Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   stilllll waiting, Peter B...
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 26 (19546)
10-10-2002 1:51 PM


Borger had written:
"ACCORDING TO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, GENE TREES HAVE TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIES TREES. "
I provided a quote from an evolutionary biologist that contradicts this. Borger has yet to provide any support for this claim of his.
I know why that is.
Does anyone else?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-10-2002 10:30 PM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 2 of 26 (19594)
10-10-2002 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
10-10-2002 1:51 PM


Dear Dr page,
If I were as childish as you, I would have opened a new thread that I am still waiting for your apology.
As matter of fact, I mailed you a reference on this topic, and the contence demonstrates that certain genes have to be reconsiled, e.g. IL-1beta, LDH, etcetera. I asked you in a previous letter "if it doesn't matter that gene trees are not in accord with species trees why is there a discipline in evolutionary biology that reconsiles the trees in an utterly speculative manner by the addition and/or deletion of putative gene duplications?" Since you are the PhD evo-biologist --not me-- I expected that this is not such a difficult question. But, apparently it is a tough question for you, since you keep avoiding it.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 10-10-2002 1:51 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:19 AM peter borger has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 3 of 26 (19634)
10-11-2002 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by peter borger
10-10-2002 10:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr page,
If I were as childish as you, I would have opened a new thread that I am still waiting for your apology.
As matter of fact, I mailed you a reference on this topic, and the contence demonstrates that certain genes have to be reconsiled, e.g. IL-1beta, LDH, etcetera. I asked you in a previous letter "if it doesn't matter that gene trees are not in accord with species trees why is there a discipline in evolutionary biology that reconsiles the trees in an utterly speculative manner by the addition and/or deletion of putative gene duplications?" Since you are the PhD evo-biologist --not me-- I expected that this is not such a difficult question. But, apparently it is a tough question for you, since you keep avoiding it.
best wishes,
Peter

I am very childish, this is true.
However, you are merely trying to pull a bait and switch type thing here.
YOU claimed that evolutionary biologists say all gene trees must be congruent. I provide a quote form an evolutionary biologt that contradicts this. You have STILL to propvide any such support for your original contention.
I have avoided nothing - your question/claim are false and vacuous.
There IS NO discipline whose sole purpose is to 'reconcile' gene trees and species trees.
Now, please provide documentation supportive of:
1. your claim re: evolutionary biologists believing that all gene trees and species trees must be congruent
2. your claim that there is a discipline whose purpose is to reconcile gene trees and species trees
As for this gibberish about an apology - I already admitted that I was in error, that I did not realize that you were referring to Rod Page.
Now, how about some apologies for misrepresenting my colleagues and their work?
Yes Peter B, I might be childish, but as yet, I am not purposely deceptive.
You are engaging in a campaign of disinformation. That, or you are competely ignorant of the entire field. I vote a little of each.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by peter borger, posted 10-10-2002 10:30 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 10-14-2002 4:03 AM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 4 of 26 (19825)
10-14-2002 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by derwood
10-11-2002 11:19 AM


Dear Dr Page,
YOU WRITE:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr page,
If I were as childish as you, I would have opened a new thread that I am still waiting for your apology.
As matter of fact, I mailed you a reference on this topic, and the content demonstrates that certain genes have to be reconsiled, e.g. IL-1beta, LDH, etcetera. I asked you in a previous letter "if it doesn't matter that gene trees are not in accord with species trees why is there a discipline in evolutionary biology that reconsiles the trees in an utterly speculative manner by the addition and/or deletion of putative gene duplications?" Since you are the PhD evo-biologist --not me-- I expected that this is not such a difficult question. But, apparently it is a tough question for you, since you keep avoiding it.
best wishes,
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very childish, this is true.
MY RESPONSE:
Yeah, it was obvious.
YOU ALSO WRITE:
However, you are merely trying to pull a bait and switch type thing here.
YOU claimed that evolutionary biologists say all gene trees must be congruent. I provide a quote form an evolutionary biologt that contradicts this. You have STILL to propvide any such support for your original contention.
MY RESPONSE:
Quote from chapter 8.2 Gene trees and species trees, p286, Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach by R Page and EC Holmes, isbn nr:0-86542-889-1.
"The implicit assumption made when we use molecular phylogenies to infer organismal relationships (section 8.1) is that GENE TREES ARE ISOMORPHIC WITH SPECIES TREES (caps are mine, PB) -- the former can be converted into the latter merely by substituting the name of the sequence with the name of the organism form which the sequence was obtained. As sequence data have accumulated it has become increasingly clear that the relationship between gene trees and species trees may be more complex than a simple one-to-one correspondence."
AND from chapter 8.2.1:
"One of the first attempts to deal with this PROBLEM (caps are mine, PB) is the concept of RECONSILED TREES, first introduced by Morris Goodman and colleagues in 1979..... etcetera"
You say:
I have avoided nothing - your question/claim are false and vacuous.
I say:
Apparently, may claim is supported by the reference above.
YOU SAY:
There IS NO discipline whose sole purpose is to 'reconcile' gene trees and species trees.
I SAY:
Apparently, you didn'r read Dr R. Page's work.
YOU SAY:
Now, please provide documentation supportive of:
1. your claim re: evolutionary biologists believing that all gene trees and species trees must be congruent
I SAY:
See my reference above.
You say:
2. your claim that there is a discipline whose purpose is to reconcile gene trees and species trees
I SAY:
Apparently, it is a (sub)discipline of molecular phylogeny.
AND YOU SAY:
As for this gibberish about an apology - I already admitted that I was in error, that I did not realize that you were referring to Rod Page.
I SAY:
Admitting you were wrong is a good start.
YOU SAY:
Now, how about some apologies for misrepresenting my colleagues and their work?
I SAY:
No, as demonstrated above I was right.
YOU SAY:
Yes Peter B, I might be childish, but as yet, I am not purposely deceptive.
I SAY:
Purposely deceptive? If I were you I wouldn't use such words in a discussion. I could demand for another apology. For that you accuse me of deception. Luckily, I am not childish.
YOU SAY:
You are engaging in a campaign of disinformation. That, or you are competely ignorant of the entire field. I vote a little of each.
I SAY:
All information I reported here was backed up by literature. And, please, mind your words.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by derwood, posted 10-11-2002 11:19 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 10-15-2002 1:44 PM peter borger has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 26 (19938)
10-15-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
10-14-2002 4:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
YOU ALSO WRITE:
However, you are merely trying to pull a bait and switch type thing here.
YOU claimed that evolutionary biologists say all gene trees must be congruent. I provide a quote form an evolutionary biologt that contradicts this. You have STILL to propvide any such support for your original contention.
MY RESPONSE:
Quote from chapter 8.2 Gene trees and species trees, p286, Molecular Evolution, A Phylogenetic Approach by R Page and EC Holmes, isbn nr:0-86542-889-1.
"The implicit assumption made when we use molecular phylogenies to infer organismal relationships (section 8.1) is that GENE TREES ARE ISOMORPHIC WITH SPECIES TREES (caps are mine, PB) -- the former can be converted into the latter merely by substituting the name of the sequence with the name of the organism form which the sequence was obtained. As sequence data have accumulated it has become increasingly clear that the relationship between gene trees and species trees may be more complex than a simple one-to-one correspondence."
AND from chapter 8.2.1:
"One of the first attempts to deal with this PROBLEM (caps are mine, PB) is the concept of RECONSILED TREES, first introduced by Morris Goodman and colleagues in 1979..... etcetera"
That still does not support your earlier claim. A few key words:
implicit assumption
Understanding that English is not your first language might account for some of the issues here. The assumption that gene trees and species trees would/should be congruent is basically an intuitive one. As is pointed out in your quote, NEW INFORMATION has shown that such is not always tenable. The quote I provided form Futuyma is one of many on the subject - there is no 'rule' that gene trees and species trees (or all gene trees) [si]should[/i] be congruent. Of course, the incongruencies - the creationists beloved anomolies - are typically of very small scale.
The fact that Goomdna et al. looked at this issue does not support your claim that there is a discipline devoted to reconciling trees. I know Goodman was not involved in such a discipline.
So, basically, I am still waiting for: 1) Evidence that evolutionary biologists believe that gene trees and species trees must be congruent and 2) that there is a scientific discipline devoted to reconciling trees
quote:
You say:
I have avoided nothing - your question/claim are false and vacuous.
I say:
Apparently, may claim is supported by the reference above.
Actually, it is not.
quote:
YOU SAY:
There IS NO discipline whose sole purpose is to 'reconcile' gene trees and species trees.
I SAY:
Apparently, you didn'r read Dr R. Page's work.
No, i did not. But having read it, it doesn't appear that you got much out of it. That some looked into ways of reconciling trees is not the same thing as there being a scientific discipline devoted to such an endeavor as per your original claim. Of course, it does not seem to me tha you actually understand what the 'reconciliation' involves. Do you think that performing sequence analyses on non-homologous paralogous genes that havbe undergone conversion should yield the same results as analyses of non-paralogous genes? Your answer to this will provide great deal of insight into whether or noyt you understand what the 'reconciliation' consists of.
quote:
YOU SAY:
Now, please provide documentation supportive of:
1. your claim re: evolutionary biologists believing that all gene trees and species trees must be congruent
I SAY:
See my reference above.
Saw it, red herring.
quote:
You say:
2. your claim that there is a discipline whose purpose is to reconcile gene trees and species trees
I SAY:
Apparently, it is a (sub)discipline of molecular phylogeny.
Actually, it is not. It was just an attempt by a creationist to make it oook as though there are big troubles in evolutionary systematics ...
quote:
YOU SAY:
Now, how about some apologies for misrepresenting my colleagues and their work?
I SAY:
No, as demonstrated above I was right.
No, you did not, but that will not stop the creationist from insisting otherwise. It never does.
quote:
YOU SAY:
Yes Peter B, I might be childish, but as yet, I am not purposely deceptive.
I SAY:
Purposely deceptive? If I were you I wouldn't use such words in a discussion. I could demand for another apology. For that you accuse me of deception. Luckily, I am not childish.
No, just deceptive. Or deluded. How else could one take evidence counter to their position and claim that it actually supports it?
quote:
YOU SAY:
You are engaging in a campaign of disinformation. That, or you are competely ignorant of the entire field. I vote a little of each.
I SAY:
All information I reported here was backed up by literature. And, please, mind your words.
I am minding them, and your's as well, and sadly, no, you did not support your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 10-14-2002 4:03 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 10-15-2002 7:24 PM derwood has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 6 of 26 (19956)
10-15-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by derwood
10-15-2002 1:44 PM


Dear Dr Page,
Maybe you didn't get it but ISOMORPHIC is greek and means SAME FORM. Thus according to these phylogeneticists the form of the gene tree has to be the same form as the species tree. So, I proved my point. Now, all you can do is distort my words or back track.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 10-15-2002 1:44 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 10-17-2002 9:44 AM peter borger has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 26 (20107)
10-17-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by peter borger
10-15-2002 7:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
Maybe you didn't get it but ISOMORPHIC is greek and means SAME FORM. Thus according to these phylogeneticists the form of the gene tree has to be the same form as the species tree. So, I proved my point. Now, all you can do is distort my words or back track.
Best wishes,
Peter

I know what ISOMORPHIC means. I also know what IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION means.
Do you?
Do you understand what reconciliation means?
It seems not.
I suggest you read R. Page's book again, and this time for reasons other than finding a few key quotes that you can spin.
As you have been unable to substantiate your claims re: 'discipline' devoted to 'reconsiling' trees and evolutionary biologists needing gene trees and species trees to be the same, I will conclude that you cannot.
Bye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by peter borger, posted 10-15-2002 7:24 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 10-17-2002 11:58 PM derwood has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 8 of 26 (20152)
10-17-2002 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by derwood
10-17-2002 9:44 AM


Dear Dr Page,
You write:
I know what ISOMORPHIC means. I also know what IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION means.
Do you?
MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Implicit, 1) implied though not plainly expressed; 2) virtually contained; 3) absolute, unquestioning, unreserved.
Which one do you prefer?
My disctionary also says: Assumption, 1) the act or an instance of assuming; 2) the act of an instance of accepting without proof, 3) arrogance; 4) the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily in heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine.
Which one do you prefer? Not #4, I guess
YOU SAY:
Do you understand what reconciliation means?
It seems not.
MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Reconcile = harmonise; make compatible.
YOU SAY:
I suggest you read R. Page's book again, and this time for reasons other than finding a few key quotes that you can spin.
MY RESPONSE:
Actually I have it right here on my desk, and I rather like his work.
YOU SAY:
As you have been unable to substantiate your claims re: 'discipline' devoted to 'reconsiling' trees and evolutionary biologists needing gene trees and species trees to be the same, I will conclude that you cannot.
MY RESPONSE:
According to the meaning of the words (see above), I substantiated my claim and you are in denial. However, if gene trees do not have to be in accord with species trees, what is all this fuss about? And also, what is the reconciliation good for? Please explain, so I can understand it. Thanks in advance,
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 10-17-2002 9:44 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 10-18-2002 4:13 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 26 (20156)
10-18-2002 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by peter borger
10-17-2002 11:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
You write:
I know what ISOMORPHIC means. I also know what IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION means.
Do you?
MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Implicit, 1) implied though not plainly expressed; 2) virtually contained; 3) absolute, unquestioning, unreserved.
Which one do you prefer?
My disctionary also says: Assumption, 1) the act or an instance of assuming; 2) the act of an instance of accepting without proof, 3) arrogance; 4) the reception of the Virgin Mary bodily in heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine.
Which one do you prefer? Not #4, I guess
YOU SAY:
Do you understand what reconciliation means?
It seems not.
MY RESPONSE:
My dictionary says: Reconcile = harmonise; make compatible.
YOU SAY:
I suggest you read R. Page's book again, and this time for reasons other than finding a few key quotes that you can spin.
MY RESPONSE:
Actually I have it right here on my desk, and I rather like his work.
YOU SAY:
As you have been unable to substantiate your claims re: 'discipline' devoted to 'reconsiling' trees and evolutionary biologists needing gene trees and species trees to be the same, I will conclude that you cannot.
MY RESPONSE:
According to the meaning of the words (see above), I substantiated my claim and you are in denial. However, if gene trees do not have to be in accord with species trees, what is all this fuss about? And also, what is the reconciliation good for? Please explain, so I can understand it. Thanks in advance,
Best wishes,
Peter

**************************
If I can jump in briefly as you and SLPx slug it out, there is no reason to expect all gene trees to be identical to species trees. Horizontal transfer precludes the transferred genes from matching a species tree...in fact this is how I look for transfer events. i.e.the Bov-B elements present in snakes are shared almost identically by some but not all ungulates such as cows. The sequence divergence is not very pronounced. This is not true of other genes in snakes and cows. The Bov-B element is a retrotransposon which can jump from species to to species. Thus, no expectation that this genetic element when analyzed would give an identical gene and species tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 10-17-2002 11:58 PM peter borger has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 26 (20159)
10-18-2002 4:57 AM


i'm an undergrad, and the topic recently in "genetics, biodiversity and evolution" has actually been phylogenetic trees. The lecturer specifically stated that gene trees are not synonymous with species trees and that it was incorrect to automatically assume that any data used in phylogenetic tree building would give you a 100 percent accurate species tree

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-18-2002 7:31 AM monkenstick has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 11 of 26 (20162)
10-18-2002 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by monkenstick
10-18-2002 4:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
i'm an undergrad, and the topic recently in "genetics, biodiversity and evolution" has actually been phylogenetic trees. The lecturer specifically stated that gene trees are not synonymous with species trees and that it was incorrect to automatically assume that any data used in phylogenetic tree building would give you a 100 percent accurate species tree
The book Peter B quotes concurs, I don't know why he thinks it doesn't.
Chapter 8. 8.2 Gene trees & species trees.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by monkenstick, posted 10-18-2002 4:57 AM monkenstick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-18-2002 10:52 AM mark24 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 12 of 26 (20169)
10-18-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mark24
10-18-2002 7:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
i'm an undergrad, and the topic recently in "genetics, biodiversity and evolution" has actually been phylogenetic trees. The lecturer specifically stated that gene trees are not synonymous with species trees and that it was incorrect to automatically assume that any data used in phylogenetic tree building would give you a 100 percent accurate species tree
The book Peter B quotes concurs, I don't know why he thinks it doesn't.
Chapter 8. 8.2 Gene trees & species trees.
Mark

I know why.
Like most internet creationists, Borger has tripped himself up again, and as with biblical apologists, the creationist cannot allow a mistake to be noticed, l est the observer will have doubts about their other claims.
This is moot, as practically everyone here recognizes Borger's desperation, unorthodox 'interpretive' skills, unwarranted assumptions and conmclusions, etc., so admitting hyperbole would be the least of his problems.
However, it would be an admission, and the hyperconfident cannot have that.
I proved my point, I'm done with this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mark24, posted 10-18-2002 7:31 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 4:38 AM derwood has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 26 (20369)
10-21-2002 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by derwood
10-18-2002 10:52 AM


I actually went through Page and Holmes this weekend and also an older Mol Evol book of John Avise and they both explicitly state that it would be naive to assume that gene trees are always identical to species trees....how did this supposed "controversy" start in the first place in this thread?
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by derwood, posted 10-18-2002 10:52 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 10-21-2002 9:38 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 14 of 26 (20394)
10-21-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mammuthus
10-21-2002 4:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I actually went through Page and Holmes this weekend and also an older Mol Evol book of John Avise and they both explicitly state that it would be naive to assume that gene trees are always identical to species trees....how did this supposed "controversy" start in the first place in this thread?
cheers,
M

Borger had claimed that "evolutionary biologists" expect gene trees and species trees to be congruent, and the fact that he found a couple incongrencies in the literature lead him to the 'conclusion' that therefore evolution did not happen.
He also claimed that becasue of these incongruencies, evolutionists set in place a 'discipline' whose sole role was to 'reconsile'[sic] this incongruence. The implication is that this 'reconciliation' is to smooth over the 'rough spots' for the poor evos. Unfortunately, it is not how Borger implies (as usual).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 4:38 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 10-21-2002 9:45 AM derwood has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 26 (20397)
10-21-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by derwood
10-21-2002 9:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
I actually went through Page and Holmes this weekend and also an older Mol Evol book of John Avise and they both explicitly state that it would be naive to assume that gene trees are always identical to species trees....how did this supposed "controversy" start in the first place in this thread?
cheers,
M

Borger had claimed that "evolutionary biologists" expect gene trees and species trees to be congruent, and the fact that he found a couple incongrencies in the literature lead him to the 'conclusion' that therefore evolution did not happen.
He also claimed that becasue of these incongruencies, evolutionists set in place a 'discipline' whose sole role was to 'reconsile'[sic] this incongruence. The implication is that this 'reconciliation' is to smooth over the 'rough spots' for the poor evos. Unfortunately, it is not how Borger implies (as usual).

******************************
I get it now. Thanks. This is akin to his "Dawkin's has no right to talk about evolution since he is a zoologist" post. Or the "you cannot run a gel in a tube" blunder

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 10-21-2002 9:38 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by peter borger, posted 10-22-2002 12:06 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024