What does the fossil record say?

[painted wolf]

So about those pre-Triassic fossil birds then?

or what exactly "bird kind" is?

just to add another awesome fossil... here is Tianyulong an ornithischian dinosaur with... protofeathers. More and more fossils are suggesting that early feather structures were present from the beginning of the dinosaurs.

close up of some of those early feathers

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I wonder what Wilsoncole, her once bestest creationist buddy would say about using a source that attacks his Christian faith as heresy.

Funny how creationists can't even agree on who is a Christian or not.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Your problem is you get way too emotional. As stated before there is no problem in the scientific community when new evidence is brought to light or the understanding of current "scientific" theories are readjusted to conform to new data. Unfortunately the same can not be said for religious text but only those who strive at moving the goal post in an attempt to make their text fit with current knowledge of the natural world. It's not that we don't care about you even though we really don't. I'm just being honest. We don't even know you. We just can't stand the obvious quote mining and misinformation is all. It is not quotemining to emphasise the part that is important to the argument with link provided, champ. This is just a stupid ploy of yours. What is the use of quoting research papers that are book length, without identifying what the hell bit you are speaking too. This 'quotemining' ploy is laughable strategy that you need to let go.​

I am glad you agree that the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. Hence has no predictive power at all. Rather the model changes and evolves.

See what I mean about too emotional and misinformation? No one is having a melt down and I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding this but it's been said plenty of times here to you that the everyday understanding and use of the word "Theory" is completely different than the understanding of a "Scientific Theory". You probably wouldn't experience as much resistance as you do if you knew and understood the difference.​

I know what a scientific theory is. It is just that you do not have one. For a start they are meant to make predictions, not change as predictions expected are not seen.

WRONG. There's no fighting or arguing. Yes there's plenty of contesting of current findings. None of which changes the ToE.​

WRONG..the theory of evolution changes all the time. You have admtted this already -Quote DP"when new evidence is brought to light or the understanding of current "scientific" theories are readjusted to conform to new data." - The theory changes as you say. What remains constant is the presumption of ancestry and that 'life evolved'. TOE in itself, has little predictive power. Chaos theory is further support for the inability of TOE to make predictions. TOE mainly does so in hindsight, which is not predictive at all.

That means the Scientific Method is working perfectly tis all. Quack or weak hypotheses get tossed aside until said scientist can show why it should be taken serious by his or he peers. You have presented nothing that challenges the fossil record in light of your holy scriptures and you and wilson have presented absolutely nothing that challenges the ToE. The bible has never been a good starting point when trying to understand the natural word. The creation narrative is incorrect when it stated man was created and woman created from his genetic material. Honestly, if it gets that wrong why should one bother with the rest?​

I do not need to use the bible. Your own evolutionary sciences provide sufficient ammunition. No a theory is tweked when they say their physicis are a little different in parts of the univers. It is a major overhaul to shove arch in peoples faces and then question is he is a bird ancestor at all. It is a major overhaul to go to punctuated equilibrium, and from knucklewalking ancestors to not. Major changes are evidence of pseudo science that has no robustness like social sciences. Evolutionary science is not a science no matter what the people that make their money out of it think.




You will continue to lose any shred of credibility you have, assuming you have any left, if you continue to post debunked findings such as this as well as supposed human footprints alongside dinosaurs. It smells of desperation on your part. The creationist site you're copying and pasting from is ill-informed.
I would expect your researchers to try to debunk any evidence that they find uncomfortable. The evidence looks good to me.

I am not one of the pretenders that claim credibility. Yet I know heaps more than many here that have been here for longer, claim quals, and still quote outdated information.


Well we're still waiting for you to accomplish this personal task you keep presenting to us. You have displayed nothing that blows the ToE out of the window..... :sarcastic

That's becase nothing will refute TOE, and that is why it is not a real scientific theory. You do know what your real scientist think of the evolutionary sciences when they talk behind closed doors don't you. Pseudo science.
The Scientific Case Against Evolution


Being salty doesn't help you one bit...
Yeah, but I like to give back what I get. So is the guy that is debunking the dino/bird theory still credible. As I said the only difference beween he and I is that he is offereing you an alternative explanation. So this makes him credible, even though he is obviously not satisfied with the staus quo re evidence for the bird/dino line. However, as I am simply dissatisfied but do not have an alternative hypothesis this makes me non credible. Who are you trying to fool? I know bias, hypocricy and unfair treatment, when I see it. This is actually a bad reflection of you all, not I.



PW answered you a few times here in this thread. You keep touting Y-Cromosome and you've been shown to be incorrect in your ranting. The footprints you're harping on the very scientist involved pretty much says the findings are inconclusive and stated the bird like prints shows the bird was most likely not the type of animal that could fly and perch yet your bible states flying birds in one chapter, Adam and Eve shorty thereafter and then Noah sending out doves and ravens. Yet you take issue with prints in a rock. How about getting your time line straight when it comes to "creation".... You haven't found them yet, just like your imaginary common ancestors
Of course your evo researchers would say this is inconclusive. However, the footprints look convincing to me. They caused a cuffuffle as they predate their supposed ancestors, so they say they may have been made by some unknown dino. Just butt covering. These researchers will run around like chooks without heads trying to discredit that which is uncomfortable. However, as seen many times before, your researchers can be wrong and biased, and the evidence appears to be convincing to me and many others. Past performance is the best predictor of future performance, in any field.


Really?....."Terrorist"....Really?............ Yep, that's what hate does to ya.





No one has "modern" day birds placed with dinosaurs.......How does "bird like" translate to "modern" day birds. NO......It's you that has modern day birds placed with dinosaurs and humans existing at the time of dinosaurs. No one but you has suggested such a thing. I do not know. This is your dilemma. You explain it.The bird footprints look like plain old bird footprints and human footprints with dinos, to me. As I say it takes an evolutionary researcher to turn something simple into a mystery when it flys in the face of what they need to see.[/quote]

The evidence I produced is as good as anything you can produce to the contrary. Just because there is dispute and refute, really means nothing.

Does 1% 4% 6% 30% comparative variation between chimps and human all prove we are related?

Foxp2 is found in mammals. FOXP2 serves different functions in the chimp and the human, and other species. It is your reearchers that count such genes as similar, when they are not similar at all, really. Hence I reckon even the 30% difference cited in Wiki Chimp genome project, is an underestimation. Indeed the appearance of similar genes means nothing at all, other than the same design was used to produce radically different kinds and genes used for various functions. I think the difference is much huger, with the similarities being related to environmental factors like disease and eating habits and the resulting RNA expression, rather than ancestral genes.

Why Can't Chimps Speak? Key Differences In How Human And Chimp Versions Of FOXP2 Gene Work

Seriously if you want to hold this faith, that is your choice. I feel the days are long gone where TOE appears to be robust and self supporting as a thoery. I believe it is outdated and those that are skeptical have a right to be so inclined. If creation is not the truth, then you need to go look for some other explantion to account for life, as Darwins version is debunked.

 

[outhouse]

I wonder what Wilsoncole, her once bestest creationist buddy would say about using a source that attacks his Christian faith as heresy.

Funny how creationists can't even agree on who is a Christian or not.

wa:do

There ya go

thats what im talking about

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oh yeah your bird evidence proves that...NOT

No but the evidence is more than enough to show that either birds are from dinosaurs or at the very least share a common ancestor. The evidence is certainly more plausible than what is displayed in your creation narrative which is why scientist don't draw their understanding from it.

Yeah..and they do it on a regular basis. Real science tweaks. Pop science overhauls eg birds.

Nonsense. ALL Sciences change according to new evidence. When I say all I mean every field of science. It's supposed to be that way. Not too long ago in our history the way to treat those suspected of being mentally ill was "electro shock therapy" or labodimizing, now we know a little bit more about the mind to know that those types of procedures are incorrect. There are hundreds of outdated scientific procedures that are no longer used because as we learned more through the scientific method the more we changed. No area boast to be perfect or absolute. Even mathematics is not immune to change.

Where are your common ancestors? They look like bird prints, they aint dino prints, they have been described as modern bird foot prints. So you may debate and aside and still I will have this evidence.

Evidence of what? You're making our case for us and not even realizing it even though we keep telling you that you are. The scientist said the creature was "bird like" and the tracks produce are identical to modern day birds even though the morphology of the creature's tracks show the creature was not like modern day perching birds. This is hardly what your bible says. It speaks of flying birds only and then a few short chapters later we have the "copied" flood narrative speaking of doves and ravens (perching birds).

So long as it makes your dino to bird theory look as ridiculous as it should be I am satisfied.

Desperate are you to make your myths conform to reality is all. Man was not fully formed nor was woman created from the genetic material of a man (nor is it possible). In the case of Adam and Eve, she, at best would be a clone and not a twin. How can a man be cloned and yet produce a female from the cloning process? Those sheep herders, when copying this story and tweaking it, were ignorant to science and had no idea such a ludicrous story, centuries later, would be exposed for the rubbish it is. Yet you, today, take more issue with the ToE and not that nonsense....?

:faint:

 

[Autodidact]

You will continue to lose any shred of credibility you have, assuming you have any left, if you continue to post debunked findings such as this as well as supposed human footprints alongside dinosaurs. It smells of desperation on your part. The creationist site you're copying and pasting from is ill-informed.

Dirty Penguin is so tactful. by "ill-informed" here he actually means "big liar-heads."

 

[newhope101]

Dirty Penguin quote:
No but the evidence is more than enough to show that either birds are from dinosaurs or at the very least share a common ancestor. The evidence is certainly more plausible than what is displayed in your creation narrative which is why scientist don't draw their understanding from it.

Look you believe everything has a common ancestor regardless of the death of LUCA

The point is you lot have shoved arch in my face and now arch may be no one to speak of. In summation you have refuted with crap evidence.

The bird footprints showed modern features, the rest is hypothesis.

Late Triassic "bird-like" footprints from the Santo Domingo Formation in Argentina were reported by Melchor et al (2002). These footprints are very similar to those made by modern birds, with claw marks and a backward-facing toe (the hallux) and many other features that are found in modern bird footprints.
Truth In Science - Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?

Clearly these were some sort of bird that resembles a modern bird, that predate the dinos they were supposed to have evolved from and now your researhers need to go think up some other theory. This is TOE's response to fossil evidence that does not fit the scheme and needs to be reworked and convoluted then backed by alternative myth to 'fit'. When really parsimony suggests that they are simply modern looking birds fully formed that had been around for million of years prior, and further fossils are yet to be found. Simple and parsimonous!

I am telling you, TOE is rubbish and that has been proven time and time again. It is just that the myth believers will hang onto it with their dying breath, just like any good religionist.

No ...there has been way too many overhauls, too much evidence resides in the garbage bin of delusionary evidence past, to take any evidence or refute to creation evidence, seriously.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Funny, newhope accuses Evolutionary Biology to be a religion...because it is not dogmatic?

Oh the irony...

 

[painted wolf]

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is not quotemining to emphasise the part that is important to the argument with link provided, champ. This is just a stupid ploy of yours. What is the use of quoting research papers that are book length, without identifying what the hell bit you are speaking too. This 'quotemining' ploy is laughable strategy that you need to let go.

The act of quoting out of context by copying and pasting from and article etc. to give the impression said article backs your view is not only dishonest but is referred to quote mining (contextomy). You are guilty of it and a lot might I add. But when articles are read in their full context it on a whole does not agree with you.

I am glad you agree that the theory of evolution is a theory in evolution. Hence has no predictive power at all. Rather the model changes and evolves.

Nope. The ToE, like every other Theory, follows the Scientific Method. Creationism doesn't

I know what a scientific theory is. It is just that you do not have one. For a start they are meant to make predictions, not change as predictions expected are not seen.

If you knew what a Scientific Theory was then you would know it was a fact and not a guess as you constantly assert.

WRONG..the theory of evolution changes all the time. You have admtted this already -Quote DP"when new evidence is brought to light or the understanding of current "scientific" theories are readjusted to conform to new data." - The theory changes as you say. What remains constant is the presumption of ancestry and that 'life evolved'. TOE in itself, has little predictive power. Chaos theory is further support for the inability of TOE to make predictions. TOE mainly does so in hindsight, which is not predictive at all.

Yes I did say that. Nothing up to this point changes the fact of Evolution. It's obvious biologist contest each others findings but none of it has destroyed the ToE. The fossil record can't because the ToE is not dependent on the fossil record or even morphology. It remains to be the ToE. All biological findings do nothing but strengthen it and weaken your flawed position that a woman was created from the genetic material of a man.

I do not need to use the bible. Your own evolutionary sciences provide sufficient ammunition.

Your preconceived notion that "God" is the creator is bible based. Your guidelines for creation is bible based. Whether you quote from it and display it here is of no consequence.

No a theory is tweked when they say their physicis are a little different in parts of the univers.

What...????

At any rate, this is wrong.....A theory is adjusted when new evidence is presented for peer review and accepted. If it weren't the case then "creation scientist" would not be trying to get themselves published....

It is a major overhaul to shove arch in peoples faces and then question is he is a bird ancestor at all. It is a major overhaul to go to punctuated equilibrium, and from knucklewalking ancestors to not. Major changes are evidence of pseudo science that has no robustness like social sciences. Evolutionary science is not a science no matter what the people that make their money out of it think.

Yet it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume a god created a woman from the genetic material of a male.....even though the scientific evidence shows it to be impossible....????

Please...!!!!!

I would expect your researchers to try to debunk any evidence that they find uncomfortable.

LOL....!!! It's debunked because most of the stuff presented (i.e. Paluxy footprint) are obvious frauds.

The evidence looks good to me.

I expect it to. You simply don't know that you don't know.......

I am not one of the pretenders that claim credibility. Yet I know heaps more than many here that have been here for longer, claim quals, and still quote outdated information.

We've shown you that even the so-called current data you quote mine says exactly the opposite as to what you assert.

That's becase nothing will refute TOE, and that is why it is not a real scientific theory. You do know what your real scientist think of the evolutionary sciences when they talk behind closed doors don't you. Pseudo science.
The Scientific Case Against Evolution

Lovely....more quote mining....

Yeah, but I like to give back what I get. So is the guy that is debunking the dino/bird theory still credible. As I said the only difference beween he and I is that he is offereing you an alternative explanation. So this makes him credible, even though he is obviously not satisfied with the staus quo re evidence for the bird/dino line. However, as I am simply dissatisfied but do not have an alternative hypothesis this makes me non credible. Who are you trying to fool? I know bias, hypocricy and unfair treatment, when I see it. This is actually a bad reflection of you all, not I.

Shucks, he's offering an alternative that you still don't agree with so what's the point in quoting him? I can accept the understanding that birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor if the evidence pointed to such. The question is could you accepted it or will you still mock and scoff?....:ignore:

You haven't found them yet, just like your imaginary common ancestors
Of course your evo researchers would say this is inconclusive.

Great. As was requested before....Where does this fit?

Really?....."Terrorist"....Really?............ Yep, that's what hate does to ya.

What "hate" are you talking about?

No one has "modern" day birds placed with dinosaurs.......How does "bird like" translate to "modern" day birds. NO......It's you that has modern day birds placed with dinosaurs and humans existing at the time of dinosaurs. No one but you has suggested such a thing.

I do not know. This is your dilemma. You explain it.The bird footprints look like plain old bird footprints and human footprints with dinos, to me. As I say it takes an evolutionary researcher to turn something simple into a mystery when it flys in the face of what they need to see.

You obviously trust the researcher enough to link to his findings. If so you should accept that he said "bird like".....that was incapable of perching. So while the footprints appear to be identical to modern day birds it wasn't from a modern day bird but an animal that was "bird like". You said this was consistent with "creation" but your bible displays birds as flying fully formed birds. We know this "bird like" animal is extinct but your bible says your god commanded (the flying fowl) to be fruitful and multiply. It's no wonder you "don't know".

Just because there is dispute and refute, really means nothing.

Then you and wilson need to stop pretending it does because every-time I read something from you or him it's always....(your researchers don't agree blah, blah blah)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The point is you lot have shoved arch in my face and now arch may be no one to speak of. In summation you have refuted with crap evidence.

I never brought that up so you have the wrong person.

The bird footprints showed modern features, the rest is hypothesis.

Late Triassic "bird-like" footprints from the Santo Domingo Formation in Argentina were reported by Melchor et al (2002). These footprints are very similar to those made by modern birds, with claw marks and a backward-facing toe (the hallux) and many other features that are found in modern bird footprints.
Truth In Science - Did Birds Evolve from Dinosaurs?

Bless your little quote minig heart.......

"Late Triassic "bird-like" footprints from the Santo Domingo Formation in Argentina were reported by Melchor et al (2002). These footprints are very similar to those made by modern birds, with claw marks and a backward-facing toe (the hallux) and many other features that are found in modern bird footprints. However, the authors conclude that "these bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characters". That is, while they acknowledge that these prints have "clearly avian characters" and the most likely conclusion is that these are bird footprints, this is not possible because there are no known Triassic bird fossils. Further, although they acknowledge that there are no known theropod dinosaurs with feet showing these avian characteristics, they maintain that they must have existed. "

This was a bird like animal incapable of perching that is no longer around. Your bible says flying fowl was created and commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The description of the find above hardly describes your creation narrative....

 

[wilsoncole]

So those footprints were found in rock that is older than any rock land animal fossils are found in?



Sorry bud but they're never going to find a fossil of a bird dating to before the existence of land animals.

Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

From your link:

Melchor and team indicate that there are some features that do not correspond to bird morphology, but these are few. One example is the presence of pad impressions in some of the footprints. Other features that might be bird-like, but could be common to other theropods include the wide angles between the second and fourth digits.

Because of these morphological inconsistencies, Melchor and his team are cautious in claiming that they have found evidence of birds or ancestors to birds. "We have a spot in the late Triassic that uncovers the unexpected existence of these animals. There are some debatable findings of footprints in the early Jurassic and late Triassic, true birds and bird-like dinosaurs occur in the late Jurassic, but there is an immense time lapse in between where nothing is known," Melchor says.

Other paleontologists, such as Lockley agree, "The evidence is interesting and these do look like bird tracks, but at the moment we can't know if they are true birds. It's important, however, not to dismiss the track evidence as invalid until the skeletons are found."

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Geotimes - June 2002 - Bird Fossil Feet



Wilson

It's been dealt with already....

 

[newhope101]

I never brought that up so you have the wrong person.

Bless your little quote minig heart.......

"Late Triassic "bird-like" footprints from the Santo Domingo Formation in Argentina were reported by Melchor et al (2002). These footprints are very similar to those made by modern birds, with claw marks and a backward-facing toe (the hallux) and many other features that are found in modern bird footprints. However, the authors conclude that "these bird-like footprints can only be attributed to an unknown group of theropods showing some avian characters". That is, while they acknowledge that these prints have "clearly avian characters" and the most likely conclusion is that these are bird footprints, this is not possible because there are no known Triassic bird fossils. Further, although they acknowledge that there are no known theropod dinosaurs with feet showing these avian characteristics, they maintain that they must have existed. "
Fantastic. You can clearly see the biased thinking. Despite concluding the footprints showed 'modern features' they have countered and coloured the evidence to suit the status quo. And don't foget you already have other researchers saying the dino to bird paradigm is incorrect, anyway, not just little old me. Basically the upshot of it all is your researchers have no idea!

This was a bird like animal incapable of perching that is no longer around. Your bible says flying fowl was created and commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The description of the find above hardly describes your creation narrative...Again I say the fossils are there to be found just like your common ancestors that are just mythical at the moment. You still ignore the fact that they had modern bird features. What do you expect your researchers are going to say when evidence flys in the face of the status quo? The main point here is that your researchers are clearly in debate, there is theoretical evidence for either side, and hence any evidence you produce is tainted with this history

"Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism&#8217;s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin&#8217;s theory while they are learning about the theory&#8217;s strongest claims."
Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York


"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. &#8230; Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."
Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University


"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field&#8217;s real problems."
Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

"Darwinian evolution &#8212; whatever its other virtues &#8212; does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology."
Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection's ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.
Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University


Posted by Robert Crowther on September 22, 2008 1:34 PM

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry


Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008 3:16 PM

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/



So the fact is ... it is not just I and the creationists on RF that have cause for concern.

These researchers do not necessarily believe creation is the answer. However they are skeptical in that TOE does not provide the answers either.

It really comes down to choice. Do you believe in the assertions of TOE despite the pitfalls and inadequacies or not, regardless of religious beliefs.

I have chosen not to have faith in TOE, and I have good reason to do so. I am not ignorant, but have made an informed choice based on the fallibility of your research and the understandings of those more educated in these fields than I.

It is the RF members that criticise creationists unduly that are the ignorant and misguided population here.

 

[outhouse]

what kind of trash have you posted now????

that has nothing to do with fossils????

 

[camanintx]

I have chosen not to have faith in TOE, and I have good reason to do so. I am not ignorant, but have made an informed choice based on the fallibility of your research and the understandings of those more educated in these fields than I.

It is the RF members that criticise creationists unduly that are the ignorant and misguided population here.

I don't have FAITH in the Theory of Evolution either. I BELIEVE it because it explains EVERYTHING that we know about life as it exists on this planet. And I will continue to believe it until someone presents an alternate theory that explains everything that the Theory of Evolution does, and more.

 

[outhouse]

I am not ignorant

you have not proven otherwise

ignorant and misguided

then you should learn

These researchers do not necessarily believe creation is the answer

because its a myth

 

[wilsoncole]

From your link:

wa:do

Desperation!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[painted wolf]

Desperation!


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Ignoring what the actual article says is pretty desperate... it's nice you admit to it.

wa:do