Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 457 (707636)
09-29-2013 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
09-29-2013 5:51 PM


Re: so much for smarts
I stick to the stuff I DO know, it's a pretty limited array. If you'll notice, I've repeated myself countless times here to deaf ears. One does get good at spelling out one's limited beliefs after much repetition. It would be nice, however, if somebody on the other side would just think it through for a change instead of just regurgitating the usual stuff.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 09-29-2013 5:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 09-29-2013 5:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 457 (707638)
09-29-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
09-29-2013 5:54 PM


Re: so much for smarts
What I know is a lot less limited than YOU think.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 09-29-2013 5:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 09-29-2013 5:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 48 of 457 (707641)
09-29-2013 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
09-29-2013 5:58 PM


Re: so much for smarts
You're off topic and you're violating the rule against attacking the person, both. How about dealing with the issues being discussed or getting off the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 09-29-2013 5:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2013 9:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 09-30-2013 11:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 457 (707653)
09-29-2013 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coyote
09-29-2013 9:34 PM


Re: Back on topic
How about your claims that genetic diversity decreases and all mutations are deleterious?
If that is the case, please explain how there is more diversity within the protists in the chart below than in all the subsequent species.
First of all I'm a creationist, so in my view all the "subsequent" species have nothing whatever to do with the species placed at the bottom of the chart, that's just the usual made up story. In separate species or kinds each will have its own history of genetic diversity unrelated to the others.
But wherever there is true genetic descent of subpopulations from a mother population, that's not hard to explain if you mean what I mean by "diversity" which is not at all clear from how you've worded this. Are you talking about GENETIC diversity or phenotypic diversity?
As long as the primary or mother population remains very large it can retain a great deal of genetic diversity. The populations that lose genetic diversity are those that "evolve" from the primary population because they are created from smaller numbers of individuals and are confined to the genetic possibilities contained only in those individuals. New traits develop from the combination of the selected alleles, the new gene/allele frequencies determining a new set of traits. Traits that were dominant in the earlier population may be hardly represented at all in the new mix, so new traits will emerge.
Meanwhile the genetic diversity of the original population may remain very high if its numbers are high.
And please explain how, over some 3.7 billion years, those deleterious mutations did not accumulate and wipe out everything.
First of all WHAT mutations are you talking about? I'm only talking about built-in genetic possibilities, range of alleles per gene etc. These are shuffled with each new population isolation, and eventually those that define the new traits remain while others drop out. The dropping out is the genetic decrease I'm talking about.
Second, of course there were no millions of years in any case, mutations or not. If there had been the accumulation of mutations WOULD have wiped it all out millions of years ago.
In actual fact, mutations are changes, of which some are deleterious, some neutral, and a few beneficial.
VERY VERY few are beneficial and those that are are of a very iffy sort, often involving some kind of exchange as the case with sickle cell anemia providing protection from malaria. Not the stuff of healthy genetics.
The deleterious mutations do not tend to propagate to subsequent generations, the neutral ones usually don't matter, while the beneficial ones do tend to propagate.
That's all purely an article of faith, or an artifact of theory, assumed, not proven. There is an enormous number of known genetic diseases, thousands of them. The ones that "don't matter" don't have an effect on the phenotype that has been observed, but otherwise you really don't know if they matter or not. Since they change the sequence of DNA it's hard to imagine they don't have SOME effect, perhaps leading eventually to consigning that segment of DNA to the Junk category.
3.7 billion years is a lot of time for mutations to occur and to increase genetic diversity through speciation. In fact, this is what we see.
No, it is not what you actually SEE, it's what you infer from the theory that tells you mutations are the stuff of variation and that millions of years have transpired. There is no evidence whatever of this being the case, it's pure theory.
But my argument is very basic. If you expect to get variations or recognizable breeds, or "speciation" which does occur but is a misnomer -- it's just another breed, one that can't interbreed with former population, that's all -- genetic diversity will interfere with that goal. The only way such breeds or variations or the misnamed new "species" form, in nature or in domestic breeding, is by a reduction in genetic diversity in the new population that forms the new breed, so that the traits of the new population can be allowed to develop without interference.
And 3.7 billion years would have been more than sufficient time for deleterious mutations to accumulate and wipe out all life. Clearly that didn't happen.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it--as would a few tens of thousands of biologists and other scientists.
Since all you have is theory and no evidence for any of this, asking me for evidence is a bit disingenuous. What I have is reasoning from my own theory and it holds together very nicely to explain what actually exists and occurs both in nature and in domestic breeding.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2013 9:34 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2013 11:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-29-2013 11:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 12:31 AM Faith has replied
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2013 1:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 457 (707711)
09-30-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
09-29-2013 11:39 PM


Re: Back on topic
Your post contains nothing but claims which have long since been disproved by science, liberally mixed with misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
You put up a typical ridiculous evolutionist fantasy chart that implies genetic descent of both plants and animals from an assumed original undefined Protist, and you ask me how I explain the great "diversity" of "subsequent" creatures? I have NO idea what you are talking about or what you expect a creationist to do with such a blatant piece of fantasy propaganda. If I didn't answer the question it's because the question was incoherent.
You are presumably challenging what I've been arguing about genetic diversity but nothing in your challenge has anything to do with anything I've said. You are talking here about phenotypic diversity it seems clear now, which has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.
And that phenotypic diversity is just the usual evolutionist fantasy that you can get new species from previous species, whereas of course what I've been arguing is that the actual simple facts of genetics -- population genetics that is -- make it impossible to get anything other than variations within the genome of a given species, because in order to get a variation at all, a breed, a race, etc., genetic material must be eliminated from the population of the new breed that was present in the earlier population.
Try some human races for an example. Asians pretty clearly have alleles for straight black hair and dark eyes, and LACK alleles for blue or light eyes, curly hair and any color hair other than black. This is what I mean by reduced genetic diversity. It is what has to happen whenever you get a new race or breed or variety. Perhaps somewhere in the greater population of Asians the alleles for those other variants do exist in scattered individuals, that could be possible, although after centuries of inbreeding unlikely. Even if they do exist the chances of their being expressed are very slim.
Same with any reproductively isolated inbreeding population. It will be characterized by whatever genetic material, usually alleles for its particular traits, happened to exist in the original founding population of that race or breed.
It is because of this natural inevitable principle of population genetics that it is impossible for any breed or race or variety to vary beyond the parameters of the genome of the species or kind. There is no doubt a great deal of genetic diversity left in most of the human races, though it would not be the case if the original founders were a very small number (within the last millennium anyway, not back to Noah), but that diversity would not affect the major traits that define the population.
Frako claimed he could just vary a dog breed infinitely, a typical evolutionist fantasy. He could breed it for hairlessness or a certain type of tail for instance. No he could not UNLESS the genetic material/alleles for those traits exist in that breed or chosen individual already. You cannot get blue eyed creatures from a genetic pool that does not contain the alleles for blue eyes. You cannot get hairlessness or a certain tail type from a genetic pool that does not contain the alleles for those traits. It is pure fantasy that says variation is completely openended. You can IMAGINE anything, and that's what evolutionists do, but in REALITY you CANNOT get any trait unless the alleles for that trait are present in the individual or population you want to breed.
So again, I have no idea what your chart was intended to accomplish except to impose the usual evolutionist fairy tale on me, but in actual reality based on the principles of population genetics there is no way you can get a new species from an old, and there is certainly nothing whatever in that chart that says anything about mutations for pete's sake. All that is pure fantasy. Not to mention that mutations that occur after a breed is established only interfere with it anyway.
I don't have all evening to explain all of these to you, and you wouldn't accept them anyway.
I understand that it's really too much to ask of you to consider that your life's work is based on a delusion. All I can hope is that eventually someone might be willing to give it a rethink nevertheless.
So I'll just wish you a good evening.
And to you.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2013 11:39 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2013 3:46 PM Faith has replied
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 4:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 457 (707716)
09-30-2013 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Diomedes
09-30-2013 3:46 PM


Re: Back on topic
Yeah, I enjoy needling evolutionists when I can, just as they needle me.
And you are off topic and committing the same violation of the rule against personal attack that Ringo was doing. The right thing to do with an argument is address the argument itself, but of course evolutionists suffer from an inability to do anything but make charts that demonstrate their fantasies, actual reality eludes them.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2013 3:46 PM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2013 7:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 457 (707718)
09-30-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by frako
09-30-2013 12:31 AM


Re: Back on topic
All you did in that post was repeat the usual Evo Credo, nothing that isn't already familiar to us all. As for the mutations each of us possess individually, I would expect some of them to develop genetic disease. Mutations ARE mistakes, as you say, mistakes in the replication of the genome, and also in the bigger sense that they are some kind of disease process in themselves, not part of the normal functioning of the genome. That's just part of the Evo Fantasy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 12:31 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 4:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 62 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 5:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 457 (707734)
09-30-2013 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Diomedes
09-30-2013 7:05 PM


Re: Back on topic
Golly gee those charts are referred to as FACTS! That sure does set the fantasy in concrete doesn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2013 7:05 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 8:16 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 66 of 457 (707736)
09-30-2013 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by frako
09-30-2013 5:10 PM


Re: Back on topic
Science makes planes.
Evo fantasy is not science.
Evo makes absolutely nothing, it just keeps people's brains in chains.
Hey that rhymes.
God taught us science, we thank God for science. Evolution is not science.
Anyway. Just a reminder that the reason this discussion got going about how varieties require reduced genetic diversity, which of course you've answered only with the usual recitations of the Evo Litany, is that your OP refuses to recognize that creationists do affirm the variations that occur under the bizarre name Microevolution, meaning that you misrepresent us. Not that you care, heavens no, NOBODY cares about misrepresenting creationists. But anyway, that's why it came up. And I'm sure you'll go on just as blind as ever about what creationists believe, restating the same old lies and putting up stupid "humor" pieces that also restate them. So much for any claim to honest Debate.
By the way I hardly ever read links or watch embedded videos, just so you know. In the case of this one I did at least find out that now they think they can improve airplanes with something they attribute to evolutionary theory. Whether whatever it is actually IS attributable to evolutionary theory, or like Microevolution, has nothing to do with it, I didn't read far enough to find out. In any case since the ToE is a gigantic delusion, oh brother and HOW gigantic, I suppose I ought to pay attention to keep track of when they either scrap it or the model they build crashes and burns.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 5:10 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 8:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 71 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:30 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 457 (707738)
09-30-2013 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by frako
09-30-2013 8:12 PM


Re: Back on topic
There is absolutely nothing about that chart that has any sort of objective anything to it. You are just vaporing on and on the way evos do, with your fantasy evidence and fantasy measurements of fantasy evolution.
As I've tediously explained to you over and over and over, the processes that bring about variation require reduced genetic diversity. THERE's a fact for you, an actual fact. Reduced genetic diversity over many generations of refining a breed is going to bring you to a point where no further variation is possible.
Your chart is just a big fairy tale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:12 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:39 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 457 (707739)
09-30-2013 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Coyote
09-30-2013 8:16 PM


Re: A few definitions to help you out
Weird how fond you guys are of reciting the Creeds about the Methodology of *Science* as if they actually contribute anything to a particular discussion about how evolution absolutely fails by scientific standards. Just plain weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Coyote, posted 09-30-2013 8:16 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 457 (707744)
09-30-2013 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by frako
09-30-2013 8:30 PM


Re: Back on topic
I just showed you an article whre the principle of evolution was used to make a plane better so is that just you closing your eyes covering your ears screaming NANANANANA
Articles purporting to further some evolutionary notion or other are as the sand of the seashore, most with some kind of pretensions to be *Scientific* which usually just means slinging around the jargon. Once one knows the ToE is a gigantic delusion that has millions in chains, what's the point in slogging through another piece of word magic in its name?
God taught us science, not Aristotle.
Yea we came full circle where we found out that micro eovlution is just a snapshot of evolution. Or evolution in a shorter framework.
I guess it suits you to ignore the fact that genetic diversity prevents macroevolution, of course, I can't very well expect you to abandon your years of investiment in the Great Delusion for an actual FACT, can I?
In any case no you did NOT do any such thing as FIND OUT anything about microevolution, what a bunch of selfserving hooha that is. No, the whole edifice of the ToE was BUILT on the ASSUMPTION that microevolution is openended. The natural variations within species that have always been observed, and that can be controlled in domestic breeding, were Darwin's inspiration for the theory after all. You see variation, you ASSUME it's openended, you declare it, you assert it and that MAKES IT SO in Evospeak. I've shown you how it isn't but gosh that might destroy a hundred years of false science so NOBODY is going to pay any attention to THAT. No, we'll just go on ignoring the naked emperor and describe the perfections of his elegant finery as if they actually exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:30 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 75 of 457 (707747)
09-30-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by frako
09-30-2013 8:39 PM


Re: Back on topic
Ok once again say we have the absolute lowest genetic diversity possible just 2 freaking creationodogs to start with. When these 2 creationodogs have children say 10 of them. Each of them qill have half a copy of their fathers DNA and their Mothers DNA but ALSO a few MUTATIONS that are DIFFERENT from their fathers DNA or their mothers DNA. GENETIC DIVERSITY of the population INCREASED. Each of these crationodog children will breed further and each of their children will have MUTATIONS in their GENOME further INCREASING GENETIC DIVERSITY.
Pay attention now. If you are starting with TWO dogs you have already drastically reduced the genetic diversity from that of the dog population as a whole. Their ten offspring will have THEIR alleles but not some alleles which exist in the greater dog population, probably a great many. Again their genetic diversity is sharply smaller than that of the dog population as a whole, and their offspring will have their parents alleles and not any of the alleles that were left behind in the greater dog population, and these new alleles will come to characterize their family trait picture and in fact a whole breed if such develops from them. That is, if you go on breeding them, keeping them reproductively isolated from other dogs, their particular collection of alleles will continue to mix and create a new set of traits from them, based on their sharply reduced genetic diversity.
Of course I believe mutations are a disease process but for the sake of argument I'll assume some occur as you describe. It really wouldn't matter if mutations enter into the mix or not, a few mutations isn't going to increase the genetic diversity of this new population in any real sense, and in any case all it can do is contribute a few more alleles to the mix to create the new breed.
If you start with only two dogs you have such a drastically reduced genetic diversity -- it's called Founder Effect, which creates a more drastic genetic reduction than a Bottleneck -- that a few mutations are simply not going to make a difference. If some do occur as you so hopefully assume, they'll just be part of the allele collection of the new breed with its sharply reduced genetic diversity, possibly contribute to a trait or two at best, and most likely in reality, mutations not being so useful or beneficial, they won't have any impact at all. You'll get a new breed from the two dogs over a few generations of inbreeding, and it will have drastically reduced genetic diversity from the mother population mutations or no mutations. It MUST or it will not form an identifiable breed. If mutations kept occurring and changing things as you guys seem to think they do, you could never develop or preserve a breed at all, and that's another way evolution is defeated by the very processes of isolation, selection and so on , that supposedly fuel it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 8:39 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 457 (707762)
09-30-2013 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by frako
09-30-2013 9:27 PM


Re: Back on topic
Funny you don't seem to realize that all you are doing is speculating, theorizing, fantasizing, and treating it as if it were real. Which is what evolutionists do, it's THE Methodology of Evolutionism, and then you call it fact like that silly chart that makes up genetic descent where there is none. What I have described about genetic diversity having to be reduced in order to form a variety or breed, or in other words for (micro)evolution to occur at all, is fact. Breeders know it, conservationists know it. All your vaporings about mutations are just fantasies. You infer them because the ToE needs them, not because they actually do what you think they do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by frako, posted 09-30-2013 9:27 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 12:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 10-01-2013 12:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 457 (707764)
10-01-2013 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by frako
10-01-2013 12:23 AM


Re: Back on topic
WHO SAID MUTATIONS WEREN'T A FACT? THEY SIMPLY DO NOT DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO. And as I pointed out, even if they did they COULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT TO GET A BREED OR A VARIATION REQUIRES A REDUCTION IN GENETIC DIVERSITY. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE, MUTATION OR NO MUTATION. AND THAT REDUCTION MEANS THAT EVOLUTION EVENTUALLY COMES TO AN END LONG BEFORE IT COULD EVER GET TO PRODUCING A NEW SPECIES (MEANING A REAL NEW SPECIES, NOT THE VARIATIONS THAT SIMPLY CAN NO LONGER BREED WITH THE MOTHER POPULATION),.
AND EVEN IF MUTATIONS SOMETIMES DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY DO, YOU WERE STILL MAKING IT ALL UP OUT OF THIN AIR IN YOUR POST. BUT WHAT IF THEY DID DO WHAT YOU SAY THEY DO, AND INCREASE THE GENETIC DIVERSITY. THEN, AS I'VE POINTED OUT BEFORE MANY TIMES, YOU CANNOT HAVE BREEDS, RACES ETC., BECAUSE THEY CAN ONLY FORM FROM A REDUCED SET OF ALLELES, I.E. IN THE SITUATION OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY. SOON AS YOU INCREASE DIVERSITY, GENE FLOW, EETC., EETC., YOU INTERFERE WITH THE BREED. BUT EVOLUTION HAS TO FORM BREEDS AND "SPECIES" THAT'S WHAT EVOLUTION DOES. ERGO, END OF EVOLUTION.
AGAIN, CONSERVATIONISTS AND BREEDERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF REDUCED GENETIC DIVERSITY ALL THE TIME. THIS WE KNOW IS REALITY. MUTATIONS EXIST BUT THE ROLE EVOLUTIONISM ASSIGNS TO THEM IS ALL SPECULATIVE.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 12:23 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 1:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2013 9:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 10-01-2013 9:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 86 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 10:12 AM Faith 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