Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has natural selection really been tested and verified?
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 61 of 302 (536611)
11-24-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2009 7:52 AM


Bert: Mangos are an essential component of this blender!
Ernie: Uh, No they're not ...
Bert: Shut up! You're stupid!
* * *
Ernie: Seriously Bert, a component is something like a wire or a blade. A mango is just one use for it! I could put a papaya in, or a rutabaga, or ....
Bert: No you couldn't! You know why not?
Ernie: Why?
Bert: Because it's my blender!
* * *
Ernie: Mom! He keeps movin' the blender!
Mom: Shut up!
* * *
Ernie: Honest Bert, the mango isn't really a component ...
Bert: Fine! Prove it! Make me some mango juice! Using no mango!
Ernie: Shut up! You're stupid!
* * *
Bert: Mom, he keeps hitting me with various components of the blender!
Mom: Shut up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 7:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 62 of 302 (536615)
11-24-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2009 7:52 AM


For instance, if you wish to explain how an eye developed through natural selection-please include the entire process. I would be very interested.
It developed through natural selection acting on mutations.
Well, now I am confused. I only asked you about natural selection forming an eye, and then you go and bring bring mutations into the discussion. I thought we were just talking about natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 7:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 63 of 302 (536617)
11-24-2009 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
11-24-2009 7:52 AM


For instance, if you wish to explain how an eye developed through natural selection-please include the entire process. I would be very interested.
It developed through natural selection acting on mutations.
Well, now I am confused. I only asked you about natural selection forming an eye, and then you go and bring bring mutations into the discussion. I thought we were just talking about natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 7:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Shtop, posted 11-24-2009 9:17 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 65 by Son, posted 11-24-2009 9:28 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 10:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Shtop
Junior Member (Idle past 2325 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 07-19-2007


Message 64 of 302 (536619)
11-24-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 9:06 AM


Have we met?
I have the distinct feeling that I know you. Your posting style is very familiar.
Edited by Shtop, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 9:06 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 65 of 302 (536623)
11-24-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 9:06 AM


I can't find the quote you used there, it doesn't seem to be from the message you responded to.
You also ignored his revelant answer:
DrAdequate writes:
There are two aspects to evolution --- variation and selection. These are distinct in much the same way that the engine of a car is distinct from its steering wheel.
Do I need to remind that you were the one who asked about natural selection?
Sticking to the subject helps focusing on the discussion and prevents Gish gallop. If you wish to discuss either mutation or Evolution as a whole, you need to make another thread.
Looking back at the OP I see that you made a confusion about evolution and natural selection but I thought RAZD pointed it out:
RAZD writes:
Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - other major contributors are mutation and genetic drift. Mutation provides new variations to the mix of hereditary traits that are then susceptible to the action of natural selection, and genetic drift is where stochastic effects (natural disasters etc) change the population that is then left for evolution by mutation and natural selection.
That was in answer to your first post. I personally think that the admins should have corrected you so you could modify your OP accordingly to avoid future confusions. But since I'm not very experimented with forums....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 9:06 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 11:34 AM Son has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 66 of 302 (536626)
11-24-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 9:06 AM


Well, now I am confused.
Evidently.
I only asked you about natural selection forming an eye, and then you go and bring bring mutations into the discussion.
Yeah, you're very confused.
I thought we were just talking about natural selection.
No, when you start talking about mutation, or about the evolution of the eye, you're not "just talking about natural selection".
---
You seem to be trying to whine about how I've gone off-topic by pointing out to you how you've gone off-topic. I cannot help but wonder whom you are trying to impress.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 9:06 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 67 of 302 (536649)
11-24-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Son
11-24-2009 9:28 AM


I quoted him exactly, I can't help it if you can't read that. My response to him was sarcasm. Do you know what that is?
I asked him to explain how an eye is made through natural selection, and his response was "it developed through natural selection acting on mutations." That was a verbatim quote!
So why did he mention mutations when I didn't even ask that?
He used the word mutation because there is no other way to talk about the evolutionary process of change without it. This is a discussion about things evolving after-all, hence the words evolutionary change in my OP..get it!
The argument is about natural selection's effect on the evolutionary process-and that deals DIRECTLY with mutations-as Dr. Adequate so easily demonstrated- so now I guess I should say thank you to him!
To use his lame attempt at analogies, its like talking about a car, but not being able to talk about its engine. So unless you wish to propose another theory about how natural selection works without the need for random mutations-bring that theory up or how about stop your whining. What are you so afraid of discussing. I will be happy to hear about a new theory of evolution that doesn't need mutations!
Now, I see we can add guppies oscillating between having spots and not having spots to our slowly growing list of tests to prove natural selections ability to create evolutionary change. I am not really sure how showing species employing the exact same survival method on and off again shows that, but ok, if that's the best we have got so far. so be it.
I personally wouldn't use the words "rigorously tested" at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Son, posted 11-24-2009 9:28 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Huntard, posted 11-24-2009 12:13 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 69 by Son, posted 11-24-2009 12:24 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 70 by Dman, posted 11-24-2009 12:48 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2009 12:59 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 68 of 302 (536664)
11-24-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 11:34 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
So why did he mention mutations when I didn't even ask that?
Because he probably thought you weren't so ignorant as to think something arises only by natural selection. It's like asking how just cold can form ice. It can't, it also requires water.
He used the word mutation because there is no other way to talk about the evolutionary process of change without it. This is a discussion about things evolving after-all, hence the words evolutionary change in my OP..get it!
Yet you only wanted to talk about natural selection. When examples of natural selection are shown to you, you move the goalposts and start talking about mutations.
The argument is about natural selection's effect on the evolutionary process-and that deals DIRECTLY with mutations
No it doesn't, for it is completely irrelevant how the changes to the DNA happen, as long as they happen, natural selection will act upon them. Whether god poofing them into the DNA, or by random mutations, natural selection will work regardless.
To use his lame attempt at analogies, its like talking about a car, but not being able to talk about its engine.
And that's a wrong analogy, since you aren't talking about a car (The Theory of evolution) but only the steering wheel (natural selection).
So unless you wish to propose another theory about how natural selection works without the need for random mutations-bring that theory up or how about stop your whining.
Because natural selection doesn't work with mutations, mutations just happen to be the way the changes in DNA happen. Natural selection will still wortk the same even if god poofs those changes into the DNA.
What are you so afraid of discussing.
Nothing. It is you who moved the goalposts when it was explained to you how natural selection is indeed tried and tested, not only in the lab, but in the wild as well.
I will be happy to hear about a new theory of evolution that doesn't need mutations!
But we're not discussing the theory of evolution here, we're discussing natural selection.
Edited by Huntard, : quoted a bit wrong

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 11:34 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 69 of 302 (536668)
11-24-2009 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 11:34 AM


Looking back, I don't know how I missed the thing you quoted, sorry for that.
The problem is that in the OP, you asked if natural selection was tested when I think you meant evolution as a whole, I thought I already pointed it to you.
To remind you: the title of your thread is :"Has natural selection really been tested and verified?"
I suppose we could debate as if you meant evolution from the start though, maybe it would make things clearer?
By the way you did a confusion in your post again, natural selection can happen without mutation, it's evolution that wouldn't happen without mutations.
Bolder-dash writes:
So unless you wish to propose another theory about how natural selection works without the need for random mutations-bring that theory up or how about stop your whining. What are you so afraid of discussing. I will be happy to hear about a new theory of evolution that doesn't need mutations!
Here you interchanged natural selection and the theory of evolution as if they were the same thing. I suppose it's the source of most of this thread's confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 11:34 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 70 of 302 (536672)
11-24-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 11:34 AM


Natural Selection?
You indeed can talk about Natural Selection without referring to mutations. Natural Selection, as has been shown to you many times, has been tested and shown to be the selecting agent working in the theory of evolution.
Then you shift the goal posts and start yammering about the probability of specific mutations - for light sensitive patches or diseases or what ever. The rarity of any specific mutation does not falsify or bring into question the validity natural selection. The fit-enough-to-breed survive, no matter how rare any specific mutation is.
How do the fittest survive to pass on their genes if NOT naturally?
How does the rarity of any mutation or series of mutations, bring into question the validity of natural selection?
You are aware that natural selection is negative and positive? Meaning it is understood under the theory of natural selection that species go extinct, that this makes sense under natural selection?
Hopefully Dr. A doesn't mind me responding to this:
I asked him to explain how an eye is made through natural selection, and his response was "it developed through natural selection acting on mutations." That was a verbatim quote!
So why did he mention mutations when I didn't even ask that?
Because your question was specifically about the eye? You know, you can discuss natural selection without a specific example, and therefore without mentioning mutations.
The argument is about natural selection's effect on the evolutionary process-and that deals DIRECTLY with mutations-as Dr. Adequate so easily demonstrated- so now I guess I should say thank you to him!
Yes, natural selection will act on mutations. Your problem is not being able to discuss the two separately. Which can be done, as Darwin did not know of mutations in the first place.
So unless you wish to propose another theory about how natural selection works without the need for random mutations-bring that theory up or how about stop your whining.
Natural selection selects the fit enough. How they became fit is irrelevant to it's validity. Yes, we know what causes the variation for natural selection to act on, but it doesn't matter when discussing whether or not it selects the fittest, which has been shown to be true with multiple experiments and tests.
What are you so afraid of discussing. I will be happy to hear about a new theory of evolution that doesn't need mutations!
No one is proposing this. You are unable to see your problem here. Natural selection works, and has been shown to work, regardless of what creates the variation to be selected. Darwin proposed this not knowing about mutations, only that there was variation to be selected for, or against.
Now, I see we can add guppies oscillating between having spots and not having spots to our slowly growing list of tests to prove natural selections ability to create evolutionary change.I am not really sure how showing species employing the exact same survival method on and off again shows that, but ok, if that's the best we have got so far. so be it.
It does show evolutionary change. I assume when you say "evolutionary change" you are talking about macro-evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 11:34 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-25-2009 10:08 AM Dman has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 71 of 302 (536676)
11-24-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Bolder-dash
11-24-2009 11:34 AM


I quoted him exactly, I can't help it if you can't read that. My response to him was sarcasm. Do you know what that is?
I asked him to explain how an eye is made through natural selection, and his response was "it developed through natural selection acting on mutations." That was a verbatim quote!
So why did he mention mutations when I didn't even ask that?
Be ... cause ... you ... asked ... a ...bout ... the ... e ... vo ... lu ... tion ... of ... the ... eye.
This involves mutation.
It's like you're complaining: "Why did he say "four" when I asked what two plus two was! I didn't even mention four! This thread is about the number three!"
To use his lame attempt at analogies, its like talking about a car, but not being able to talk about its engine.
It's like if in a thread about steering wheels you asked me how my steering wheel could transport me from Arizona to Nevada and then whined incoherently when I disabused you of your ridiculous mistake by mentioning the other parts of the car.
Now, I see we can add guppies oscillating between having spots and not having spots to our slowly growing list of tests to prove natural selections ability to create evolutionary change.
You may have managed to misunderstand the links that I provided, possibly by the cunning expedient of not actually reading them.
I am not really sure how showing species employing the exact same survival method on and off again shows that ...
Apparently there are many things that you don't see. How fortunate it is that biologists do not share your disabilities.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-24-2009 11:34 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

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


(2)
Message 72 of 302 (536727)
11-24-2009 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bolder-dash
11-22-2009 10:15 PM


... now the finer points? Nope, back to quibbling, while being still dead wrong
Hi Bolder-dash, still having trouble I see,
For the record, these are comments of yours that are either wrong or confused (taken from one paragraph in Message 17):
1. "what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred"
2. random mutations slowly drifted through the populations along with every other kind of random mutation,
and these are comments of yours that are either wrong or confused (taken from another paragraph in Message 17):
You are going to need to improve your comprehension skills, before you can so arrogantly accuse others of not understanding.
Point: I NEVER said that the Theory suggests changes based on need, I said that the evidence from those studies only demonstrate change when it was needed! I was saying the exact opposite of what you inferred. Here is the exact quote:
"So far it seems the "tests" you and others have mentioned as evidence, provide nothing in the way of showing that it was " Darwin's natural selection" that caused this evolutionary changes._In fact "what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred."

(color added for emphasis)
Funny how I read your words to say "what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred" (your exact words according to you when you repeated them) and concluded that you said:
1. "what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred"
Amusingly, you will now please note that what I quoted was your words verbatim and thus that you are accusing yourself of saying the exact opposite of what you said.
Point: I NEVER said that the Theory suggests changes based on need, I said that the evidence from those studies only demonstrate change when it was needed!
Daylight is needed for life to exist, but that doesn't mean that it occurs in response to that need, or that need is even relevant to the question of evolution.
The point remains that your comment: "what they all demonstrate is that a change was "needed" in a population and the change occurred" (which you will again note is quoting you verbatim) is still wrong, dead wrong, because the same "need" existed for the people who died as for those that lived, however the mutation did not save them, it did not, in fact, occur in their lineage, and it did not in fact occur in time to save them.
I say "the tests you provided don't indicate random mutations and then slow eventual change but rather demonstate changes occurring quickly when needed", ...
And you are still wrong, dead wrong, in regard to those people who died. Need has nothing to do with whether or not mutations occur: mutations are random events.
"So far it seems the "tests" you and others have mentioned as evidence, provide nothing in the way of showing that it was " Darwin's natural selection" that caused this evolutionary changes.
Correct, because now you are talking about evolution and not just natural selection -- you have moved the goalposts from just natural selection to the whole process of evolution. Don't complain that the tests don't show evolution when you asked for tests showing natural selection, when evolution is more than just natural selection.
What you are doing, as has been pointed out several times now by several different people, is confusing natural selection with the whole process of evolution. Natural selection is responsible for selecting the best mix of hereditary traits in a population to fit the ecology they live in, mutations provide random variations, that once are available to the population become susceptible to natural selection. It is a two step process in an endless do-loop:
(1) mutations provide variation within a breeding population,
(2) natural selection acts on existing variations in a population,
... go to step (1)
When you talk about changes in species over time:
Message 17: ... Darwin's idea of natural selection has been tested to be the driving force of evolutionary change (including of course changes in body structures, and living systems, etc).
So far it seems the "tests" you and others have mentioned as evidence, provide nothing in the way of showing that it was " Darwin's natural selection" that caused this evolutionary changes.
You are now talking about evolutionary change and significantly more than the process of just natural selection, you are talking about taking several steps down the evolutionary path. To walk down a path from an existing species to one with "changes in body structures, and living systems" requires that those changes become available to selection during the walk, and thus this necessarily introduces the rest of the evolutionary process -- mutations, genetic drift, population dynamics, behavior, etc etc etc.
Natural selection acts to select the hereditary traits that are better fit to an existing ecology, by the differential reproductive and survival ability of individuals carrying different mixes of existing mutations. If a trait does not exist at the time of selection the individual or the population suffers, as the people that died from kuru died, because for them the mutation did not exist.
From this one example, you should now be able to recognize what a beneficial mutation is: a mutation that arises in a population, and then, when tested by natural selection, proves to provide a benefit in survival or reproduction for the individuals that inherit the mutation compared to the rest of the population.
ie - this mutation is now identified as a beneficial mutation.
It does not matter when the mutation arose, or what the selection test actually was, only that some individuals were carriers and others were not, and that this difference resulted in increased survival and reproduction for the carriers compared to the non-carriers.
Now, I noticed that you did not reply about the other 8 misunderstandings of yours, nor have you provided the article link that you said you could, to the Discover article. My personal opinion is that when you do provide the link (if ever) we will find that it does not begin to show what you have claimed.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : do-loop

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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-22-2009 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 11-25-2009 12:23 PM RAZD has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 73 of 302 (536793)
11-25-2009 5:11 AM


Moderator on Duty
Hi all!
I told CosmicChimp that I'd keep an eye on this thread. So far so good. I do see occasional hints of frustration, but no worries as of now, though it would be nice if those given to focusing too much attention on the foibles of other participants rather than the topic would try to rein it in a bit more. Just letting y'all know I'm here.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 74 of 302 (536829)
11-25-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dman
11-24-2009 12:48 PM


Re: Natural Selection?
Let me consider a few of the intellectual gems of the collective evolutionary brain trust:
Quote:
---You are now talking about evolutionary change and significantly more than the process of just natural selection
---Correct, because now you are talking about evolution and not just natural selection
---you have moved the goalposts from just natural selection to the whole process of evolution
---Don't complain that the tests don't show evolution when you asked for tests showing natural selection
---You are now talking about evolutionary change and significantly more than the process of just natural selection, you are talking about taking several steps down the evolutionary path.
---By the way you did a confusion in your post again, natural selection can happen without mutation, it's evolution that wouldn't happen without mutations.
--Looking back at the OP I see that you made a confusion about evolution and natural selection
--I will remind you that you yourself have made this topic about natural selection and whether or not it has been verified.
---But natural selection does not include the mutations
---So ... you don't actually want to discuss natural selection?
--But Bolder-dash, I do think this appears to be a bit of "bait and switch".
Hmmm...
Ah Ha!! Now, I see the confusion! The problem is when I began talking about evolutionary change and how it relates to natural selection in my OP, I moved the goalposts. Because when I mentioned evolutionary change in my OP, it seems I only mentioned the phrase evolutionary change three times, and so when I began discussing evolutionary change and how it relates to natural selection it was confusing to many because I certainly didn't mention evolutionary change five times in my opening post when I discussed evolutionary change. Now I can understand perfectly why you all were jumping over each other to be the first to object (or the second or the third or the fourth or the fifth to say the exact same thing)to my discussing evolutionary change, because when I mentioned the phrase evolutionary change in that first post, none of you was aware that I was talking about evolutionary change as it relates to natural selection. If I wanted to discuss evolutionary change, and not just natural selection, I should have mentioned evolutionary change in the opening paragraph of the first posting (right after I mentioned evolutionary change for the third time perhaps).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dman, posted 11-24-2009 12:48 PM Dman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 10:33 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 75 of 302 (536830)
11-25-2009 10:16 AM


Now, since many of you don't believe this topic has anything to do with mutations, I am curious to know how natural selection or genetic drift create EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE? Please elaborate. I challenge you to do so without talking about mutations. Seeing as how natural selection and genetic drift create no new information at all, and on their own say absolutely nothing other than some organisms die before they can reproduce.
Nullius in verba!

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Wounded King, posted 11-25-2009 10:38 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 11-25-2009 10:46 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 79 by Shtop, posted 11-25-2009 11:00 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2009 1:04 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024