Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 181 of 249 (345205)
08-30-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Hughes
08-30-2006 2:49 AM


IC is falsified
I've conceded no such thing.
Evidence as I see it right now.
- Irreducible complexity - (on Widipedia) :"Irreducible complexity is the controversial idea that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally
From the wikipedia article
Other critics take a different approach, pointing to experimental evidence that they believe falsifies the argument for Intelligent Design from irreducible complexity. For example, Kenneth Miller cites the lab work of Barry Hall on E. coli, which he asserts is evidence that "Behe is wrong."
From Ken Miller
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html
Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:
(1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
(2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
(3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease
Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system.
The end result is you have a system that removal of any one part makes the whole inoperative, and it evolved.
This is all that is necessary to falsify the concept of "Irreducible Complexity" as a marker that something had to be designed {by an intelligence}.
{ABE}Also noted in the wikipedia article under "legal status"
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia
In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically mentions of Behe and irreducible complexity[33]:
"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.
{/ABE}
In Message 158 you say
But evolution is also a very adequate way to arrive at design. It may not be very quick, and it may not always yield good or sensible design (although at times it's just plain brilliant, far better than any human intelligence could ever hope to achieve), but it yields design nonetheless.
Because I disagree. I see no evidence indicating that evolution has the power to create even the most powerful super-computer.
Evolution doesn't need to design something to your specification to qualify for design. In fact if we look at the above example we have a special design made by evolution that fits Parasomnium's general condition, in the process demonstrating that what IDists say must be design is from an evolutionary solution.
Note, you say IC is evidence of design - this condition has been filled by Barry Hall's ebg system
You say evolution can't produce design - this condition has been filled by Barry Hall's ebg system
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle
Edited by RAZD, : added {by an intelligence}
Edited by RAZD, : add quote from Judge Jones

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 2:49 AM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Hughes, posted 08-31-2006 11:23 PM RAZD has replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 249 (345263)
08-30-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2006 1:41 AM


The theory of evolution did indeed need for genetic tests to show that life could be grouped by genetic cladistics. And this is what the tests show. Chalk one up to Darwin. You, however, boast that Intelligent deign is superior because it makes no reference to this evidence.
The genetic tests are more tautology than "evidence" supporting evolution. In other words, these animals have similar morphology, and oh look, they also have similar genetics. Wow! What a claim, Darwin was right (oh, wait, did Darwin claim anything about genetics? Not that I remember).
You say that Darwin required vast periods of time. Very true. And it has been proved that those vast periods of time have elapsed. Another successful prediction from my main man Charlie.
First, and remember this through-out this argument, ID doesn't care, you can have billions of years, evolution will never be able to create anything close to the complexity we observe happening today. However, that said, no one, not one has ever "Tested" time. It can't be done. It hasn't been proven that any amount of time has past. Never, not even close.
Again, you can have all the time you need. Doesn't help Darwin one bit.
But, consider.
All the supposed tests that are referenced, are tests of something else entirely (vibration, leakage, etc.), not Time.
For example, what exactly is Time that you can claim to have tested it? What is it's substance? Where do we see it, what is it's nature? It's simply ridiculous to make such claims.
The most common claim is that the Geologic column proves vast amount of time has past. Yet, Geologists use "Index fossils" to date the rocks, and Paleontologists use the Geologic column to date the fossils. A classic case of circular reasoning. Which came first the fossil or the column?
As you probably are familiar with the concept of Calibration. If your instruments aren't calibrated correctly, your measurements will be off, and will lead to false data. Calibration is always done by comparing a known to be accurate tool, to one that needs to be calibrated. On the topic of time, it's fair to ask, how is it even conceivable to calibrate a million year or even a billion year old measuring device?
You know your clock is off?
nope.
Well it is.
How do you know?
I looked at mine....
You say that Darwin required the fossil record to back him up. And it did. Score another point for Darwin. When he wrote, no-one had seen an intermediate form in the fossil record. Yet, obedient to the theory, there turned out to be thousands of them.
Depending on the definition of transitional, and the imagination of the believers. Is a fossil transitional or not is up for debate, and I'm sure that's not the topic of this thread...
Sherlock Holmes: This man has been shot!
Inspector Lestrade: No, he's been struck down by God.
Sherlock Holmes: I think you'll find he's been shot. In fact, let me take this pair of long-bladed tweezers, and, there, you see, there's the bullet!
Inspector Lestrade: Well then, my theory is better than yours, 'cos your theory needs there to be a bullet.
Sherlock Holmes: No, my theory is superior to yours, because my theory needed there to be a bullet and there was one.
Here's how I would characterize the debate:
Sherlock Holmes: This man has been shot!
Inspector Lestrade: No, he's been struck down by natural forces.
Sherlock Holmes: I think you'll find he's been shot. In fact, let me take this pair of long-bladed tweezers, and, there, you see, there's the bullet!
Inspector Lestrade: Well then, at least my theory is science, yours is not, because you invoke non-natural causes.
Sherlock Holmes: No, my theory is superior to yours, because my theory followed the evidence where it led.
(1) A fossil is not evidence that an animal died "suddenly". What on earth gave you that idea?
(2) The fossil record does not merely tell us that "an animal died". It tells us the form of that animal, or at least its hard parts. This allows us to test the fossil record against the predictions of the theory of evolution.
(3) I have no idea what point you are trying to make about "living fossils", but their existence is certainly not evidence against the theory of evolution, since that theory does not predict that such organisms will not exist.
1) If an animal dies and lays on the ground, other organisms or animals eat the body. Or it decomposes and all that is left are bones if you're lucky. An animal that is buried quickly is fossilized intact, as is protected from predators and the elements. Not that it matters.
2) It does tell us about the hard parts of the animal. Limited amounts of information is gleaned. Hence the vast amounts of imagination required to make up stories and pictures for evolutionary tales, based on very little actual factual data. Testing of a biological theory using fossils? Limited at best.
3) Remember the coelacanth, thought to be extinct, not for thousands of years, but for millions of years (about 65 milllion, to be exact), that was discovered in 1938 off the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean, and also near South Africa. And of course this isn't evidence against evolution because of it being a philosophy, and being able to change like a chameleon. Fact of the matter is that scientists had used the Coelacanth fossil evidence of a transitional form, before this discovery. Scientists thought that it walked along the bottom, and also theorized it started to walk on land. Funny thing when they actually observed the living fish, they had the fossil upside down, what they thought were legs, were actually on top of the fish. But, no of course this isn't evidence against evolution power to explain or theorize at all. No. Evolution is still as strong as ever, claiming to explain all sorts of mysteries of fossils. (Ignore that man behind the curtain!)
However, Intelligent Design is not completely unfalsifiable. Although it is void of predictions in geology or natural history, it is incompatible with events that we know actually happened.
Wait, which events is it incompatible with? Do tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2006 1:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by anglagard, posted 08-30-2006 10:12 PM Hughes has not replied
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 08-31-2006 12:50 AM Hughes has replied
 Message 187 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 1:34 AM Hughes has replied
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2006 7:48 AM Hughes has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 183 of 249 (345268)
08-30-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hughes
08-30-2006 9:58 PM


Aspersions on Geologic Dating
Which came first the fossil or the column?
Neither, the radioactive decay came first.
If you want to tell us how all geoscientists know less than you about geologic dating start a thread. Or better yet, look at the ones where such silly claims have already been discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM Hughes has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 184 of 249 (345286)
08-30-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Parasomnium
08-30-2006 3:30 AM


Re: Selective blindness
Largely irrelevant? Are you kidding? A 4% difference between chimps and humans means they are 96% similar. NINETY-SIX percent! And you call that irrelevant? For someone who recognizes design in nature (rightly so, I think), and who concludes a designer (erroneously, I think), you are remarkably blind to the biological implications of the huge similarity between chimps and humans.
It's more then that. 4% genetic difference means chimps share 96% identical genes. I agree with you on how ridiculous it is to think such a finding is irrevelant.
Again, you must be joking, right?
Should we mention the Cliffs of Dover?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Parasomnium, posted 08-30-2006 3:30 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 185 of 249 (345322)
08-31-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hughes
08-30-2006 9:58 PM


What about creationism/ID?
Hi Hughes,
I realize you probably have limited time to deal with the many respondents, but that's all the more reason to use your time to actually address the topic. There are already existing threads for arguing against the theory of evolution and other scientific views, and almost all of your reply belongs in one of those threads, not here. This thread is for making the case that creationism/ID satisfies the criteria of science.
So if you'd like to argue that the match between morphological classifications and genetics is a tautology, please take it to the appropriate thread.
If you'd like to argue that time cannot be reliably measured, please take it to the appropriate thread.
If you'd like to discuss evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record, please take it to the appropriate thread.
In order for ID to be a legitimate scientific theory it must be falsifiable, its supporting evidence that has been gathered through observation and experiment must be replicable, and it must create an interpretational framework of understanding that is consistent with and explains the evidence as well as making accurate predictions of future discoveries. The last time I said this you claimed that ID scientists were working on achieving this. That means that ID is not science at this time.
What has been most notable is what you claim ID does not explain. According to you, ID says nothing about relatedness, genetics or fossils. Also according to you, there is no evidence for ID in the classification system, in genetics or in fossils. As far as I can tell, according to you ID has no evidence and makes no predictions.
What you have mentioned so far as "evidence" for ID is highly questionable. Irreducible complexity is a questionable concept with no real-world example at this time. And concerning communication in the process of DNA transcription and replication, all you've done is mention it. If you really think it is evidence for design then you need to expand on it so other people can understand your position.
By the way, your Sherlock Holmes version makes no sense because it has both parties to the conversation assuming that people firing guns is against the laws of nature. You've set up a false dichotomy. When speaking non-scientifically it is common to think of ourselves as not part of nature and of the things we make and do as not natural, but scientifically we are as much a part of nature as everything else around us. We're made of the same matter and we obey all the same physical laws of nature.
I think Tanypteryx in Message 165 of the Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism thread makes the most relevant point regarding your arguments so far. The best characterization of your repeated claims of what ID does not tell us is when he says, "Those who argue against evolution are not interested in understanding the world around us." And you'd really prefer that others were as uninterested as yourself. What you're really interested in is protecting religious faith, not advancing science, and that's the real reason that ID fails as science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Hughes, posted 09-01-2006 12:56 PM Percy has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 186 of 249 (345328)
08-31-2006 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2006 7:37 AM


Well, of course the weasel words here are "too complex to have evolved". How do you determinte that something is "too complex to have evolved"?
The whole argument about complexity is screwy anyways. What we should be asking is "Isn't life to complex to have been designed?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2006 7:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 187 of 249 (345329)
08-31-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hughes
08-30-2006 9:58 PM


First, and remember this through-out this argument, ID doesn't care, you can have billions of years, evolution will never be able to create anything close to the complexity we observe happening today.
Your whole post is just a load of unsupported asertions. I will just address this one. What you should be asking yourself is (That's if you are really serious about turnig ID in a real science theory) Can ID explain the complexity we observe today? this is potentially a serious problem for ID because all known itelligent designers (Human beings, that is) have time and skill limitations.
The theory of evolution doesn't face simmilar problem because the process can keep working over extremely long periods of time and lead to apparently arbitrarily complex extructures. I would argue that the more complex something is, the harder it becomes to believe that it may have been designed and the bigger gets the likelyhood that it is a result of some natural process like evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by mjfloresta, posted 08-31-2006 1:56 AM fallacycop has replied
 Message 218 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 9:12 PM fallacycop has replied

  
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5993 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 188 of 249 (345332)
08-31-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 1:34 AM


ROFL!!
I would argue that the more complex something is, the harder it becomes to believe that it may have been designed and the bigger gets the likelyhood that it is a result of some natural process like evolution
That's got to be one of the strangest things I've ever heard!! The more complex something is the more likely that it was NOT designed? I'm thinking Golden Gate Bridge, The Empire State Building, The Great Pyramids, The Great Wall of China, Computers, Politics...
I don't see how it's possible to claim that greater complexity implies greater likelihood of an undirected/unintelligent origin..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 1:34 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by ringo, posted 08-31-2006 3:34 AM mjfloresta has not replied
 Message 192 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-31-2006 3:49 PM mjfloresta has not replied
 Message 194 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 5:34 PM mjfloresta has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 189 of 249 (345343)
08-31-2006 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by mjfloresta
08-31-2006 1:56 AM


Re: ROFL!!
mjfloresta writes:
I'm thinking Golden Gate Bridge, The Empire State Building, The Great Pyramids, The Great Wall of China, Computers, Politics...
All of those are basically very simple. A mountain range is much more complex.
I don't see how it's possible to claim that greater complexity implies greater likelihood of an undirected/unintelligent origin..
One of the major principles of design is simplification.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mjfloresta, posted 08-31-2006 1:56 AM mjfloresta has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 190 of 249 (345367)
08-31-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hughes
08-30-2006 9:58 PM


As you probably are familiar with the concept of Calibration. If your instruments aren't calibrated correctly, your measurements will be off, and will lead to false data.
This is addressed on Message 1
How does the concept of ID contribute to calibrations? What does it show the calibrations should be?
First, and remember this through-out this argument, ID doesn't care, you can have billions of years, evolution will never be able to create anything close to the complexity we observe happening today.
How does ID explain the changes in complexity seen today - the one's happening now? What is the mechanism that it operates by? How is the design transmitted? What is the process? Can we predict the next change? Shouldn't there be a trend if it is a design process?
Surely if ID can be used in science then it should be able to contribute to making even better medicines by understanding the design process and working with it -- such as finding a cure for AIDS\HIV yes?
After all that is just a recent virus, not really as complex as cellular life eh? Should be easy to apply the paradigms of ID and develop a vacine faster than old evolution based answers eh?.
What does ID contribute to the argument?
All the supposed tests that are referenced, are tests of something else entirely (vibration, leakage, etc.), not Time.
The evidence for this? The predictions based on it?
The falsification test is?
AND What does ID contribute to the argument?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 11:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 249 (345481)
08-31-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Wounded King
08-30-2006 3:20 AM


As seen in the genetic transfer of information from one generation to the next, and from one cell to the next.
Can you specifically tie the steps of that process to DNA replicaton either transgenerationally or in a cell lineage. The only bits I can see are some decoding followed by some transfering, it doesn't seem to be a congruent system.
TTFN,
WK
I don't know if I can "specifically" tie steps together to your satisfaction. Not being a micro-biologist. I have studied communications, and the principles are the same, based on descriptions I've read. Here is but one example of cellular communication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Wounded King, posted 08-30-2006 3:20 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 08-31-2006 4:30 PM Hughes has replied
 Message 195 by Wounded King, posted 08-31-2006 6:16 PM Hughes has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 192 of 249 (345483)
08-31-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mjfloresta
08-31-2006 1:56 AM


complex and linear systems
mjfloresta writes (while rolling on the floor laughing):
That's got to be one of the strangest things I've ever heard!! The more complex something is the more likely that it was NOT designed?[....]
I don't see how it's possible to claim that greater complexity implies greater likelihood of an undirected/unintelligent origin..
Complex systems are characteristic of nature. Why is it so hard to predict the weather? Because it's a complex system.
Linear systems are more characteristic of design.
You might want to read up a bit on chaos theory. Fascinating.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Quote box.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mjfloresta, posted 08-31-2006 1:56 AM mjfloresta has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 193 of 249 (345489)
08-31-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hughes
08-31-2006 3:38 PM


Hughes writes:
I have studied communications...
You mean communications as in radio, television and journalism communications? Or communications as in Shannon Information? I don't see how you could have studied the latter and make statements like, "Information can only come from intelligent sources." Right near the beginning of his paper Shannon states that meaning is irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information. Intelligence has nothing to do with creating information.
... and the principles are the same, based on descriptions I've read.
I agree that communicating information within the cell fits within the formalism of information theory, but this has nothing to do with intelligence. You seem to sort of be nibbling around the edges of the faux information theories promoted by Gitt and Dembski.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hughes, posted 08-31-2006 3:38 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Hughes, posted 09-03-2006 1:41 AM Percy has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 194 of 249 (345507)
08-31-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mjfloresta
08-31-2006 1:56 AM


Re: ROFL!!
That's got to be one of the strangest things I've ever heard!! The more complex something is the more likely that it was NOT designed? I'm thinking Golden Gate Bridge, The Empire State Building, The Great Pyramids, The Great Wall of China, Computers, Politics...
Bridges and buildings are not very complex things. they have some complex aspects that's true. For instance, questions like what are the more efficient shapes for a bridge, or what is the most aerodynamical shape for the wing of an airplane are not easy to answer. That's why engeneers build wind tunels to test their ideas. They build wings, test them, drop the ones that don't work well, keep the ones that do, add new features to the latter, test again...
hum... They use a process that is basically equivalent to evolution in order to be able to design the more complex features of their projects. Often times a combination of random changes (mutation) plus some selection rule is the most efficient way to design a complex structure. look up evolutionary algorithms.
Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.
Politics is not designed. it is an emergent behaviour. It is the sum of the individual actions taken by people. Just as weather is an emergent phenomenon. It is the sum of the behaviour of every single molecule in the atmosphere.
I grant you that many complex things have been designed by human beings, but nothing that comes even close to the complexity of life. There is a huge gap here that must be bridged by ID before we can start to consider whether ID is a scientific theory or not. As I see it, lifes complexity is a clean score for evolution in the evolution vs ID debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mjfloresta, posted 08-31-2006 1:56 AM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Hughes, posted 09-03-2006 1:56 AM fallacycop has replied
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 9:24 AM fallacycop has replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 9:25 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 195 of 249 (345513)
08-31-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Hughes
08-31-2006 3:38 PM


The who with the what now?
OK, now I'm confused.
I assumed that by transgenerationally you meant inheritance through a germ line as seen in multicellular organism, and maybe arguably some wierdo unicellular ones, and that by cell lineage you meant just that, a lineage of cells descended from one or a group of progenitor cells and inheriting the genetic and possibly epigenetic character of those progenitor cells.
But now you are going to a completely different field of molecular biology and discussing cell/cell communication and signal transduction.
This has absoloutely nothing to do with the transgenerational transmission of genetic information. If you think it does then we really require a rationale beyond your assumptions based on the descriptions you've read.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Hughes, posted 08-31-2006 3:38 PM Hughes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024