|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Races | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: That IS what race means -- at least that's how I interpretthe definition from the dictionary. quote: Racial concepts are founded in tribalism, and referring to itas 'nothing more than...' is inapproriate trivialisation. The reason that I expect there to be a genetic basis for raceis that 'tribalism' tends to include not breeding with (many) outsiders. What's slavery got to do with it -- almost all 'races' of manthroughout history have practiced slavery at some point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
If I remember rightly Japanese cannot synthesis
alchohol dehydrogenase -- that would be a genetic trait present in most european races that is absent in japanese (unless I have mis-remembered that I suppose). Why should races lead to major divergence? I think it is jumping the gun, given our limited understandingof the link between the genome and the phenome, to state that there is no such thing as race -- I mean there's all that epigenetic stuff going on as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
But that there are representative issues such as
ADH synthesis is in line with what I'm saying -- just muddied by the inter-breeding that has gone on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Mules exist, does that mean the concept of horses
and donkeys is not genetically viable? I'm not saying people are as different as that byany stretch, but just because the issue is complex doesn't make it irrelevant or even wrong. As for usefulness, it depends what you want to do. Members of certain lineages are more prone than othersto certain diseases and medical conditions, so one can target health care with limited funding more effectively. If the only material evidence at a crime scene is some DNAand one can narrow the field down to one demographic or another that will aid in police investigations by allowing the limited police resources to target likely matches first. Even if those are the only two uses for a genetic concept of raceit would be worth further investigation. And I know this might be an unpoular view, but if one wishedto breed for some 'racial' traits as seen by the masses, one could. Ultimately, by observation, that means that the culturallycommon view of racial features are heritable -- how is that contrary to a genetic concept of race. It's not about one unique trait, but a unique trait set. If that is heritable, then it must be genetic in origin. If it is genetic in origin then 'race' exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: OK, I said I don't suggest that the distance is anything likethe same. The existence of Mules does not detract from the genetic separationbetween horse and donkeys, but throw in a Mule DNA sample in a blind test and it would confuse things ... maybe. It was taking an extreme to try to illustrate why I find thatparticular objection questionable. quote: Does the 'often' mean that sometimes it does, or is that justa wording thing? quote: So that work has been done?
quote: It might not call it 'race' for sensitive political reasons,does that mean it isn't related to race? quote: If you can breed for it, it is genetically determined. If it is genetically determined it will be detectable in the genome.
quote: From post 48:and from here: Page Not Found | Virginia State University "With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them." ... 'only 6%' is still an identifiable difference. From post 58:"Large genetic distances are observed among African populations and between African and non-African populations. The root of a neighbor-joining network is located closest to the African populations. These findings are consistent with an African origin of modern humans and with a bottleneck effect in the human populations that left Africa to colonize the rest of the world. Genetic distances among all pairs of populations show a significant product-moment correlation with geographic distances" ...Genetic distance correlates with geographical distance. "Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region." ...and Y-chromosomes reflect sets of 'racial' characteristics. "all systems show greater gene diversity in Africans than in either Europeans or Asians. Africans also have the largest total number of alleles, as well as the largest number of unique alleles, for most systems" ... references to 'unique alleles' and that some 'racial' typeshave more of them than others. from post 67:"A total of 146 SNPs were found in the total sample; 53 of them were observed only once (i.e., singletons) and 22 only twice (doubletons). The number of variant sites found in the African sample was 118, of which 68 (36 singletons, 15 doubletons, and 17 others) were not found in the Eurasian sequences (i.e., they were unique). In contrast, in the Eurasian sample only 78 variant sites were found and only 28 of them (17 singletons, 4 doubletons, and 7 others) were unique" ...again references to 'unique' variation in different 'racial'groups. The 'unique' differences between African and Eurasian are 68+28 (the unique ones) = 96 which is greater than within eurasians, but less than within African samples. from post 80:"A polymorphism in the coding sequence of the SRY gene was found by single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) and direct sequencing analysis. The new allele of the SRY gene, which is raised by a C-to-T transition in the 155th codon, was found in 24% of Honshu, 35% of Okinawan, and 51% of Korean males respectively, whereas it was not observed among 16 Caucasian and 18 Negroid males" Again unique differences between 'racial' groups. I cannot list what the unique differences are or may be -- butthe 'data' from the posts thus far all point to there being a real, genetic component to what we call 'race'. I partially agree that the usefulness is limited, and the politicallysensitive nature makes the subject difficult.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Re: Mules.
I already said I don't believe that humans are as differentfrom one another as horses are from donkeys. What I was trying to point to was that the existence of a mule (which is a genetic cross between horse and donkey) does not make the difference between horses and donkeys a matter of dispute. Close the genetic gap (though not totally) and what you have beensaying is that the same comparison is no longer allowed. That humans can inter-breed and so have genetic characteristicsthat are a mixture of the 'racial' types of their parents is glaringly obvious and says nothing about the potential for difference between the parents. Re: definition of race. How is a conventional geographic definition of race any differentfrom saying that people whose lineages originate in different locations are members of different races. Those differences show in the genome. The studies say 'African', 'Eurasion', 'Asian', 'Northern European',etc. as a racial categorisation. Re: breeding. Take a modern Asian (e.g Indian) population.Breed them (assuming no significant mutations) for a number of generations. Will you (do you think) get any offspring that would beconsidered African or European or Japanese? Re: Who belongs to what race: Typify the genome of a race based upon historical considerationof the likelihood of outsider influence on the gene pool. Compare.
quote: 'Do we not bleed?' -- One expects 'tremendous overlap'. Genetic distance between alleles and differences in allelefrequencies lead to differences in the overall character of the individuals involved. quote: You probably can (or find markers for a number of races) ifsomeone would do the work to find the markers in the first place. You've already pointed to some. Alleles that exist only inAfrican populations, or only in Asian, or only in European are all things that are mentioned in the reports that have been cited in this discussion. Question: Why do you dislike the idea of a genetically determinablerace? When I say I partially agree -- it's with the suggestion thatwhether there is or is not a genetically determined race is largely irrelevent .... but then, to most people, so is quantum physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
One of the emerging hypotheses about the divergence
that caused the ape-human separation is that there were NOT distinct separated populations, but a large, inter-mingling one that gradually over time drifted farther and farther apart genetically. The idea is that some common ancestor of humans and another of themodern apes could inter-breed and produce offspring. How far apart, while still being able to inter-breed, does apair of populations need to be before one considers them 'different'? quote: I'd tend to think that significant interbreeding between diversehuman populations has been going on for hundreds rather than thousands of years. Travel was much harder in the past, and 'tribalism' was adominant factor -- even the Egyptians and Romans tended to breed within their 'cultural group' (slaves probably got bred however the owners saw fit though). Even during my parents time travel and meeting people ofoverly diverse culture was rare (perhaps less so in the US I don't know) -- and inter-racial marriages were (for completely unsupportable reasons I add just in case) considered taboo. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, but that's why I say one needs to look to the history to unravel what the genomes are saying. quote: White south Africans come from Dutch lineages -- that's whyI mentioned 'lineage'. Black south Africans (if memory serves) are largely Bantu orZulu (two races in my opinion) and still different from Nigerians (Even culturally). I've already raised my objection to lumping all African'stogether for the purposes of the studies shown. quote: Not a strawman at all -- you are either missing or ignoring thepoint (I'll assume the former and try to be more clear). First, note that I said assuming no significant mutation, but sincewe don't no what a significant mutation might be let's say NO mutations. That means no amount of isolation could generate anything vastlydifferent to the original population. The question is would any single population (with no historyof outsider influence -- or very limited) produce children who appear to be of a different 'race' by the normal standard of assessment of race -- or any common assessment of race. quote: But we know a lot of the history of most areas -- so if we takesamples and charaterise them and find that a small percentage appear to have genomic matches with another perceived race BUT we know that there have been interactions then it's hardly suprising. Like the 'Japanese' (in the paper that you cited) having overlapswith Taiwanese etc. but not with some other races. quote: No that's species distinctions.
quote: No, I am an individual -- for racial distinction you would beconsidering populations and average values (kind of like a filtering out of noise). quote: I've already argued that Africa is too big, and the populationstoo diverse to be considered a single race. That has no bearing on whether race exists or not.
quote: The biology of it doesn't -- tell a white supremecist thathe is genetically no different to a Zulu warrior and he'll probably shrug and continue with his bigotry. Tell him he is genetically different and he'll say 'I knew that, what's the point' and then use it in arguments of superiority that the data doesn't even apply to. You cannot combat racism by denying race, nor will you inflameit by showing whether or not it has a basis in genetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Lineages and cultural associations go hand in glove ....
lineages are formed within a socio-cultural context. I mention African, Asian, etc. partly because that's what'sin the posts/citation that I am talking about, and partly because it's an accesible terminology. I don't think that one could claim that all africans are part of the same race any more than all Europeans are. I'm not even discussing whether or not there is a use fora concept of race ... I don't consider useful application to be a criterion for studying and attempting to understand nature. 'Race' cannot apply to individuals though .... by definitionit requires a group. In regard to race and whether it has a genetic basis you havetwice not answered a very simple and relevant question. You claim it as a straw-man when it is directly relevant to the issue. Racial characteristics (i.e. those observed traits that leadone to say that's a caucasian or whatever) are heritable. Looking at non-coding regions may well provide informationconcerning the ultimate origin of humans, but it is not looking at those things that make different populations observably different. If you are looking for ducks don't go to the sahara. If you do subscribe to the out-of-Africa hypothesis (?) thenyou have to acknowledge that human populations have diverged. Swedes are not the same as Nigerians (apart from the Nigerian immigrants and their descendents of course ... or Swedes in Nigeria). The divergence might be small ... does that make it irrelevant? Maybe, if one could shed the fear (as I see it), that one willbe labelled a Nazi then a study of what makes human populations observably different may illuminate the ascent of man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Lineages are always formed within a socio-cultural context ...mating is the result of social activity, and happens within a cultural setting. You get cross-cultural pairings ... but there is alwaysa socio-sultural context. quote: Because Africans are not all part of one race. Not any single difference -- I have always (I hope) referred totrait sets. quote: No ... but if something is observed in nature it is worthy ofstudy. The above are suggested explanations of nature, not features tostduy. quote: If they are genetically distinct, and there are more than onethey are a race. If they have alleles at different frequencies than other groups, alleles that others don't, and alleles missing that others have ... what have you. ... course looking at allele frequencies might be statisticallyunviable with such a small sample. quote: Fairly simply -- it would require a 'yes' or a 'no'. Scenario:Take a group of a supposed racial group, observe the offspring over a number of generations. Question:Would children result that would be judged (by common standards) to be part of a different racial group? The concept of racial groupings IS self-evident. That's why people talk of themselves as 'the asian community'or the 'Afro-caribean community' or whatever. As to me and my kids -- paternity testing can identify thefather genetically -- which kinda suggests that you wouldn't be able to find sufficient differences to infer racial separation. quote: Like I said ... it's about trait sets, not individual traits. Height can be affected by development ... but the alleles thatdeterming that development could form a part of a unique trait set. I've never come across much overlap in skin colours (tonesmaybe, but not colour) ... feeling the need to point out that I don't care about skin colour again!! quote: I never said they didn't -- I said the papers cited in thisdiscussion do -- and that that is not relevent to looking at the racial differences amongst us humans. The abstract that you have posted would tend to support myview that we don't actually know enough to claim that race has no genetic reality -- if we cannot even indentify how skin-colour works what hope do we have (at present) for understanding all of the differences that combine to make the racial distinctions that are observable in any city. quote: And probably vary more within their group than they dofrom us too .... The point was to look at the data which is relevant to thequestion ... to look in the right place. quote: I'm not ascribing it to sub-species (thought I already said that).I've been arguing that the cultural concept of race has a genetic basis and to say otherwise would need more support that has been given. If there is an observable divergence, then there is observabledifference -- and that difference is race. quote: Then what's the problem? There are relevant differences between human populations thatare heritable and tie-up with the cultural view of race. And which is more relevant to a study in any case ... an allelethat is shared with little variation by one group that is absent in other groups, or one that varys greatly within a single group? From a targetting of care point of view one would like to finddefinite pointers!! [This message has been edited by Peter, 11-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You can identify family groups that are composed of singleculturally defined races and those that aren't. Even if it's only by their own perception.
quote: Are you asking me to provide a list of traits for each race,or do you not understand the term 'trait set'? quote: The 2/3 people have to be genetically distinct from othersin order to be a race. I am not suggesting that ANY 2/3 people could be categorised as a separate race -- only that should such a small group exist they would BE a race. Lineages start with mutations that get passed on, so logicwould suggest that any racial divergence must start with a reletaively small number of individuals. Perhaps due to a bottleneck in the recent past.
quote: (1) is the question being asked. Assuming the answer a prioriseems a little backward. (2) What people have had to put on a census form does not relateto how they view themselves. If I am of mixed-race parentage I am most likely to identifywith the race of the peers in my environment (which-ever side of the family that may be). Genetically this is not incorrect, just incomplete. quote: No, just suggesting that the genetic difference between a parentand offspring seems to be small. Admittedly paternity is likely based just on Y-chromosome matching. The distinctions aren't arbitrary. They are observable trendswithin differing populations. quote: No. They have exclusive relationships in some parts of thegenome. quote: I don't disagree, I'm just saying that because it is difficultto do doesn't mean that there aren't racial differences that are genetically determined. quote: Such as ...?
quote: ...but the studies that you have cited show that there aredifferences between races, and that these differences (in genetic distance terms) correllate to geographical separation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I continue to refer to cultural lineages because
this discussion is about whether or not there is a genetic basis for the cultural racial distinctions that are commonly made. You cannot discuss this without reference to culturaldefinitions. A trait set is exactly that, a 'set' of 'traits'. Eachrace should be indentifiable by a collection of traits that are unique to that race. Some traits may be common with other races, but membership ofa group is defined by holding all elements. e.g. the following sets are unique: {1,2,3,4,5}{4,5,6,7,8} {1,2,3,7,8} even though there is overlap in the element values. I think you are missing what I am saying. I am NOT saying thatANY three people can be considered a race, I am saying that should three people exist who share a trait set that is unique to them, then they would constitute a race. If one person has a unique trait set, that is not covered byanother categorisation they are an anomaly. Their traits will either be assimilated into the cultural racial group in which they interact, or disappear. quote: If this is the case, then that cannot have been a feature ofhuman development. Human groups have diverged ... heritably so. To deny that is to deny the basic observation that differentcultural racial groups will only have children that appear to belong to that cultural racial group, unless there is an influx of outside influence. quote: Recent history perhaps, but hardly most of their history. Can sub-species inter-breed and produce fertile offspring?
quote: So your main argument above is that since it hasn't been foundyet, it doesn't exist? quote: Overlaps, yes. Represents the absence of biological race, no. If someone can find a single trait or genetic sequence that ONLYoccurs in one particular group and that group tallies with a cultural racial distinction then there IS a biological basis for race. The papers quoted/cited in this discussion mention such seqeunces.One's which only appear in African populations but not in Europeans or Asians. Sequences that only appear in the region around Japan. And that's not even looking at the genetics directly behindthe perceived distinctions between people (like bone structure, muscle attachment, metabolic differences, etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: All but the last two have, at one time or another, been consdiered(culturally) to be races ... (except maybe the Amish -- don't know much about them). The last one could be considered a race, but only culturally soif they (or someone else) considers them a race. The freemasons cannot be considered a race -- partly because theyare all men so would find it hard to breed quote: First, such a single, anamolous individual does not contradictanything I have said. They just don't constitute a race, since a race requires more than a single individual. If the unique traits persist in subsequent generations thenwe have am emergence of a new racial group. Perhaps the Mongolians and Central Americans share a commonracial ancestry. quote: Culturally by whom? Caucasian, non-African scientists? Ask a Zulu if he is the same as a Bantu, or a Nigerian. Africa has high genetic diversity BECAUSE it is composed ofa number of different racial groups. Take 10 Zulu instead of 10 any-Africans and then do thecomparisons. Which is more dissimilar having alleles in different frequenciesor having an allele that no-one else does? quote: Well .... language for one. Then there's basic history, which shows there was very limitedcontact between continents until the late 1700's (sure the Vikings made it to America, but as far as I can tell they decided there was nothing there worth having so didn't bother with it much). Then there's classic literature -- which does not feature muchin the way of multi-racial populations, suggesting they weren't common. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there has been a lotof contact throughout human history. Trying not to be too cyclic, but the fact that were are havingthis discussion suggests that there must have been limited interaction between populations in the early evolution of humans too ... or maybe we diverged recently? quote: If it has been looked for and not found then that is a strongerargument than I have seen so far ... if you are saying no-one has stumbled over it while looking for something else ... quote: Well I was only thinking of nuclear DNA to be honest. Mitochondriaare largely from mother only ... quote: No, I'm making a comment based upon data in cited papers. If THEYuse those as categories I cannot refer to their data without using their categories. quote: If people at the geographical extremes interact with one anotherthere will be overlaps at the 'boundaries', how does that detract from racial distinctions? It just means that there are a large number of races and they can all inter-breed. Chimpanzees have sub-species ... presumably there is a specificmetric for the genetic difference that says 'Yes, they are distinct.' How did that happen? Go back 1/2 a million years, what would you expect to see in thechimp gene pool? Where they always distinct from one another? Do the modern sub-species share a common ancestor? How long ago? How much inter-tribe interaction is there with chimps? How willthat affect divergence and divergence time? With humans, what's wrong with us diverging? Why do we all have tobe the same to get along?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Re: Uselfulness of race.
I've not said I think it useful, but in the case of suggestingsome common ancestry it may be interesting to figure out how that could be. Or the likelihood of the same mutation happening in differentpopulations that are geographically separated. Ghengis Khan commanded a vast empire that impinged upon theremains of previous empires that had contact with the Egyptians ... and Thor Hyerdal suggested that the Egyptians had travelled to the America's ... where we also find Egyptian-like architecture. So maybe this genetic link is indicative of a real amount oftravel in the ancient past. Maybe I'm completely wrong. Re: Cultural definition of race: As with 'teams', the definition is based upon whether the membersidentify themselves as part of a separate group, not whether outsiders do. That's why 16+1 and self-determination is coming into playin UK police forces. quote: If you don't need much immigration to homogenise gene poolswhy are there heritable characteristics that have been used as racial differentiators? Why are there any differences between human populations? How much genetic difference does one need to claim adifference? ...and remember I am not talking about species, or evensub-species. quote: But they must have diverged already .... because there areobservable differences that are heritable (i.e. genetically determined). I agree about the not getting along bit -- which is whydenying race for political reasons is so pointless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm not talking about 3-4 major divisions. I find that too
broad ... but then in the UK we can get hot under the colour about being called British! We are English, or Scottish, or Welsh .... but NOT British (a guy from Cheshire even went to court for refusing to fill in his census form because it didn't have an 'English' option under ethnic background). I've never disputed whether or not it is useful ... I am objectingto the suggestion that there is no biological reality to 'race'. That seems to fly in the face of observation and logic and be motivated by political thinking rather than scientific curiosity. The following nicely sums up my objection to the rejection ofhuman races as a biological concept as argued in this thread. I will admit though (to save time) that this paper agrees that the link between cultural concepts of race and a meaningful biological one is likely not there. I tend to disagree with that aspect of the paper, simply becausethe commonly held view of what makes races of humanity different focusses on 'adaptive' differences. "On the concept of biological race and its applicability to humans By Massimo Pigliucci1,2 and Jonathan Kaplan2,3 1Departments of Botany and of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996. Phone 865-974-6221; fax 2258; email pigliucci@utk.edu Lewontin and Gould have made much of the fact that there is relatively little genetic variation in Homo sapiens (compared at least to other mammals; see Tempelton 1999) and that most of what genetic diversity is known to exist within Homo sapiens exists within (rather than between) local populations (see, for example: Gould 1996; Lewontin et al. 1984), and these facts are cited repeatedly in arguments concluding that there are no biologically significant human races. But the idea that this data might imply something about the existence of biologically significant human races emerges from a focus on the wrong sort of biological races. The relative lack of genetic variation between populations compared with within populations samples does imply that the populations have not been reproductively isolated for any evolutionarily significant length of time. But of course, this fact is irrelevant for the consideration of races based on adaptive variation; in this case, if there is extensive gene flow, genetic variation can be mostly within groups, rather than between groups, as variations not related to the adaptive phenotypic differences between the populations will be spread by gene flow relatively easily. The question is not whether there is significant levels of between-population genetic variation overall, but whether there is variation in genes associated with significant adaptive differences between populations (see our discussion in Kaplan and Pigliucci 2001)."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm sure Ned won't mind
I felt that the part that spoke about why the within/betweencomparison isn't relevant was stated better than I had. Maybe I was wrong. Consensus is hardly a validation of anything -- a couplehundred years ago the concensus was that the earth was flat. You've mentioned 'clearly divergent' a few times -- I asked howdifferent populations needed to be for this, but I think you missed it in the rush to respond to the rest of the posts. The differences which we see as 'race' in terms of racialdescription are localised geographically wrt origin of the lineages (biological). Biological lineages can be traced genetically (e.g. the Vikingstudy that found a correlation with the known interaction with the Danes and the boundaries of the Dane-Law). The differences are related to locally adaptive traits, and areheritable. If you look at non-coding sequences (which the within/betweenpaper cited earlier in the thread did) you are not looking at the areas responsible for the 'racial' differentiation. If you accept out-of-africa then you must accept divergenceof the human populations, else the differentiation that is visibly present (and heritable) couldn't exist. That divergence does correlate with the racial distinctionscommonly made -- including those with only 3 categories (is that a particulalry US thing in the UK we now use a 16 + 1 categorisation for such things.) That there is more variatey amongst Africans than betweenAfricans and Eurpoeans (say) is not evidence of a lack of race, but evidence of a lack of refinement.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024