Aliens, Exist or Dont

[Green Baron]

18 minutes ago, Urses said:

 

This said there found some anaerob bakterias with 200°C+ too.

I have to search the Source if somebody is interested, but need some legwork.

Please ! Highly interested :-)

 

[Urses]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Please ! Highly interested :-)

 

Here you go. I don't find anything on english but we a have a Trail now (Psst im officaly at Work XD)

https://books.google.de/books?id=_MfhBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217&dq=leben+in+unterwasservulkanen&source=bl&ots=ICRrByOepg&sig=zNgbPZ7jSVPHQ0eDN6XGOSmBPd8&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW1eiF0fbSAhXBCiwKHTAhCMIQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=leben in unterwasservulkanen&f=false

Edited March 27, 2017 by Urses

[KerikBalm]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

DNA/RNA sophistics. 
Of course, I meant (D/R)NA as a whole thing. DNA doesn't work without RNA, and has appeared from it.

If you meant it, then say it. Say nucleic acid. Most people don't know what RNA is or that it can be hereditary material.

 

Quote

Titan has life?

Who knows, but if it does, it certainly won't have nucleic acids as its hereditary material.

Quote

Grandpa. Pa's pa.

Maybe you should avoid such strange and non-technical language in a technical subject.

Quote

Let's have a look.

I'm not sure what your point is here? that other life will have DNA/RNA as its hereditary material? If that is your point, its flawed.

You very quickly get from benzene to a more complex set of bases... ignoring that purines/pyrimidines are just a part of the larger nucleic acid unit... Who says they'll be attached to deoxyriboses with a phosphate linkage?

"Just a benzene with two Ns instead of two (CH). A very primitive and common thing." And if there was just one N? and if there were none (as in the benzene example)? And if the sugar isn't deoxy ribose? if its not a sugar backbone at all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_nucleic_acid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid

Yes, CHON is common in the universe... that doesn't mean all life will use DNA, or your "expanded" definition of it to include RNA.

 

 

Quote

Uracil with CH2 group attached to one of Os. 
Just a methylated uracil, nothing more. That's what I meant as "an ill uracil" sounds poetic btw.

Maybe you should try to be accurate rather than poetic... I don't think anyone could decipher that an "ill Uracil" means a Uracil with a CH2 attached.

 

Quote

So, as you can see, if avoid magically sounding names, all this stuff is made of most cheap and common pieces of organic (and nitrogenic) junk

Maybe you should try to be accurate rather than poetic... what is this "magically" BS? 

 

Quote

Of course, there are other variants to pollute the diazine molecula with ammonia and methylic wastes, and sure a DNA/RNA can survive if add/replace some of them instead of AGCTU.
(Though they had all chances on the Earth, as AGCTU had, but not survived IRL, giving us a hint not to bet much money on the alternatives).

This may be true, but we can't be certain. DNA and RNA may form as a result of convergent evolution on other worlds. Its been suggested that DNA/RNA's strong absorption in the 254nm UV range is not a coincidence and coincides with a "UV window" in earth's atmosphere if it lacked Ozone (as it did before the GOE) - that this strong absorbance was actually beneficial/selected for when life was starting. If this was a relevant factor in the evolution of life Other planets with different stars that have different emissions spectra, different atmospheric compositions, etc... then a different molecule may result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_window

 

Quote

Earth bioreactor operates for ~4 bln years. Most of this time it procrastinated with unicellulars and other junk. 
Something practically significant appeared just about 300 mln years ago, while something enough dense and compact to deal with it personally - just several tens millions ago. 
98% of the Earth life existance this "life" was clots of slime in dirty pool. And that's in ideal for organic life evolution conditions.

I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of innovation that was taking place in those ~3.5 billion years before the "cambrian explosion" which is what I think you are referring too. To dismiss it as "junk" implies to me that you don't understand the subject very well.

I'm not quite certain what you are referring to 300 million years ago though.... that's the start of the Permian period. The land was forrested, fish had crawled out of the sea and grown legs. Vascular plants were on land 100 million years earlier in the Silurian, and tetrapods were walking around land ~60 million years earlier as well.

Even assuming you were referring the the cambrian explosion some 540 million years ago... that overlooks the Ediacaran biota, with fossils like sprigginia and charnodiscus proving that multicellular life had been around for quite some time before the Cambrian. If Kimberella is a stem mollusc as it appears to be, then not only had animals already split into porifera, bilateria, cnideria, etc, but bilateria had split into proterostomes and deuterostomes.

 

Quote

There should be many planets with algae, bacteria and mildew. 
First hundred of them the super-civ would enthusiastically listing them, matching every junkazoid with its (...)NA code. And trying to reproduce and optimize.Did you ever play Spore or No Man's Sky? That's exactly how should the super-civ bilogists feel studying 101st planet.
After 200th "living" planet they should evade from dull and useless field trips at any cost, quckly synthesizing random creatures in their lab vats as anyway nobody cares and see a difference.

Nope, haven't played those, though I've seen videos of NMS, and citing them does not advance your argument one bit. Everytime a unique biochemistry is encountered, I'm sure it would generate a lot of interest. They would have to be pretty advanced to generate new biochemistries "from the ground up", and then design new enzymes for those new biochemistries. Why would they create new creatures anyway? what is their motivation. If they are merely collecting and using resources: theres plenty of material on bodies that do not host life, and given that design and computation has physical constraints that cannot be magically waived - they'd be pretty stupid to not study the results of a multibillion year large scale natural bioreactor before consuming the products.

Quote

Simultaneously, no doubt, they will do their best with the Earth creatures (including human bodies) re-engineering, making such perfect super-beasts that they would just need no more wildlings to study something new.

And you can watch Prometeus movie to see what they be. Alien Engineers don't need inferior beings DNA, they make themselves what they want.

 Prometheus was terrible, and should not be the basis for any argument.

[kerbiloid]

 

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Who knows, but if it does, it certainly won't have nucleic acids as its hereditary material.

And if the Moon does, we should now consider with rocky golems.
Occam, scientific method, so on...

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I'm not sure what your point is here?

My point here is when you have a limited set of possible primitives, you have limited number of combinations, with even lesser number of lesser ones.
In fact, IRL we have 4₊₁ really used blocks for any case. We can presume that not only they could (and afaik they can artificially insert several tens of nucleic compound into already existing *NA), but by some reasons only they have been selected by the evoultion and unlikely you can just put a random small molecula instead of them.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

You very quickly get from benzene to a more complex set of bases

Complex? They are just benzene (well, diazine) ring with the most primitive and common (NH2, CH3, O) short tails. Petrol is many times more complex than this.
Unikely you can replace two more C with N and wait that it works. More probable, that price/efficiency ratio is optimal for something very close to these AGCTU compounds.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

that doesn't mean all life will use DNA, or your "expanded" definition of it to include RNA.

Ok, to confess, I'll name them *NA, like *NIX systems.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Maybe you should try to be accurate rather than poetic...

Ok, thymine is a healthy but methylized uracil.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

what is this "magically" BS

Chemical compound names should be considered as a special kind of high poetry. They sound really charming.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

DNA and RNA may form as a result of convergent evolution on other worlds.

DNA and RNA themselves are just sequences of 4₊₁ primitive blocks of the same genesis. 4 polluted versions of 1,3-diazine.
Unlikely this is just a coincidence. But even if, the science usually studies facts, not arbitrary assumptions. Fact is that nothing more could into *NA here on Earth.
Also unlikely aliens use carbonic acid instead of petrol, though theoretically we can invent such conditions.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Other planets with different stars that have different emissions spectra,

No problem, maybe they will have CH2 or O instead of NH2 in one of these moleculas. Unlikely hi-tech civ would be astonished.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of innovation that was taking place in those ~3.5 billion years

I'm quite sure that a hi-tech civ would have no problem with synthesizing several thousands of prokaryotes, farce them with each other, call this eukaryotes and breed very different kinds in desired ways.
That's what the Nature mostly was doing first 3 bln years.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

300 million years ago

Something more complex than a fish and an insect, able to live on ground and learn, build solid things rather than just nests of air bubbles.
As this had happened, the evolution has accelerated for several orders of magnitude.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Everytime a unique biochemistry is encountered, I'm sure it would generate a lot of interest.

While it's "unique".
You don't need to collect results from all casinos in the world to build your own roulette and begin playing.
There are numerous variants of poker, but you don't need to know all of them to play yourself.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

They would have to be pretty advanced to generate new biochemistries "from the ground up", and then design new enzymes for those new biochemistries.

A typical argument of creationists. "Do you believe that throwing up stones you can build a house?"
They already have all mentioned by you and will have much more studying the first several living planets. The more they know - the less they study new, the more they study from their own experiments, not from random attempts of evolution.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

Why would they create new creatures anyway? what is their motivation.

Why would they study existing ones? What is their motivation?
Scientific method assumes that any experiment must be reproducible. The only way to ensure we understand the Nature - to reproduce it's creatures using the developed theory.
Otherwise the countless butterflies died under needles for nothing.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

If they are merely collecting and using resources: theres plenty of material on bodies that do not host life, and given that design and computation has physical constraints that cannot be magically waived - they'd be pretty stupid to not study the results of a multibillion year large scale natural bioreactor before consuming the products.

Keyword: daisyworld.
Life is a stabilizing agent, a high-order chemical utility. It's a negative loopback supressing any deviations from average.
Before the plants have appeared, water and wind were scratching mountains, making them canyons,
The northern bogs consume the atmospheric carbon and bury it under ground, while plants renew the oxygen. All these things keeps conditions on the planet surface stable.
(Btw this was nicely implemented in Spore game.)
If you want a nice, stable planet rather than one more Mordor, you must set its biosphere, i.e. organize the matter exchange loop of higher orders,

So, if you are a hi-tech civ, have a livable planet, have a plenty of specialized lifeforms you'd created millenia before, you won't bother with studying several more families of bacteria.
You sterilize the place (to avoid unpredictable contamination) and place the biosphere of your own.

(Sad, but I think 'm sure that humans will have to do this right on the Earth a century later).

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

 

Earth bioreactor operates for ~4 bln years. Most of this time it procrastinated with unicellulars and other junk. 
Something practically significant appeared just about 300 mln years ago, while something enough dense and compact to deal with it personally - just several tens millions ago. 
98% of the Earth life existance this "life" was clots of slime in dirty pool. And that's in ideal for organic life evolution conditions.

 

No offense, ok ?

First, unicellulars changed ocean and atmospheric chemisms. Be humble :-)

#300millionyearsago: i'll have to guess ... amniotic egg (reptiles) ? an Ice Age ? A supercontinent ? a huge desert ? an earthwide ocean ? Bikini weather ? Cancel that, uninteresting at that time :-))

#severaltensofmillionyearsago ... the list is long ... give us a hint .. the first letter maybe ?

 

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

#severaltensofmillionyearsago ... the list is long ... give us a hint .. the first letter maybe ?

Higher nervous activity. Macroorganisms. Big and clever.

5 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

First, unicellulars changed ocean and atmospheric chemisms.

Not to doubt in heroism of unicellulars, but themselves they stay very, very primitive.

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Higher nervous activity. Macroorganisms. Big and clever.

Not to doubt in heroism of unicellulars, but themselves they stay very, very primitive.

I keep it funny :-)

Being "primitive" can have its advantages. They are very, very fit.

Ah, so the amniotic egg was that thing #300millionyearsago. Ok, it works until today.

Yeah, that brain thing is actually something tricky to explain evolutionwise, it needs a lot of energy and few really use its potential. Mayhaps it'll be sorted out as overkill in the future ...

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

7 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Being "primitive" can have its advantages.

Absolutely agreed. But the more primitive are the lifeforms - the more easy to study and reproduce them with desired modifications. The closer they look.
That's not about profit of the beings themselves. _{Nobody cares about them}

7 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Yeah, that brain thing is actually something tricky to explain evolutionwise, it needs a lot of energy and few really use its potential. Mayhaps it'll be sorted out as overkill in the future ...

It allows an object to become a subject and later rule the evolution on its own. Like humans do with plants and animals.

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[TheKorbinjer]

 You see, how could we be the only ones. Life on planet earth is so diverse, we have fish who breathe water, animals that breathe air, and bacteria that doesn't require anything to breathe at all..  It seems absolutely impossible that we could be the only ones in this universe. If we can have millions of different species, all unique to each other, then there CAN be life on other worlds. Somewhere out there, though.. We just have to find it, which I hope we do in my life time.

[Urses]

I have a sense about one of the big factors is never mentioned untill now? 

The big Chaos "i mix all in and do a bit of all concepts go the way they never planned" Mutations. Like i understand it in a highly radioactive Environment is a great chance to get life by accident?

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, TheKorbinger said:

we have fish who breathe water, animals that breathe air

They both breathe oxygen solved in water. Just the former suck water from outside, which had solved the oxygen from the air. The latter suck the oxygen from the air and solve it in their wet lungs.

15 minutes ago, TheKorbinger said:

and bacteria that doesn't require anything to breathe at all

They breathe, but without pleasure.

15 minutes ago, TheKorbinger said:

We just have to find it

Before it has found us.

4 minutes ago, Urses said:

in a highly radioactive Environment is a great chance to get life by accident?

Yes. And lose it at once.
(In fact, no. Mutations get into order later, after the chemical hypercycles had gotten established in a lipid envelope)

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Urses]

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes. And lose it at once.
(In fact, no. Mutations get into order later, after the chemical hypercycles had gotten established in a lipid envelope)

Problem if the origin is maybe lipid but the result substitutes carbon with silicium you get a highly resistant lifeform for such a enviroment. 

It is often postulated that a Silizium based lifeform has many advantages on a carbonbased. They will be only a "bit" slower....

E: And yes Mutations are a bit higher but i miss the term for the process of influence of radiation on organic basic molecules. 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Urses

[kerbiloid]

Mutagen begin playing a role only when you already have a stable self-reproducing chemical hypercycle. For example, DNA/RNA-based. Radiation changes its conditions a little, but just a little - to allow it continue, not breaking apart all its chemism.

3 minutes ago, Urses said:

a Silizium based lifeform has many advantages on a carbonbased

Of course. To 3.14ss with sand is great.
(Literally. SiO2 is solid, while CO2 gaseous)

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

It allows an object to become a subject and later rule the evolution on its own. Like humans do with plants and animals.

O.o., and i was just starting to like your argumentation ...

We don't rule the evolution (yet), we use it's mechanisms to control the environment or breed to our satisfaction and especially to do away with organisms, either actively in killing for profit or fun and passively in destroying formerly occupied niches. But if our brain shrinks again we have to step back into the foodchain. The fact that we are influencing natural selection with medicine (i'd call that artificial selection but am sure a purist will stand up and correct me soon (tm)) and so on could even accelerate the process, who knows. I.am.not.a.creationist.

28 minutes ago, TheKorbinger said:

 You see, how could we be the only ones.

Simple, if we assume that such a thing over 4 billion years only occured once (it was and is an incredibly complex and interdependent system that has evolved on earth !) then we have to assume that we are the only ones. Not for long, species come and go. Probabilities don't help us.

17 minutes ago, Urses said:

I have a sense about one of the big factors is never mentioned untill now? 

The big Chaos "i mix all in and do a bit of all concepts go the way they never planned" Mutations. Like i understand it in a highly radioactive Environment is a great chance to get life by accident?

No. You need an organism that is able to "mutate", to change the code over generations in order for "mutations" to happen. Evolution is a continuous process. Certain "jumps" may be an artifact of our observation methods and the large timespans. But nobody said: "Here is a lung, get out of the soup and walk on land !" :-)

btw.: the link didn't work. If not @work any more, could you try to find that 200+°C organism ?

16 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

 

They breathe, but without pleasure.

? eruS

Quote

Before it has found us.

Oh, come on ! They are all out there waiting to steal our women ? :-)

 

Man i have too much time today :-)

Edited March 27, 2017 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

6 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

They are all out there waiting to steal our wifes ? :-)

Of course. Every wife is about 20 kg of highly organized proteins and lipids.

6 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

? eruS

Without lungs? One can try,

6 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

We don't rule the evolution (yet)

Partially, we do. Almost none of domesticated plants and animals you can meet in wild nature. Even cats and dogs. What's it if not an artificial redirection of the evolution.

Also bacteria resistive to antibiotics. Aren't they our evolutionary pets?

Edited March 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Urses]

2 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Oh, come on ! They are all out there waiting to steal our wifes ? :-)

Are they Italian somehow (no offense but to Feed a common prejudice)

And no i Think it's mostly the problem eben mentioned by Hawkings:

"If they come they must be on much higher step in Science and we will go the way of all natives, we will be extingeshd!"

*Not the original Zitat but my intrpretion of how i understand it.

[kerbiloid]

Not to offense somebody, but most of natives were culturally assimilated, rather than extinguished.

[Green Baron]

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Partially, we do. Almost none of domesticated plants and animals you can meet in wild nature. Even cats and dogs. What's it if not an artificial redirection of the evolution.

Also bacteria resistive to antibiotics. Aren't they our evolutionary pets?

But still we are ruled by evolution. Our understanding of the evolutionary mechanisms permits us to use them to artificially select features we see as appropriate. If we could edit the genome and produce species from the drawing board and freeze our own genome so that natural evolution stops for us then we can talk again.

I kindly ask to revisit my dispute on this with a co-kerbonaut over in the fermi-thread.

 

[kerbiloid]

Just now, Green Baron said:

But still we are ruled by evolution.

Of course we are. Anything is, even galaxies.

[KerikBalm]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And if the Moon does, we should now consider with rocky golems.
Occam, scientific method, so on...

Titan has a whole lot more possibilities than the Moon. The point here is that we have only data from 1 abiogenesis event. That can't really inform us about what other abiogenesis events are like. We can turn to physics and chemistry, which so far is a "maybe" as to the possibility of life on Titan. 

Quote

My point here is when you have a limited set of possible primitives, you have limited number of combinations, with even lesser number of lesser ones.

Which is why it may in fact be that DNA and RNA are common in life... but it cannot be assumed that all life will have it.

Quote

I'm quite sure that a hi-tech civ would have no problem with synthesizing several thousands of prokaryotes, farce them with each other, call this eukaryotes and breed very different kinds in desired ways.
That's what the Nature mostly was doing first 3 bln years.

Well, take our near future... we cannot design enzymes like Rubisco, ATP synthase, etc. We won't be able to for the near future. Even as we get into very detailed simulation about how such complex proteins will act, it will still be too complex for a long long time. Make someone start over with a different molecules, and it will be another huge challenge.

You seem to treat these advanced aliens as gods: but there are physical limits to computing power. One cannot know everything and predict everything with absolute certainty. To simulate the entire universe requires a computer with as many parts as all the particles in the universe. That is why the results of a billion year planet wide bioreactor will be of continued interest.

Quote

Something more complex than a fish and an insect, able to live on ground and learn, build solid things rather than just nests of air bubbles.

That didn't happen 300 million years ago... and fish are pretty darn complex. Many fish have genomes much larger than our own, more complex metabolisms than our own... at the cellular/molecular level, humans are pretty far from the top of complexity. Its a unique combination of fine motor skills and a large brain with a certain structure. From a biological perspective, we aren't any more complex than the Coelacanth.

Quote

A typical argument of creationists. "Do you believe that throwing up stones you can build a house?"

Oh please, you are arguing for Intelligent design of these things, whereas I'm arguing in favor of an iterative evolutionary strategy. Even today in many aspects of engineering, we've given up on design in favor of an iterative "evolutionary" algorithm.

Take your strawmen elsewhere.

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Titan has a whole lot more possibilities than the Moon.

On ten-billionth against one ten-trillions?
Still the Titan is not a fact, it's an arbitrary guess.

12 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Which is why it may in fact be that DNA and RNA are common in life... but it cannot be assumed that all life will have it.

And until we find or somebody will construct, this is a guess. Carbon chemistry is very specific tree and almost all mentioned compound are near the very root.

15 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

we cannot design enzymes like Rubisco, ATP synthase, etc. We won't be able to for the near future. Even as we get into very detailed simulation about how such complex proteins will act, it will still be too complex for a long long time.

Twenty years ago a human genome sequencing was a multi-year international task, while cellphones were a near future sci-fi.

16 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

You seem to treat these advanced aliens as gods: but there are physical limits to computing power.

Until the computer power becomes the main and sole aim of your civilization which allows skeleton keys for any doors.

17 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

One cannot know everything and predict everything with absolute certainty.

Isn't requred. Statistics methods are enough good. You don't need to calculate petrol moleculas to understand how your engine works. Excessive accuracy is an evil,

19 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

and fish are pretty darn complex

Evolutionary they are contemporaries of insects. Intellectually not far away, too.

21 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Many fish have genomes much larger than our own

Mushrooms have. And several tens genders. Big heap of junk is still junk.

22 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

From a biological perspective, we aren't any more complex than the Coelacanth

From a biological perspective we have several more brain sections which allows us to change our environment rather than bodies.
That's why coelacanth has exotic name, while there are 7 bln humans.

[Green Baron]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

That didn't happen 300 million years ago... and fish are pretty darn complex. Many fish have genomes much larger than our own, more complex metabolisms than our own... at the cellular/molecular level, humans are pretty far from the top of complexity. Its a unique combination of fine motor skills and a large brain with a certain structure. From a biological perspective, we aren't any more complex than the Coelacanth.

I understood "build" as make an egg with a hard shell and build a nest for it. That's what happened (a little more than) 300my ago (besides other things :-)).

The rest absolutely dacc (French colloquial "agrred").

41 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Evolutionary they are contemporaries of insects. Intellectually not far away, too.

yrroS

but that's nonsense and not even an argument. Evolution has no top or highest achievements, it fills niches. In that "we" are not better than bacteria or a flower. Take off your clothes and go out in a winter night. You're dead (3 times). Take our technology from us and of the 7billion a few will survive (not necessarily those with the biggest brains or those with the best behaviour). We are good at tool making and -use and that allows us to walk on dead bodies since a few thousand years (!), i doubt that this is a top-development and will survive in the long run.

Though i don't know the future ... :-)

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Green Baron

[Urses]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

btw.: the link didn't work. If not @work any more, could you try to find that 200+°C organism ?

Hmm the next one for the thema i found here in english

http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/170

I'm in in the Moment, but the Source must be somewhere around. Like i mentioned it was a doku for smth 10years may be? In Germany.

The tags: 

-Black Smokers

-Evolution

-Anaerob bacteria 

At mean time it was a doku about sharks who live in Kavachi Vulkan too. As sideinfo.

Follow the Trail

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

[0111narwhalz]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

yrroS

I'm curious: What does it mean when you write something reversed like this?

[Urses]

8 minutes ago, 0111narwhalz said:

I'm curious: What does it mean when you write something reversed like this?

Maybe "Sorry, but no Sorry"?

Is he Canadian?

Thanks at all realy interesting Conversation. 

TNT

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

Edited March 28, 2017 by Urses