Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 102 of 373 (644740)
12-20-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
12-19-2011 4:41 PM


Re: My one comment
The position of an antenna for example, it not inherently important, necessary because of the physics involved, but a radio would still be recognized as a design by how it's parts are arranged, very specifically.
quote:
A self-organising electronic circuit has stunned engineers by turning itself into a radio receiver.
This accidental reinvention of the radio followed an experiment to see if an automated design process, that uses an evolutionary computer program, could be used to "breed" an electronic circuit called an oscillator. An oscillator produces a repetitive electronic signal, usually in the form of a sine wave.
Paul Layzell and Jon Bird at the University of Sussex in Brighton applied the program to a simple arrangement of transistors and found that an oscillating output did indeed evolve.
But when they looked more closely they found that, despite producing an oscillating signal, the circuit itself was not actually an oscillator. Instead, it was behaving more like a radio receiver, picking up a signal from a nearby computer and delivering it as an output.
Radio emerges from the electronic soup | New Scientist
It appears that just being a radio does not indicate design.
I think it is an important point to say that If there is a designer we would expect to see good designs.
I would say the same of evolved designs, so I guess that indicator is out. It is also worth mentioning that human designers use evolutionary mechanisms, such as genetic algorithms, to produce designs.
For me, evolution, as it is proposed, does not have thought nor can it plan or predetermine or come up with a thoughtful contingency in answer to a specific problem and all the arguments in the world will not change the fact that a thoughtful mind can do these things, does have the capacity, and therefore answers the problem neatly.
What you have left out is that a predetermined plan is not required to produce specific adaptations in organisms. The mechanisms of evolution can produce adaptations. In fact, it is the obvious lack of a predetermined plan that indicates evolution.
How so? Embryonic development is a good example. Why do human embryos need to grow a tail and then reabsorb it later? Why does the recurrent laryngeal nerve need to loop under the aorta and then attach to the larynx in tetrapods? Why do two of the mammalian middle ear bones start out in the jaw of the developing mammalian embryo, like they are found in adult reptiles, only to move up into the middle ear later in development?
Life is hobbled together in ways that no intelligent designer (at least human) would ever think of designing. What intelligent designer would pass the wires for a CCD in front of the light path when designing a digital camera? None, and yet this is how the vertebrate eye is designed.
What human designer would require that designs fall into a nested hierarchy? Absolutely NO DESIGNER WOULD DO THIS, and yet this is what we observe in nature (at least for metazoans). If teats, three middle ear bones, flow through lungs, and feathers are such great adaptations then why can't we find all four in a single organism? Why can we only find teats and three middle ear bones together? Why only feathers and flow through lungs together? Why can't we find a flying organism with feathers and teats, or fur and flow through lungs?
When we look at human designs we find that there is absolutely no nested hierarchy. With evolution we observe that evolution produces a nested hierarchy. What do we see in life? A nested hierarchy. This, by itself, is enough to rule out design and evidence evolution in my own opinion. The rest is just icing on the cake.
There is no predictive power in claiming that evolution can produce brilliant design, unless we see it produce it in the future.
It is only your subjective opinion that they are brilliant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2011 4:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 103 of 373 (644742)
12-20-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Just being real
12-19-2011 9:49 PM


From a child's vantage point
Also from an adult's vantage point.
When an archaeologist is digging through the Earth and uncovers a bifacially flaked stone triangular in shape and an earthworm which do you think is taken back to the museum as an example of intelligent design? That would be the stone, not the earthworm.
When Paley talked about finding a watch in the heath he talked about how obvious the watch was as an indication of design. So why would a watch stick out when surrounded in the heath by so much life if life is also designed? The watch should not stick out. It should blend in with the rest of the supposed designed things.
The fact that human designed artefacts are so easily discerned in a background of life indicates that life is not designed, does it not?
When I used my child and the AR-15 analogy, I didn't expect for you to stretch my words beyond the breaking point of all congruity.
The analogy was taken at face value. An AR-15 is sitting in an area surrounded with life. What sticks out as designed? The AR-15. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I just want any study that demonstrates how that increase of information from single celled life, to multi-celled, to fins, to lungs to legs, could possibly have came about.
Where is the study showing these same things coming about through design? Why is it that design proponents only require this type of evidence for evolutionary pathways but never for their own proposed pathways?
This also brings us to another feature of designed things. We can deduce from the design how it was made. We can look at the structure of the molecules on a watch back and determine if it was stamped or cast. We can do an analysis of the metals and determine how they were forged, and possibly even the source of the metals. We can look at the gears to see marks made during the process of manufacture. Designed things bear marks of their manufacture. That is how we also determine that they were designed. How does life bear these marks?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 9:49 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 104 of 373 (644745)
12-20-2011 12:12 PM


Designed?
If you saw this blob laying on the street would you think it was designed?

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 107 of 373 (644777)
12-20-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
12-20-2011 3:14 PM


Re: Information
There's a simpler and non-mathematical way to answer this question. Take a bacteria that experiences a non-fatal deleterious point mutation resulting from the loss of a single nucleotide and that in this case it is a decrease in information. If the bacteria then experiences another point mutation that restores the original nucleotide then it must be a beneficial mutation and an increase in information. Most creationists see the unavoidable logic in this argument, but they then ask if there's any evidence that this has ever actually happened, and of course the answer is yes.
There has never been a better time for an on-topic plug for one of my threads:
Wright et al. on the Process of Mutation
The strain used in the study contained a detrimental mutation in the gene responsible for de novo leucine production. The authors observed that random mutations occurred in this gene which reversed the detrimental mutation and re-established de novo leucine production.
If this is not an increase in information as defined by ID/Creationists, then evolution does not need an increase in information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. This is another corner that ID/Creationists paint themselves into. They define "new information" so that no mutation can produce it. In doing so, they make "new information" irrelevant and superfluous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 111 of 373 (644788)
12-20-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
12-20-2011 4:52 PM


Re: Looking For Intelligence
Isn't SETI an example of us looking for signs of intelligence rather than (by definition) human activity?
If we found a signal expressing Pi to 100 decimal places in binary transmitted at the Hydrogen line frequency (or something like that) wouldn't that be clear evidence of intelligence?
SETI is looking for something much simpler. They are looking for a narrowband transmission that is similar to human radio transmitters. They are not looking for binary codes, or any codes for that matter. What they are looking for is a spike of energy in the radiowave frequency spectrum that is quite different from the normal spectrum of naturally occuring radiation.
It would be more accurate to say that SETI is looking for a specific type of technology, not intelligence per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-20-2011 4:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2011 1:12 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 128 of 373 (644881)
12-21-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Just being real
12-21-2011 10:04 AM


You don't seem to be able to grasp the definition of specificity. Just something following natural laws of physics and producing a predictable pattern is not specificity.
Then life is not specified since it passes on DNA in a predictable manner in accordance to natural laws, and the adaptation of species produces a predictable pattern which is the nested hierarchy.
[qs]A simple example will show the two types of order in alphabet letters:
1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule. Chop the first sequence in half, and the two halves are essentially the same. Break a crystal of salt in two, and you see the same effect. Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobinthe two halves don't resemble one another.[/quote]
Chop this rock in half and you will have two halves that do not resemble one another:
So I guess this rock is specified as well.
Though they may be at times very complex and beautiful to look at, they do not spark the recognition response or the function response required to qualify. Without which they are only contrived rather than real.
How does this spark the recognition of function?
MTQGAQIADFVNAVLDAVIAIANGGQAGVPKLIETALATSVPLLIGFLAALLGI
GGLANKVKSVFQSVSRPVTRAIDKIVDFIAKKGKALWNKLKGKDEKEGTAPA
TDKKNNPGDRPKGRDGEQQKKPIRVAFTMQGEPHRLTLTRSGRLLMASSRE
QALLVKIEAAMGSARDQDQIDDLLNLWRLTSALLGRGGDAAQEQVREHAK
ALERYGDKYAKDDIAPDSDEPGRANRTPAERPAKKDRKSTPRLLKLADEHRG
AGCVARLNVDSRTYEGWSEGRSESDLDSRALRDIRTHSSSHTLGCAEVHCI
SQAYGAEYKKSVNELPVEFTTIEMVHADRHGKPNSWYQKPFRACSHCGPM
LDGLKITTMN
(this is a random hypothetical protein from a Streptomyces species that I found at NCBI)
Just looking at it, it appears to be a random jumble of letters. What makes it specified? I don't see anythink like "A cat in a hat". It appears that real proteins fail to meet your requirements.
How does this spark a recognition of function?
The above picture is the crystal structure of a functional protein. Can you please tell us how the appearance of this protein is any more specified than the rock pictured above? How is the shape of this protein any different than a random dirt clod?
Look Paul, its actually quite simple. All we need is a controlled study in which a parent group that did not possess some certain trait that over several generations evolved a new novel beneficial trait as a result of added new never before existed information to the DNA of that population.
Already done:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
In this example, a frame shift mutation produced a new and novel enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers used in nylon production. We have the parent strain and the mutated strain that started growing in the vats containing these oligomers. We know exactly where the mutation is. It is not in the parent strain. It is in the mutated strain, and the mutated strain is better adapated to that environment than the parent strain.
Added by edit: Per suggestions, I am also adding a peer review source that discusses the frame shift mutation that gave rise to nylC, the enzyme that is important for the adaptation of the Flavobacterium to the industrial environment.
A new nylon oligomer degradation gene (nylC) on plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 10:04 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2011 11:51 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 136 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 12:38 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 133 of 373 (644899)
12-21-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
12-21-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Looking For Intelligence
OK. But if we detected the signal I have described it would seem to indicate an intelligent source wouldn't it?
Yes, it would. I would agree with that.
Sure. But that technology would be indicative of intelligence would it not?
That is the assumption that SETI is working under. However, I think it is worth pointing out that SETI is looking for technology, something that has been manufacturered. They are not looking for codes in naturally occuring signals. This differs greatly from what ID/Creationists are pushing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 12-21-2011 1:12 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 142 of 373 (645017)
12-22-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Just being real
12-22-2011 12:38 AM


Of course Paul and I were discussing things that appeared ordered versus things that are specified. So your rock comment turns out to only be a very successful attempt at looking ignorant.
Just pointing out that your criteria would label a rock as having specified information.
Do I recognize any specificity in your letters? I'll be the first to admit that I know squat about reading DNA code. That doesn't mean its not there, it only means I personally can't detect it. Whoopty freakin do.
This is what you said in message 121 of this thread:
quote:
1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule.
[emphasis mine]

Are you withdrawing this claim now that you have looked at the order of a real protein?
Well your welcome to think that a single celled bacteria nails the whole issue if you like, but if you "back read" a little, you'll see that I've been asking for examples in multi-celled organisms only.
Why the limitation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 12:38 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 12:53 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 143 of 373 (645019)
12-22-2011 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Just being real
12-22-2011 2:11 AM


Seriously though, help me out here. When a marine biologist listens to dolphins communicate, how do they decipher those chirp sounds as intelligent, as opposed to say... an annoying car alarm chirp?
How does that technique apply to DNA and proteins? How do you determine intent in a DNA or protein sequence?
mean if just repeating patterns are much more specified than actual language, please quantify for me why the dolphin speak is more meaningful information...
Please quantify the specificity in a real protein sequence. That would help move this discussion forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Just being real, posted 12-22-2011 2:11 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 149 of 373 (645041)
12-22-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by mike the wiz
12-22-2011 12:37 PM


Re: My last comment
Remember, logically, we KNOW how a thoughtful mind can solve design-problems as we have OTHER known designs and we know that such examples required clever contingencies such as the differential to solve wheel spin. in the same way, hollow bones and contraflow lungs are excellent contingencies for aviation of organisms.
We also know that thoughtful minds are not limited to keeping their designs within a nested hierarchy. This, IMHO, is the greatest problem with your argument. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. No human designer sees a need for nor a functional reason for designs that fall into a nested hierarchy. Instead, design units are swapped and paired together with only function in mind. This is not so with life. Adaptations fall into a nested hierarchy. Three middle ear bones stay with fur. Feathers stay with flow through lungs. This makes zero sense from a design standpoint.
Logically, if you REQUIRE a designer for known human lesser designs, then you should require an even greater designer for superior designs.
That doesn't follow at all. It requires design for non-living and non-reproducing designs. We can't throw two computers together, wait 9 months, and then expect three computers to exist. However, this does occur with life.
It's not just that there is an induction of some good designs. The DNA, code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics involved shows a superior standard to even the best man-made designs, with incredible information-density, off the scale.
If I deleted 2 million letter chunk from a human program code would you expect the code to lose functionality? I would.
Is that so with life? Nope. Scientists have removed 2 million bases of DNA from the mouse genome and they were unaffected.
Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice | Nature
So it seems that your characterization is way off.
My only real intention in this thread is to show that I have reason to believe in a designer, I think it is denial to deny that, it's one of those obvious things that is futile to argue because it is so self-evident.
You do have reasons, but they are not self-evident, nor are they scientific. You are more than welcome to your beliefs, but don't fault us for not accepting those beliefs as true without some evidence to compel that belief.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 177 of 373 (646138)
01-03-2012 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Just being real
12-23-2011 12:53 AM


In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence.
This is untrue. A random, unintelligent mutation in the nylC gene resulted in an enzyme capable of metabolizing nylon oligomers:
quote:
J Bacteriol. 1992 Dec;174(24):7948-53.
A new nylon oligomer degradation gene (nylC) on plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.
Negoro S, Kakudo S, Urabe I, Okada H.
SourceDepartment of Biotechnology, Osaka University, Japan.
Abstract
Flavobacterium sp. strain KI725 harbors plasmid pOAD21, a derivative of nylon oligomer-degradative plasmid pOAD2, in which all of nylA (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase [EI]) was deleted but nylB (the gene for 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase [EII]) was retained. KI725 showed no growth on unfractionated nylon oligomers (Nom1) obtained from a nylon factory as a sole carbon and nitrogen source (Nom1 minimum plate). Extracts of KI725 cells possessed hydrolytic activity for Nom1 (approximately 5% of the activity of KI72), but pOAD2-cured strains (KI722 and KI723) showed no activity. KI725R strains which grew on the Nom1 minimum plate were spontaneously isolated from KI725 at a frequency of 10(-7) per cell. Activity toward Nom1 was enhanced in KI725R strains (10 to 30% of the activity of KI72). This new Nom1 degrading enzyme (EIII, the nylC gene product) hydrolyzed not only Nom1 but also the N-carbobenzoxy-6-aminohexanoate trimer, a substrate which was not hydrolyzed by either EI or EII. Cloning and sequence analysis showed that the nylC gene is located close to nylB on pOAD21 and is a 1,065-bp open reading frame corresponding to 355 amino acid residues. The nucleotide sequence of the nylC gene and the deduced amino acid sequence of EIII had no detectable homology with the sequences of nylA (EI) and nylB (EII).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Just being real, posted 12-23-2011 12:53 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 3:35 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 178 of 373 (646139)
01-03-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Just being real
01-01-2012 5:01 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing.
Scientific observation B: the universe "began."
Scientific observation A: same as above.
Scientific observation B: thunderclouds "began".
Conclusion: the production of thunderclouds require a supernatural deity.
Scientific observation E: The code found in the base protein pairs of the DNA of all living things is described by many micro biologists themselves as being highly specified. There are no observed cases of DNA forming by natural unguided processes, and there are no observed cases of added new never before existed information to the chromosomal DNA code of a multicelled organism, which is the only thing that could even imply that it is possible to form by natural unguided processes.
Microbiologists do not claim that specified sequences require an intelligent source. Also, DNA comes about through natural mechanisms all of the time. It is called biological reproduction.
Scientific observation F: The more than 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems.
You are drawing the bull's eye around the bullet holes. Ever heard of Texas Sharpshooting?
Scientific observation G: Physical forces such as electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, speed of light, centrifugal force of planetary movements, and rate of expansion are all fine tuned to the exact parameters need for life to exist. This is yet another life support system displaying a highly specified nature.
If life were not possible in our universe, who would notice? Your argument suffers from confirmation bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Just being real, posted 01-01-2012 5:01 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:08 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 201 of 373 (646209)
01-03-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:45 PM


There are no new observed novel designs.
There shouldn't be. Evolution is descent with modification. Old designs are modified.
Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years?
Then macro-evolution is not needed to produce the biodiversity we see today since evolution is modification of old designs. Humans are still apes, which are still primates, which are still mammals, which are still metazoans, which are still eukaryotes. Everything from protists on up is no new designs since they are still using the eukaryote design.
This is the funny thing about ID arguments. They define "new information" and "macroevolution" in such a way that evolution doesn't need to produce it.
We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.
There is no reason that evolution needs to produce it, as you have defined it, in order to create the biodiversity we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 202 of 373 (646212)
01-03-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:48 PM


If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable.
We also have the other problem where the IDer defines new information in such a way that evolution does not need to produce it in order to create the biodiversity we see today. If mutations do not create new information then evolution does not need to produce new information in order for evolution to occur.
Also, you have yet to tackle the nested hierarchy problem. This is the biggest hurdle for IDer's, in my view. No designer limits itself to a nested hierarchy, but it is the only pattern that evolution can produce for species that do not participate in horizontal gene transfer. What do we see in the design of metazoans? A nested hierarchy. This is a big reason that design is falsified and why evolution is evidenced.
If you want, we can focus on just one gene, cytochrome B. I think that would be most informative.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 208 of 373 (646361)
01-04-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Percy
01-03-2012 6:03 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
This thread isn't asking for evidence of the designer. Rather, it is an opportunity for creationists to describe the evidence we should expect to see if a designer existed. Whether we've actually found that evidence yet doesn't matter.
Since my horse is still kicking around . . .
Why would we ever expect a design process to produce a nested hierarchy? Automobiles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy. I am unaware of any set of designs where a designer was required to make designs that fall into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, there is no reason that we would ever expect life to fall into a nested hierarchy. This observation would be inexplicable in a design setting.
To be specific, why couldn't a designer produce a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Or a species with flow through lungs and fur? Why would a designer need to change the amino acid sequence of cytochrome B in mice and yeast by 30% even though mouse cytB functions just fine in yeast?
At the end of the day, it is PATTERN of homology (and divergence) that ID can not explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 6:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 3:11 PM Taq 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