Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 6:42 PM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, JonF, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,242 Year: 5,279/19,786 Month: 1,401/873 Week: 297/460 Day: 49/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform?
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 31 of 70 (627983)
08-05-2011 11:41 PM


This is pretty much a societal belief that few in genetics would ever have put their name too. The original argument was between DNA and the proteins around the chromosomal DNA ladder. It was thought unlikely that the DNA had sufficient memory for a complete instruction set.

That was resolved, at least in the public arena with the discovery that one bacterial characteristic was definitely in DNA. Most of the public and the Eugenics Movement jumped to the irrational assumption that that proves that everything is in inherited in chromosomal DNA.

It is untrue. We know that some organelles are self replicating, most famously the mitocondria that have their own DNA. Many parts of inheritance seem to come from other parts of the egg and a small part of the membrane of the sperm in humans.

We can now understand the old argument better. 3 billion base pairs of DNA is only 750MB of computer memory. With copying and redundant areas, there may only be 30MB of active memory, less than one audio track.

The one thing that we know for certain that is inherited in chromosomal DNA is the transcription codes for proteins. Everything else is hypothetical and unproven, especially HOAX genes coding for our shape. It may be all that is encoded in chromosomal DNA and nothing more.

Which of course kills many of the theoretical justifications of Darwinism over Lamarckism. We only know that Mendel's 'Law' applies to chromosomal DNA. What is more we have no idea of how stable other means of inheritance are in life.

Medicine knows or has forgotten how shape is coded in life and it is not talking about it. There is no way that our individual shape is in DNA. There are not even enough neurones in the brain to contain that information. That is why they really do not want to talk about it because it blows the chemical anatomical model of life out of the water.

Behaviour? Intelligence? There is no hard evidence only conjecture. Nobody knows how they are inherited.


Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 12:24 AM Doctor Witch has responded
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 08-08-2011 7:55 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 70 (627985)
08-06-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Doctor Witch
08-05-2011 11:41 PM


Everything else is hypothetical and unproven, especially HOAX genes coding for our shape.

They're "hox" genes, not "HOAX" genes, and what about them do you think is unproven?

Which of course kills many of the theoretical justifications of Darwinism over Lamarckism.

The "theoretical justification" of Darwinism over Lamarkism is that Darwinism explains things while Lamarkism does not. Children of pirates don't inherit peg-legs. There's apparently a small amount of "acquired" traits that can be passed on from a parent to an offspring via DNA methylation, but that's more akin to chemical signalling between individuals at a time when it's particularly convenient to do so than to Lamark's notion of the inheritance of acquired traits. Inherited methylation patterns typically don't continue past the first generation.

There is no way that our individual shape is in DNA.

It's "in DNA" the way the shape of a cake is encoded in the recipe for a cake. The morphology of any organism is a direct consequence of its DNA, but just like a recipe contains no homologue of a cake, DNA contains little in the way of any direct homologue to morphology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-05-2011 11:41 PM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 1:22 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 5:52 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 33 of 70 (627996)
08-06-2011 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
08-06-2011 12:24 AM


Materialist science is desparate to prove that everything is just within their reach in terms of inheritance, especially the reductinist camp. All that has been proven with the Hox genes is an association. Causality has not been proven and I would be interested to hear if a hypothetical mechanism of causality has even been postulated.

Lamarckism is the ability to acquire new genes or characteristics during life and pass them on to the offspring. When we are considering hard Evolutionary Theory at a cellular level, Horizontal Gene Transfer conforms to that definition whilst Darwinism is a term generally applied in a scientific context as the rejection of this possibility.

And the serious consideration of the science of evolution is about the possibility of exceptionally rare events leading to characteristics at the cellular and gross levels rather than peg leg pirates or cake tins.

As to the individual shape of an organism, the basic mechanism is known and proven, leading to a mystery in where it is coded or inherited because there is simply no physical memory space of sufficient size. Cellular growth and differentiation is controlled by an electromagnetic template and causality has been confirmed. The complexity of this template is such that it would require terabytes of memory for a single snapsnot. This thing not only grows but moves. Inconveniently for the chemical anatomical model, it is also capable of sensation in the absence of physical tissue.

You may find evidence by investigating the regrowth of reptilian tails but other that that, this evidence is stored in the oral tradition of medicine but you may find it surfacing in anaesthesiology and pain management texts in terms of phantom limb syndromes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 12:24 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 5:32 AM Doctor Witch has responded
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 4:43 PM Doctor Witch has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 34 of 70 (628011)
08-06-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 1:22 AM


Materialist science is desparate to prove that everything is just within their reach in terms of inheritance, especially the reductinist camp.

I am not sure that "desperate" is the right word to describe the attitude of scientists. "Successful" would be more accurate.

Lamarckism is the ability to acquire new genes or characteristics during life and pass them on to the offspring. When we are considering hard Evolutionary Theory at a cellular level, Horizontal Gene Transfer conforms to that definition whilst Darwinism is a term generally applied in a scientific context as the rejection of this possibility.

Well, that was nonsense from start to finish.

Cellular growth and differentiation is controlled by an electromagnetic template and causality has been confirmed.

It's a shame that no-one noticed this "confirmation". C'est la vie.

What determines the shape of the "electromagnetic template"?

Is it just a coincidence that (for example) people with mutant genes for fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 also have electromagnetic templates in the shape of achondroplasiac dwarfs, and vice versa? --- or is the shape of this mysterious template determined by the genes?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 1:22 AM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 2:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 35 of 70 (628012)
08-06-2011 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
08-06-2011 12:24 AM


The "theoretical justification" of Darwinism over Lamarkism is that Darwinism explains things while Lamarkism does not. Children of pirates don't inherit peg-legs.

Lamark could reasonably have answered that he didn't claim that all acquired traits were inherited by the organism; at the very most he was talking about traits which were acquired by the organisms' efforts to achieve them.

In order to explain evolution, the only acquired traits that he needed to be heritable were those which are, in fact, heritable, since evolution is only about heritable change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 12:24 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 36 of 70 (628067)
08-06-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2011 5:32 AM


As for the Lamarck/Darwin debate, you will find my definition in Wiki which I hold as a pretty good reference for the compromise between academic and public perceptions of the meaning of a word. I have no doubt that many characteristics are Darwinian however that does not mean that all are. Unless the mechanism of inheritance is known rather than merely hypothesised, Lamarckism cannot be excluded. It is not about pirates losing a leg but whether soft characteristics that certainly have a nurture element can change during life and be inherited. If a person develops their intelligence or chooses to change their 'behaviour', is that passed on? There is no solid answer to that question.

And you have put your finger on the problems of the electromagnetic template. There is no way to explain it 'scientifically'.

In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.

And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.

The pragmatic answer that I have heard from anaesthesiologists who are force to deal with this magnetic template is that it is stored in the mind and not DNA or the brain. It is inconsistent with everything that we know about chromosomal DNA, not least its memory size. There is no correlation with areas of the brain.

I agree that science has been most successful in fooling a public that already has such faith in a materialist, even reductionist worldview.

Desperate? Not in terms of individual academics but there are massive vested interests involved in the perpetuation of a materialist model of life, particularly when it comes to the mind and its influence in biology and hence health. Through funding they ensure that the greater picture is not seen and the immense gaps in scientific knowledge are glossed over without anybody noticing or questioning.

This thread deals with one of those issues, the assumption that all inherited characteristics are coded in chromosomal DNA. It is unproven yet alternatives have not been researched.

The first rule of solving probems is to admit to them.

I am only saying that science does not know yet because a lack of investigation into other possible areas of inheritance. In the distant past it was believed that the majority of inherance was in the chromatids that surround the central DNA ladder of the chromosomes because of their greater memory capacity and flexibility. We are discovering mechanisms of inheritance outside of the nucleus too. We may find the answers there that are not answered in chromosomal DNA.

Until science does find hard answers to these questions, it must admit to pragmatic, working hypotheses such as our individual shape is coded in the mind and god knows how it is inherited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 5:32 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-06-2011 3:07 PM Doctor Witch has responded
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 3:30 PM Doctor Witch has responded
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 3:46 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 70 (628068)
08-06-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 2:31 PM


Do you have any evidence that either intelligence or behavior are inherited?

Unless there is some evidence of either happen there is nothing to question.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 2:31 PM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 4:26 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 38 of 70 (628075)
08-06-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 2:31 PM


And you have put your finger on the problems of the electromagnetic template. There is no way to explain it 'scientifically'.

Demonstrating its existence would be a start.

In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.

This is unclear.

Does the dwarfism gene determine the dwarfish shape of the template? Yes or no?

And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.

"Forget about it"? Who knew about it to be able to forget it? It seems to be a bunch of nonsense that New Agers have made up rather than anything that scientists once knew but which has now slipped their minds.

Until science does find hard answers to these questions, it must admit to pragmatic, working hypotheses such as our individual shape is coded in the mind and god knows how it is inherited.

In what way is that a working hypothesis? You can't work with it. Whereas scientists with the working hypothesis that actually works, i.e. that genes control development, seem to be doing quite well at finding the genes and explaining how they operate.

Your "working hypothesis" leaves you saying that "god knows how" shape is inherited. Whereas geneticists can tell you exactly how (for example) achondroplasia is inherited.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 2:31 PM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 5:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7701
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 39 of 70 (628082)
08-06-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 2:31 PM


In achondroplasia, the body is not capable of 'filling' its inherited (?), natural form and so a new map is formed. The same with the pirates leg. Yet shape is inherited.

And it does not conform to the chemical anatomical model of life. There is nowhere that it can be stored in physical terms, let alone inherited. Science has no grasp on it and so it does its best to forget about it. Medicine really would prefer to forget it for so many reasons.

Achondroplasia is caused by a mutation in the FGFR3 gene. It is inherited. Dwarfism is the map that is inherited. This mutation changes the biochemical reactions that occur during development and aging. People who have this mutation and pass it on to their children have children with achondroplasia. It is a dominant allele, so it is possible for someone with achondroplasia to pass on the non-mutated allele and have children without achondroplasia.

Why are humans and chimps different? It is because of differences in the sequence of bases in their genomes, isn't it? Or are you saying that if a human concentrated really hard that they could give birth to a chimp?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 2:31 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Larni, posted 08-08-2011 8:09 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 40 of 70 (628090)
08-06-2011 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
08-06-2011 3:07 PM


Evidence For Inherited Behaviour and Intelligence
In humans the evidence for an inherited factor in intelligence comes from ethically unrepeatable studies in the soviet union involving the compulsory separation of identical twins at birth, placing them into families on the polar opposites of the educational scale. The conclusion that they reached was that intelligence was around 60% learned and 40% inherited.

Certainly there is evidence for all kinds of animal behaviour being inherited, particularly reproductive behaviour that is 'known' despite the young being removed from their parents, including the basis of birdsong and the unusual behaviour of the cuckoo.

No high quality human data is available because of ethical considerations in producing a controlled trial but there is remarkable twin anecdotal evidence and also a lot of data showing associations between gene types and psychological traits, although it is all but impossible to exclude learning in these cases. The Eugenicists would have us believe that they are proven in terms of causality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-06-2011 3:07 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-06-2011 4:39 PM Doctor Witch has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 70 (628093)
08-06-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 4:26 PM


Re: Evidence For Inherited Behaviour and Intelligence
HUH?

Birdsong is learned.

There is lots of anecdotal evidence of ghosts and UFOs.

Sorry but so far that is most unconvincing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 4:26 PM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 5:55 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 70 (628095)
08-06-2011 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 1:22 AM


All that has been proven with the Hox genes is an association. Causality has not been proven and I would be interested to hear if a hypothetical mechanism of causality has even been postulated.

Since hox genes are genes, the mechanism is the Central Dogma of biology. Hox genes work by expressing proteins, same as any other gene. And that causality has been proven.

Cellular growth and differentiation is controlled by an electromagnetic template and causality has been confirmed.

There is no such thing as an "electromagnetic template" that controls the morphology of organisms. This claim is not only pseudoscience, it's bizarre.

this evidence is stored in the oral tradition of medicine but you may find it surfacing in anaesthesiology and pain management texts in terms of phantom limb syndromes.

"Phantom limb" syndrome is neurological, not "electromagnetic." It's caused by the persistence of motor control areas in the brain associated with the control of the missing limb.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 1:22 AM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 6:23 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 43 of 70 (628100)
08-06-2011 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
08-06-2011 3:30 PM


The Electromagnetic Template of Shape
This is not New Age hippy pseudo-science.

The research was conducted between the wars as a result of that wondeerful human invention the landmine. The medical profession was presented with a concerning number of amputations for which they obviously sought a cure.

One question was why a limb could grow the first time but was unable to regrow a second time. The second question was that some species, most notably certain lizards, are able to regrow a limb, a tail, which requires the ability of cells to be directed into differentiating into the correct cell types in the correct places.

The electromagnetic field was empirically measured in both cases. It was found that the lizard was capable of maintaining this Em field during the time of growth and that the cells literally grew into it. Unfortunately in terms of a human amputation, the field collapsed before significant growth had occurred.

Causality was proven by placing an disruptive electromagnetic field into the cage of the lizard. There was no regrowth.

This conclusive evidence was lost from mainstream science teaching for two reasons. The first was that it had no practice use at the time in the clinical setting. The research hit the brick wall of the inability of the medical profession to recreate or sustain the complexity of this electromagnetic template to allow a human limb to regrow. There was a lot of useful science to be taught in clinical terms and so it drifted out of the curriculum. This was facilitated by the growing influence and financial support of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine, particularly in the US, that sold the monopoly of chemical anatomical model of health.

So the evidence fell out of mainstream scientific teaching around 75 years ago and was forgotten by science as a whole. It is still passed from consultant to junior doctor in the oral tradition of medicine, at least in the UK.

I would guess that it is also known in the study of reptiles but it is not generally considered beyond that subject. It has been fragmented out of human biology and considerations of genetics and inheritance.

The whole concept is highly inconvenient to science as there are no answers that are convenient to science. There is no viable theory to explain it. Hence it is ignored in the same way that inconvenient archaeological finds that contradict the accepted theories can be swept under the carpet.

And this is about the normal variation of characteristics within a normal population rather than genetic abnormalities that fall well outside of normal and are on and off, Mendelean and basically Darwinian. They are known abnormalities of proteins and their mechanism is adequately understood.

To explain the normal variance of the population through the complex interactions of multiple genes is only a hypothesis and we should remember that there are subjective gains in accepting the hypothesis as a part of a web of theories that prove Eugenics, the materialist world view, the monopoly of the chemical anatomical model of health and the need to fund the HGP. It appears to be a frail argument in terms of the fact that there is usually only one normal variant of a protein coded from DNA. The spectrum of normal intellect is present in those that have completely normal production of the full array of neurochemicals.

Soft Evolution and the normal variation of the population has little or no solid basis in hard genetics.

The achondroplasia gene does not 'create' the original template. The template adapts to it as it does to any fact which impedes its being 'filled'. The effect of the inability of the long bones to grow is akin to that of external factors changing the ability of the body to fulfill that shape, such as malnutrition, the Japanese banding girls feet, African tribes that use metal rings to elongate the neck or banding the head to make it grow pointed before the growth plates close.

This can be seen more clearly in congenital short stature caused by a failure of growth hormone, so called Peter Pan Dwarfism. The short stature or shape is not congenitally coded into the defective gene. Growth hormone suppliments allow the body to assume its predestined shape.

Similarly the PKU gene does not code for organic brain damage but the protein error that causes that organic brain damage is.

Wherever it has been possible to remedy the problems that a protein abnormality causes, the organism becomes normal without any change taking place to the gene itself. Hence, there is no causality for the characteristic being coded into the gene but a consequence of the protein abnormailty preventing normality from being expressed.

Normality is somehow inherited too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 3:30 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 8:02 PM Doctor Witch has responded
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 10:26 PM Doctor Witch has responded
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2011 10:45 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 44 of 70 (628102)
08-06-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
08-06-2011 4:39 PM


Re: Evidence For Inherited Behaviour and Intelligence
Usually the basic, species specific basic birdsong is inherited and increasing complexity learned.

http://ibbiology.wetpaint.com/...the+development+of+birdsong

It is a very interesting comparison between UFOs and there being an inherited element to human intelligence and behaviour.

The evidence for the latter is actually of similar, if not better quality than for most of what we believe about evolutionary history. Neither can be measured in the laboratory in a controlled manner to prove repeatability and reliability. Instead, we have to put togetheer a jigsaw of the best information that is available to us to form a rational explanation of that data.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 08-06-2011 4:39 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2728 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 45 of 70 (628105)
08-06-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
08-06-2011 4:43 PM


A Mechanism for Hox Genes and Shape
Correct me if I am wrong but I remember the original declaration being that it was the position of the Hox genes in the genome that was associated with changes of very basic proportions of shape like spine to limb length. There was no mention of differences in the content of the gene and hence no difference in the protein that it coded. And no causality was proven, only association.

This association was presented to a public that does not fully understand the difference between association and causality. Predictably, all that they heard was the science had proven that shape was coded in chromosomal DNA.

I would be most appreciative of references relating to your case if I am misinformed on this matter and promise to regard any information that you provide in an objective and open-minded way, even changing and expanding my understanding.

That is how new evidence should be treated regardless of whether it offends our worldview.

There are three elements to phantom limb syndrome. Phantom limb pain can be explained by nerve trauma at the amputation site. The feeling that the limb is still there can rationally be explained by the persistence of the sensory (and maybe motor) areas of the brain.

The third, evidence based element of phantom limb syndrome is numerous cases of continuing perception where the limb was. Patients are still able to tell when 'the limb is touched' and it depends on 'the position of the limb'.

In the words of the consultant anaesthesiologist who first told me of this 'We don't talk about this because it brings the anatomical chemical model into serious doubt.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 4:43 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2011 7:55 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019