Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:43 AM
20 online now:
Heathen, Pressie (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,794 Year: 9,830/19,786 Month: 2,252/2,119 Week: 288/724 Day: 13/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 122 of 214 (16173)
08-28-2002 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
08-28-2002 10:25 AM


Hi Schrafinator,
This is what I found in medline searching for Borger P

Are any of these you Peter???

Sorry the list is a mess but I just copied and pasted the results page from medline.

Cheers,
Mammuthus

: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Scholma J, Timmerman JA, Koeter GH. Related Articles

Human allogeneic CD2+ lymphocytes activate airway-derived epithelial cells to produce interleukin-6 and interleukin-8. Possible role for the epithelium in chronic allograft rejection.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2002 May;21(5):567-75.
PMID: 11983547 [PubMed - in process]

2: Ikram MK, Borger PH, Assink JJ, Jonas JB, Hofman A, de Jong PT. Related Articles

Comparing ophthalmoscopy, slide viewing, and semiautomated systems in optic disc morphometry.
Ophthalmology. 2002 Mar;109(3):486-93.
PMID: 11874749 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Wolfs RC, Borger PH, Ramrattan RS, Klaver CC, Hulsman CA, Hofman A, Vingerling JR, Hitchings RA, de Jong PT. Related Articles

Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences--The Rotterdam Study.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Oct;41(11):3309-21.
PMID: 11006219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Kauffman HF, Tomee JF, van de Riet MA, Timmerman AJ, Borger P. Related Articles

Protease-dependent activation of epithelial cells by fungal allergens leads to morphologic changes and cytokine production.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Jun;105(6 Pt 1):1185-93.
PMID: 10856154 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5: Borger P, Postma DS, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF. Related Articles

Regulation of asthma-related T-cell cytokines by the cyclic AMP-dependent signalling pathway.
Clin Exp Allergy. 2000 Jul;30(7):920-6. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 10848913 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Timmerman JA, Scholma J, van den Berg JW, Koeter GH. Related Articles

Cyclosporine, FK506, mycophenolate mofetil, and prednisolone differentially modulate cytokine gene expression in human airway-derived epithelial cells.
Transplantation. 2000 Apr 15;69(7):1408-13.
PMID: 10798763 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7: Borger P, Koeter GH, Timmerman JA, Vellenga E, Tomee JF, Kauffman HF. Related Articles

Proteases from Aspergillus fumigatus induce interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8 production in airway epithelial cell lines by transcriptional mechanisms.
J Infect Dis. 1999 Oct;180(4):1267-74.
PMID: 10479157 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8: Borger P, Jonker GJ, Vellenga E, Postma DS, De Monchy JG, Kauffman HF. Related Articles

Allergen challenge primes for IL-5 mRNA production and abrogates beta-adrenergic function in peripheral blood T lymphocytes from asthmatics.
Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Jul;29(7):933-40.
PMID: 10383594 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

9: Borger P, Ten Hacken NH, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF, Postma DS. Related Articles

Peripheral blood T lymphocytes from asthmatic patients are primed for enhanced expression of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-5 mRNA: associations with lung function and serum IgE.
Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Jun;29(6):772-9.
PMID: 10336593 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

10: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Esselink MT, Vellenga E. Related Articles

Interleukin-15 differentially enhances the expression of interferon-gamma and interleukin-4 in activated human (CD4+) T lymphocytes.
Immunology. 1999 Feb;96(2):207-14.
PMID: 10233697 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

11: Borger P, Hoekstra Y, Esselink MT, Postma DS, Zaagsma J, Vellenga E, Kauffman HF. Related Articles

Beta-adrenoceptor-mediated inhibition of IFN-gamma, IL-3, and GM-CSF mRNA accumulation in activated human T lymphocytes is solely mediated by the beta2-adrenoceptor subtype.
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 1998 Sep;19(3):400-7.
PMID: 9730867 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

12: Borger P, Vellenga E, Gringhuis SI, Timmerman JA, Lummen C, Postma DS, Kauffman HF. Related Articles

Prostaglandin E2 differentially modulates IL-5 gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes depending on the costimulatory signal.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Feb;101(2 Pt 1):231-40.
PMID: 9500757 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

13: Gringhuis SI, de Leij LF, Verschuren EW, Borger P, Vellenga E. Related Articles

Interleukin-7 upregulates the interleukin-2-gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes at the transcriptional level by enhancing the DNA binding activities of both nuclear factor of activated T cells and activator protein-1.
Blood. 1997 Oct 1;90(7):2690-700.
PMID: 9326236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

14: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related Articles

IL-7 differentially modulates the expression of IFN-gamma and IL-4 in activated human T lymphocytes by transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms.
J Immunol. 1996 Feb 15;156(4):1333-8.
PMID: 8568231 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

15: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Vijgen JL, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related Articles

Activation of the cAMP-dependent signaling pathway downregulates the expression of interleukin-3 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in activated human T lymphocytes.
Exp Hematol. 1996 Feb;24(2):108-15.
PMID: 8641331 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

16: Borger P, Kauffman HF, Postma DS, Vellenga E. Related Articles

Interleukin-4 gene expression in activated human T lymphocytes is regulated by the cyclic adenosine monophosphate-dependent signaling pathway.
Blood. 1996 Jan 15;87(2):691-8.
PMID: 8555492 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

17: Kiel JA, ten Berge AM, Borger P, Venema G. Related Articles

A general method for the consecutive integration of single copies of a heterologous gene at multiple locations in the Bacillus subtilis chromosome by replacement recombination.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Dec;61(12):4244-50.
PMID: 8534091 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

18: Dokter WH, Borger P, Hendriks D, van der Horst I, Halie MR, Vellenga E. Related Articles

Interleukin-4 (IL-4) receptor expression on human T cells is affected by different intracellular signaling pathways and by IL-4 at transcriptional and posttranscriptional level.
Blood. 1992 Dec 1;80(11):2721-8.
PMID: 1450403 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

19: Camakaris J, Danks DM, Ackland L, Cartwright E, Borger P, Cotton RG. Related Articles, OMIM

Altered copper metabolism in cultured cells from human Menkes' syndrome and mottled mouse mutants.
Biochem Genet. 1980 Feb;18(1-2):117-31.
PMID: 7387619 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
If this overturn of evolution of Peter's is so great, and since Peter must understand the journal system given his background, why is he wasting his time here?

I have wondered this myself, reading this thread.

I also wonder if Mr. Borger is representing his educational background, um, completely accurately.

I mean, in one post he says he has a Biology degree, and then in the next he doesn't seem to understand that the location of the foramen magnum on various primate skulls implies how generally upright/bipedally the individuals carried themselves. Furthermore, he also rejects the idea that one can trust any information gleaned from an inference, when this is most of what is done in scientific research, suggesting (inferring?!) that he does not understand the inferrential nature of science as a whole.

So, Mr. Borger, I think that it is time for some direct questioning.

Where and when did you earn your undergraduate and graduate degrees, and in what disciplines?

Which journals have you published in, and can you please provide a few citations for us to review?

Please understand that it is not a requirement, in my mind, that someone be a PhD in order for their views be correct or respected. I do require someone to represent themselves truthfully, however. Any misrepresentation of your credentials would be viewed by most as a valid reason to seriously question your integrity.

It is not unusual at all for creationists to misrepresent their credentials. It's been done on this very board, in fact. Moreover, it's been done by "leaders" in the movement for decades.

So, put me in my place and provide the information I ask for.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 08-28-2002 10:25 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by peter borger, posted 09-05-2002 2:36 AM Mammuthus has responded

axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 214 (16208)
08-29-2002 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by peter borger
08-23-2002 12:29 AM


Mr./Dr. Borger, et al, You know, the specific arguments that you and your peers have tried to make in using certain nucleotides, sequences, genes,... to argue support for creation would not have been possible 20 years ago. Science had not filled in these voids with discoveries yet. And, your antecedents were using arguments based on what they knew of the gaps in the database of science at that time.

Taking a step back, what the creation group is attempting to do is make an argument supporting creation using technology that was 30 centuries beyond the people who wrote the creation stories. These people feared god in everything they thought and did. In fact, those people thought god made seeds sprout, seasons change, and women have babies. So, this creationist line of argument raises objections on more levels than I can shake a finger at.

Just as sure as DNA was a threshold discovery and human DNA was decoded 10 years faster than predicted at the start, science will continue this path of discovery. In another generation, some smart people will have figured out the molecular dynamics I was asking about earlier in this thread. What then will become of the creationists? If man can do it too, does that mean we are gods?

[This message has been edited by axial soliton, 08-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 08-23-2002 12:29 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by peter borger, posted 09-05-2002 8:56 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 124 of 214 (16230)
08-29-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by mark24
08-24-2002 3:25 PM


If I understand it correctly PeterB is saying that the
existence of regions which have a higher probability
of undergoing mutation makes mutations non-random.

If my interpretation is correct, then I think the logic is
skewed to say the least.

Because a region is more likely to be subject to a copying error
does not make any actual instance of a copy error non-random.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by mark24, posted 08-24-2002 3:25 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by derwood, posted 08-29-2002 12:47 PM Peter has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 125 of 214 (16247)
08-29-2002 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Peter
08-29-2002 7:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
If I understand it correctly PeterB is saying that the
existence of regions which have a higher probability
of undergoing mutation makes mutations non-random.

If my interpretation is correct, then I think the logic is
skewed to say the least.

Because a region is more likely to be subject to a copying error
does not make any actual instance of a copy error non-random.


Indeed.

------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Peter, posted 08-29-2002 7:58 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 3:13 PM derwood has responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 214 (16253)
08-29-2002 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by derwood
08-29-2002 12:47 PM


After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by derwood, posted 08-29-2002 12:47 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by derwood, posted 08-30-2002 10:53 AM axial soliton has not yet responded
 Message 128 by derwood, posted 08-30-2002 10:54 AM axial soliton has responded

derwood
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 127 of 214 (16303)
08-30-2002 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by axial soliton
08-29-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?


I would say yes, but the real reason I use that quote is because 'John Paul' (Joe Gallien) has used other quotes from that paper to try to argue in support of ReMine.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 3:13 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 128 of 214 (16304)
08-30-2002 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by axial soliton
08-29-2002 3:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
After reading this article, would it be plausible to suggest that for the few differences in coding DNA between chimps and humans since the split, we are now positive-selecting specific gene changes due to specific behaviorial and environmental criteria? If that didn't come out right, chimps don't take care of permanent homes or have playmate pinups. The question is hard to ask because we seem so similar.

Is the pureifying selection rate indicating we are adapting to the general environment in the same general way?


I would say yes, but the real reason I use that quote is because 'John Paul' (Joe Gallien) has used other quotes from that paper to try to argue in support of ReMine.

------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
http://www.uchicago.edu/aff/mwc-amacad/biocomplexity/conference_papers/goodman.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 3:13 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 4:38 PM derwood has not yet responded
 Message 154 by peter borger, posted 09-09-2002 11:13 PM derwood has responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 214 (16308)
08-30-2002 1:01 PM


Peter Borger's argument is this:

1. It appears that mutations are not completely random in the genome.
2. Evolution posits a "uniform" randomness.
3. Therefore these areas of non-random mutation must be from a process other than evolution.
4. Therefore this process is "directed" mutation.
5. This means that the coding of these genes was caused by intelligence and not a random process.
6. The only intelligence that could produce such genes is the Christian God.

I think that about sums it up. All dillydallying aside.. it's a pretty weak argument. It goes down in flames on #2. Evolution does not require mutations to be entirely random. It works well with not completely random mutations, and it also works with psuedo-random change, or any sort of stochastic process, where variation is generated in the genome that can be culled by selection.

In any case, you can't jump to #3, or to #4 without assuming facts not in evidence.


peter borger
Member (Idle past 5837 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 130 of 214 (16609)
09-05-2002 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Mammuthus
08-28-2002 11:23 AM


dear Mammuthus, dear all,

This is the evolution-versus-creation discussion site, not the Peter Borger-discussion site. Please let's keep it that way.
In the meantime I've sent a "Letter to Nature" on the peculiar phenomenon of non-random mutation in the 1G5 gene and I will keep you informed.
Thanks.

Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-05-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Mammuthus, posted 08-28-2002 11:23 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 4:19 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4647 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 131 of 214 (16612)
09-05-2002 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by peter borger
09-05-2002 2:36 AM


Dear Peter,
If you feel picked on it may be because you are one of the few anti-evolution proponents that is consistently engaged in discussion. And with perhaps a few exceptions people are attacking your ideas and not you personally. If you are a research scientist you must be used to this by now.

Good luck with Nature.

cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Mammuthus, dear all,

This is the evolution-versus-creation discussion site, not the Peter Borger-discussion site. Please let's keep it that way.
In the meantime I've sent a "Letter to Nature" on the peculiar phenomenon of non-random mutation in the 1G5 gene and I will keep you informed.
Thanks.

Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-05-2002]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by peter borger, posted 09-05-2002 2:36 AM peter borger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 09-05-2002 1:31 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 132 of 214 (16649)
09-05-2002 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Mammuthus
09-05-2002 4:19 AM


Peter B., you're back!

I wonder if you would mind telling us when and where you earned your undergrad and graduate degrees, and also please provide some citations of published papers you have been an author on.

Thanks in advance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Mammuthus, posted 09-05-2002 4:19 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by peter borger, posted 09-05-2002 8:05 PM nator has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 214 (16674)
09-05-2002 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by derwood
08-30-2002 10:54 AM


In following these discussions, I have learned so much. Maybe this won't sound the way I want it too, but I would like to understand how another species like chimpanzees see the world and us. You know, meet an evolutionary peer.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by derwood, posted 08-30-2002 10:54 AM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by mark24, posted 09-05-2002 6:15 PM axial soliton has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3367 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 134 of 214 (16680)
09-05-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by axial soliton
09-05-2002 4:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by axial soliton:
In following these discussions, I have learned so much. Maybe this won't sound the way I want it too, but I would like to understand how another species like chimpanzees see the world and us. You know, meet an evolutionary peer.

Don't do it! You'll start craving bananas & finding bright red buttocks attractive! (I might be getting my primates mixed....)

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 4:38 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by axial soliton, posted 09-06-2002 12:00 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5837 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 135 of 214 (16703)
09-05-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by nator
09-05-2002 1:31 PM


Dear schrafinator,

I do not have to do that anymore, since Mammuthus already took the opportunity. However, he forgot to mention another work I wrote on gene regulation, entitled: Regulation of T cell cytokine gene expression. ISBN 90-9011922-1.
I wonder however what difference does it makes in a discussion whether you have a degree or not? Discussions are about arguments not academical degrees. And, as long as zoologists are allowed to write about (selfish) genes, for sure I am.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by nator, posted 09-05-2002 1:31 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 4:35 AM peter borger has responded
 Message 142 by derwood, posted 09-06-2002 11:21 AM peter borger has responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5837 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 136 of 214 (16709)
09-05-2002 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by axial soliton
08-29-2002 1:47 AM


Dear AS,

You write:

"Mr./Dr. Borger, et al,"

Thanks for the 'pluralis' However, I am alone.

And you say:
"You know, the specific arguments that you and your peers (peers? what peers? pb) chave tried to make in using certain nucleotides, sequences, genes,... to argue support for creation would not have been possible 20 years ago."

I say:
Exactly, and I've already claimed that NDT is an outdated theory that has fallen beyond repair, so it cannot bring truth.

And:
"Science had not filled in these voids with discoveries yet.

I say:
Science will have to introduce non-random mutation soon, and that overturns NDT.

You say:
And, your antecedents were using arguments based on what they knew of the gaps in the database of science at that time.
Taking a step back, what the creation group is attempting to do is make an argument supporting creation using technology that was 30 centuries beyond the people who wrote the creation stories. These people feared god in everything they thought and did. In fact, those people thought god made seeds sprout, seasons change, and women have babies. So, this creationist line of argument raises objections on more levels than I can shake a finger at."

I say:
All these ancient arguments are still valid, since we do not know anything more about truth than 3000 years ago. The only thing that changed is that we are able to describe it in terms of science. Science does not provide an explanation, it only demonstrates HOW it works. Knowing how something works, or decribing reality in a mathematical model (which is tautological anyway), does not mean that there is no creation. That is conclusion jumping. It is no science and illogic.

In my opinion your reasoning goes as follows:
1) we can describe HOW seeds spout
2) we can describe HOW seasons change
3) we can describe HOW women have babies
4) so there is no God
Well, if this is your logic...... (correct me if I am wrong).

And:
"Just as sure as DNA was a threshold discovery and human DNA was decoded 10 years faster than predicted at the start, science will continue this path of discovery. In another generation, some smart people will have figured out the molecular dynamics I was asking about earlier in this thread. What then will become of the creationists?
If man can do it too, does that mean we are gods?"

I say:
Yes, you would be the God over your creation.

Best wishes
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by axial soliton, posted 08-29-2002 1:47 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019