| Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web. While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous. Join our community today! |
| On Plausibility; mulling on the nature of criticism | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 19 2017, 03:37 PM (628 Views) | |
| Hybrid | Aug 30 2017, 08:51 PM Post #76 |
![]()
May Specula Grant you Bountiful Spec!
![]()
|
I was never a fan of that kind of criticism, as it generally held to a certain idea that something is inherently super-unlikely to appear regardless of situation and is used in rather dismissive way. I think a better way would look at a concept someone proposed that deals with an infamous idea but doesn't explain how they evolved in some detail is by asking them "How did [x] evolve? How did it deal with these factors such as [y] that are generally considered the major barriers for them to move into that sort of form?". Then once they elaborate, then you can see if it makes sense or not and if you need to criticize those points.
I always though this was one of the more sillier ideas. The fact that we have creatures completely contradict this shows how faulty the idea is.
An extraordinary, but also a believable and good explanation. Not every explanation is good. If I made a descendant of a bear that has 20 legs and spits acid to hunt, that's one going to need one hell of an explanation to even make sense. If I just said "It began walking on its fingers, and vomited on its prey because it needed to hunt at a distance" and maybe make that more word-y, that doesn't make it make sense.
Ehh, geography is predictable to a point. In the near future it mostly is, but farther you go the more models of possible changes increase to the point where you might have some loose idea at best. Climate on the other hand can be determined by geography chosen, as well as a few factors such as milankovitch cycles. With climate you can't go willy-nilly as you can with geography in the far future. However it's not easy to take everything into account to build a more accurate climate, so I think just like the continents people are fully understanding if it's not relatively thought out. In my experience people don't even notice.
I disagree, you can say something is unlikely by its evolutionary history doesn't align to the organism, or simply that it doesn't make sense and wouldn't likely to produce that organism. Perhaps I'm just greatly misinterpreting your point. On second thought I think you're still talking about the blanket statement "[X] is implausible" type criticism rather than what I'm talking about, and talking about likeness in regards to that. Oh well, maybe these points are useful to consider for plausibility and what-not. Some of these points people have been used to excuse their creation. I didn't write these for nothing! These mainly deal with environmental pressures, natural selection, and contrived-ness in spec. People tend to try to make things that exist here on Earth and say "oh that's implausible" usually in a joking manner (though I have seen people actually use this argument, several times), but the fact they do exist suggests otherwise. The pressures that carved their ancestors show that those characteristics selected got passed on while others didn't. That's not a matter of opinion, but fact. You can get different results depending on ancestor used (for example, while woodpeckers and aye-aye use the same method to find food, both creatures are radically different from each other), but sometimes you can end up with similarly shaped creatures (a lot of swimming animals like cetaceans, ichthyosaurs, sharks, and a lot of other creatures evolved the same streamline shape) and organs (the eye alone evolved a lot of times). If I made a skink directly become fully marine, but instead of swimming like the other creatures I mentioned but swam like a jellyfish for no real reason but to be different, you can say that's fishy given all the examples of the contrary. The trait doesn't make sense given the pressure and the creature. I remember a little while ago someone joked and said the mola mola if it was made in a spec-evo project it would be said to be implausible. However that comes from simply not knowing their evolutionary history. Why did they stop using their caudal fin? Looking at tetraodontiformes you can see that they're merely the most derived of the group, as even the most basal members mainly use their dorsal and anal fin to move around, possibly for more maneuverability to catch prey in environments with more places to hide (similar traits evolved elsewhere in things like knifefish). If the weirdo mola mola can be explained, no one has an excuse of "but [x] in real life is implausible!". Even if we don't know their evolutionary history, we can say with some certainty that they are likely given whatever pressures made them exist. The same applies to speculative evolution. You can explain how something like a terrestrial cephalopod or a quadrupedal bird evolved elegantly with no issues, or you can make them evolve horribly. For example, the Serinian Snoot vs someone just saying "they began walking on their wings to climb". I would say they aren't equally valid, one is well explained, while the other is sort of saying it happened and that's it. Remember, evolution is a real thing. Lifeforms don't just evolve to whatever they want. Evolution follows the most simplest and useful option rather trying to do something contrived in order to solve that problem because it's the most likely to happen. It's why living things re-use existing structures, because they can't just create anything new out of nowhere. What's more likely, a tetrapod modifying its limbs to do something or some mutation causing it to produce another pair of somehow fully functioning limbs that are then re-adapted? The latter is super unlikely, but people have done a similar choice and picked the latter on the forum (and elsewhere) before either out of ignorance of how that would really work or just to make their entry weird (likely a mix of the two, mostly on the latter though). You can throw out some example like "how did THIS evolve then, smart guy? Even we don't know!", but in the end while we don't know, it did happen regardless. Natural selection favored that rather than the alternatives that may have existed. A lot of problems come from thinking of evolution backwards. They start with the end result, and try to build an evolution from wanted ancestor. Nature does not work like this in real life, literally the opposite. This is only natural when creating things, but I'm willing to bet it's the number one source of contrived things in spec. Someone wants to make a quadrupedal bird, so they start with that and work backwards. In the Animal Planet special Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real, they try to make stereotypical dragons by building backwards and it results in maximum contrived-ness (such as another pair of limbs appearing and fire through unlikely events). This is a huge issue when people try to do speculative evolution, since it's the most natural things we do when we create stuff. The only answer I can think of is evaluating the evolutionary line and changing it to make sense, this is what I found to be the most useful way of creating a more believable creature. Sheather does the more realistic method with Serina, literally going from ancestor to descendants with only some idea what he wants to do and changing his mind along the way. It's why for the most part the project feels like a realistic natural history. We can never be absolutely sure if we know what will happen in the future, and there's a huge chance that a project is pretty wrong as an actual view of the future. In real life there's so much factors, possibilities, and unknowns that we can't make any absolute guarantees what will happen in the future. And really that's not the real point of those projects, like you said, it's looking into what could exist in the future. What we can do is evaluate what the situation is presented in a project, as well as the explanation of the organism's evolution and whatnot. That explanation can be evaluated to see if it makes sense, if it's sound and plausible using what we know. You touch upon this point later on of course, as well with your quote here. As you say: all things are equally unlikely if you can give a good explanation of it.
It's a branch of science-fiction, but also an art movement as well. Speculation is used in science to some extent, lot of these are hypothetical ancestors of creatures and their habits and and what lead to them appearing, like pterosaurs, bats, or insects. On interesting occasions such speculative creatures can be found, even beyond speculations made by scientists. One artist made a speculative, filter-feeding anomalocaridid and years later scientists actually found such a species. That's a speculation that proved to be real, not exactly what the artist depicted, but the idea was real. However speculation evolution doesn't always need to be plausible or even possible, because in the end it is an art and the artist can do whatever they want. They may want to experiment with a trait that in our world is impossible and use it in a "what if" sort of situation. Kosemen's telekinetic organisms in Tangent Worlds are perfect examples of this. A lot of projects like The Great Library deal with organisms sort of realistically evolving in a impossible environment. A less extreme example would be how a lot of COM entries tend not to be super plausible (within limits of course to prevent what might be considered cheating). It's why I don't criticize some projects, because their intention isn't to be plausible. You can argue if it's more fantasy or not, but there is some science in it. Off Topic Tangent
I don't think so, at least evolution wise. A lot of things can physically exist without much problems if you build it right. A dragon built right doesn't instantly violate the laws of physics. However the evolution itself may be impossible, some of the organs just not possible to evolve due to lack of structural bases.
That's an important question, but I think that's the most obvious one. A creature that violates the laws of physics can't exist realistically, but something can exists that follow but not be evolutionary possible. But that's not really the point of speculation evolution, where we're making organisms through evolution.
Exactly! That's evaluating the plausibility of it: looking at it critically to see if its likely to happen, if there's any problems, and if you missed anything. That's how I view looking at the plausibility of something.
This is a huge point. If you're not having fun, what's the point? If you don't want to do super plausible, you do need to do that.
Wait, is this a problem on the forum? I feel like that's not very common here on the forum, or at least not as much as it used to be. Of course it exists beyond the forum, I'm not denying that, just look at Tim Morris's Timeline as an example of little derivity even after hundreds of millions of years. This was also more common many years ago on the forum, not really anyone going further than 200 million years in the future. Only with the appearance of the Pig COM from a few years back really made people push derivity as a trend, which I think really changed the forum. This can be seen with a lot of the modern big projects feature derivity effectively. Diyu, R'leyh, Serina are just some examples of it. I think the issue is not that people think creatures can't become derived, more they have a hard time imaging things become derived. It's not easy to do that, because you're trying to consider hundreds of millions of years of evolution. What kind of new, unique, and revolutionary thing will appear that will change Earth like the appearance of flowering flora? It can be really hard to come up with something, especially one that hasn't been done before. |
|
If I sound rude while critiquing, I apologize in hindsight! "To those like the misguided; look at the story of Man, and come to your senses! It is not the destination, but the trip that matters. What you do today influences tomorrow, not the other way around. Love Today, and seize All Tomorrows!" - Nemo Ramjet ノ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ヽ
| |
![]() |
|
| HangingThief | Aug 30 2017, 09:05 PM Post #77 |
![]()
ghoulish
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Effective climbing doesn't require nearly as much dexterity as grabbing and manipulating things.
Hymenopterans definitely display a lot of very advanced behaviors, including and in some cases especially solitary species. Jumping spiders are also up there, which is a more interesting case given that they're exclusively solitary and don't display care of offspring beyond the typical practice of defending eggsacs. Without getting into the comparative size or complexity of their brains I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that arthropods are more intelligent on average than molluscs though. I don't see why a gastropod would be significantly less intelligent than an arthropod with a vaguely similar lifestyle. Someone feel free to prove me wrong. |
|
Hey. | |
![]() |
|
| Dr Nitwhite | Aug 30 2017, 09:13 PM Post #78 |
![]()
Luddite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, finally some proper feedback! I'll be sure to read all this and reply in the morning. Thank you so much for bothering that's a lot of text... (And to clarify, if this comes off as sarcastic it isn't- it's entirely sincere. I've been eagerly waiting for you to bring the ideas you brought up on discord here). |
|
Speculative Evolution Projects- Other Relevant Work- Final SE Lifelist standings BREAKING NEWS We interrupt your regular programming to bring you this cutting edge report. ATTENDANCE DROPS DRASTICALLY ON SE SERVER This past Monday on Discord, famous server Speculative Evolution took a hit in the attendance office when it's offline member list suddenly reappeared. Mods scrambled to rectify the situation, but unfortunately there was little anyone could do. Server member Ivan was asked what he thought of the situation. "So long as Flisch, lord of machines and scion of Urborg lives, all will be well". SE, (in)famous for it's eccentric userbase, has recently been spiraling downward, and now we have hard conformation of the decline. Moderator "High Lord" Icthyander states "There is nothing to be concerned about, Discord is merely changing its UI again", but members are beginning to suspect the honesty of their staff. Stay tuned, we'll be back with more at 11. | |
![]() |
|
| kusanagi | Aug 30 2017, 09:17 PM Post #79 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cephalopods converge upon vertebrates to the point of a cartilaginous cranium to protect the brain, whereas as I already said, It has been claimed the arthropod supraesophageal ganglion is thought to threaten ingestion if it increases too much in size. Jumping spiders are currently the best problem solvers among the arthropods, and although its not exactly intelligence per se the large brained hymenopterans can recognize the individual faces of their different nestmates as can social tetrapods so there is a cognitive convergence. Non-eusocial stomatopods can also remember their neighbours. There is obviously some homology between arthropod and vertebrate brains and nervous systems, because drugs like LSD have observable effects on spders building webs comparable to what they have on man. The problem is inferring how far the parallels to vertebrate psychology have gotten - or can go. When compared to the stereotypical octopus, which is not every octopus, stomatopods do live very long lives and engage in social interactions more extensively with their conspecifics. Stomatopod parents tend their larvae as well as unhatched eggs, as do hymenopterans, and the care may be biparental. Though octopuses are more variable about these things than most people seem to think, stomatopods do possess about as much potential if their internal anatomy can't hold them back as some people are worried it might. Edited by kusanagi, Aug 31 2017, 08:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| IIGSY | Aug 30 2017, 10:02 PM Post #80 |
|
A huntsman spider that wastes time on the internet because it has nothing better to do
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I could very well be wrong, but I just seems that arthropods are a lot more lively and active than mollusks on average. |
|
Projects Punga: A terraformed world with no vertebrates Last one crawling: The last arthropod ARTH-6810: A world without vertebrates (It's ded, but you can still read I guess) Potential ideas- Swamp world: A world covered in lakes, with the largest being caspian sized. Nematozoic: After a mass extinction of ultimate proportions, a single species of nematode is the only surviving animal. Tri-devonian: A devonian like ecosystem with holocene species on three different continents. Quotes Phylogeny of the arthropods and some related groups In honor of the greatest clade of all time More pictures Other cool things All African countries can fit into Brazil
| |
![]() |
|
| LittleLazyLass | Aug 30 2017, 10:31 PM Post #81 |
![]()
Proud quilt in a bag
![]()
|
I've been waiting for that post to show up. Anyway, just one line was of enough interest to me to comment right now at half past midnight:
I agree it's the less important of the two questions, but instead because Alternate Universe scenarios exist. You can change the rules, so something impossible within the laws of our universe makes sense within the laws of a given universe. However, the constant here is that it always must make evolutionary sense within whatever rules you lay out. Unless you're changing the laws of evolution, I guess, in which case have fun with speculative speculative evolution... |
totally not British, b-baka! You like me (Unlike)I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess. Me What, you want me to tell you what these mean? Read First Words Maybe | |
![]() |
|
| kusanagi | Aug 31 2017, 08:47 AM Post #82 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
HangingThief: Yes octopuses are a good counterpoint to my observation that manipulatory structures need an arboreal precendent, but all the same its clambering first before manipulation. Its the same with mammals in that the forepaws of tree shrews evolved into the human hand with its precision and power grips. Still octopuses use a different anatomy and go a different routeas regards grasping, so I'm unsure how close the parallel to human hands is. None of the octopuses delicately handles very small objects, which drove the grip of the human hand more than anything. Probaby the manalog cephalopod would need to evolve terminal fingers like an elephant trunk before it could handle things like grasses or small fruits and seeds. |
![]() |
|
| Dr Nitwhite | Aug 31 2017, 08:48 AM Post #83 |
![]()
Luddite
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I couldn't have put much of that better myself. If it ever looked like I disagreed with you in my original post, I think that that was me simply not articulating myself well.
Again, I actually completely agree, and perhaps I didn't articulate myself very well in the original essay. When I said this-
I did mean a good explanation- not just any argument would suffice. You'll find I really was talking about the "blanket X is implausible" type criticism, particularly when it's made to be an intrinsic trait of the actual organism, and not its evolutionary history (which is the important thing).
Out of all your points, I think that this one struck me the most, because it really is the truth. A lot of speculation has a really weird explanation and shaky steps in-between, and I think this is the exact problem. And I think it really ties in with what I was trying to say with this quote-
A lot of times, people have an end goal and try to work backwards, and considering how a complicated evolutionary history would result in an organism is far tougher to do with a creature working backwards than a vague idea you work toward. This sort of insight is just what I was trying to reveal in this thread! I think a lot of us have these ideas floating around our head, but they don't always totally crystalize and never get past one person. A lot of this is something that floats around in all our heads- we just don't know how to articulate it. Now that we all are, I think we as a community are far better equipped to move forward.
Again, this was just me articulating myself poorly- when I said most physically possible things are plausible, I did mean it- but through the lenses of the proverbial Land Shark. A dragon, I think, isn't so unlikely. But in getting to six limbs, would your dragon look anything like a dragon? Of course not! It'd probably have to go through incredibly diverse amount of evolutionary upheavals, just to get into a form that might be able to produce six limbs- perhaps something like an aquatic worm. But would your lizard look anything like a lizard by the time it has lost most of its endoskeleton and grew gills? Probably not. You might not even have enough time on earth to get to where you want to go.
I think it can be an easy trap to fall into, especially for beginners (speaking from experience, my unpublished spec from my early days before I knew this place existed isn't so good), which is why I brought it up primarily (and there are some projects that aren't so old that seriously lack change you'd expect over the time periods they extend over). But just to touch on your point in the second paragraph, I think that actually could be tied back to our backwards timeline problem. Its hard to imagine huge evolutionary black-swans perhaps because we're approaching the problem way. I think one of the best examples of fitting derivity (where the animals seem to meet the time they're in, not too weird but not to basal) is Serina, and that project follows evolution in the right direction. I'm so happy you brought all this up- I was quite worried Troodon killed the thread. Thank you so much for the feedback, I hope you have more to say! |
|
Speculative Evolution Projects- Other Relevant Work- Final SE Lifelist standings BREAKING NEWS We interrupt your regular programming to bring you this cutting edge report. ATTENDANCE DROPS DRASTICALLY ON SE SERVER This past Monday on Discord, famous server Speculative Evolution took a hit in the attendance office when it's offline member list suddenly reappeared. Mods scrambled to rectify the situation, but unfortunately there was little anyone could do. Server member Ivan was asked what he thought of the situation. "So long as Flisch, lord of machines and scion of Urborg lives, all will be well". SE, (in)famous for it's eccentric userbase, has recently been spiraling downward, and now we have hard conformation of the decline. Moderator "High Lord" Icthyander states "There is nothing to be concerned about, Discord is merely changing its UI again", but members are beginning to suspect the honesty of their staff. Stay tuned, we'll be back with more at 11. | |
![]() |
|
| kusanagi | Aug 31 2017, 09:40 AM Post #84 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Troodon/Stenonychosaurus and the hypothetical humanoid dinosaur are actually perfect for exploring what plausibility is or isn't, and how to evaluate it without personal bias confusing them, and how bias can affect what people ASSUME is plausible. Could've used spinks or reedstilts, but the dinosauroid is better known, si? Spoiler: click to toggle As a note on plantigrade theropods, the early Cretaceous trackway Macropodosaurus gravis may demonstrate habitual plantigrady in a functionally tetradactyl therizinosaur theropod or more probably an extensive soft tissue pad of the foot like that of an elephant or a sauropod, perhaps with internal cartilaginous support structures as in the elephant. And plantigrade theropod trackways from the Paluxy River show theropods could walk efficiently when plantigrade position, though other than M. gravis all of the plantigrade dinosaur tracks are (probably) examples only of faculative plantigrady excepting possibly the sauropodomorph Otozoum. http://home.gli.cas.cz/mikulas/osobni/WIT-REVID-ABSTRAKTY/ASennikov-Abstr-Praga2006.doc Link spoilered by LittleLazyLass because it was stretching the page Counterarguments to the assumption about the forearms involve the limited range of movements of the pennaraptoran wing which is why Naish, Ramjet and others have instead suggested the precise manipulation of objects with a toothless beak as in bucerotids and corvids (shades of Russell and Seguin?) - although this would require help from other grasping organs for complex and difficult tool making to become efficient skills, and it is biased toward the precision grip and not the power grip used in hammering stones. Remember neanderthals and modern human hunter gatherers often have chipped teeth from them using their mouths as a strong third hand even though they already had two. http://eng.oversea.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?QueryID=7&CurRec=3&dbCode=CJFD&filename=GSWX201502003&dbname=CJFDTEMP Edited by LittleLazyLass, May 15 2018, 11:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Aug 31 2017, 11:31 AM Post #85 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
Yes! This! We cram some creature into a shape we want it to be, with little to no consideration for the path it would take to get there, and what evolutionary pressures would be necessary for it to take that path over others. It's a common mistake that even the most knowledgeable and experienced can make from time to time. Now, that's not to say that "reverse engineering" a creature (evolving it backwards) can't be done, but it takes some counter-intuition in order to do properly. Nereus started with some rather derived forms, and it took some real thought to turn back the clock and see how the lineages radiated. Also, I recently read an interesting and compelling speculation about the evolutionary pathways of tribbles in the Star Trek setting: nuanced, logical, and even a little whimsical; entertaining speculation at its best! |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| Sphenodon | Aug 31 2017, 12:51 PM Post #86 |
![]()
Calcareous
![]()
|
Kusanagi, could you please put that table (and perhaps the second link, as well) into a spoiler? It appears they are stretching the page width beyond my computer screen, as well as generating some lag. As for the central topic of the thread, there aren't too many of my own thoughts that haven't already been covered to some degree of depth. I will agree that one of the key issues affecting plausibility is the effect of beginning with the end-goal of a concept and working your base into that specific end-goal, and that coming up with enough derivity to make something unique yet reasonably accurate for the timeframe is difficult. I also think that the two are often linked to one another - trying to factor in the derivity of a situation leads to the retroactive "stitching in" of independent, one-off concepts into the framework of the project, which leads to concept disparity and unrealistic situations. As Hybrid mentioned, Serina (especially in its early stages, when time jumps were particularly close together) managed to avoid this by being very drawn-out, procedural, and methodical, as is evolution in life - the gradual pacing of any "steps" taken by evolution allowed for side factors to be taken into account as they were conceptualized, leading to the combination of straightforward and convoluted, yet logistically sound, features that define the majority of the project's content. There's a few more thoughts I had on this, but they're not really organized enough to put down for now. I will say that it's good to look over everyone's thoughts on it, however - given the importance of plausibility in speccing, looking into and improving its implementation is an important thing to do. |
|
We have a Discord server! If you would like to join, simply message myself, Flisch, or Icthyander. Some of my ideas (nothing real yet, but soon): Refugium: A last chance for collapsing ecosystems and their inhabitants. Pansauria: A terraforming project featuring the evolution of exactly one animal - the marine iguana. Mars Renewed: An insight into the life of Mars thirty million years after its terraforming by humankind. Microcosm: An exceedingly small environment. Alcyon: A planet colonized by species remodeled into new niches by genetic engineering. Oddballs: Aberrant representatives of various biological groups compete and coexist. ..and probably some other stuff at some point (perhaps a no K-T project). Stay tuned! | |
![]() |
|
| kusanagi | Aug 31 2017, 02:00 PM Post #87 |
|
Adolescent
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I didn't see a spoiler tag button on the advanced reply screen, or I would use it. Yes the end goal is a problem it leads to post hoc taxonomic roulette, among things. The alternative is to examine an organism and its ecosystem, and take it from there, drawing horizontal parallels and continuing linear or vertical trends. To use the stenonychosaur, would I have thought of S. as evolving into an erect reptilian hominin? Certainly not. But one of the arboreal relatives - why not? As just one possibility and not an inevitability of course. Every counterfactual requires a priori assumptions: choosing a starting point, not confusing the end point with a start is important for counterfactual timelines. But even then, my favourite Les Demains is guilty of the latter: indeed it comes with the territory of speculating ways to circumvent constraints. Even taxonomic roulette raises its head as regards the three pseudotoothed ground birds with what are obviously post hoc evolutionary histories - raven, psittacine and lammergeier. Yes you can do rigorous spec bio by working backwards but you probably can't build a world that way. |
![]() |
|
| Corecin | Aug 31 2017, 02:05 PM Post #88 |
![]()
Have you ever been bitch slapped for lack of listening? lack of doing what your told? cuz i'm not far from slapping you
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Spoiler: click to toggle
|
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Empyreon | Aug 31 2017, 04:48 PM Post #89 |
|
Are you plausible?
![]()
|
I put it in a spoiler, but that didn't seem to stop the stretching... |
|
Take a look at my exobiology subforum of the planet Nereus! COM Contributions food for thought
| |
![]() |
|
| LittleLazyLass | Aug 31 2017, 07:36 PM Post #90 |
![]()
Proud quilt in a bag
![]()
|
I believe it's the link in post #106 actually causing the issue. |
totally not British, b-baka! You like me (Unlike)I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess. Me What, you want me to tell you what these mean? Read First Words Maybe | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Spec · Next Topic » |



























You like me 






7:46 PM Jul 10