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:   Human Life Span & Evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 71 (318019)
06-05-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by watzimagiga
06-05-2006 3:43 AM


Skeletal milestones
Doc J mentioned that there are other things going on. From my recollections one of these is the long bones. (humerous- upper arm, femur- upper leg, et all)
These are in 3 pieces of bone with cartiledge between while they are growing rapidly. Sometime in mid to late teens (for humans) they start to fuse into one bone. So you can tell whether someone is "adult" or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 3:43 AM watzimagiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 5:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4906 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 47 of 71 (318045)
06-05-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NosyNed
06-05-2006 4:47 PM


Re: Skeletal milestones
aging for bodies...
skull fusion, cartilage-bone transformation in hand (and foot), width and size of pelvis, ratio of head to body, ratio of cheekbones to head, again, osteoporosis, ect. Gonna look it up then come back.
Yes, it makes sense evolutionarily to live 900 years old and not regress, but thats what we're arguing watz. afraid you came over to our side for a bit there buddy.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NosyNed, posted 06-05-2006 4:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 5:58 PM Damouse has not replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 71 (318052)
06-05-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
06-05-2006 6:49 AM


Re: huh?
Your bones don't stop growing when you are a toddler or you would never reach adult height.Then after that there are markers like osteoporosis that show age.
Okay, so from birth until full development, say 0-20, we can tell pretty accurately how old the person was at death. This is assuming that in the past, humans developed/matured at the same rate. I would agree they probably did to some extent. However the average age that puberty starts is currently decreasing. I have already explained that I am not really to worried about aging people in this catagory (0-20), as we are talking about adults that lived very long lives.
After the age of 20 (assuming a human is fully developed at 20) we really dont have much to go on to determine their age. They have stopped growing, all their bones are fused. As you say we have makers like osteoporosis, but this occours mainly in women. Also, all it tells us is that they have osteoperosis, it doesnt tell us how old they are. They could just as easily be 110 with osteoperosis or 65 with osteoperosis.
My point is there is not really any way we can tell the age difference between two fossils if they are both fit, healthy and fully developed (they could have both died from a fall e.g. no health problems). This may be wrong, but it is based on the aging methods I have been presented with so far.
How old do you need to be to have 20 offspring? How many can you feed and protect?
Assuming that there is a 1 year gap between each child. Then by the time you have your 20th child, the earlier children would be becoming pretty self sufficient. They would be able to help care for younger ones, or they would be old enough to feed and protect the younger children. Or they could just as easily leave and start their own family. This leaves the long living parents free to continue having children.
Are you trying to say that no matter how old a person lives, there is a cap on how many children they can have. Therefore a person who lives to 60 will pass on the same number of genes as someone who lives to 40? Dont really see how that works.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 6:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 6:01 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 8:13 PM watzimagiga has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 71 (318058)
06-05-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Damouse
06-05-2006 5:45 PM


Re: Skeletal milestones
Yes, it makes sense evolutionarily to live 900 years old and not regress, but thats what we're arguing watz. afraid you came over to our side for a bit there buddy.
I was saying that in evolutionary terms it doesnt make sense to say that there was once 900 year old people (which is you argument yes). I was making the point that I cant argue that people lived 900 years in the past, unless God had some factor in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Damouse, posted 06-05-2006 5:45 PM Damouse has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4906 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 50 of 71 (318061)
06-05-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by watzimagiga
06-05-2006 5:52 PM


Re: huh?
[qs] Okay, so from birth until full development, say 0-20, we can tell pretty accurately how old the person was at death[qs] incidentally thats 0-30. Your teeth actually keep developing after pueberty.
Afterwards scientists can drop an age within 5 years on either side by looking at hip and teeth wear. when we're talking about 900 years, is 5 going to matter? either way, how much does an adult change in 5 years?

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 5:52 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 71 (318122)
06-05-2006 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by watzimagiga
06-05-2006 5:52 PM


Age at Death estimates
Okay, so from birth until full development, say 0-20, we can tell pretty accurately how old the person was at death.
There are changes that are still occurring after 20.
Here is a good (easy read) site for an overview of the methods and problems
http://www.spoilheap.co.uk/hsrspec.htm
Adult age at death is not so easy to estimate, and becomes increasingly difficult past the age of c.30 years. Once the teeth are fully erupted, age can be estimated from standard tooth wear charts, although the rate of wear is dependent on the type of food as well as the age. Most charts allow for an estimate of age within ten year periods. Another method is to use the changes which occur at the pubic symphsis (the joint at the front of the pelvis). This is generally ridged in the young adult, and becomes progressively smoother with age (other changes are also taken into consideration). However, this part of the skeleton is rarely preserved in ancient skeletons, and the method is very difficult to use accurately when it is. The stage of fusion of the cranial sutures was used in the past, but this method is no longer thought to be accurate. The general appearance of the bones may suggest a basic age category, particularly if arthritic changes or other signs of aging are present. Evidence from recent work on the documented skeletons from Spitalfields in London, suggests that many of the skeletal ageing techniques commonly used by human bone specialists produce inaccurate results. It seems that we may be underestimating the age at death of adults by some decades, the greatest problem concerning the older members of a skeletal population. Often the best the specialist can do is to suggest that an individual was young, middle-aged or old, since to provide more detailed estimates would be misleading.
I think they are overstating the degree of uncertainty here, as you can build up a database and have relative ages of different specimens, then you can make assumptions about how old they were in relative development of certain characteristics. The more samples they have the better the overall accuracy.
Should be good enough to get to +/-10 years eh?
Once all the biological evidence has been collected, it has to be interpreted taking into account the limitations imposed on the data by the methods used. The most useful information for the archaeologist is the demographical profile of the site. This will provide information on the minimum number of individuals, the infant mortality, sex ratios (which unfortunately cannot include the children), and life expectancy.
Here they seem to be pretty confident of having good age estimates, so the above statements can be taken as a bit "CYA"
Assuming that there is a 1 year gap between each child. Then by the time you have your 20th child, the earlier children would be becoming pretty self sufficient.
Ah, the nearsightedness of growing up in a well nourished, healthy society, eh? Look back 100 - 200 years and see what infant mortality was like. Families that had 6 or 7 kids usually had 2 to 3 survive to mate, now we have families with 2 or 3 kids 99% of whom survive to mate -- we live longer healthier lives but end up with about the same net productivity numbers eh?
You make it seem almost like factory output production, put more raw materials in and get more product.
However this is only 1/4 of the equation at best:
Sexual Selection -- a young handsome Lothario (like you?) is more likely to succeed at mating than an old cane tapper (like me?) because sexual selection is NOT based on {older is better}, and
Ecological Load --the environment only supports so many individuals. If you try to have more than that number of individuals, then they all suffer malnutrition to some degree and the more vulnerable die.
The genes for long life are not necessarily the genes that work for survival until mating age is attained, especially if they also code for longer growth time before becoming fertile
Are you trying to say that no matter how old a person lives, there is a cap on how many children they can have.
There is a limit to how big the group can be. Once that size is reached the first ones to die will be the infants.
Think of it this way: if productivity were the only factor, then multiple births would be selected for -- more families would have twins.
Triplets would still be a problem unless the average size of the human breast also increased to compensate for the insufficient number of nozzles, but there are also relatively common mutations of having extra teats on one breast (see POLYTHELIA or POLYMASTIA)
Supernumerary nipple - Wikipedia
A supernumerary nipple (also known as a third nipple, accessory nipple, nubbin, polythelia or polymastia) is an additional nipple occurring in mammals including humans. Often mistaken for moles, supernumerary nipples are diagnosed at a rate of 2% in females, less in males. The nipples appear along the two vertical "milk lines", which start in the armpit on each side, run down through the typical nipples and end at the groin. They are classified into eight levels of completeness from a simple patch of hair to a milk-bearing breast in miniature. Polythelia refers to the presence of an additional nipple alone while polymastia denotes the much rarer presence of additional mammary glands.
So if productivity were the only issue then multiple breasts and larger numbers of multiple births would also be selected.
That this is not so, also points to groups only being able to support a certain number of offspring on any one year.
Infant survival can be improved with more attention, better nutrition, etc, but this means spending more time {with\on} raising young so raw productivity falls for an increase in net productivity -- we may be selecting FOR older age by selecting for taking more time for each infant. This trend is seen in many species, however humans seem to have taken altricial to new heights.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 5:52 PM watzimagiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 9:35 PM RAZD has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 71 (318153)
06-05-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
06-05-2006 8:13 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
Thanks for the info.
Should be good enough to get to +/-10 years eh?,
I agree you could collect a whole number of fossils and put them on a scale from youngest to oldest. We would be able to pretty accuratley age the individuals at the bottom of the scale (based of current development rates). To get an age at the end of the scale is based upon how long they think it would have taken for the fossils teeth to wear. I suppose this gives us a pretty good estimate at their age. What does wear of teeth mean? Do they slowly get filed down and get smaller every time we eat?
so where are all those old biblical type specimens from when everyone lived such long lives eh?
(From one of your previous posts.)
For kicks lets say we found the fossil of a person who had actually lived 800 years (but we didnt know). If we put them on our scale and aged them based on wear of teeth, I am pretty confident that they wouldnt get aged at 800 +/- 10 years. Would this fossil not just get tacked on the end as a person at the old end of the scale and aged at about 80 or so?
Because for a person to live for 800 years, the rate at which their body deteriorates would have to be less than a modern (todays) human. Because if their teeth wore down at the same rate at ours, they would have no teeth by 800 wouldnt they.
What do you think would happen if a fossil of a person who had lived 800 years was discovered? What age do you think it would be given? I would say its highly unlikely that it would be aged at 800.
Matt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2006 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DrJones*, posted 06-05-2006 10:00 PM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 7:31 AM watzimagiga has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 53 of 71 (318158)
06-05-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by watzimagiga
06-05-2006 9:35 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
What do you think would happen if a fossil of a person who had lived 800 years was discovered? What age do you think it would be given? I would say its highly unlikely that it would be aged at 800.
I too doubt that it would be aged at 800 years, simply because we have nothing to compare the bones/wear too. But I think theres a good chance that it would be suspected to be of an unusually old age ie: 100+ when the neighbors life maxs out at 35.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 9:35 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 71 (318217)
06-06-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by watzimagiga
06-05-2006 9:35 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
What does wear of teeth mean? Do they slowly get filed down and get smaller every time we eat?
Yes, but more like sandpaper or emery cloth. Some foods more than others, and some diets more than others. Indians in the southwest the ground corn on stone also got some of the stone in the corn flour, and this caused increased wear in their teeth.
Because for a person to live for 800 years, the rate at which their body deteriorates would have to be less than a modern (todays) human.
It would have to be supernaturally enhanced eh? So that current rules don't apply? Without any evidence of any other way the rules don't apply?
See that is the problem. You can take any mythological story and start playing games with the evidence and the science to see how it could actually have occurred, but at the end of the day there is no real reason to assume that such is the case - other than wanting to believe that the myth in question is true.
The other problems you have are that the rest of the evidence doesn't fit either, the stature of the fossils gets smaller and the braincases get smaller, so you don't have tall noble intelligent people in the distant past no matter how long they lived. The fossils go back from us to Lucy, between 3'-6" and 4'-0" tall (see PubMed Article Abstract).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by watzimagiga, posted 06-05-2006 9:35 PM watzimagiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by watzimagiga, posted 06-06-2006 8:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 71 (318229)
06-06-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
06-06-2006 7:31 AM


Re: Age at Death estimates
The fossils go back from us to Lucy
You have mentioned lucy a couple of times now. Lucy was not found intact in one place. I read that the bones, including the knee (which showed, she was probably bipedal) were not just found in different areas, but actually at different depths, showing different age of bones. Sorry if this is off topic, just when people talk about lucy I feel I need to bring this up.
It would have to be supernaturally enhanced eh?
Yup, well I have already said that they couldnt have lived 900 years without God being involved somehow.
the rest of the evidence doesn't fit either, the stature of the fossils gets smaller and the braincases get smaller, so you don't have tall noble intelligent people in the distant past no matter how long they lived
I dont see how this is relevant to people living long lives.
You can take any mythological story and start playing games with the evidence and the science to see how it could actually have occurred
Its not really playing games. All im saying is that for someone to live that long, they can't age/deteriorate at the same rate we do. Is that really such a wierd idea?
All I was trying do was answer your question - "so where are all those old biblical type specimens?"
I think I have shown that even if we had one on front of us we wouldnt be able to tell.
"I don't see how anyone can possibly assume that the universe was not the product of an immense intellgence" John Davison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 7:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:01 PM watzimagiga has replied
 Message 57 by EZscience, posted 06-06-2006 10:04 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 71 (318443)
06-06-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by watzimagiga
06-06-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Age at Death estimates
You have mentioned lucy a couple of times now. Lucy was not found intact in one place. I read that the bones, including the knee (which showed, she was probably bipedal) were not just found in different areas, but actually at different depths, showing different age of bones. Sorry if this is off topic, just when people talk about lucy I feel I need to bring this up.
You realize that this is claiming that Lucy is a fraud, and that the scientists are charletans. That's a pretty serious accusation to just drop. I'll just say that your "source" is misrepresenting the truth to you. But you are right this should be a separate topic and NOT discussed here.
This is also a science thread, and statements like that need to be substantiated or withdrawn. I've set up a new thread for this:
http://EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud? -->EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?
{link edited to promoted version}
Yup, well I have already said that they couldnt have lived 900 years without God being involved somehow.
the rest of the evidence doesn't fit either, the stature of the fossils gets smaller and the braincases get smaller, so you don't have tall noble intelligent people in the distant past no matter how long they lived
I dont see how this is relevant to people living long lives.
Because it is part of the same {concept\myth\story} and without it there is no purpose to consider long lives that don't match the fossil record anyway.
I think I have shown that even if we had one on front of us we wouldnt be able to tell.
I find it hard to believe that we could be off by a factor of 2 with our current knowledge of aging patterns (ie a "70" year old could really be 140 years old), and what you need is a factor of 10 to 12. All you have shown is that we may not know that our "70" year old was really 50 or 90.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : changed link to promoted version of new topic

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by watzimagiga, posted 06-06-2006 8:32 AM watzimagiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by watzimagiga, posted 06-06-2006 11:39 PM RAZD has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 57 of 71 (318462)
06-06-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by watzimagiga
06-06-2006 8:32 AM


Re: Age at Death estimates
WMG writes:
I dont see how this is relevant to people living long lives.
It is relevant because longevity is a very important life history characteristic and there is every reason to believe it would be molded by natural selection. Apart from the fact that all evidence points to early humans living shorter lives rather than longer, it is perhaps more instructive to consider why selection should be currently acting to increase human lifespan when this increase in lifesapn is in no way correlated with reproductive success.
Any ideas ? RazD ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by watzimagiga, posted 06-06-2006 8:32 AM watzimagiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 8:30 PM EZscience has replied

  
watzimagiga
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 71 (318508)
06-06-2006 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
06-06-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
Because it is part of the same {concept\myth\story}
Where does the bible mention anything about the height of the people it mentions? It also does not say that they had larger brain cases than us. So really this isnt really contradicting any of the evidence, because the bible talks nothing about either of these issues.
All you have shown is that we may not know that our "70" year old was really 50 or 90.
I thought we were in agreement on the idea that, if these people who lived long lives deteriorated (wear of teeth etc) at a different rate, we would not be able to age them accuratley (ie we could not tell they lived 900 years). This is important because living that long would not be possible unless they aged at a different rate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 06-06-2006 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 06-07-2006 8:08 AM watzimagiga has not replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 06-08-2006 8:11 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 71 (318631)
06-07-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by watzimagiga
06-06-2006 11:39 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
I'll answer you more fully after you respond to the new thread
http://EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud? -->EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?
This is a serious allegation of professional misconduct you have made and this is a science thread. Substantiate your claim, provide your source, or withdraw the claim.
Then we can chat about hypotheticals.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by watzimagiga, posted 06-06-2006 11:39 PM watzimagiga has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 71 (319268)
06-08-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by watzimagiga
06-06-2006 11:39 PM


Re: Age at Death estimates
Where does the bible mention anything about the height of the people it mentions? It also does not say that they had larger brain cases than us. So really this isnt really contradicting any of the evidence, because the bible talks nothing about either of these issues.
Well that is the impression I get from creationist talk about humans today being lesser beings than they were before the flood (shorter lived, more brutish, etc etc).
If you are saying that adam and eve could be similar in stature, physique and mental capacity to lucy, I can go with that, because that is the evidence of human ancestry.
But I still need some kind of other evidence that suddenly there was less wear on teeth, say, at some point in the past that allows for not just a doubling of age based on that marker but a 10 to 30 fold increase in age:
900 yr age / 25 yr old lucy = 36 fold increase in age.
I thought we were in agreement on the idea that, if these people who lived long lives deteriorated (wear of teeth etc) at a different rate, we would not be able to age them accuratley (ie we could not tell they lived 900 years).
There has to be some evidence that permits this concept: a remarkably different diet? Not based on the archaeological evidence of garbage left by early hominids, particularly after the 'invention' of fire (so charred bones can be compared).
There has to be some evidence that plants or animals would cause substantially less wear on teeth than they do now - 1/10th to 1/36th the wear. Yet there is no evidence that plants and animals have ever been composed of substantially different materials or that teeth were ever substantially harder - they are composed of same materials with same distributions of materials based on the fossil evidence. Before cooking was used to break down food fibers the wear would have to be greater on the teeth than on modern humans ('modern' here meaning Homo sapiens, covering the last 200,000 years).
We know that teeth have not changed substantially because we have evidence of juvinile teeth and jaws as well as the teeth and jaws of adults, and the patterns of growth and the distribution of materials (enamel particularly) on the teeth are similar to what we see in 'modern' humans.
This is important because living that long would not be possible unless they aged at a different rate.
Or some miracle was involved that negates all scientific evidence, but yes, that would be why these ages would be considered scientifically unreasonable.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by watzimagiga, posted 06-06-2006 11:39 PM watzimagiga has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Jon, posted 06-12-2006 8:21 AM RAZD 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