Evolution vs. Creation

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

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#106020 Nov 16, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish someone would send some evolution in a bottle over to my engineering dept so I could take a break. I suppose the bottle would just have the initials T.G. on it for TIME GOD. Kindda like a Genie in a bottle. They wouldn't even have to think over there, TG does all that for us. No planning meeting's either, I hate those and so do my people.
Hmmmm, I could make billions and we could all drive Jags and custom Porsche's with those pick-your-color leather interiors and all and not do a thing. I'm getting to like this idea. I would be having lunch with Generals..
Save the chip mfg's like Intel down the street alot of money too. Last big processor project cost them over a billion..Making the chip that's in the new phone in your hand...pooff, it would be done, the Time God's knew it already! And we KNOW evo is better than anything Intel's got, just look @ MO-1 below.
The valve in the Foraman Ovale is a major part genetically. It must be coded. But that's the easy part, it's existence is useless without thousands of other parts all controlled and convergent to shut it one time in your life. Accidental? Not one chance. Requires a plan, absolutely. Intelligence, yes.
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
Internal monologue spilling over.
And a promotional video for the Stolen Scriptures.

There are a disproportionate number of engineers on topic.

Haven't you got some project to sell in Vietman, or China?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#106021 Nov 16, 2013
15 Questions for evolutionistsFundamental questions about the origin of life and all living things that evolution does not answer.

Why should science do that.
I also do not expect it to have a pleasant chat with me.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106022 Nov 16, 2013
Subby the Dubby, you have posted twice since my post and not one spec of empirical research to be seen. Go blow your nose somewhere else. When you reckon you can come up with some of this empirical research you keep talking about then reply to me and stop wasting my time with your substance less opinionated prattle.

Adaption is not what gives you common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales. Idiot!

For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. You have presented your opinion and every side wind you can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#106023 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is not evidence something like a deer can become something like a whale.
Adaptation is evidence that bacteria can become fitter bacteria and a deer can become a fitter deer and may even learn to swim and submerge, eg chevrotain, but will never adapt into a whale. That is your great leap of faith.
Continued humans and other apes.

You are such a coward.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#106024 Nov 16, 2013
Unstable repeats

The international team of scientists found that stretches of tandem repeats influence the activity of neighboring genes. The repeats determine how tightly the local DNA is wrapped around specific proteins called 'nucleosomes', and this packaging structure dictates to what extent genes can be activated. Interestingly, tandem repeats are very unstable -- the number of repeats changes frequently when the DNA is copied. These changes affect the local DNA packaging, which in turn alters gene activity. In this way, unstable junk DNA allows fast shifts in gene activity, which may allow organisms to tune the activity of genes to match changing environments -- a vital principle for survival in the endless evolutionary race.

Evolution in test tubes

To further test their theory, the researchers conducted a complex experiment aimed at mimicking biological evolution, using yeast cells as Darwinian guinea pigs. Their results show that when a repeat is present near a gene, it is possible to select yeast mutants that show vastly increased activity of this gene. However, when the repeat region was removed, this fast evolution was impossible. "If this was the real world," the researchers say, "only cells with the repeats would be able to swiftly adapt to changes, thereby beating their repeat-less counterparts in the game of evolution. Their junk DNA saved their lives."

As in on/ off switch a.k.a. frequency. To on again.
junk DNA dailyscience.com
Also look at Alu and sweeps and bottlenecks.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106025 Nov 16, 2013
Maz with her stinking blue waffle.

I don't need any empirical evidence to debunk any of your nonsense. All I have to do is to point out that you did not understand the articles that you linked, again.

For example your article on the limits of adaptation is an article that says if you push a species too hard it will go extinct. It is not an article about the limits of evolution, except for perhaps the obvious fact that a species cannot evolve overnight.

If you want to discuss how you don't understand any of your articles I am more than happy to do that. But I do not need any evidence to debunk the nonevidence that you have been supplying here.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106026 Nov 16, 2013
Maz, you are an expert at pigeon chess. You look for articles with particular words or phrases and imagine that they support your bent beliefs. That is not the case. That is why I am more than happy to discuss any article that you link here. Instead you poop them out on the board and abandon them there thinking that you have made some sort of impressive point.

The only point you make with your shitted out articles is that you are an ignorant moron who can't understand the fruits of your own Google searches.

“God of War”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#106027 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Subby the Dubby, you have posted twice since my post and not one spec of empirical research to be seen. Go blow your nose somewhere else. When you reckon you can come up with some of this empirical research you keep talking about then reply to me and stop wasting my time with your substance less opinionated prattle.
Adaption is not what gives you common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales. Idiot!
For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. You have presented your opinion and every side wind you can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".
There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.
In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.
Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
Hows my little self licking ice cream cone head doing today?
still posting irrelevant links to try to support your fantasy of quasi-scientific intellectualism? You should find yourself a nice street corner and bring ya soapbox and flyers from creation.tard
so you can preach your plethora of idiom psychotic gobbledygook
to the first grade special ed class, with a little luck and if you pay them ...they might believe your hilarious arboreal christian
pseudo-scientific stand up act of tragic comedy.

I know we will tie a pork chop around you neck and get you to lecture the dogs with incantations and heel clicking magic skydaddy creation , you're sure to be a big hit with them you and your pork chop. And speaking of hand waving, you sure look like a do do bird trying to get airborne over there, but don't let this "what's wrong with this picture" picture of yourself get in the way of your magical persona you got going in your "own mind".
But we can tell you from over here you're about the funniest creationist clown we ever seen!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106028 Nov 16, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Continued humans and other apes.
You are such a coward.
Actually it appears that YOU are the coward but may also be dumbed down like an ape..Good point! LOL!. A human being is one that is a furless obligate biped that uses sophisticated language, higher communication skills, higher reasoning ability based on abstract thought and express the Neu5Ac molecule in their molecular machinery. So called non human apes do not meet this criteria.

A confirmation of a hypothesis can be generated on any basis from abiogenesis to the fall of Rome, and is testable and falsifiable, regardless of your ignorance and ability to be an evo parrot puppet.

Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.

Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.

For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. Evos have presented their opinion and every side wind they can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106029 Nov 16, 2013
And Maz is still playing pigeon chess.

Maz, bring up any of your articles one at a time and I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.

You are not making a point by listing articles that you did not understand and seem unable to understand.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106030 Nov 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Hows my little self licking ice cream cone head doing today?
still posting irrelevant links to try to support your fantasy of quasi-scientific intellectualism? You should find yourself a nice street corner and bring ya soapbox and flyers from creation.tard
so you can preach your plethora of idiom psychotic gobbledygook
to the first grade special ed class, with a little luck and if you pay them ...they might believe your hilarious arboreal christian
pseudo-scientific stand up act of tragic comedy.
I know we will tie a pork chop around you neck and get you to lecture the dogs with incantations and heel clicking magic skydaddy creation , you're sure to be a big hit with them you and your pork chop. And speaking of hand waving, you sure look like a do do bird trying to get airborne over there, but don't let this "what's wrong with this picture" picture of yourself get in the way of your magical persona you got going in your "own mind".
But we can tell you from over here you're about the funniest creationist clown we ever seen!
...and I suppose you talking about your disbelief in skydaddys and enjoyment of licking ice cream is the reflection of your scientific credibility and a demonstration of you being a frustrated evotard looser. LOL! I love it! Ridicule on!!! ROLF!

A confirmation of a hypothesis can be generated on any basis from abiogenesis to the fall of Rome, and is testable and falsifiable, regardless of your ignorance and ability to be an evo parrot puppet.

Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.

Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.

For now I am the one that has presented research that speaks to restrictions and limits to the genomes inability to adapt. Evos have presented their opinion and every side wind they can think of, and therefore have no more credibility than a squarking parrot that can repeat "they said so".

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to it ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106031 Nov 16, 2013
Once again Maz, let's see you defend your beliefs of what your articles say.

I don't know for sure what you think they mean, but they do not support an argument against evolution.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#106032 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is not evidence something like a deer can become something like a whale.
Adaptation is evidence that bacteria can become fitter bacteria and a deer can become a fitter deer and may even learn to swim and submerge, eg chevrotain, but will never adapt into a whale. That is your great leap of faith.
You are probably right. Deer will probably never evolve into whales. We can't know for certain what developments in evolution a particular species will take. At least you understand that much evolution.

But just because you don't understand how whales evolved and don't want to accept the evidence that describes that evolution doesn't change the reality of it.

It also does not say anything positive or negative about the existence of God, no matter how you slink in fear that it does.

“God of War”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#106033 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>

Adaption is not what results in common ancestors between deers and whales. Adaptation gives you fitter deers and whales.
Documented cases of speciation have been recorded , effectively rendering all your ranting to...well ranting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/470...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.ht...

One of many...

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106034 Nov 16, 2013
Maz, I suggest that you read up on the concept of clades. Yes, deer and whales do have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. We do have a fairly good string of fossil life from pakicetus to the modern whale. With the blowhole we can see it when it has migrated half way back to its current position. Would you like to see them?

“God of War”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#106035 Nov 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, I suggest that you read up on the concept of clades. Yes, deer and whales do have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. We do have a fairly good string of fossil life from pakicetus to the modern whale. With the blowhole we can see it when it has migrated half way back to its current position. Would you like to see them?

More wolf like than deer though, another was like a big rodent.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#106036 Nov 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz with her stinking blue waffle.
I don't need any empirical evidence to debunk any of your nonsense. All I have to do is to point out that you did not understand the articles that you linked, again.
For example your article on the limits of adaptation is an article that says if you push a species too hard it will go extinct. It is not an article about the limits of evolution, except for perhaps the obvious fact that a species cannot evolve overnight.
If you want to discuss how you don't understand any of your articles I am more than happy to do that. But I do not need any evidence to debunk the nonevidence that you have been supplying here.
Again for the umpteenth time I will state that the research demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to adapt. As this data was NOT predicted by evos, the data found requires guesswork to resolve. Their assumption is not data. Hence the data does support my claim, even though it does not say adaptation stopped. The evo hypothesis made of the data is what you are claiming to support TOE and to be unquestionable. You are seriously mind scrambled and deluded by your inculcation into the evo fold on the basis of no more than faith, greater than mine.

Too bad your researchers keep finding the opposite of what they expect. If they actually found what they expected you would have a point. However you are just ranting to save face on forum.

Given no one can 'prove' much of anything, the onus is on you to present more than scientists handwaving their hands as to why research into a few organisms demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to mutate away from its familial group. eg in breeding, in natures response to climate change, to the deteriorating genome, to the negative effects of epistasis, to an organisms inability to get rid of deleterious mutations quicker than they can accumulate and have done so for billions of years without extinction.

Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.

There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability. The fact that evos can generate hypothesis by using algorithmic magic about why this occurs and how the genome MAY keep adapting is no more than hyperbole and spin doctoring of data in support of a prevailing bias, as research previously posted has spoken to.

In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.

Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042

Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...

Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...

Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106037 Nov 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
More wolf like than deer though, another was like a big rodent.
Please note my qualifier, I said if you go back far enough. Pakicetus clearly was not deer like. Somewhere between pakicetus and therapsids there was a common ancestor for the two, and for us as well. Many creationists could accept animal evolution if human evolution was not part of it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106038 Nov 16, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Again for the umpteenth time I will state that the research demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to adapt. As this data was NOT predicted by evos, the data found requires guesswork to resolve. Their assumption is not data. Hence the data does support my claim, even though it does not say adaptation stopped. The evo hypothesis made of the data is what you are claiming to support TOE and to be unquestionable. You are seriously mind scrambled and deluded by your inculcation into the evo fold on the basis of no more than faith, greater than mine.
Too bad your researchers keep finding the opposite of what they expect. If they actually found what they expected you would have a point. However you are just ranting to save face on forum.
Given no one can 'prove' much of anything, the onus is on you to present more than scientists handwaving their hands as to why research into a few organisms demonstrates LIMITS to an organisms ability to mutate away from its familial group. eg in breeding, in natures response to climate change, to the deteriorating genome, to the negative effects of epistasis, to an organisms inability to get rid of deleterious mutations quicker than they can accumulate and have done so for billions of years without extinction.
Creation is true if the genome is designed to maintain organisms within their familial group/kind. The fact that TOE is challenged by the validation of such a prediction is an added plus.
There is evidence in nature of the genomes limits to adaptability. The fact that evos can generate hypothesis by using algorithmic magic about why this occurs and how the genome MAY keep adapting is no more than hyperbole and spin doctoring of data in support of a prevailing bias, as research previously posted has spoken to.
In gradually deteriorating environments, survival at lethal stress may be procured by prior adaptation to sublethal stress through genetic correlation. Neither the standing genetic variation of small populations nor the mutation supply of large populations, however, may be sufficient to provide evolutionary rescue for most populations.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
There is empirical evidence that the genome has limits to its use of even beneficial mutations in a declining fitness landscape.
Genome deterioration: loss of repeated sequences and accumulation of junk DNA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12188042
Genetic code of human race is deteriorating due to environmental factors
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod...
Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1...
Diminishing Returns Epistasis Among Beneficial Mutations Decelerates Adaptation
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
All data demonstrates an organism has limits to its ability to adapt. Breeders have known it for centuries but scientists don't let a little thing like direct observational evidence get in the way of a great story.
And for the umpteenth time you are misinterpreting your own sources.

That is why I offered to discuss them one at a time. No Gish Gallops allowed. You find articles that say there are limits to how fast evolution can occur.

In other words species cannot evolve overnight and you articles give some of the reasons why. They all support evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#106039 Nov 16, 2013
And here is an excellent article on whale evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

Look at where the nostrils are starting with pakicetus, like we are used to they are at the front of the head. You can see them move back further and further as the species evolve.

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
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 11 min Scarbelly Bob 486
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 13 min SLY WEST 158,126
How to use the rotary dryer? 29 min menglihua 1
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 46 min David0407 5,983
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 1 hr Lumajuice 977
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) 1 hr Nobody 2 Special 241
A Five Letter Word (Jan '12) 1 hr Nobody 2 Special 2,257
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 hr andet1987 27,600
Rest in Peace, Spock 3 hr Super Ego Rob Lowe 342
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Radical Miracle 39,445
More from around the web