Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Interesting Stuff Thread

13567…132

Comments

  • #102
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    New improved Irish Humanist website:

    www.humanism.ie

    Includes info on the commonly asked questions regarding weddings and funerals for non-believer types.


  • #103
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    One step closer to Godzilla...

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081007-super-worms.html


  • #104
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Galvasean wrote: »
    One step closer to Godzilla...

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081007-super-worms.html

    Niches for the win. That's an interesting read, cheers Galv.


  • #105
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    The most interesting article I have read in a long time.

    A community of the bacteria Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator has been discovered 2.8 kilometres beneath the surface of the Earth in fluid-filled cracks of the Mponeng goldmine in South Africa.

    "Virtually all other known ecosystems on Earth that don't use sunlight directly do use some product of photosynthesis.

    Chivian's analysis shows that D. audaxviator gets its energy from the radioactive decay of uranium in the surrounding rocks. It has genes to extract carbon from dissolved carbon dioxide and other genes to fix nitrogen, which comes from the surrounding rocks. Both carbon and nitrogen are essential building blocks for life as we know it, and are used in the building blocks of proteins, amino acids. D. audaxviator has genes to produce all the amino acids it needs.

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14906-goldmine-bug-dna-may-be-key-to-alien-life.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14906


  • #106
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    marco_polo wrote: »
    The most interesting article I have read in a long time.

    A community of the bacteria Candidatus Desulforudis audaxviator has been discovered 2.8 kilometres beneath the surface of the Earth in fluid-filled cracks of the Mponeng goldmine in South Africa.

    "Virtually all other known ecosystems on Earth that don't use sunlight directly do use some product of photosynthesis.

    Chivian's analysis shows that D. audaxviator gets its energy from the radioactive decay of uranium in the surrounding rocks. It has genes to extract carbon from dissolved carbon dioxide and other genes to fix nitrogen, which comes from the surrounding rocks. Both carbon and nitrogen are essential building blocks for life as we know it, and are used in the building blocks of proteins, amino acids. D. audaxviator has genes to produce all the amino acids it needs.

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14906-goldmine-bug-dna-may-be-key-to-alien-life.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14906

    Gives us a much greater hope of finding such microbial life on another planet.


  • #107
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    'Missing link' fossil stuck its neck out

    It didn't just have protolimbs, it had a mobile neck as well. More details have emerged about the anatomy of Tiktaalik, the "fishopod" that bridges the gap in evolutionary history between swimming fish and four-legged land-dwelling animals. The new findings bolster its position as a key transition or "missing link" fossil.
    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missing-link-fossil-stuck-its-neck-out.html


  • #108
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    50 reasons to believe in God

    http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=50_reasons_to_believe_in_god

    ... and their Atheist responses.


  • #109
    sdep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Evolution pops up all over boards. A while ago, the idea of a dedicated evolutionary forum was floated, but it didn't come to pass. If it had, I expect evo threads would still spring up in lots of different forums anyway.

    My way of keeping track is searching recent posts for a bunch of evolutionary terms, then tagging any relevant new threads with 'evolution'. There are quite a few now - see here - and there could be more, as much of what's posted in palaeontology fits the bill.

    So if you find any good threads you'd like to flag, then great - it'll give me something to read anyway.

    (PS - not all are of my doing - e.g. the 'pro evolution soccer' thread)


  • #110
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    *tags random threads with 'evolution' * :pac:


  • #111
    sdep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Dave! wrote: »
    *tags random threads with 'evolution' * :pac:

    Well yes, it could happen. I hope Ken Ham isn't a boards member.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    You may notice a new addition with a thread from the Ladies' Lounge :D


  • #113
    sdep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Dave! wrote: »
    You may notice a new addition with a thread from the Ladies' Lounge :D

    Sexual selection / female choice - all grist to the mill. Not sure I've time to read it all - could you do up an abstract?


  • #114
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    sdep wrote: »
    Evolution pops up all over boards. A while ago, the idea of a dedicated evolutionary forum was floated, but it didn't come to pass.

    Yes, that was my baby. :(

    Maybe if I'd pushed for an Evolution Versus Creationism angle it might have seemed more feasible. I dunno.


  • #115
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Yes, that was my baby. :(

    Maybe if I'd pushed for an Evolution Versus Creationism angle it might have seemed more feasible. I dunno.

    Don't mention the war.


  • #116
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    My favourite evolutionary biologist is on TV Monday night (15th Dec). Jared Diamond is presenting the TV series of Guns, Germs & Steel on the History Channel. Here's hoping it's half as good as the book! I've already got it set to record on Sky+ as a series link.


  • #117
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Cool. I consider his thesis to be the best explanation as to why we exist in the world we do today.


  • #118
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Another piece of History Channel fun I get to miss on account of having a half-assed TV package.

    At least my broadband is incredibly awesome.


  • #119
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Another piece of History Channel fun I get to miss on account of having a half-assed TV package.

    At least my broadband is incredibly awesome.

    I'd imagine it will show up on a torrent somewhere. Keep an eye out.


  • #120
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Jared Diamond is presenting the TV series of Guns, Germs & Steel on the History Channel. Here's hoping it's half as good as the book!
    In all fairness to young Diamond, he's a cracking cultural and evolutionary psychologist, but he's not a great presenter. The book's much better.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    PDN wrote: »
    My favourite evolutionary biologist

    Liar! You don't have a favourite evolutionary biologist. You can't have one. You... you... you're a Christian! :pac:


  • #122
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=jared+diamond+guns+germs+and+steel&emb=0&aq=1&oq=jared+dia#

    :)

    Or the playlist itself:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/bfq3000


  • #123
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Can evolution reverse itself? Apparently so:

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547686/

    100th post in thread, woo!


  • #124
    sdep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Can evolution reverse itself? Apparently so:

    http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547686/

    100th post in thread, woo!

    Looks interesting, thanks. Seems to show that when your wings mutate away, you can't get them back by Ctrl-Z rolling back all the changes.


  • #125
    Tyler MacDurden
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    http://itn.co.uk/news/1d90da3baeeee42c5b1292419390291a.html

    Somewhat disturbing poll from the UK. As usual, reported in such a vague manner that it can be spun to suit any agenda. I haven't yet located the original stats on the Ipsos MORI website, but hey, no-one's interested in bare facts anymore. :rolleyes:
    Creationism 'should be taught in schools'
    Updated 06.50 Tue Dec 23 2008

    Three in ten science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey.

    And more than a third of primary and secondary teachers in general believe that the subject should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory.

    The Ipsos Mori poll of more than 900 primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales found that while nearly half believe it should not be taught in science lessons, two thirds agree that creationism should be discussed in schools.

    This rises to three quarters of teachers with science as their subject specialism.

    Two in three science specialists do not think that creationism should be taught in science lessons.

    But few teachers think creationism as an idea should be dismissed outright.

    Just one in four agree with a view expressed by Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University that "creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought."

    Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: "Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of 'theory', but also to acknowledge that - regardless of, or even despite, "the science" - pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs."

    Prof Higgins said: "Creationism, as an alternative to the evolution of species, has long been thoroughly discredited by rigorous analysis of data.

    "Of course, if a pupil raises it as a hypothesis then a brief discussion as to why creationism is wrong might be appropriate as part of an education in intellectual integrity and rational thought.

    "But it would undermine any educational system to purposefully teach discredited ideas which are now only perpetuated through ignorance or flawed thinking - one might as well teach astrology, flat earthism, alchemy or a geocentric universe."

    © Independent Television News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.


  • #126
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Little bit on beaked whale evolution if anyone is interested. Apparently the beak is 'sexy':

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081219-beaked-whale-missions.html


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    thought this was a good list of commonly held Atheist myths

    http://www.atheists.org/Top_Ten_Atheist_Myths


  • #128
    sdep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭sdep


    The BBC are going big on Darwin, starting tomorrow at 9am on Radio 4. For those with suitable viewing equipment, the evolution will be televised.

    Full details at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/darwin/


  • #129
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    I don't have BBC, grr.


  • #130
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    In all fairness to young Diamond, he's a cracking cultural and evolutionary psychologist, but he's not a great presenter. The book's much better.

    Zounds! For once I'm in agreement with Robin. I've loved all of Diamond's books but his voice has got to be the most annoying I've ever heard.

    The 3 part TV series skimmed through the main points of Guns, Germs & Steel competently enough, but I'm glad I'd read the book first.

    The only original bit was where Diamond was in a childrens hospital in Zambia watching kids dying of malaria. As the nurse was matter-of-factly discussing how many of the children could expect to survive Diamond broke down in tears. As he said after the break, "It's one thing to discuss this things from an academic standpoint - but seeing the reality is different." Very moving.

    BTW, Robin, if you describe Jared Diamond as 'young' then you must be in Methusaleh territory!


  • #131
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    sdep wrote: »
    For those with suitable viewing equipment, the evolution will be televised.

    If it's on TV, it must be true! Someone tell J C!


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    bou
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 158 ✭✭bou


    Happened across a video speed tour of evolution of spiecies / clades.
    http://www.wimp.com/newinfo
    Don't know if this was posted before.

    Edit: The video comes from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc where there are a bunch of other ones by same guy, AronRa


  • #133
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

    Links to the other books are at he top of the page.

    Its a very handy resource when you need to pull scripture in a pinch (Judges 19:24 is a personal favorite). The annotations are often quite funny too.


  • #134
    oshead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭oshead


    bou wrote: »
    Happened across a video speed tour of evolution of spiecies / clades.
    http://www.wimp.com/newinfo
    Don't know if this was posted before.

    That's brilliant.... :D

    Dave OS


  • #135
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    I posted this over in BC&P...

    We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

    I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".


  • #136
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I posted this over in BC&P...

    We were discussing abiogenesis a few pages ago and I suggested that a viable first "replicator" would be self-replicating RNA molecules. For the first time, a lab in California are about to publish the synthesis of just such a molecule. Self-replicating and also evolving by natural selection according to one of the two basic selective pressures I also mentioned: replication rate. The molecules compete for nucleotides in their growth environment and the molecules which replicate fastest due to induced mutations prevail over the others.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

    I've yet to read the primary paper which will be appearing in Science, but this is an historic finding. It does not prove that RNA life was the means by which abiogenesis occurred of course, and nor does it really simulate the process as it would have occurred (the strands are synthesised by people and mutations were induced- albeit randomly- by people). But it is a beautiful proof of concept. Simple self-replicating molecule can exist, and their frequencies change in response to natural selection. The complex cellular machinery associated with higher life is not needed at "step 1".


    Can we call that a win then?


  • #137
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Can we call that a win then?

    You never truly win. you just get a little closer each time.


  • #138
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Can we call that a win then?

    Until we have the process mapped out from broth of nucleotides up to protocell, probably not. I'm certain creationists will pick this one apart- any flaw at all will be a reason to dismiss the work in its entirety.

    As it is (I haven't read the paper yet), I can see points they'll attack. In particular, the replication process is simplified; the sequences are not generated from scratch but from large fragments that are ligated together. What we really want to see is self replication from a broth of single nucleotides which get polymerised into new sequences. But this is a step in that direction. What is ultimately needed is not just a self-replicating RNA polymerase ribozyme, but some demonstration of how RNA nucleotides can get to that point. Ribozymes such as the one demonstrated in this paper may be the key to that, it may be a gradual step-up.


  • #139
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-tJKP1bWFw


  • #140
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4330132/Charles-Darwins-research-to-prove-evolution-was-motivated-by-his-desire-to-end-slavery.html

    I think the moral significance of this for Evolutionists/Atheists is clear. A good non-religious reason for the people who rejected Darwin at the time.


  • #141
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4330132/Charles-Darwins-research-to-prove-evolution-was-motivated-by-his-desire-to-end-slavery.html

    I think the moral significance of this for Evolutionists/Atheists is clear.

    Well, that can put an end to people citing that "Darwin was a racist" as a legitimate reason to not believe in evolution.

    Who am I kidding? No it wont.
    Not that Darwin's own morals have any bearing on the validity of his theory.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/4330132/Charles-Darwins-research-to-prove-evolution-was-motivated-by-his-desire-to-end-slavery.html

    I think the moral significance of this for Evolutionists/Atheists is clear. A good non-religious reason for the people who rejected Darwin at the time.

    It's interesting, though I wonder how compelling the evidence of such a motive actually is. It would be easy to cherry pick quotes from Darwin's journals to support many positions, so I'd be interested in seeing how they treat the sources as a whole, whether they were systematic in their research and how those views sit in context. The creationists love to quote Darwin out of context, so I'd hate to see academics doing the same. I'll certainly be buying the book!


  • #143
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    New TV show on Nat Geo about evolution starting soon:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055481973

    Plenty of other cool evolution related stuff in that neck of the woods too (shameless plug) including evidence that early whales gave birth on land and a curious 'appendage'.


  • #144
    ZondaChai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ✭ZondaChai


    I agree with evolution and all that but one thing has been bothering me that mabey you guys can clear up

    If you have two birds, one in the jungle and one in the desert, over time they will evolve to look completely different because of different surroundings.
    Now if you take two people, a nomad in the desert and a tribesman in the jungle, how come they look identical besides colour, and are anatomically exact. Should the tribesman not evolve to have limbs more adapt to climbing trees and the nomad have skin more suited to water retention

    Or am I severly overestimating evolution, is it that humans havent been here long enough for any significant mutations.


  • #145
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    Or am I severly overestimating evolution, is it that humans havent been here long enough for any significant mutations.

    Bingo, answered your own question, but there is more to it.

    What is interesting about our species is that we no longer rely upon our physical bodies to do work. We build specialised tools to suit all situations so we do not face the same pressures that all other lifeforms face and these are the pressures that drive evolution. So in effect we have stopped evolving to a certain extent.


  • #146
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    I agree with evolution and all that but one thing has been bothering me that mabey you guys can clear up

    If you have two birds, one in the jungle and one in the desert, over time they will evolve to look completely different because of different surroundings.
    Now if you take two people, a nomad in the desert and a tribesman in the jungle, how come they look identical besides colour, and are anatomically exact. Should the tribesman not evolve to have limbs more adapt to climbing trees and the nomad have skin more suited to water retention

    Or am I severly overestimating evolution, is it that humans havent been here long enough for any significant mutations.

    Skin colour is a significant mutation (or to be more exact a whole long list of mutational changes)

    But yes, in the over arching story of the planet humans are but a foot note. We have not been around that long and we are all quite similar to each other genetically. Come back in 2 million years to see how different branches of humanity have evolved.


  • #147
    ZondaChai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ✭ZondaChai


    Another thing I was thinking about, has our culture killed off natural evolution aswell. If a man was born with three fully working arms, he would be superior to a normal man, but because of our social tendencies, we would say things like "hey look, it's Fred the freak" or "Dont touch me with any of those", poor Fred would never get a chance to carry on his genes, because it would be hard for him to find a woman who doesn't reject him for his difference. The same can be said for all people with genetic mutations, socially we cast them outside the herd.


  • #148
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    Another thing I was thinking about, has our culture killed off natural evolution aswell. If a man was born with three fully working arms, he would be superior to a normal man, but because of our social tendencies, we would say things like "hey look, it's Fred the freak" or "Dont touch me with any of those", poor Fred would never get a chance to carry on his genes, because it would be hard for him to find a woman who doesn't reject him for his difference. The same can be said for all people with genetic mutations, socially we cast them outside the herd.

    What you have just described is a sub process of natural selection called sexual selection and it is going to be the main factor in the future evolution of our species. It is also perfectly natural and plays a role in all complex animals to a greater or lesser extent.


  • #149
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ZondaChai wrote: »
    If a man was born with three fully working arms, he would be superior to a normal man, but because of our social tendencies, we would say things like "hey look, it's Fred the freak" or "Dont touch me with any of those", poor Fred would never get a chance to carry on his genes, because it would be hard for him to find a woman who doesn't reject him for his difference. The same can be said for all people with genetic mutations, socially we cast them outside the herd.

    I'm sure red heads will be trilled to learn that :pac:

    Seriously though, mutations are not really "Ms here is a your health baby boy ... with two heads"

    The majority of evolutionary changes that have been studied in humans in the last 100 years or so (since we started paying attention), have been to do with things like disease resistance and ability to process different foods.

    It is also important to remember everyone has mutations in them. The jock who impregnated 20 cheer leaders in school had mutations in him


  • #150
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The jock who impregnated 20 cheer leaders in school had mutations in him

    Sperm capable of drilling through rubber?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Sperm capable of drilling through rubber?

    lol :D


Advertisement