Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 164 (8125 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-29-2014 6:23 PM
72 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: AppleScratch
Post Volume:
Total: 735,022 Year: 20,863/28,606 Month: 1,360/2,774 Week: 243/238 Day: 37/38 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 1 of 188 (344622)
08-29-2006 7:00 AM


According Davison there is no doubt, that evolution is a fact, but neodarwinism is incapable to account for it.
I am much impressed by Davisons Evolutionary manifesto - one of the most concise critics of darwinism - which was in turn here very criticized.

In discussions and threads here in EVC lot of opponents claim that Davison cited Grasse and much more older scientists, who are nowadays out of date.
Even there was a remark, that Grasse himself cited some outdated source from 1901!
And yet to cite Darwins teaching from midst of 19 c. is still
up to date and scientifically correct.

It does not matter how old some resource is, because darwinist scientists ignore all facts that do not conform to the neodarwinistic schema. One of these phenomenons are mimicry. Mimetism (or mimicry) was studied very intesive before WW2, yet on
the talkorigins there are no mention of it. Davison cited for instance Punnet, who studied butterflies mimicry and came to the conclusion, that selection is no sufficient explanation to the phenomenon, and to the same conclusion came Heikertinger
(who wrotes plenty books on development of insects and whose corresponding with Erich Wasmann on mimicry was once followed by all biological community in Europe.
But just try to find something more about Heikertinger on internet. Btw, Heikertinger too dismissed darwinian selection, which according him just remove extremities.)

There are plenty of books on mimicry, yet no relaible source of explanation of it.

For instance: there are 14 females distinct morphs of African Mocker Swallowtail, Papilio dardanus (males look identical). Most of these female morphs represent Batesian mimicry
of distasteful species of Danidae and Acraeidae.

Some of them are here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html

According to Nijhout (2003) these represents one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.

What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

Does not sound this explanation like saltationism, macroevolution?

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf

This is very good example, because there is no doubt of same colour patterns on wings of different species of butterfflies and neo-darwinists cannot claims that the likeness is "superficial" (as is the case in the likeness of skeleton (skull) of europian and marsupial wolves mentioned in Manifesto).

There is no mention of Swallowtail on talkorigin and no satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon yet, even though the phenomenon is known and cited more than 130 years!

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 08-29-2006 9:36 AM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 08-29-2006 10:06 AM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2006 10:07 AM MartinV has responded

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 188 (344626)
08-29-2006 7:17 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
jar
Member
Posts: 24625
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 3 of 188 (344656)
08-29-2006 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
08-29-2006 7:00 AM


Actually, I don't see much of a problem with mimicry.
I've never been able to see where or why anyone sees mimicry as some unusual problem for classic evolution. What we see as mimicry is just a history, a snapshot taken at one point in the trip.

One of my favorite examples is a recent study on mimicry among poison dart frogs in areas where more than one species of poison dart frog exists. What I enjoyed most about the study is that it seems the most successful mimics are those that mimic the less poisonous variety.

When I first heard that I was surprised. Why wouldn't the ones that looked like the most poisonous species be more successful?

Then I stopped to think about it.

Predators that try to eat the most poisonous species likely die while learning. Those that try to eat the less poisonous species might survive, but remember the experience.

The former learn their lesson, but the don't retain it. They dead. The later learn their lesson and in the future avoid anything that looks like what made them sick.

The result is that the frogs that look like the less poisonous species have an advantage over those that look like the more poisonous ones.

Pretty neat. Simple, elegant and absolutely no need for any intervention.

You can see the abstract here


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 7:00 AM MartinV has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 188 (344666)
08-29-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
08-29-2006 7:00 AM


I'm a bit surprised to see this topic. I would have thought the existence of mimicry was supportive of evolution, so I find it strange that it is used here as an objection.

If there is no mention on talk origins, I would be inclined to guess that is because there is little credible criticism of evolution based on the existence of mimicry.

What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

Looking at the Nijhout article you cited, I see:

Batesian mimicry is believed to originate by means of an initial mutation that has a sufficiently big effect on the phenotype to give a passable resemblance to a protected model.

This could be a small mutation with a big effect on the phenotype. Don't jump to the conclusion that it had to be a big mutation. I don't see a basis for saying that saltation is involved. On page 589 of the cited article, Nijhout says "So the first step in the evolution of mimicry could involve only a single locus." That would make it a small mutation.

Edited by nwr, : fix typo (inserted closing quote that was missing in last paragraph)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 7:00 AM MartinV has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 188 (344667)
08-29-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MartinV
08-29-2006 7:00 AM


And yet to cite Darwins teaching from midst of 19 c. is still
up to date and scientifically correct.

No it isn't. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in the 'neo-darwinian' camp here who argues much from Darwin's own writings, unless it is the content of those writings itself that are under discussion.

This is not to say that an older reference may not be perfectly good. The main objection to many of JAD's references were that they had been superceded by subsequent research in genetics and evolutionary biology and that JAD refused to address any more recent developments which disagreed with his hypothesis.

What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".

Does not sound this explanation like saltationism, macroevolution?

You are conflating a large mutation with a mutation with a large effect. The actual genetic differences betwen the various alleles is not, sadly, something that the paper you reference addresses.

How can the variation of one phenotypic trait in a species be classed as macroevolutionary in any way, except as a possible substrate for speciation through mating choice? Because it makes them look superficially like another species? Without knowing the actual genetic bases of the differing patterns of expression it is hard to say whether the similarities between species are merely superficial or share a common genetic basis.

The likeness is also 'superficial' to the extent that it is far from exact. Comparing the four species of Danaidae with the dardanus mimics from your first link, not a single one replicates the target species pattern exactly and the middle two are pretty wide of mark altogether except for the shading of the largest blocks of colour. The most similar is the first example which also happens to very closely resemble the male form of Papilio dardanus. I'm not sure where you find any lack of a neo-darwinian explanation, beyond the fact that there is no exact account of which specific mutations account for the differing alleles.

A paper dealing with mullerian mimicry in Heliconius briefly reviews research on the genes repsonsible for the mimicry of the same target by two different Heliconius species and finds them to be genetically distinct although with some overlap in loci responsible for the pattern (Naisbit et al, 2003), this does not deal with the specific genetic mutations responsible for the different allelic loci so even those instances where the same locus is involved may be due to a distinct mutation. Clearly much of this resemblance is therefore superficial yet the mimics look similar.

TTFN,

WK

Edited by Wounded King, : *ABE* Edited to redact a sentence due to my misreading of the figure legend.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 7:00 AM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 12:34 PM Wounded King has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 6 of 188 (344730)
08-29-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
08-29-2006 10:07 AM


nwr:

I'm a bit surprised to see this topic. I would have thought the existence of mimicry was supportive of evolution, so I find it strange that it is used here as an objection.

You are right - industrial melanism as icon of evolution is also mimicry so to say.
(Yet I dont know if industrial melanism after it has been proved to be pre-arranged is still used in textbooks).

The example which I give with Mocker Swallowtail is interesting that female mimics lot of other butterfly species. When it was first published in 1868 by Trimen it was shock to the scientific world. Interesting is also, that no-mimetic form of female has spur like male - in mimetic forms the spur is missing.

Other - among plenty of others - most baffling example is Mullerian multiplied mimicry Heliconius melpomene and Meliconius erato.

See picture:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/MalletCurrBiol96.pdf

I suppose that all these examples represnts a problem for neodarwinism. It is - for me - hard to believe, that mechanism behind this phenomenon is neodarwistic random mutation and selection.

WoundedKing

I'm not sure where you find any lack of a neo-darwinian explanation, beyond the fact that there is no exact account of which specific mutations account for the differing alleles.

I have no doubt, that behind this phenomenon are genes, alleles...Yet the origin of these genes are to be explained as you mentioned - now we see only "could". The correspondence between mimetics forms, abundance of mimetics forms (I can give many examples of them not found on internet, yet well known) is on my opinion beyond idea of random changes.

This opinion also presented Andreas Suchantke in his book "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich" (1994), that we should better reconcile with an idea that butterflies can actively accomodate to the environment.

Same opinion I found in book "Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomens" (2001) written by Stanislav Komarek from Charles University Prague. In some cases - he wrote - we need to believe to omnipotence of selection as explanation of some mimetics forms.

Dvison cited Punnet and I added Heikertinger - they all believe in "internal factors" as explanation, no random mutations/selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2006 10:07 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2006 12:45 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 08-29-2006 2:46 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2006 6:44 PM MartinV has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 10759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 7 of 188 (344732)
08-29-2006 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MartinV
08-29-2006 12:34 PM


quote:

You are right - industrial melanism as icon of evolution is also mimicry so to say.
(Yet I dont know if industrial melanism after it has been proved to be pre-arranged is still used in textbooks).

I don't know what you are talking about. There's been no "proof" that there is any real problem with industrial melanism as an example of natural selection in action.

The Mocker Swallowtail is interesting, but I really don't see how it is supposed to support JAD's ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 12:34 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MartinV, posted 08-30-2006 1:53 PM PaulK has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 188 (344759)
08-29-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MartinV
08-29-2006 12:34 PM


I suppose that all these examples represnts a problem for neodarwinism. It is - for me - hard to believe, that mechanism behind this phenomenon is neodarwistic random mutation and selection.

You only suppose that because of your prejudice. Why in the absence of specific data about the exact nature of the genetic bases, and in the case of the two Heliconius species the differing bases producing the same phenotype, would you assume that the origin of the allelic difference was some never before seen phenomenon rather than the frequently observed and well characterised forms of mutation which we know to exist?

Is there in fact anything in terms of actual evidence to support your view? It seems merely to be your own personal incredulity here in terms of argument.

The Naisbit paper I referenced earlier was in fact discussing H. Melpomene and H. erato and the genetic evidence seems pretty conclusive that Brower is correct and the same phenotype has evolved twice between the Andean and Guianan populations and not in the same way, distinctly not the result one would expect in line with the PEH.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MartinV, posted 08-29-2006 12:34 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 9 of 188 (345056)
08-30-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
08-29-2006 12:45 PM


PaulK writes:

I don't know what you are talking about. There's been no "proof" that there is any real problem with industrial melanism as an example of natural selection in action.

Yes, maybe we see natural selection in action, but not evolution itself. But I am not sure even with that.
I have read - I have no reference now - that the number of light moths outnumered many times dark ones in other, clear parts of England.

More about how Kettlewell placed laboratory-bred moths or dead ones were glued to a tree to scientifically demonstrate industrial melanism as known fraud is on answeringenesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

But the case is not so interesting itself, but with connection to the given topic of mimicry. There is another case: Viceroy butterfly that mimics Monarch butterfly.

http://www.kidzone.ws/animals/monarch_butterfly.htm

It was supposed, that this example represents Batesian mimicry - Viceroy as edible mimics unpalatable Monarch. This notion was valid many years, while it fitted into darwinian concept
of mimicry. There was no scietifically research on this, until 1991, when in Nature was published “The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic,” Nature 350:497–498 (1991). It is supposed that mimic and his model represent Mullerian mimicry - e.g. unpalatable species mimics another unpalatable species. These types of mimicry represent little problem for neodarwinism, because we do not see reason, why unpalatable species should be driven by selection to look like other upalatable species. The explanation should be this: birds would try to eat only one version and remeber it instead of trying to eat both of them.

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Monarch_Viceroy_Puzzle

Another interesting case - where it is unclear if we have to deal with Batesian or Mullerian mimicry - is moth that mimics hornet (vespa crabro vs. sesia apiformis).

http://bugguide.net/node/view/16081

I have read in Slovak encyclopedia from 1980 that some experiments show, that birds recognized very well between these species. But it maybe depends on researchers, a neodarwinist will arrange experiment to support his concept.

Anyway claim that mimicry protects some butterflies is only hypothesis that fit into neodarwinian paradigma and should be experimentaly verified. If mimicry is not Batesian ones or not even Mullerian ones I see no reason for natural selection and subsequent neodarwinian explanation of the phenomenon to be correct.

Edited by MartinV, : Monarch - Viceroy puzzle link added.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2006 12:45 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2006 2:14 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Hawks, posted 08-30-2006 8:34 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2006 5:53 AM MartinV has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 10759
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 10 of 188 (345064)
08-30-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by MartinV
08-30-2006 1:53 PM


quote:

Yes, maybe we see natural selection in action, but not evolution itself

Well ity is pointed out as an example of a mutation which spread by natural selection, and then disappeared again as a result of natural selection as the smoke decreased.

quote:

I have read - I have no reference now - that the number of light moths outnumered many times dark ones in other, clear parts of England.

As it should be by evolutionary theory.

quote:

More about how Kettlewell placed laboratory-bred moths or dead ones were glued to a tree to scientifically demonstrate industrial melanism as known fraud is on answeringenesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp



It does nothing of the sort. It just shows that Answers in Genesis like to make unfounded accusations of fraud. All too typical of the amorality of too many creationists.

ANd I don't see how your discussion of mimicry is supposed to support JAD"s hypothesis. Perhaps an example of mimicry where there is no identiifable advantage to the mimic would be of interest, but unless JAD's hypothesis predicts such a thing it is hard to see how it could help his ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MartinV, posted 08-30-2006 1:53 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 2557 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 11 of 188 (345233)
08-30-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by MartinV
08-30-2006 1:53 PM


Yes, maybe we see natural selection in action, but not evolution itself.

Natural selection is a mechanism that drives evolution in a certain direction. If you can measure that natural selection has taken place, then you will by necessity be able to say that evolution has taken place. I.e. if you see natural selection, you see evolution (although the reverse is not necessarily true).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MartinV, posted 08-30-2006 1:53 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 12 of 188 (345357)
08-31-2006 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by MartinV
08-30-2006 1:53 PM


This notion was valid many years, while it fitted into darwinian concept
of mimicry.

It was considered a valid notion in the absence of contradictory evidence, once that evidence was produced it was incorrect that theory was discarded. In what way is this anything other than an example of the normal operation of science?

But it maybe depends on researchers, a neodarwinist will arrange experiment to support his concept.

Way to cast aspersions on a gigantic proportion of practicing biologists. Perhaps what you mean is that they will arrange experiments to test their hypotheses, as opposed to the ID or creationist scientist who will neglect to do any experiments but write smug little theoretical papers in obscure journals instead. If you want to show us the massive prevalence of scientific fraud however then I suggest you provide some evidence beyond a AIG link about Kettlewell.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MartinV, posted 08-30-2006 1:53 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 12:30 PM Wounded King has responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2239 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 13 of 188 (345430)
08-31-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Wounded King
08-31-2006 5:53 AM


WoundedKing writes:


Way to cast aspersions on a gigantic proportion of practicing biologists.

I have no intention to aspers biologists, I only cited facts as I know them.
In Europe (see my previous post) is known hornet and his mimic moth hornet. The phenomenon is well-known, often cited, but there is no serious and accepted scientifically study (as far as I know from literature dating to 2001) that solved the problem if we are facing Batesian or Mullerian mimicry or mimicry at all. I remarked in my previous post that according Slovak encyklopedia birds distiguish verywell between these species. If it is true I see no neodarwinian explanation to this noteworthy likeness.

http://tolweb.org/Sesioidea/12054

Heikertinger, prominent Austrian entomologist for instance refused any meaning of cryptic designs as having adaptive consequence. Heikertinger see this phenomenon as realization of internal tendencies of organism. Davisons derepression of hiden pre-loaded structures souds like that.

So the current darwinian explanation that moth hornet mimics hornet in order not to be eaten is only a myth without any valid foundation. I think that cited previous article on
Viceroy and Monarch is of the same sort. The article topple down concept of Batesian mimicry as source of the likeness between the species. So darwinists are forced to accepted another hypothesis of the phenomen. But without scientifically study it will be another myth as previous (batesian) one.

And another interesting ethological darwinian myth is about similarity of Papilio antimachus to much more smaller sort of butterfly Acrea. As model should had been greater version of this Acrea which is nowadays extinct and nobody saw it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2006 5:53 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2006 1:11 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 15 by Catholic Scientist, posted 08-31-2006 2:34 PM MartinV has not yet responded
 Message 17 by EZscience, posted 08-31-2006 3:49 PM MartinV has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 14 of 188 (345442)
08-31-2006 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MartinV
08-31-2006 12:30 PM


I have no intention to aspers biologists, I only cited facts as I know them.

Except you didn't so much cite facts as make a few vague claims and offer as substantiation a link to Answers in Genesis.

I don't even know what you think you are arguing now? You seem to have gone from saying that mimicry can't be explained by neo-darwinism to saying that in fact the phenomenon of mimicry doesn't exist and certain species just seem to resemble each other for no apparent reason.

You seem to be moaning because biologists are doing exactly what they should do and formulating new hypotheses when the old ones are contradicted by evidence.

The fact that there is no published experimental study of every case of mimicry seems like a ridiculous complaint.

Heikertinger, prominent Austrian entomologist for instance refused any meaning of cryptic designs as having adaptive consequence. Heikertinger see this phenomenon as realization of internal tendencies of organism. Davisons derepression of hiden pre-loaded structures souds like that.

And when was this? The only Heikertinger I can find is Franz Heikertinger and he was already publishing in 1911. Is there any reason to suspect that he was familiar with modern molecular developmental genetics when he made this pronouncement? This is exactly why the sort of references JAD gives are so often scoffed at, not because their originators were cranks or bad scientists but because their ideas are clearly contradicted by subsequent evidence which they couldn't possibly have been familiar with. Those who do have the choice of familiarising themselves with more recent research must accept ridicule if they instead decide to hide behind the authority of the deceased.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 12:30 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 2:34 PM Wounded King has responded

  
Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 9358
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 15 of 188 (345470)
08-31-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MartinV
08-31-2006 12:30 PM


Just a couple questions
you in msg 8 writes:

I suppose that all these examples represnts a problem for neodarwinism. It is - for me - hard to believe, that mechanism behind this phenomenon is neodarwistic random mutation and selection.

Do you think that a phenomenon that is a 'problem' for neodarwinism somehow discredits everything it claims?

Do you have an alternative explanation for the phenomenon?

Why do you have a problem with neodarwinism? (other than the mimicry thing)

Do you realize that the difficulty to believe something has no affect on its truth value?

Do you realize that you are arguing from incredulity?

Other than these questions I was wondering about, you seem to have done a decent job of exemplifying a phenomenon that is difficult to explain with neodarwinism. IMHO, that doesn't count as any falsification, just an example where more effort could be placed.


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MartinV, posted 08-31-2006 12:30 PM MartinV has not yet responded

1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014