Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 127 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 12:42 PM
381 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, NoNukes, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq, xongsmith (9 members, 372 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,334 Year: 18,940/21,208 Month: 1,699/3,111 Week: 494/707 Day: 70/120 Hour: 1/15

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Taq
Member
Posts: 6795
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 106 of 167 (670854)
08-20-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by herebedragons
08-20-2012 9:07 AM


But do you think that a perfect world without death and suffering is the prediction of an ID hypothesis?

I think this speaks more towards the theological implications. It is more of a question aimed at one type of a designer (e.g. an omnipotent caring god).

Yes, but aren't there numerous connections off the RLN? It's more like running the extension cord across the livingroom and plugging in a lamp, a clock , looping it behind the couch, plugging in a heating pad, then back to the tv even though the plug is right by the tv. Poor design? Yea, sure, I wouldn't do it.

It only goes to the larnynx and around the larynx as far as I know. There are connections to the esophagus and trachea, but again this is a circuitous route for these features.

But don't you think this is problematic for the ToE also? Both the length of the RLN and the length of the neck need to coincide during development. As the neck vertebra get longer, so the RLN gets longer. Are the vertebra and the RLN controlled by the same genes and the same developmental pathway? For example, as the giraffe's neck gradually became longer, ie. the vertebra became longer, the RLN could stay basically the same length, no longer loop around the aorta but still make an "unnecessary" loop.

Not really sure, but I would strongly suspect that the development of the nerves and neck vertbrae are strongly linked. The RLN still makes that same trip in giraffes as well resulting in 15 feet (IIRC) of extra nerve fibers just to make this strange route.

This is what I want to NOT do. I think genomicus is also trying hard to take a positive approach to this as well. Whether you agree with his conclusions or his predictions, you should agree that he is trying to make testable predictions based on his philosophical ideal. That type of work should be embraced, even by those who are skeptical of an intelligent designer, as it could lead to new understanding of our world.

I appreciate the effort, but at the end of the day we arrive at the same problem, a lack of a solid method for differentiating between ID and evolution. Genomicus has proposed front-loaded evolution which makes predictions post hoc. It boils down to a sharpshooter fallacy. Which genes were front loaded? Well, the ones that became ubiquitous. That is drawing the bull's eye around the bullet hole. Whatever evolves it will be claimed that it was front loaded.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by herebedragons, posted 08-20-2012 9:07 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 107 of 167 (670857)
08-20-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
08-20-2012 7:23 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
RAZD writes:

It is logical that whatever universe the designer/s made, that it would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis.

I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.

What I'm saying here is straightforward.

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

The O.P. question is straightforward. The answer is "no", the general hypothesis of an intelligently designed biosphere doesn't predict genetic similarity (or anything else, when you think about it) but it is compatible with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 7:23 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 12:04 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 11:37 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 126 by herebedragons, posted 08-21-2012 9:07 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 108 of 167 (670861)
08-20-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bluegenes
08-20-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
bluegenes writes:

If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis.

But the whole thing is magic. We just don't recognize because magic for us is the norm. We have an existence made up of mindless, probably non-dimensional or one-dimensional particles in which we perceive a 3 dimensional existence, as well as in which we can experience change with intelligent thought. How much more magic can it get?

So we have the magic but within that magic is a set of principles and an order that govern our day to day existence. We sense that in our day to day lives.

From the magic that is our existence it seems reasonable to me that there is an intelligence that is at the root of it. As from the simple observation of this world we can see that out of that magic comes order, then it seems reasonable that we should in our science be able to predict, as did Newton, that we can learn about the principles that govern our day to day existence.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2012 11:13 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2012 12:29 PM GDR has responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 109 of 167 (670870)
08-20-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
08-20-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

From the magic that is our existence it seems reasonable to me that there is an intelligence that is at the root of it.

How fascinating. I don't doubt it.

Now, if you're in some way trying to defend the view that principles are a prediction of the hypothesis that the world was intelligently designed, then could you actually do it? You would need to make the case that intelligent designers of worlds are constrained by some force that obliges them to create worlds with principles.

So, let's start with this constraining force which leaves them without choice on the matter. What is it?

Edited by bluegenes, : missing letter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 12:04 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 2:45 PM bluegenes has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 110 of 167 (670881)
08-20-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by bluegenes
08-20-2012 12:29 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
bluegenes writes:

You would need to make the case that intelligent designers of worlds are constrained by some force that obliges them to create worlds with principles.


I don't agree that I do. Isn't that how science works? Someone through reason comes up with a hypothesis that he/she works with to see if they can prove it to be accurate or not. For example, string theory is a hypothesis that science is trying to prove or disprove but it is prediction based on human observation.

As humans we can observe that when we create something there are principles involved. I submit that with our experience as intelligent beings, as a hypothesis it is reasonable to predict, based on the assumption that an intelligent designer exists, that there should be principles involved in the design.

Of course it isn't conclusive, just as the evidence for the hypothesis which is string theory isn't conclusive, but it is a reasonable prediction.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2012 12:29 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 08-20-2012 2:57 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 115 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 4:23 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12863
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 111 of 167 (670884)
08-20-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
08-20-2012 2:45 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
"All B are A" is not a good reason to even suspect that "All A are B".

Now unless you have a rational argument, for instance explaining how streams and rivers - and designers - could exist without underlying principles then you're just irrationally jumping to conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 2:45 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18774
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 112 of 167 (670906)
08-20-2012 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by herebedragons
08-20-2012 9:29 AM


gray area between science and philosophy
Hi herebedragons, thanks

I did open it up to allow other prediction ...

Cool.

... Do you feel philosophy and science are two completely independent ideals or that scientific observation is sufficient to support philosophy but philosophy is just unable to make scientific predictions?

I feel that there is a somewhat gray but small dividing area:

  1. science covers testable scientific predictions made from scientific hypothesis and theory based on observations of empirical evidence.
  2. philosophy covers concepts from outright conjecture to informed hypothesis that are based on observations that may be tentative unconfirmed empirical evidence or are based on valid logic and math, perhaps extensions of untested theories.
  3. the gray area is where we don't know if these informed hypothesis may be testable by methodology that is not yet available or whether theie falsification tests are valid because the situations of the test have not occurred - the "we don't know because we don't know" problem.

This latter is your only possible area of overlap as far as I can see.

The skeptical open mind approach, imho, says that there may be something here, but we just don't have enough information yet to be able to discuss it without conjectures and guesses, concepts based more on opinions than facts and observations. It is better to wait for more information (which may never come), and spend our time working on what can be validated first, guiding our lives by our personal beliefs where they don't conflict with known facts, and by our personal knowledge of how things work where possible.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by herebedragons, posted 08-20-2012 9:29 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 08-21-2012 12:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18774
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 113 of 167 (670908)
08-20-2012 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bluegenes
08-20-2012 11:13 AM


logic
Hi bluegenes,

I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.

Curiously, I did not say that I know this (and you should know better ... )

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

<1> If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis.
<2>If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And
<3> if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

format altered: line breaks and reference numbers added.

Note that the "never to our knowledge broken" in <3> would include anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.

And by observation we are certainly not in <1> so it is not logical to consider it, as it is falsified ... by our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

Similarly <2> is also eliminated at this time, even though it operates "very consistently on predictable laws."

The logical conclusion is that IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates, <3>, albeit again based on our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

Just as the commands of a computer program guides how the program runs to achieve the desired results, if there were "bugs" in the program that had to be periodically fixed, then we have a <2> situation, and without evidence of "bugs" being fixed we are in a <3> situation, a well designed program from the start.

But this is just a logical conclusion not knowledge per se (etc etc).

It is also untestable without a second universe ... or a way of adequately testing the anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.

Curiously, IF it were possible at some future date to adequately test the anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved, that this still leaves us with a possible <2> universe that operates "very consistently on predictable laws" and is thus still consistent with my logic.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

And again, I agree with you here, that there just is not enough information on which one can form a valid testable prediction ...

... but find it fascinating how you seem to see this problem so clearly here, but not at all on another thread ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2012 11:13 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2012 11:49 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 4:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 11 days)
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 114 of 167 (670909)
08-20-2012 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
08-20-2012 11:37 PM


Re: logic
What qualifies as magic to you RAZD?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 11:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 08-21-2012 4:29 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 9:01 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 115 of 167 (670914)
08-21-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
08-20-2012 2:45 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

I don't agree that I do. Isn't that how science works? Someone through reason comes up with a hypothesis that he/she works with to see if they can prove it to be accurate or not. For example, string theory is a hypothesis that science is trying to prove or disprove but it is prediction based on human observation.

A hypothesis isn't a prediction (in the scientific sense of prediction). It is a proposed explanation of something that should make predictions. These would be things necessarily true if the hypothesis was true.

Of course you can hypothesise to your heart's content. But what I was asking you to do was to demonstrate that principles are a prediction of intelligent design.

GDR writes:

As humans we can observe that when we create something there are principles involved.

Also, brains. Actually, we observe that we are subject to principles (the constraints of the physical world). That's why I can't design a magic carpet and a pair of seven league boots for you, much though I'd love to. It isn't by choice. So your observation here would be that known designers (us) are subject to principles.

You then seem to want to make an inductive inference, based on your observation of ourselves as designers. You could make many of these, and put them forward as hypotheses. All designers design with brains, all designers are animals, all designers are subject to principles etc.

A prediction of that last one would be that, if there were a designer of this world, he would be subject to principles.

GDR writes:

I submit that with our experience as intelligent beings, as a hypothesis it is reasonable to predict, based on the assumption that an intelligent designer exists, that there should be principles involved in the design.

Of course it isn't conclusive, just as the evidence for the hypothesis which is string theory isn't conclusive, but it is a reasonable prediction.

I think you need to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction. The prediction, used in this sense, means something necessary to the hypothesis. If the prediction turned out to be wrong, the hypothesis would be falsified.

If we found out in the future that what we consider to be physical principles of this world are actually all broken somewhere in the universe, and the place is actually completely unpredictable, that would not falsify the hypothesis that this world is intelligently designed, would it? Therefore, principles are not a prediction of that hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 2:45 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2863
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 116 of 167 (670915)
08-21-2012 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by foreveryoung
08-20-2012 11:49 PM


Re: logic
Of course, I cannot speak for RAZD and would not presume to.

For myself, magick would be to say it and thus make it so.

Very early on in my study of Hebrew (decades ago and thus largely forgotten), I was given the literal translation of "Let there be light and there was light", as "Light be, light was."

Speaking it into being. Now that's magick.

What qualifies as magic to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by foreveryoung, posted 08-20-2012 11:49 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 117 of 167 (670916)
08-21-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
08-20-2012 11:37 PM


Re: logic
RAZD writes:

Curiously, I did not say that I know this (and you should know better ... )

Here's the exchange:

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

It is logical that whatever universe the designer/s made, that it would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis.


I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.

How do you know that it's logical? Or did you mean "it seems logical to me" or "it seems reasonable to me." Note that GDR uses such tentative language when he makes similar claims.

But I'm glad that we're agreed. You do not know that it is logical that any world designed by designers "would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis".

Concentrate on the phrase "any world" or your phrase "whatever universe". A prediction of the intelligent design hypothesis would apply to any world. It must be necessary. Therefore, in order to claim that the hypothesis predicts a world like this one in any respect, the designers would have to be obliged to include that feature (whether principles, stars, life, anything else).

Now look below. You're going to make observations about this world, and then claim that it is a logical conclusion that: "IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates".

Your mistake is substituting "this universe" for "whatever universe" or "any world". What we observe in this universe would have been created if this universe was created. Yes, of course. That doesn't mean that anything we observe in this world is necessary to all possible created worlds.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis.

<2>If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis. And

<3> if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

format altered: line breaks and reference numbers added.

Note that the "never to our knowledge broken" in would include anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.

And by observation we are certainly not in <1> so it is not logical to consider it, as it is falsified ... by our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

Similarly <2> is also eliminated at this time, even though it operates "very consistently on predictable laws."

The logical conclusion is that IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates, <3>, albeit again based on our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

It doesn't matter which of the three that we're in. My point was that I.D. is compatible with all of them.

Do you see the point, now? Sure, it's logical to conclude that, if this world was created, anything we observe in the world (including principles) was created. But that does not mean that I.D. of the world predicts principles (or stars), just as I.D. of biology doesn't predict genetic similarity.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

And again, I agree with you here, that there just is not enough information on which one can form a valid testable prediction ...

But you don't seem to agree. Shortage of information is not the point. That the I.D. hypothesis is compatible with both magic and non-magic is. It's compatible with anything. It doesn't predict anything about the world, so nothing falsifies it.

RAZD writes:

... but find it fascinating how you seem to see this problem so clearly here, but not at all on another thread ...

Most of what you're misunderstanding on that other thread is different from what you don't seem to be able to grasp on this one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 11:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 5:47 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18774
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 118 of 167 (670923)
08-21-2012 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by bluegenes
08-21-2012 4:35 AM


Re: logic
Hi bluegenes

Your position there is the same as you claim for GDR here: compatible but not a necessary prediction. I have shown you other compatible explanations that put you in the same position you list for the ID hypothesis here.

Anyway further discussion does not belong here ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 4:35 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 7:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 119 of 167 (670926)
08-21-2012 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
08-21-2012 5:47 AM


Re: logic
RAZD writes:

Your position there is the same as you claim for GDR here: compatible but not a necessary prediction.

Sort out the difference between hypotheses and predictions. GDR is making a hypothesis of sorts, but he seems to think it's a prediction. Here's an example of an inductive I.D. hypothesis.

Animals can and do intelligently design.

Animals are the only known source of artifacts.

Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that intelligent design is exclusively an animal characteristic.

A theory, like mine on the other thread, is not a prediction, but makes predictions that are necessary to it like: Obama is not the Antichrist. Obama being the Antichrist is logically incompatible with my theory, and would falsify it.

No possible worlds are incompatible with the general hypothesis of intelligent design of the world.

RAZD writes:

I have shown you other compatible explanations that put you in the same position you list for the ID hypothesis here.

No, you've put forward the view that unsupported hypotheses damage theories, which is false.

RAZD writes:

Anyway further discussion does not belong here ...

You're welcome to make your accusations on the Great Debate thread, but I'd advise you to disentangle your hypotheses from your predictions before you do, or you might be embarrassed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 5:47 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 7:44 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18774
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 120 of 167 (670929)
08-21-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by bluegenes
08-21-2012 7:06 AM


Re: logic
more useless blather.

You do not have a theory, you have only a conjectural hypothesis of the same quality as the ID hypothesis here, but are too blind to see it.

See Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 7:06 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by bluegenes, posted 08-21-2012 8:31 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017