Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
115 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, ringo, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, xongsmith (6 members, 109 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,129 Year: 6,241/6,534 Month: 434/650 Week: 204/278 Day: 44/28 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Disabling Bacterial Resistance
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 60 (216961)
06-14-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by nator
06-14-2005 9:08 PM


Re: Goodbye, mike
Shraff, calm down take a stress pill and heed the irrefutable one. :)

What is your evidence that there isn't time?

Glad you asked. The fossil record.

Where is your evidence there is? (positive).

Man" is an ape

Schraff, it's 2005 now, and I'm still convinced I'm no tree swinger. This isn't ignorance, you just can't accept that one can out-think the world's wisdom with God. Elightenment isn't an elemental philosophy, or I would have believed lon ago.

Kinds cannot be defined without the originals. Define what makes a mini a mini, without the original. You're thinking in categories when we don't have the originals anymore. Chances are, your Iguana didn't evolve or change niche anyway, as God simply made one Iguana different from the other, and they've always both existed since the original kind. Or God created them or one ex nihilo. Too many possibilities.

Mike, this is my last post to you.

I doubt it.

I have lost all respect for you, I am sad to say

WHy?

You are smarter, much smarter than this, but you have chosen willful ignorance over enlightenment.
I am really very sad.
Goodbye, and have a nice life wrapped up in your ignorance.

You have chosen wilfull ignorance of the answers the bible gives, which are better than the natural ones.

If I choose to find answers with God and you choose to without, then why do you you hold this against me?

You said belief isn't a choice. I can't choose to believe evolution, I just can't make myself think that the magnificent creation came about all by itself etc.. I tried, and I was fooling myself.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-14-2005 09:23 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by nator, posted 06-14-2005 9:08 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by bugeater, posted 06-14-2005 11:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 60 (216964)
06-14-2005 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mike the wiz
06-14-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Mikey's catch 22
Hmm, seems like you left the most interesting part out. What is your definition of a kind? I.e. what is the evolution that in your mind can happen, and where does it all of a sudden not happen anymore.

And, if you doubt that there is enough time for evolution to deal with life threatening situations, I would suggest you read the book 'The Beak of the Finch'.

In fact, your whole argument seems to be premised on the preconception, that in order for some new development to be useful, it has to be manifested immediately and completely. In some cases that may be true, however, that is not the only way selection works. It does not mean that either you are adapted and you survive or you are not adapted and you die.

For example, in your running example, the likelyhood of a fast runner surviving will be higher than that of a slow runner. That does not mean that all slow runners will be dead and all fast runners survive and that is it. No, in every single generation, if running fast is advantageous, the faster runners will reproduce more than the slow runners, so, over time, the overall population becomes faster.

And, to avoid confusion, don't use terms like 'reason'. Evolution is an observable process. There is no reason for evolution just like there is no reason for gravity.

And similar like to the term reason you state that a human brain was never 'needed'. Well, I never claimed that a human brain was needed. It was merely advantageous, as you can see from the fact that the animals with the large brain rapidly spread out over the whole world and are the only ape species to colonize all continents. And, they are also the only ape that is not threatened by extinction. So, if in the end all other apes are dead, will you then see that having a large brain is an advantage to survival for large apes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mike the wiz, posted 06-14-2005 9:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
bugeater
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 60 (216995)
06-14-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mike the wiz
06-14-2005 9:19 PM


Re: Goodbye, mike
You have chosen wilfull ignorance of the answers the bible gives, which are better than the natural ones.

If I choose to find answers with God and you choose to without, then why do you you hold this against me?

You said belief isn't a choice. I can't choose to believe evolution, I just can't make myself think that the magnificent creation came about all by itself etc.. I tried, and I was fooling myself.

As someone who has worked and studied in many fields that touch molecular biology, including cancer biology, Virology, Bacterology etc. etc. I'm afraid that natural selection and evolution has explained everything I've seen. For example, one of the projects I am working on began because a virus mutated in such a way that it evaded the surveillance method that was in place - survival of the fittest. I see no evidence that God did it. The bible gives no answers at all. Logically it isn't even an option.

Evolution at its core is such a simple idea, which makes it so powerful. The concept of an all mighty being being responsible is not simple and there is absolutely no evidence for it.

The concept of evolution isn't a belief system in the way a religion is. There is no faith involved. It is just a model that fits the data exceptionally well.

Marty


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 06-14-2005 9:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 34 of 60 (217034)
06-15-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
06-14-2005 8:20 PM


Re: Mikey's catch 22
Well we can add another erroenous assumption to Mikey's catch 22. It assumes that evolution DOESN'T happen slowly. If speciation happens in 1,000 years that only means that it takes 1000 years for enough change to accumulate for it to be called a new species. Not that it suddenly changes into a new species.

Environmental change drives evolution because it changes the relative contribution to fitness of the variations with the species. Thus if an ape moves into an environment where intelligence becomes more important then natural selection will tend to make that trait more common - and if mutations leading to higher intelligence still occur natural selection will favour those, also.

This is exactly the same principle as bacterial resistance. Put bacteria into an environment where an antibiotic is common and you create selection for resistance. Make the dose too high on a population containing no resistant bacteria and they will die out. Make it low enough and the bacteria will hang around long enough for some to acquire resistance by mutation and those will spread. Thus Mikey's "catch-22" is refuted by the subject of the thread since it requires that bacteria could never evolve resistance to antibiotics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 06-14-2005 8:20 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 7:57 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 60 (217060)
06-15-2005 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
06-15-2005 2:26 AM


Shraff, talk to me
Thus if an ape moves into an environment where intelligence becomes more important then natural selection will tend to make that trait more common - and if mutations leading to higher intelligence still occur natural selection will favour those, also.

There's a lot of problems with this logically.

Firstly, if an ape moved into an environment where a standard of intelligence is needed then it would not survuve without that standard, otherwise it wouldn't need it.

How long would it take an ape to get a human brain? Or even extra intelligence capabilities? No significant change in animals has been observed in thousands of years time period.

That means that mikey ape will wait a long long time, so if he survives that long long time, then he wouldn't need the intelligence anyway, because he's survived.

It's a valid dilemma. Read it again.

Hrun writes:

For example, in your running example, the likelyhood of a fast runner surviving will be higher than that of a slow runner. That does not mean that all slow runners will be dead and all fast runners survive and that is it. No, in every single generation, if running fast is advantageous, the faster runners will reproduce more than the slow runners, so, over time, the overall population becomes faster.

If the slow runners can survive, then fast running isn't needed, and evolution is moot.

No offense everyone, but on my terms I don't think I can be refuted on this. I never have been on this one. I've never found a satisfactory logical answer.

Therefore it's not wilfull ignorance, but rather a genuine disbelief.

You say Bugeater, that evolution doesn't need belief. But it's not like evidence. It's not like a skeleton, or oxygen, or gravity that cen be tested. To me it is genuinely an elemental philosophy I don't believe is true. This isn't to offend anybody or annoy them at all, it's that I can disbelieve it happened. The fact that I can disbelieve it happened, means it isn't proven. Certainly viruses and major morphological change in animals becoming other kinds of animals, is a vastly different topic, and there is nothing to convince me of animals like apes becoming human.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-15-2005 08:00 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2005 2:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2005 8:22 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 37 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 8:26 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 36 of 60 (217066)
06-15-2005 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 7:57 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
quote:

There's a lot of problems with this logically.

Firstly, if an ape moved into an environment where a standard of intelligence is needed then it would not survuve without that standard, otherwise it wouldn't need it.


Mike that is not a logical problem with my point - it's not even a problem. I am not discussing the situation where increased intelligence is necessary from the start.

quote:

How long would it take an ape to get a human brain? Or even extra intelligence capabilities? No significant change in animals has been observed in thousands of years time period.

For the first question we can do beter - we have good estimates for how long it DID take. All you need to do is to adequately define your start and end points.

For the latter we do not have thousands of years worth of observations. Major changes would typically take a number of speciations, often interspersed with long periods of stasis. Thus even if we had such records (and we would need detailed records of every species as it was thousands of years ago) we wouldn't expect to see major changes.

quote:

That means that mikey ape will wait a long long time, so if he survives that long long time, then he wouldn't need the intelligence anyway, because he's survived.


Then it's a good job that my example says that it is NOT absolutely necessary, isn't it ?

So one problem is in error and the other two do not deal with the argument as I stated it. None of them represent genuine problems and your "catch 22" is still refuted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 7:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 60 (217070)
06-15-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 7:57 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
mike the wiz writes:

There's a lot of problems with this logically.

Firstly, if an ape moved into an environment where a standard of intelligence is needed then it would not survuve without that standard, otherwise it wouldn't need it.

Mike, you are either not listening or you are purposefully disregarding what multiple people are trying to tell you: For evolution to occur it is not necessary for the newly evolved trait to be NEEDED. It is sufficient that the new trait is a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

You and I both have shown that large brains are not needed to colonize the Savannah. And population dynamics clearly has shown that having a large brain is a competitive advantage that human apes have over all other apes. We are rapidly outcompeting them in their own specialized habitats now, so that eventually the only surviving great apes will be living in our zoos. The same is true for the fast runner example. There is no logical problem, the problem lies in your unwillingness actually contemplate the arguments in front of you instead of tearing down a straw man.

I'll spell it out here again: Any SMALL increase in running speed and any SMALL increase in brain power is not NEEDED to survive, however, they do give a competitive advantage over slower or dumber animals, therefor they are selected for. Over time this process can lead to brainiacs like us or speedsters like Cheetahs.

And if you doubt that this is how the process works, read up a little about how we are creating bacteria that can deal with oilspills or other contaminants. The process is surprisingly simple: You start with bacteria that would die in an environment containing the amounts of oil found in oilspills and you let them grow in medium containing small amounts of oil that would inhibit their growth but not kill them. Grow for a number of generations, then increase the concentration. Repeat until the concentration tested reaches the concentration of oil in the spill. Along the way test for those bacteria that deal with the increasing oil concentration by breaking it down. Voila, evolution at work. And if you think that this is too artificial a scenario, imagine what happens at the borderline of an oilspill. You have a concentration gradient of oil, much like in the experiment and more and more oil resistant bacteria are able to further and further explore a new environment with higher and higher oil concentrations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 7:57 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 9:19 AM Hrun has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 60 (217078)
06-15-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hrun
06-15-2005 8:26 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
AIG writes:

Say a population of plants has a mix of genes for the length of its roots. Expose that population over generations to repeated spells of very dry weather, and the plants most likely to survive are the ones which have longer roots to get down to deeper water tables. Thus, the genes for shorter roots are less likely to get passed on (see box bottom left). In time, none of these plants will any longer have genes for short roots

AIG writes:

was seen by Darwin to be a process which was essentially creative, and virtually without limits. If ‘new’ varieties could arise in a short time to suit their environment, then given enough time, any number of new characteristics, to the extent of totally new creatures, could appear. This was how, he believed, lungs originally arose in a lungless world, and feathers in a featherless one. Darwin did not know how heredity really works, but people today should know better. He did not know, for instance, that what is passed on in reproduction is essentially a whole lot of parcels of information (genes), or coded instructions.

It cannot be stressed enough that what natural selection actually does is get rid of information. It is not capable of creating anything new, by definition. In the above example, the plants became better able to survive dry weather because of the elimination of certain genes; i.e. they lost a portion of the information which their ancestors had.

This quote below explains everything;

AIG writes:

This can be seen in breeding, which is just another version of (in this case, artificial) selection–the principle is exactly the same as natural selection. Take horses. People have been able to breed all sorts of varieties from wild horses–big working horses, miniature toy ponies, and so on. But limits are soon reached, because selection can only work on what is already there. You can breed for horse varieties with white coats, brown coats and so forth, but no amount of breeding selection will ever generate a green-haired horse variety–the information for green hair does not exist in the horse population.

Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the ‘wild’ type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horses–the information just isn’t there anymore! The greater the specialization

So as can be seen, NS happens when there is a need. You say;

Hrun writes:

Mike, you are either not listening or you are purposefully disregarding what multiple people are trying to tell you: For evolution to occur it is not necessary for the newly evolved trait to be NEEDED. It is sufficient that the new trait is a COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.

And they're ignoring what I'm saying. The trait isn't new anyway. If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive. Nature kills what cannot survive. It has no way of choosing benefits, as the selector is NOT an abitrary definition of "selection", the selection is that those who survive will, and those who can't won't.

If you don't need a big brain, then you don't get one. A "competitive advantage" is not needed you are saying. Then why have it?

How on earth would nature select the competitive advantage? If it's not needed, then those without the advantage would survive. You're not thinking about what I'm saying enough, or Paul K.

Apparently, NS only "chooses" in that if the plant with the longer root survives, THAT is NS.(the short roots die). If the trait of longer root isn't needed, then how can NS choose it, if both would survive?

The whole premise of NS, is that it chooses the fittest to survive. But creatures are made to survive through adaptation and variation. So only if it's absolutely essential will information be favoured over other information. Therefore, ridding short roots forever would only happen if short roots could NOT survive.

It is more logical to say we are equipped to survive, rather than we came and then got equipped, that's why it seems logical to listen to AIG, who say the information needed to survive, was already there.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-15-2005 09:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 8:26 AM Hrun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 9:34 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 60 (217082)
06-15-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 9:19 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
mike the wiz writes:

... If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive. ...

Mike, this statement is wrong and it is at the core of your problems. I have shown you before that it is wrong. And you have agreed that it is wrong:

1) Large brains are beneficial for survival.
2) You CAN survive without a brain the size of humans.

or

1) running fast is benificial for survival
2) you can survive without running as fast as a cheetah


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 9:19 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 9:43 AM Hrun has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 60 (217084)
06-15-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hrun
06-15-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
I said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive.

If running fast is beneficial, then those who can run fast will survive, that's what NS is. Those without it won't survive.

1. If they do survive then faster running isn't beneficial in the first place.
2. If they don't survive then faster running is a necessity and a NEED, so the species would need faster running in the first place

I beg thee, heed me. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 9:34 AM Hrun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 9:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 60 (217086)
06-15-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 9:43 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
mike the wiz writes:

If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive.

mike the wiz writes:

I said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive.

Mike, these are two different statements. You made both. You can decide whic one of these two false statements you would like to have addressed first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 9:43 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 12:37 PM Hrun has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 42 of 60 (217151)
06-15-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Hrun
06-15-2005 9:53 AM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
Well think, what do I mean by what I say? This whole forum seems to not understand what I am getting at a lot of the time.

"If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive"

This means that if an ape needs a big brain to survive (and hasn't got it), it needs it in the first place in order to survive. Therefore, if it survives, it doesn't need the trait.

"said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive."

this is the same really, that you obviously don't need a bigger brain if you are surviving without one.

if the trait was needed, then a species wouldn't survive without it, If they survive, then they don't need it.

It's just a -> b, and no a = no b.

I don't think I'm wrong because natural selection is necessity based. I'm willing to hear any arguments against this but I still think NS isn't an arbitrary selector. Only those who can survive, do.

Be honest friend, what is logical? That all creatures arrive with all of the information in the gene pool, that they can survive. Or that they wait on mutations?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 9:53 AM Hrun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 1:00 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 60 (217158)
06-15-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 12:37 PM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
mike the wiz writes:

Well think, what do I mean by what I say? This whole forum seems to not understand what I am getting at a lot of the time.

Well, Mike, this is where the problem starts. I should not need to figure out what you mean. You should be able to state a sentence that states what you mean.

So, do you still mean:

1) If the trait was beneficial for survival then the predecessors without the trait wouldn't survive.

and

2) I said a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive.

Both statements are pretty clear and both statements are easily falsifiable. To show 1) is false I merely have to show that some predecessor could survive without the trait that is beneficial for survival. To show 2) is false, I merely have to show that a trait can be selected for even if you can survive without it.

Is the fact that both statements of yours are easily falsifiable the reason that you start confusing the issues by adding things like 'necessity based', 'arbitrary selector', 'all of the information in the gene pool', ...? So, do you stand by your statement and do you wish to learn that both statements are obviously false? If so, which one would you like to start with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 12:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 3:26 PM Hrun has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 60 (217208)
06-15-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hrun
06-15-2005 1:00 PM


Re: Shraff, talk to me
To show 1) is false I merely have to show that some predecessor could survive without the trait that is beneficial for survival

If they could then I think that negates the trait being a necessity. I say that NS is not abitrary because it isn't random. That is, I see know way of how NS could kull a none-beneficial trait simply because of a beneficial trait. The beneficial trait, must be a necessity, because that is how NS works (according to my knowledge). Only the fittest survive. It doesn't select fit and slightly fit. Those who aren't fit die.

Your second one;

To show 2) is false, I merely have to show that a trait can be selected for even if you can survive without it.

Yes. If a trait isn't needed, yet is selected, this would falsify it.

However, why would it be selected? If it is just beneficial, I fail to see how NS could select it. I only see NS working when it has no choice. Example; Some plants with short roots can survive, but so can longer roots. Longer roots are beneficial so are selected, yet the short roots survive too? Isn't that just no change in the gene pool?

It strikes me that a mutation would be kept YET still we have the problem that evolution takes ages and creatures can survive without it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 1:00 PM Hrun has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hrun, posted 06-15-2005 3:40 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 46 by Sylas, posted 06-15-2005 5:06 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 60 (217213)
06-15-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
06-15-2005 3:26 PM


Attempting to get to a factual discussion with Mike.
mike the wiz writes:

If they could then I think that negates the trait being a necessity. I say that NS is not abitrary because it isn't random. That is, I see know way of how NS could kull a none-beneficial trait simply because of a beneficial trait. The beneficial trait, must be a necessity, because that is how NS works (according to my knowledge). Only the fittest survive. It doesn't select fit and slightly fit. Those who aren't fit die.

Mike, I don't quite follow you here. But never mind that, we can get back to statement 1) at a later time after we deal with 2).

So, to summarize,

quote:
Mike the wiz says: "[...] a human brain isn't needed, therefore, it wouldn't have a need to be selected if one without it could survive."

Hrun says: "To show [the above statement] is false, I merely have to show that a trait can be selected for even if you can survive without it."

Mike the wiz says: "Yes, if a trait isn't needed, yet is selected, this would falsify it."



Hrun's example: Being able to speak in humans is certainly a treat that can be selected for. Communication and speech allowed humans to cooperate in groups, exchange information and pass on information to offspring, thus preserving knowledge through generations. In fact, it is thought that this trait is one of the primary competive advantages humans have over other great apes. Yet, as anybody can see, for example by looking at my deaf-mute cousin who is happily married and has two kids, the ability to speak is neither required for procreation nor for survival.

Therefor, I have shown that Mike's initial statement is false. Speech is an example where a certain trait can give a competitive advantage, thus can be selected for, even though it is not required for survival or procreation.

This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-15-2005 03:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 3:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 06-15-2005 5:29 PM Hrun has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022