Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   Seven animals that are conspiring with atheist scientists to destroy God   (cracked.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

14583 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 May 2011 at 2:42 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



247 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-05-19 9:01:24 AM  
For the elephants, I'll be interested to see what happens to their populations when their faced with a hard drought again, such that those tusk-less elephants can no longer dig for water and dehydration becomes a danger.
 
2011-05-19 9:03:21 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: jpawlikowski: Apparently, the best time to have a fark discussion on anything related to evolution is between midnight and 3 a.m. Anyways, thanks for the link, subby.

/elephants are fascinating

Bevets has to sleep SOME time.


Let's wake him up.

i249.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-19 9:05:20 AM  

Vast and Trunkless: no love for cows, dogs, or any other domesticated animals who have changed?


There is the occasional love for them, but we only hear about it when someone gets caught.
 
2011-05-19 9:09:24 AM  

dittybopper: Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.


Say what you will about the arrogance of the man-dominates-nature-so-must-tend-to-it worldview that characterized late 1800's conservationists, I'd say they did a damn sight better job at it than we do today. A little more Teddy Roosevelt and sport hunting in the world and a lot less Mother Earth Gaia nonsense and the world's biodiversity would be better off.
 
2011-05-19 9:14:07 AM  

tankjr: Peafowl refers to both male and female with Peahens being the female of the species.



Peahen, eh?

Somehow I was expecting the female form of the peacock to have a much, much more offensive name.
 
2011-05-19 9:15:36 AM  

BreezyWheeze: dittybopper: Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.

Say what you will about the arrogance of the man-dominates-nature-so-must-tend-to-it worldview that characterized late 1800's conservationists, I'd say they did a damn sight better job at it than we do today. A little more Teddy Roosevelt and sport hunting in the world and a lot less Mother Earth Gaia nonsense and the world's biodiversity would be better off.


Doesn't sport hunting artificially impact selection by culling the biggest fittest males in their prime? I thought I read something about very large trophy whitetail getting scarce because of this and average point count is way down.
 
2011-05-19 9:17:23 AM  
Usually I like their lists but that one sucked.
 
2011-05-19 9:19:01 AM  

BreezyWheeze: dittybopper: Don't confuse sport hunting with the other two forms, market hunting and subsistence hunting. Those two tend to result in decreases in targeted species populations.

Say what you will about the arrogance of the man-dominates-nature-so-must-tend-to-it worldview that characterized late 1800's conservationists, I'd say they did a damn sight better job at it than we do today. A little more Teddy Roosevelt and sport hunting in the world and a lot less Mother Earth Gaia nonsense and the world's biodiversity would be better off.


Spot on. The problem isn't the frustrated Teddy Roosevelts of the World. The tiger isn't in danger of becoming extinct because of Chauncy Uppercrust sitting on a howdah taking potshots at him with his trusty Holland and Holland. The far bigger threat is poachers supplying tiger bits to Chinese apothecaries who sell them to limp-dicked men in China.

To be fair, though, habitat loss is probably a bigger problem than poaching for the tiger. Either way, sport hunting wasn't a significant part of their downfall.
 
2011-05-19 9:19:45 AM  

xanadian: Mike Chewbacca: jpawlikowski: Apparently, the best time to have a fark discussion on anything related to evolution is between midnight and 3 a.m. Anyways, thanks for the link, subby.

/elephants are fascinating

Bevets has to sleep SOME time.

Let's wake him up.


Nah, don't bother him. Isn't he supposed to be working on another Cohen brothers film or something?
 
2011-05-19 9:26:07 AM  

untaken_name: Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species.


Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

The most common response to this is that these are "not really" speciations, since "it's still the same kind". This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the theory of evolution works.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral​-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilatera​l-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilatera​l-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.


That said, none of TFA's examples look to involve a speciation event. Contrariwise, it does look like the demarcation between Polar and Grizzly bears wasn't a full species-level divide, but merely a temporary allopatric barrier.
 
2011-05-19 9:32:44 AM  
Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.
 
2011-05-19 9:37:37 AM  
TFA one big div/zero. Natural selection isn't evolution.

abb3w: That said, none of TFA's examples look to involve a speciation event. Contrariwise, it does look like the demarcation between Polar and Grizzly bears wasn't a full species-level divide, but merely a temporary allopatric barrier.


Whatever you say. The rest of us don't have a hard time telling the difference between, say, an animal with wings and one without.

None of the examples in the article involve organisms acquiring new attributes from genetic changes.

The elephants without tusks were already around, there already were moths of that color, etc etc.

The animals are not evolving before our very eyes.
 
2011-05-19 9:39:51 AM  
The babel fish already proved this, right?
 
2011-05-19 9:40:23 AM  

dennerman: Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.


And that distinction is false.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not separate events, they are simply different scales of a single type of event, namely evolution.

talkorigins.orgView Full Size


Macroevolution simply refers to any evolutionary events that occur at or above the species level. Microevolution refers to evolutionary events below the species level.

You can't accept that organisms and populations evolve and then claim there is some imaginary 'barrier' that cannot be broken. If different populations of the same species experience different environmental and reproductive pressures over a sufficient period of time, speciation will occur. To claim it won't is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalalalala!'
 
2011-05-19 9:45:41 AM  

dennerman: Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.


An easier and better definition that's harder to refute is that creationists have no problem with selection for preexisting genetic potential, but have a problem with the likelihood of significant genetic mutation being beneficial.

In other words, it's no big whoop to breed for smaller tusks, black moths, or lizards with no legs, because those are known existing traits asserting themselves, just like the black moths were always possible, just recessive. If the elephant was evolving, for example, hollow tusks that are ALSO linked to canals for easier drinking, or tusks that move down their trunks to be used as weapons, or ANYTHING that you couldn't at any arbitrary point in the elephant's history hit breed some random elephants until you get that trait.

The problem people have with the mutation theory of evolution is that much of the time, the adaptations don't work in isolation. In other words, an owl needs more than a beak to be a woodpecker, it needs different balance, different sensory organs, shock absorbing spaces, different claws and wings, etc etc, and it needs to have the same mutations happen with enough regularity to establish a breeding population.
 
2011-05-19 9:48:43 AM  
The micro/macro thing here really is a holdover from the early days of biology, where it was assumed that each species was specially created by a creator and perfectly adapted to its role. There was no crossover between species, although naturalists understood that there could be quite a bit of variation within a given species. Current creationists have just continued the thought pattern even when a) creation of new species has been observed experimentally and b) we've realized that the entire concept of a fixed species really falls down when you start talking about things like bacteria that merrily toss their genetic info around.

It's really interesting when you study science history, especially the thinking of naturalists around Darwin's time as they are trying to figure out what's going on since these sorts of questions were really hard to answer. My favorite bit is that they could see invasive species flourish in new environments at the expense of native ones. But they also "knew" that organisms were created perfectly adapted for their environment by God. So how do the "perfectly adapted" creations get outcompeted by the invaders?
 
2011-05-19 9:52:42 AM  

untaken_name: Dadoo: untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.

Lizards giving live birth and having a rudimentary placenta isn't macro evolution?

When it becomes its own species or another existing species, that's macro-evolution.

WhyteRaven74: untaken_name: macro-evolution.

Evolution is evolution.

No, it isn't. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is transition between species. Learn some science.


Accepting that changes within a species can eventually lead to new organs within that species, and then claiming that similar changes are incapable of eventually producing an entirely new species is like accepting that walking will get you from your couch to your fridge, and then claiming that walking could never get you from Chicago to New York.
 
2011-05-19 9:57:35 AM  

Brawndo: The babel fish already proved this, right?


babelfish已经证明了此,正确?

Babelfish bewees reeds juist dit?

Das babelfish prüfte bereits dieses, recht?

Το babelfish απέδειξε ήδη αυτό, σωστό;

Le babelfish a déjà prouvé ceci, droit ?

Il babelfish già ha dimostrato questo, di destra?

babelfish は既にこれを、右証明したか。

babelfish는 이미 이것을, 맞았던 증명했는가?

O babelfish já provou este, direito?

Babelfish уже доказало это, право?

¿El babelfish probó ya esto, derecho?
 
2011-05-19 10:00:51 AM  

Jack31081: dennerman: Came here for the micro/macro discussion and am not disappointed. I haven't read through everything as yet but I will. I want to reiterate the point that the creationists, even one as far out there as Ken Hamm, agree that we are constantly observing instances of micro evolution. What they disagree is with the macro side, which if I remember right, they define as species evolving into other species, i.e. apes to man.

And that distinction is false.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not separate events, they are simply different scales of a single type of event, namely evolution.

Macroevolution simply refers to any evolutionary events that occur at or above the species level. Microevolution refers to evolutionary events below the species level.

You can't accept that organisms and populations evolve and then claim there is some imaginary 'barrier' that cannot be broken. If different populations of the same species experience different environmental and reproductive pressures over a sufficient period of time, speciation will occur. To claim it won't is just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalalalala!'


Thanks for the excellent response, but I do have a question or two. And please let me caveat this by saying I'm not a creationist myself, but I do try to understand everyone's facts, theories and viewpoints as best as I can so I can formulate my own world-view.

The question I presume a creationist would put before you is, "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level." The proverbial "missing link" as it were that shows apes evolved to man, or reptiles evolved to birds, etc. (The irony here that is not lost on me is that if you asked a creationist to show that same evidence for the existence of God they would not be able to produce empirical data).

I have no problem with people accepting theories as fact, whether it be the existence of God or Darwin's evolution, I just want to see more cogent arguments made, as you did, by each side, ones that aren't wharblegarbly.
 
2011-05-19 10:16:05 AM  

dennerman: Thanks for the excellent response, but I do have a question or two. And please let me caveat this by saying I'm not a creationist myself, but I do try to understand everyone's facts, theories and viewpoints as best as I can so I can formulate my own world-view.

The question I presume a creationist would put before you is, "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level." The proverbial "missing link" as it were that shows apes evolved to man, or reptiles evolved to birds, etc. (The irony here that is not lost on me is that if you asked a creationist to show that same evidence for the existence of God they would not be able to produce empirical data).

I have no problem with people accepting theories as fact, whether it be the existence of God or Darwin's evolution, I just want to see more cogent arguments made, as you did, by each side, ones that aren't wharblegarbly.


These are the two most readily accessible articles on the subject of observed speciation that I'm aware of:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (new window)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html (new window)

These articles include examples of speciation in plants, insects, mice, fish, etc. both inside labs and in nature.
 
2011-05-19 10:24:35 AM  

dennerman: "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level."


That's like asking to show you the first person who spoke English.
There was no first person. There was no 'break' between one language and the next. Fathers and sons spoke the same language. All we can do is point roughly to a time period where change took place over many generations.

There was no first homo Sapiens who was given birth to by a non-homo Sapiens.
 
2011-05-19 10:27:49 AM  
BreezyWheeze: Say what you will about the arrogance of the man-dominates-nature-so-must-tend-to-it worldview that characterized late 1800's conservationists, I'd say they did a damn sight better job at it than we do today. A little more Teddy Roosevelt and sport hunting in the world and a lot less Mother Earth Gaia nonsense and the world's biodiversity would be better off.

No. The world's biodiversity would be better off if humans self-regulated their population to a sustainable and less-impactful level.

Since that isn't likely to happen, one can but hope for a nice epidemic, soonish.
 
2011-05-19 10:31:02 AM  

CheekyMonkey: Since that isn't likely to happen, one can but hope for a nice epidemic, soonish.


You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?
 
2011-05-19 10:35:00 AM  
Mr Guy:

Very good explanation of the Creationist viewpoint on micro vs. macro-evolution.

dennerman:

Creationists would cite creationnature itself and its wonderful complexity as empirical evidence of God.

This is why people write them off with the "god didit" meme and incorrectly extend that into claims along the lines of "if God did it, then we're done! No need to do any more science." However, a belief in Creationism does not of necessity remove one's natural inquisitive and desire to understand nature.
 
2011-05-19 10:36:33 AM  
I farked your God. It was okay.
 
2011-05-19 10:43:02 AM  

0Icky0: dennerman: "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level."


I don't think you're asking for a speciation "event" so much as an example of where a population gets new genetic material and passes it along and the descendents of that new material branch off into a new species.

A hypothetical might help here.

Say that a butterfly population has genes for red and blue wing pigmentation. Nothing in the population's genetic makeup supports yellow wings.

One day, a butterfly is born with a mutation that allows for yellow wings. But how does it pass it along? It isn't as hard as you might think. All it has to is breed. Its partner does not need the mutation for yellow wings for the offspring to benefit. Over time, after many generations, we have a bunch of yellow-winged butterflies.
 
2011-05-19 10:45:14 AM  

0Icky0: dennerman: "Show me evidence of an evolutionary event that occurred at or above the species level."

That's like asking to show you the first person who spoke English.
There was no first person. There was no 'break' between one language and the next. Fathers and sons spoke the same language. All we can do is point roughly to a time period where change took place over many generations.

There was no first homo Sapiens who was given birth to by a non-homo Sapiens.


It seems you are saying we have to just trust that it happened because we think that it did but no one was documenting it at the time. I could only agree with that statement if it were the case that all species evolution took place before the start of recorded history and probably more specifically of taxonomy. Has there been nothing since then? (I haven't yet clicked on the links Jack31081 just posted but I will).
 
2011-05-19 10:46:18 AM  

God-is-a-Taco: That said, the elephant thing intrigues me most of all.
Elephants are remarkably intelligent, but I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than "last man on Earth" type scenario.


^THIS.

Keep poaching the elephants with tusks and the percentage of elephants without tusks increases. NOT evolution.

That's like saying kill all the other races and humans have evolved to be white.
 
Ant
2011-05-19 10:49:53 AM  

untaken_name: Wake me up when you have some macro-evolution.


Sleep for about a million years.

separation + natural selection + time = speciation
 
2011-05-19 10:52:38 AM  
i29.photobucket.comView Full Size


/Lizard destroying God.
 
2011-05-19 10:54:17 AM  
GilRuiz1: You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?

Yes, the word "hope" is there for effect. You are correct - I certainly don't go around hoping for the deaths of billions of people.

That being said, however, I'm able to separate my emotions from logic: Biodiversity, and the biosphere, would be better off the human population was reduced to, and maintained at, a fraction of it's current value.
 
Ant
2011-05-19 10:55:43 AM  

Minus1Kelvin: God-is-a-Taco: Even God is evolving!

That statement is truer than you may have intended...

/religions evolve too...


...and many have gone extinct
 
2011-05-19 10:59:30 AM  
cchris_39: That's like saying kill all the other races and humans have evolved to be white.

And what is incorrect about that? Have the allele frequencies of a population not changed if a significant number of the carriers of certain alleles are wiped out?
 
2011-05-19 11:01:56 AM  
cchris_39: Keep poaching the elephants with tusks and the percentage of elephants without tusks increases. NOT evolution.

Regardless of the fact that you are ignoring the portion of the article where it points out that the number of tuskless elephants being born has increased in some areas from the historical 3-5% to upwards of 38%, it IS evolution. Evolution doesn't care that the mechanism for natural selection in this case is poachers finding elephants with tusks more attractive.

There is no "humans caused it" exception in the definition of natural selection. Humans are part of nature (even though many humans like to see themselves as outside of nature), and as such, can be a cause of the pressures that drive natural selection.
 
2011-05-19 11:10:14 AM  
abb3w: ...lots of words...

You obviously haven't gotten to the punchline yet.
 
2011-05-19 11:13:30 AM  

xkillyourfacex: None of the examples in the article involve organisms acquiring new attributes from genetic changes.

The elephants without tusks were already around, there already were moths of that color, etc etc.

The animals are not evolving before our very eyes.


So, you're discounting the article because it's not about the FIRST tuskless elephant? Yes, the genes are already in the population. The examples shown concern the spread of said gene through the population...a necessary element of evolution.

The population is evolving before our very eyes, not the individual animals. You seem to be looking for single mutations, but that's only the very first step of evolution.
 
2011-05-19 11:16:31 AM  
Wow.. very good posts so far

/golf clap
/yay for no Bevets yet.
 
2011-05-19 11:18:38 AM  

GilRuiz1: CheekyMonkey: Since that isn't likely to happen, one can but hope for a nice epidemic, soonish.

You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?


....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.
 
2011-05-19 11:19:05 AM  
"And so tuskless elephants, being a dead giveaway of the interference of god, disproved the existance of god, who dissapeared into a puff of logic"

cchris_39: Keep poaching the elephants with tusks and the percentage of elephants *born* without tusks increases. NOT Evolution!

That's like saying kill all the other races and humans have evolved to be white.


ftfy

How Evolution Works.

Species make lots of random variation then the environment kills everything that does not survive the evolutionary pressures which leaves only the organisms selected by evolution. If all people with non-white skin were killed before they could breed then the next generation simply would not have the genes for non-white skin so humanity would have evolved to be white. Thgis means instead of something like 30% (I have no idea of the real value) of babies being white 100% would be white. Are you Richard Dawkins? You understand evolution very well.
 
2011-05-19 11:19:43 AM  

WTF Indeed: Sorry Subby, but Catholic God says evolution is real and God's will.


Pretty much this. Evolution is an elegant method, and God invented it.


/(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)
 
2011-05-19 11:21:00 AM  

ninjakirby: GilRuiz1: CheekyMonkey: Since that isn't likely to happen, one can but hope for a nice epidemic, soonish.

You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?

....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.


Well, obviously hoped-for supernatural disasters don't count. Duh. ;)
 
2011-05-19 11:21:58 AM  

bookman: Pretty much this. Evolution is an elegant method, and God invented it.


/(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)


Why do you insist on thinking in stereotypes. Don't you know that's a sign of an inferior mind?
 
2011-05-19 11:22:39 AM  

ninjakirby: ....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.



Well, those are them crazy knuckle-dragging, stone-age, religious fools who believe in sky fairies. I was referring to smart, scientific, progressive, enlightened, atheists who have real morality and true values. Those people don't want to see mass epidemics where billions perish, right?
 
2011-05-19 11:23:27 AM  

GilRuiz1: You're saying that for effect, right? Because nobody hopes for a natural disaster where billions of human beings will die, right?


I do. I don`t mind if I am one of them either. Technically I hope for a man made disaster that kills billions, it has less chance of killing everything else.

Although now you can`t say nobody hopes for it, only a few people.
 
2011-05-19 11:25:36 AM  
Um subby.

ALL living things are conspiring with those atheist scientists to destroy god.

They still haven't gotten over being stuck on an Ark with a very frisky Ham.
 
2011-05-19 11:30:44 AM  
le *sigh* {-- with extra drama queen goodness, for effect* see pic below

Well, this will either be a concern troll in the boobies

-or-

it will be a concern troll pining for the fjords bevets in the boobies


If I were a betting woman...

:D
:D:D
:D:D:D

2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


stand back people, give her some air
 
2011-05-19 11:36:17 AM  

GilRuiz1: ninjakirby: ....Saturday called. It wanted me to ask if you'd seen the news lately.


Well, those are them crazy knuckle-dragging, stone-age, religious fools who believe in sky fairies. I was referring to smart, scientific, progressive, enlightened, atheists who have real morality and true values. Those people don't want to see mass epidemics where billions perish, right?


There was that one nut-case. Discovery channel, you sound butt-hurt, btw.

Though, once again you'd be using categories wrong, while being or not being an atheist I doubt it has much to do with his or her other philosophies that are at cause, as in but for y, for such craziness. Leaving one to question why you'd bother with saying 'athiest' at all and totally left out eco-activist/extremist?
 
2011-05-19 11:42:09 AM  

bookman: /(Sorry, just want to see lib heads explode.)


I don't know how that's supposed to work since you just quoted a lib.
 
2011-05-19 11:43:53 AM  

GilRuiz1: Actual photo of the conspiracy:


hmm, i guess we will always have the chewbacca defense

since eventually we are going to figure out that the only people that are falling for concern trolls are other troopers :D

whoops lulz

*shakes angry fist at poe's trooper law*
 
2011-05-19 11:44:08 AM  
imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.