Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 118 (931)
12-19-2001 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Fred Williams
12-18-2001 5:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark24: Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed before
This is incorrect. I’ve been trained in and have been applying information science to my work for over 18 years. A new protein arising is no more new information than a new capacitance on a circuit board that suffers a short. Randomness destroys information. Randomness cannot build information. It is impossible.

If I wrote a word that no one had written before it would be new, by definition. If I randomly pulled letters out of a scrabble set, & got the same word, it would still be new. It can only be impossible if were defining "new" in different ways.
What do you define as new?
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Information science is devastating to the evolutionist position. You simply cannot have a code without a sender.

If the sender changes, or something happens during sending, the code is changed. Or , that the code can define the sender as well. "In 1970, several cases of where RNA sequences are used to specify DNA nucleotide sequences." (Moore & Slusher 1970 p114)
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

This is the only mechanism informed evolutionists propose for new genetic information — gene duplication followed by mutation. There are many problems with this. Random gene duplication is rare. When it does occur, it often causes harm, such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). If the duplication is neutral, the odds of a subsequent beneficial mutation are astronomically low. Even if we got a hypothetical beneficial mutation, the odds of it being recognized by selection are very low. In fact, evolutionists generally agree that a beneficial mutation has no better than a 1 in 50 chance of survival in a population! (Fisher, Futuyma, etc). Then there’s the problem of fixing the gene in the entire population. Haldane showed in mammals that this rate can be no better than 1 ever 30 generations in a large population (the problem is worse in a small population due to drift). It’s a pipe dream think evolution can proceed this way. There certainly is no empirical evidence to support this.

To counter the first part, I'm not saying gene replication isn't rare, nor that it isn't harmful, more often than not. But "it often causes harm" isn't "always causes harm". Natural selection culls the harmful ones, ignores the neutral ones, & positively selects for the the remainder.
Also, polyploids - Increasing chromosome count.
If a population consists of a billion indiviuals who produce 1 +ve mutation (about 1% of mutations/generation, & 1/50th chance of gene survival, then a 1/30th chance of the gene to become general the population thats still nearly 667,000 +ve mutations that become adopted, & general to the population, PER generation. Next generation you've got another 667,000 genes that become general to the population, & due to to selective environmental pressures you accept, would generally reinforce the 667,000 mutated genes already in existence...... & so on.....
---------------------------------------------
"There certainly is no empirical evidence to support this."
So, you will only accept increase in protein complexity if I can show it. Empirical evidence.
I maintain that the direct descent of organisms over time is the best theory to fit available evidence, there is no empirical evidence of an Intelligent Designer. Phylogenies, based on evidences of amino acid sequences (showing insertion, addition, & deletions.) taxonomic, immunolgical, etc. all support each other. That I can't provide directly observable evidence of protein addition, it nevertheless remains the best theory.
I only adhere to evolution as the best explanation in the absence of empirical evidence of a creator. Perhaps you should apply your own reasoning to your own concusions. You say I have no empirical evidence, well, intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. Empirical evidence please.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 12-18-2001 5:37 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:26 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 24 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 8:48 AM mark24 has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 17 of 118 (974)
12-19-2001 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by lbhandli
12-18-2001 7:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
You are terribly confused over evolution. Evolution isn't random. There are two random elements to it. In one case mutations are random in relation to fitness--not in occurrence as they are probabilistic events. Neutral drift is also a random process expected by genetics. Natural selection is quite clearly not random.
If you want to criticize evolution I would suggest you first take the time to understand the science.
Cheers,
Larry

Larry, I understand the theory quite well. In a nutshell, NeoDarwinism is
1) random mutation
2) natural selection
It is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random, adaptive mutations do NOT occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by lbhandli, posted 12-18-2001 7:42 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 6:47 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 62 by derwood, posted 12-30-2001 12:33 AM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 18 of 118 (977)
12-19-2001 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
12-19-2001 7:00 AM


quote:
If I wrote a word that no one had written before it would be new, by definition.
It’s not new information unless it has meaning. Don’t let Shannon statistical information fool you into thinking that meaning is not required for it to be information. If you give it meaning, it is not information to me unless you tell me what it means.
quote:
If the sender changes, or something happens during sending, the code is changed.
Huh? The code can never change unless there is prior agreement between sender & receiver. I think you are confusing code with message. Some examples of a code are Morse, Basic, C, English language, Chinese language, DNA.
quote:
If a population consists of a billion indiviuals who produce 1 +ve mutation (about 1% of mutations/generation, & 1/50th chance of gene survival, then a 1/30th chance of the gene to become general the population thats still nearly 667,000 +ve mutations that become adopted, & general to the population, PER generation. Next generation you've got another 667,000 genes that become general to the population, & due to to selective environmental pressures you accept, would generally reinforce the 667,000 mutated genes already in existence...... & so on.....
1) There is not a geneticist in the world who believes 1 in 100 mutations are beneficial. It’s hard enough for geneticists to come up with even one compelling example of a mutation that is beneficial to a population. I’ve yet to see one compelling example. Virtually every study I’ve seen of mutations that cause resistance, for example, always cause some other problem within the orgnanism. For example, mosquitos that become resistant to DDT are slower.
2) You misunderstand the Haldane number. His analysis showed that at best ONE beneficial substitution could occur in a population every 30 generations. Just ONE, in the entire population. Not 50, or 667,000. Just ONE every 30 generations. Walter Remine documents this problem in detail in his book The Biotic Message. Given this number, at most 1667 beneficial substitutions could have been made over 10 million years between man and man/monkey ancestor. The amazing thing is that Haldane used very favorable assumptions. Using more realistic assumptions and the problem gets much worse (as if it needed to get worse!).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-19-2001 7:00 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 6:57 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 12-20-2001 4:51 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 35 by mark24, posted 12-21-2001 5:16 PM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 63 by derwood, posted 12-30-2001 1:00 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 12-30-2001 3:04 PM Fred Williams has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 118 (983)
12-19-2001 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 4:55 PM


quote:
Larry, I understand the theory quite well. In a nutshell, NeoDarwinism is
1) random mutation
2) natural selection
Actually that is quite insufficient. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. This is done through a series of processes including:
Natural Selection
Genetic Drift
Recombination
Mutation
Lateral Gene Transfer
The processes of evolution are quite diverse and occur in a variety of circumstances largely dicated by the environment a population lives in and the stability or instability of that environment. Your description is both innaccurate in that it doesn't fully describe the mechanisms of evolution as well as insufficient.
quote:
It is a fundamental tenet of NDT that non-random, adaptive mutations do NOT occur.
And you completely missed the point. Drift is random in what it selects (of neutral traits), but a well understood and predictable process from a probability standpoint. Mutations are random in relation to fitness, not just random. Random in relation to fitness means that they occur randomly in relation to the affect on the likelihood for reproduction--not that the occurrence of mutations is random.
Your repeatedly use only by chance or by random occurrences and this is simply incorrect. Random is used in specific context and the does not make the entire process random.
You should do some basic reading on the subject that is based on the peer reviewed literature before assuming to understand what you are discussing. Louann Miller provides a good list of reasons why here:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun99.html
On randomness in evolution see:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
On the basics of evolutionary biology:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Now, each of the above is based in peer review literature and has the appropriate citations. Before claiming they are wrong, you need to explain why and cite sources from the scientific literature that agree with that explanation.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 4:55 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 7:33 PM lbhandli has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 118 (986)
12-19-2001 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 5:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
1) There is not a geneticist in the world who believes 1 in 100 mutations are beneficial. It’s hard enough for geneticists to come up with even one compelling example of a mutation that is beneficial to a population.
Then what literature have you read? I'm curious because it is rather trivial to find.
For beneficial mutations and modern rates of mutations please see:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Specific mutation rates are in Appendix One
Haldane's Dilemna hasn't been a dilemna for some time:
Essentially ReMine and some other creationists misinterpret the problem. If Haldane's conditions are met, that is a speed limit, but many of those conditions often aren't met or aren't present:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=beneficial+mutations+haldane&hl=en&rnum=2&selm=903tsu%24ih1%241%40darwin.ediacara.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&rnum=6&selm=ze1DO78dRvWkDx1kJirmliNwPK%3D5%404ax.com
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:26 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 21 of 118 (987)
12-19-2001 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by lbhandli
12-19-2001 6:47 PM


Larry, I’m not interested in your condescending remarks about what evolution teaches.
I am interested in science. I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/mutation_rate.htm
I welcome your comments on it, not side shows and links to the great and wonderful Talk.Origins. I’ve read most if not all the FAQs there. I am also well-read in population genetics. So stop sending me to Talk.Origins and let’s discuss science. I don’t have much time to spend on boards, so if you keep up with this rhetoric you going to end up talking to air.
Regarding your claim that Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, I discuss that here:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 6:47 PM lbhandli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 8:29 PM Fred Williams has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 118 (990)
12-19-2001 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 7:33 PM


fred: Larry, I’m not interested in your condescending remarks about what evolution teaches.
And I'm not interested in your misrepresentations of science. If you stop doing that the condescension will stop. Not condescending to one who is clearly not interested in an honest dialogue concerning what scientists actually state is very hard given they are in need of being corrected.
fred: I am interested in science.
No, you are interested in apologetics.
fred: I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link:
And I responded to it. Essentially you are making an argument that we don't fully understand the rates as they are found in one article. This isn't a falsification it is an appeal to the God of the Gaps.
fed: I welcome your comments on it, not side shows and links to the great and wonderful Talk.Origins.
Which also contains citations to the peer reviewed work and highlights the blatant misrepresentations you made about evolution. Either you understand or you don't. If you do understand it, you are misrepresenting it. That isn't exactly something to be proud of.
fred: I’ve read most if not all the FAQs there. I am also well-read in population genetics.
ROTFL.
fred; So stop sending me to Talk.Origins and let’s discuss science.
Then stop making up what evolution claims. Understand? When you lie about what the theory of evolution states, as you have, you will be corrected. Understand?
fred: I don’t have much time to spend on boards, so if you keep up with this rhetoric you going to end up talking to air.
Why is that a threat to me? It sounds more like a predecessor to you pulling the famed creationist disappearing act. Now if you don't like being called for misrepresenting the literature, DON'T MISREPRESENT IT?
fred: Regarding your claim that Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, I discuss that here:
That isn't all I said now was it? The definition is what I quoted. Then I provide a list of mechanisms in evolution and a link to a good layman's level description that specifically refutes your claim that the essence of evolution is only random mutation and blind selection. Instead of responding substantively to being caught in a misrepresentation you whine.
Your evidence to date is nothing but pointing out the complexity of mathematical models and claiming that this is a refutation of common descent. It isn't a refutation it is an area we don't fully have answers for. Nothing you have presented even resembles a scientific theory of creation and indeed your claims regarding it fit whatever you find.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 7:33 PM Fred Williams has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 118 (997)
12-20-2001 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Fred Williams
12-19-2001 5:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
1) There is not a geneticist in the world who believes 1 in 100 mutations are beneficial. It’s hard enough for geneticists to come up with even one compelling example of a mutation that is beneficial to a population. I’ve yet to see one compelling example. Virtually every study I’ve seen of mutations that cause resistance, for example, always cause some other problem within the orgnanism. For example, mosquitos that become resistant to DDT are slower.
2) You misunderstand the Haldane number. His analysis showed that at best ONE beneficial substitution could occur in a population every 30 generations. Just ONE, in the entire population. Not 50, or 667,000. Just ONE every 30 generations. Walter Remine documents this problem in detail in his book The Biotic Message. Given this number, at most 1667 beneficial substitutions could have been made over 10 million years between man and man/monkey ancestor. The amazing thing is that Haldane used very favorable assumptions. Using more realistic assumptions and the problem gets much worse (as if it needed to get worse!).
" In fact, evolutionists generally agree that a beneficial mutation has no better than a 1 in 50 chance of survival in a population! (Fisher, Futuyma, etc).

I gave an example of beneficial mutation in this thread, 60 years old.
Which figure is it to be 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 or more?
Also, Haldane is 40 years in his grave & I fail to see how modern genetics have been included in his calculations.
Haldane believed in Panspermia too. Do you believe in Panspermia, since what Haldane says is good enough for you?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Fred Williams, posted 12-19-2001 5:26 PM Fred Williams has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 118 (1002)
12-20-2001 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
12-19-2001 7:00 AM


mark24:
I only adhere to evolution as the best explanation in the absence of empirical evidence of a creator.
John Paul:
That's funny. I adhere to Creation as the best explanation in the absence of empirical evidence for abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Ya see I infer a Creator (or Intelligent Designer if you like) because of life itself. Evolutionists like to simplify life. Back when we thought the living cell was a blob of proto-plasm, you had an argument. But since we started opening up Darwin's black boxes we should know better. If the polls are correct, most of us do know better as the polls point to 'atheistic' (or materialistic naturalism if you prefer) evolutionists being a very small minority. I know science isn't done by polls but it looks like people find your arguments un-compelling.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-19-2001 7:00 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 10:06 AM John Paul has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 118 (1008)
12-20-2001 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by John Paul
12-20-2001 8:48 AM


And these polls were conducted by whom? On what population? The results are veiwable where? Without supplying this information we have only your word to go on....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 8:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 10:20 AM joz has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 118 (1012)
12-20-2001 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by joz
12-20-2001 10:06 AM


Gee joz, do I have to keep you current on everything?
Gallup Poll on human evolution
once at the Gallup website you can search for other polls on evolution, that is if you dare...
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 10:06 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-20-2001 12:18 PM John Paul has not replied

Retro Crono
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 118 (1016)
12-20-2001 10:42 AM


New here, I had to sign up on a forum like this in my search for truth, I'm only interested in truth so whatever it may be I lay my faith in, as long as it is the truth I can rest assured. So far, I've found when you breeze over the two, evolution can seem more convincing than the contradictory Bible. However, when you really put the two under the microscope, the Bible speaks truth and goes together like a perfect jigsaw puzzle which becomes only knock able by the foolish. Can't say the same for evolution though, the more I come to understand it the more problems arise and so far I've never seen, heard, nor read anything that could convince me Darwin was right. Anyway, that's enough of me blabbing.
After breezing over this topic, I'm not sure if it was already mentioned though, but most of you evolutionist seem confused by the term evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same thing, nor can equal the same thing. I've found it to be a popular evolutionary brain-washing trick to blur the difference between the two. Perhaps seemingly convincing to the uninformed. Micro-evolution is the evolving of the many breeds/races within each kind. You evolutionist seem to think creationist ignore this or something, however, in the beginning going by a creationist stand point, there was only one race of humans, one breed of dog, etc, etc. This is micro-evolution, the shuffling of DNA's to create the incredible varieties we have within each kind. All that is proof of is that DNA can be arranged into many different combinations, no "evolution" there. Perhaps if Darwin had of realised this he would have never bothered with such a shaky hypothesis. For those who don't know, Charles Darwin was a pigeon breeder, he was fascinated with how many breeds of pigeons had come about and he pondered if this could have been how all things came about. Unfortunately little did Darwin seem to realise, that pigeon was still a pigeon and it could never possibly be anything else. It is well known that new species can and have evolved into new species, if we are referring to breeding within one genus. However, these were never superior than the first species, once again defeating the evolutionary theory, claiming that things gradually get more advanced and complex. Yet all known new species were just a degenerative version of the last, fitting perfectly within the creation model, that all kinds stay true to there kind. Macro-evolution from as far I've researched is just a myth and an illusion. Somehow DNA has to learn new, better, more refined information, having to derive all this from some non-existant source. It obviously didn't come from there parents since there DNA can only be rearanged to create new breeds/races, etc, not the information to trigger off the growth of feathers. I actually find the whole evolutionary theory to be very superstitious, it is almost as if DNA has a decisive brain to decide upon what will help it to adapt and survive in the unknown future. I really don't buy that. Survival of the fittest is just as unconvincing, just because a lion is the strongest lion of that generation does little to prove evolution. It just means it's genes will most likely be carried on, it doesn't mean that its genes are going to magically become better within the next generation. Evolutionist seem to be under the impression that this generation of humans are more superior than any humans before. This couldn't be any further from the truth, which once again with the overwhelming evidence should just collapse the evolutionary theory.
Unfortunately to un-objective minds, survival of the fittest, natural selection and micro-evolution may seem convincing enough to be lead astray to believe the impossible Darwin theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-20-2001 12:27 PM Retro Crono has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 28 of 118 (1027)
12-20-2001 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by John Paul
12-20-2001 10:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Gee joz, do I have to keep you current on everything?
Gallup Poll on human evolution
once at the Gallup website you can search for other polls on evolution, that is if you dare...

Pulled from the above linked site:
How informed would you say you are about the theory of evolution? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of evolution, somewhat informed, not too informed, or not informed at all?
2001 Feb 19-21
Very informed 34%
Somewhat informed 47
Not too informed 11
Not informed at all 6
No opinion 2
How informed would you say you are about the theory of creationism? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of creationism, somewhat informed, not too informed, or not informed at all?
2001 Feb 19-21
Very informed 40 %
Somewhat informed 40
Not too informed 10
Not informed at all 7
No opinion 3
What I wish to focus in on is, that 34% consider themselves to be very informed about the theory of evolution, and another 47% consider themselves to be somewhat informed.
I very much doubt that 34% of the population is very informed about the theory of evolution. I suspect that I am more informed than most people, yet I hesitate to consider myself "very informed".
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 10:20 AM John Paul has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 29 of 118 (1030)
12-20-2001 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Retro Crono
12-20-2001 10:42 AM


Even if you wish to break it down into short time period observations (micro-evolution) and long time period observations (macro-evolution), it's still all evolution.
Your macro-evolution is the cumulative results of a series of micro-evolutions.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Retro Crono, posted 12-20-2001 10:42 AM Retro Crono has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 12:48 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 118 (1032)
12-20-2001 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Minnemooseus
12-20-2001 12:27 PM


moose:
Your macro-evolution is the cumulative results of a series of micro-evolutions.
John Paul:
That is the assertion now isn't it? However the problem starts when speciation is lumped in with macro-evolution, which it is according to Dr. Theobald's talk origins article on the 29 evidences for macro-evolution.
So perhaps you would care to answer this:
Please name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-20-2001 12:27 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Fred Williams, posted 12-20-2001 6:15 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 33 by nator, posted 12-21-2001 1:19 PM John Paul has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024