atheist and I know the universe was formed by the big bang. Like you, I also have questions. I would like to know how the elements needed to cause the big bang came to be.

I guess we'll just have to keep wondering.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105352 Nov 8, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a wonderful way of meandering around a question.
I'll stick with the explanation provided by Norbert Weiner, father of cybernetics. He has a tad more credibility.
why does he have more credibility?

you just are going with what you already believe, regardless of the facts given you. not much of a thinking mind, there. more of the cult mentality mind, really. but that has been proven over and over about you...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105353 Nov 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
"That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.
The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.
In a flash, the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease. etc. etc..
All from:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clo...
Remember the simple idea of brick arch over a window:
http://tinyurl.com/kgdng57
What Behe is doing is to claim that that arch had to be miraculously built since if one brick was missing the whole thing would collapse. He forgot that it still could have been built one brick at a time if it had a now missing support structure. In other words Behe's problem is that he only looks at systems the way they are today. Now what led up to the systems of today.
There is a reason he is the laughing stock of biological theoreticians.
So if you have faith that these smart guys are correct, you should be able to get them to synthesize this "simple" process, make new blood and take a transfusion, right? This is the whole problem here, the pot tells the potter he's wrong..

World-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution;

Professor James M. Tour is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents.

Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read:“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
" …I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living".

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say,“Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...

Behe was in Church last Easter, I don't read minds well but that tell's me something.. You so sure about what Behe believes?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105354 Nov 8, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why does he have more credibility?
you just are going with what you already believe, regardless of the facts given you. not much of a thinking mind, there. more of the cult mentality mind, really. but that has been proven over and over about you...
Because he seems to agree with bohart, though I cannot find anything that supports bohart's claim
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#105355 Nov 8, 2013
Joy Beasley wrote:
I hope no one minds if I ask a question here that I find a bit unsettling. I know God created everything, but where did He come from? Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but the answer to the question of origin of everything seems incomplete. Does that make sense? I asked our minister and he said that God is eternal, an answer that seems to me to gloss over the question rather than answer it.
The earliest word for God, Elohim is a plural. God consists of a husband and a wife and they are one flesh. Genesis 2:24. The husband part is energy and the forces in nature. It is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. Daniel 11:38 "But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces..." Gravitation, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces. Energy created the Lord. Isaiah 54:5 "For thy Maker is thine husband..." The Lord created everything else.

Gravitation, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces. Daniel 11:38 "But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces..." Energy created the Lord. Isaiah 54:5 "For thy Maker is thine husband..."
Joy Beasley

Cincinnati, OH

#105356 Nov 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously if someone wants to claim that God is forever there is no reason that we cannot say "matter is forever". Does God even exist? Sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know yet." The important fact is that though we may not be able to answer all questions, we can still answer some of them.
Let's take a mathematical example. Now you may not be able to take the derivative of the formula y = e^x . It is actually a fairly easy one to remember, though most people do not understand the "why". Yet that does not mean that you do not know that 1 + 1 = 2 .
For all of us there are questions that we can answer and questions that we can't. Too many creationists seem to think that because there are some questions that we can't answer that means we can't answer anything. I hope my simple math analogy put that to rest.
And for those who want to know why the derivative of e^x is what it is and have had at least a smattering of calculus remember the Taylor's series expansion of e^x:
e^x = the sum of ((x^n)/(n!)) for n = 0 to infinity. If you take the derivation of the sum you will see why.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but I am afraid you lost me with all that math. It was never my strong point, but I know that 1+1=2 and even why. At lease I think so, but you seem a lot smarter than I am.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105357 Nov 8, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you have faith that these smart guys are correct, you should be able to get them to synthesize this "simple" process, make new blood and take a transfusion, right? This is the whole problem here, the pot tells the potter he's wrong..
World-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution;
Professor James M. Tour is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents.
Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read:“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
" …I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.
I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living".
"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say,“Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...
Behe was in Church last Easter, I don't read minds well but that tell's me something.. You so sure about what Behe believes?
Yes, I trust these guys because they have shown that due to his religion Behe is a fool.

And you are making the mistake again of assuming that because we do not know everything that we cannot know anything. Time to get your head out of your but.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105358 Nov 8, 2013
Joy Beasley wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but I am afraid you lost me with all that math. It was never my strong point, but I know that 1+1=2 and even why. At lease I think so, but you seem a lot smarter than I am.
The important fact is that you do know some math. Not knowing ALL math does not mean that you do not know some of it.

Many creationists use the false logic that if you do not know everything you cannot know anything. That is clearly not true.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 min Crazy Beautiful 206,683
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 2 min Aussie Kev 8,864
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Sam 66,959
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 4 min Aussie Kev 5,751
2words into 2new words (May '12) 7 min Aussie Kev 6,721
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 10 min Princess Hey 1,542
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 12 min Aussie Kev 15,187
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 14 min Mr manners 10,548
Poll Do You Have A Topix Crush? (2014 Version) (Oct '14) 1 hr Princess Hey 98
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 2 hr Snowflake Nation 934
More from around the web