Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:21 AM
28 online now:
Hyroglyphx, RAZD, Stile, Theodoric (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,846 Year: 9,882/19,786 Month: 2,304/2,119 Week: 340/724 Day: 3/62 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   "Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 1 of 49 (442040)
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


Hi;

I think that just about everybody has now denied and distanced themselves from the old, 'genetic determinism' model, but because the selectionist approach to evolution, in the form of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright's RM+NS model, does not hold water if their random genetic mutations are not solely responsible for, and do not entirely compel, phenotypic traits and their variations, it is still respected in certain quarters. My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits? If, as modern genomic studies show, 'genes' do not 'cause' traits, (that is, do not compel and determine traits), but only enable and facilitate their development, then how can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty? To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.
Mechanisms are compelling causes, not the conditions that enable them to operate. A forest fire is not caused by dry timber, although that does enable one; only a flame from a fire started by a match or a lightning bolt is the direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause. If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2007 12:12 PM Elmer has not yet responded
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 3:28 PM Elmer has responded
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 12-29-2007 5:36 PM Elmer has responded
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 02-06-2008 8:18 PM Elmer has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 49 (442053)
12-19-2007 8:18 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 49 (442170)
12-20-2007 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Elmer
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits?

To be precise, genes are not the sole determining cause of traits.

I don't see what this has to do with "how random genetic mutations be can the cause of evolution". Evolution is, by definition, about heritable changes to the genes. Such as are caused by random mutation.

'[G]enes' do not 'cause' traits

Yes they do.

For example, the cause of my having blue eyes is that I have two copies of the blue allele for eye color. Reflection on this fact should answer your question:

[H]ow can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty?

It is obvious, is it not, that when the allele for blue eyes was produced by mutation, this was an "origin of biological novelty".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 7:09 PM Elmer has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 4 of 49 (442205)
12-20-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Elmer
12-19-2007 7:09 PM


To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.

Many diseases, including hemophilia and cystic fibrosis, result when a single defective gene causes the production of a non-functional protein.

If you carry the defective gene, you suffer the consequences.

How is this not a causal relationship?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 7:09 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Elmer, posted 12-20-2007 7:54 PM molbiogirl has responded
 Message 22 by MartinV, posted 12-29-2007 4:17 AM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 5 of 49 (442361)
12-20-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 3:28 PM


hello molbiolgirl;

Since you ask a sensible question in a an objective manner, I'll give you my response.

You say;


quote:

To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.

Many diseases, including hemophilia and cystic fibrosis, result when a single defective gene causes the production of a non-functional protein.

If you carry the defective gene, you suffer the consequences.

How is this not a causal relationship?

If you check back to the context in which my quoted statement was made, you will find that I do not say that 'randomly mutated genes' cannot cause a _loss_ of function. They most certainly can, and very often do.
What I said is that they cannot, in a direct and linear fashion, determine/compel the formation of an original, functional,(that is, productive),trait. And also, now that I think of it, the diminution and elimination of any trait that is no longer functional, or no longer serves its original function, eg., the wings of flightless birds. That is what organismic evolution is all about, in my adaptationist, dynamist view.

Sure, molecular structures [nucleotides, genes] that are randomly altered can no longer enable and facilitate the developmental and evolutionary operations of an organism. They have accidentally lost the information that facilites the organism's work in originating or reproducing that trait, with its function, and its productivity.

Loss of a functioning, productive trait can also arise from developmental accidents and random system failure, without any genetic alteration whatsoever. Accidents can and do cause damage, loss of function, and with that, loss of productivity. Random biosystem changes do that with depressing frequency. But that is not the issue I raise.

I am not concerned with any loss of function and productivity in a trait, directly or indirectly brought about by either randomly mutated genomes and/or randomly mutated developmental mechanisms.

My concern is primarily evolution, that is, the origins of increased productivity wrt to the organism in terms of its innate goals--to survive, thrive, and reproduce individually, and to serve, in its fashion, the goals of the collectivity [taxon, population, etc., possibly including the biosphere entire].

I do not see how random genetic mutations can achieve anything productive without 'genetic determinism', but I grant that random genetic mutations can cause, or contribute to, dysfunction and loss of organismic productivity, with or without actual 'genetic determinism'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 3:28 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 8:06 PM Elmer has responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2007 4:25 AM Elmer has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 11:33 AM Elmer has responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 6 of 49 (442364)
12-20-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Elmer
12-20-2007 7:54 PM


Elmer,

Here is the quote from your OP:

My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits?

If, as modern genomic studies show, 'genes' do not 'cause' traits, (that is, do not compel and determine traits), but only enable and facilitate their development, then how can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty?

To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.

Mechanisms are compelling causes, not the conditions that enable them to operate.

A forest fire is not caused by dry timber, although that does enable one; only a flame from a fire started by a match or a lightning bolt is the direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause. If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?

If all you want to discuss is how mutations "cannot lead to new traits", why did you bail on the Evolution and Increased Diversity thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Elmer, posted 12-20-2007 7:54 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 11:01 AM molbiogirl has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 7 of 49 (442412)
12-21-2007 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Elmer
12-20-2007 7:54 PM


I do not see how random genetic mutations can achieve anything productive without 'genetic determinism'.

Because complete genetic determinism is not necessary for genes to have an effect on the phenotype, which they do.

Complete genetic determinism doesn't exist, but something with the genes of an elephant is going to darn well be an elephant; no environmental effect is going to give it the phenotype of a butterfly. So genes certainly determine some things. The fact that they don't determine absolutely everything about the phenotype is not a problem.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Elmer, posted 12-20-2007 7:54 PM Elmer has not yet responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 8 of 49 (442455)
12-21-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by molbiogirl
12-20-2007 8:06 PM


Molbiolgirl;

You say--


Elmer,
Here is the quote from your OP:

quote:
My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits?
If, as modern genomic studies show, 'genes' do not 'cause' traits, (that is, do not compel and determine traits), but only enable and facilitate their development, then how can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty?

To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.

Mechanisms are compelling causes, not the conditions that enable them to operate.

A forest fire is not caused by dry timber, although that does enable one; only a flame from a fire started by a match or a lightning bolt is the direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause. If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?



Yes, I am familiar with the words I wrote. What's your point? Are you insinuating that what I wrote in the passage you quote here is in any significant or meaningful way contradictory to, or even essentially different from, what I said in my latest response to you? If so, stop insinuating and honestly and openly demonstrate that difference, that contradiction. Insinuations and other passive/aggressive behaviours are not legitimate approaches to debate.


If all you want to discuss is how mutations "cannot lead to new traits", why did you bail on the Evolution and Increased Diversity thread?

Where is this question coming from?

First, I thought I had made it perfectly clear in the OP that this thread was concerned with the Fisherian notion that 'mutations',-- [meaning, in the context of 'the modern synthesis', random, accidental, unintententional, ateleological and asystematic nucleotide/gene alterations],-- are the cause/mechanism generating/originating novel, original, adaptive, productive, organismic traits and their consequent functions. The fundamental issue being whether or not this hypothesis has any merit without the assumption of 'genetic determinism' as a real empirical phenomenon, as opposed to being an empirically unsupported and empirically contradicted metaphysical postulate. What part of that did you fail to grasp on your first reading?

Second, the words that you attribute to me by enclosing them in quotation marks ["cannot lead to new traits"] are, in fact, your words, not mine. I do not appreciate false attribution. If you wish to paraphrase my words, use inverted commas, not quotation marks.

Third, I find find insinuative and loaded language like 'bail' to be uncalled for, insulting, rude, and abusive. That was my reason for ceasing to respond to you and other particular participants in that thread and others. The fact is that in that thread I was debating one-on-one with catholc scientist, and when he abruptly ceased responding, [what you would characterize as, 'bailed'], I had nobody left to carry on the debate with me.

It seems that you are reverting to you customary 'debating style' of snide remark, false insinuation, and personal abuse. I'll wait and see if you learn some manners and proper debating protocol before engaging you again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by molbiogirl, posted 12-20-2007 8:06 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by molbiogirl, posted 12-21-2007 5:05 PM Elmer has not yet responded
 Message 13 by AdminNosy, posted 12-21-2007 5:49 PM Elmer has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 9 of 49 (442459)
12-21-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Elmer
12-20-2007 7:54 PM


"For the good of the species"?
Elmer writes:

My concern is primarily evolution, that is, the origins of increased productivity wrt to the organism in terms of its innate goals--to survive, thrive, and reproduce individually, and to serve, in its fashion, the goals of the collectivity [taxon, population, etc., possibly including the biosphere entire].


Hi Elmer,

I like your OP question all right, but are you aware of the "for-the-good-of-the-species" fallacy?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Elmer, posted 12-20-2007 7:54 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 1:56 PM Fosdick has responded

    
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 10 of 49 (442503)
12-21-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Fosdick
12-21-2007 11:33 AM


Re: "For the good of the species"?
Hi hoot mon;

No, I'm not aware of that fallacy. Is it a logical fallacy, or a disproven postulate? Please elaborate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 11:33 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 2:35 PM Elmer has responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 11 of 49 (442516)
12-21-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Elmer
12-21-2007 1:56 PM


Re: "For the good of the species"?
Hi Elmer,

Here’s one statement against the “for-the-good-of-the-species” concept:

Why are adaptations not for the good of the species?

quote:
Adaptations evolve through the differential reproduction of alternative alleles within a population or species. Thus, organisms acquire properties which allow them to out-reproduce members of their own species, not members of other species. It is theoretically possible for the differential survival of gene pools (species) to result in the evolution of organism features which would promote species survival at a personal reproductive cost to individual members of the species; it is extremely unlikely, however, that this process is responsible for the incredible array of complex functionality evinced by sexually reproducing, diploid species (Williams 1966). The length of time between speciation or extinction events is vastly longer than the length of time between generations. Consequently, differential reproduction of alleles within species can produce complex functionality much faster than can differential reproduction between species. An allele that provided a benefit to the species at an expense to the individual would be driven to extinction long before it could have a measurably positive impact on the survival of the species. (There are other forms of group selection, however, that are worth considering; see, e.g., Sober and Wilson Unto Others).

This seems relevant to your OP question because it pertains to cause and effect. And, wrt, don't you suppose that a "cause" and a "facilitation" are conflations of each other? When a single gene can alter a mouse's natural fear of cats, for example, did that gene "cause" the change or "facilitate" it. Does a sperm "cause" a woman to become pregnant or does it only "facilitate" it?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 1:56 PM Elmer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 7:31 PM Fosdick has responded

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 815 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 12 of 49 (442563)
12-21-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Elmer
12-21-2007 11:01 AM


Hey snippy britches.

That was my reason for ceasing to respond to you and other particular participants in that thread and others.

I didn't participate in that thread.

Second, the words that you attribute to me by enclosing them in quotation marks ["cannot lead to new traits"] are, in fact, your words, not mine.

Haven't you ever heard of scare quotes?

When I quote you, you will know it. (Hint: See above.)

It seems that you are reverting to you customary 'debating style' of snide remark, false insinuation, and personal abuse. I'll wait and see if you learn some manners and proper debating protocol before engaging you again.

Oh grow a pair.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 11:01 AM Elmer has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 13 of 49 (442586)
12-21-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Elmer
12-21-2007 11:01 AM


Advice Elmer
It seems that you are reverting to you customary 'debating style' of snide remark, false insinuation, and personal abuse. I'll wait and see if you learn some manners and proper debating protocol before engaging you again.

If you are going to be so very thin skinned then this is definitely not the place for you. :) Any (and I mean ANY) point that is raised is picked at by all sorts of people. Many of them are used to an intellectual and/or academic environment where the criticisms are not gentle at all.

All you do with this is look childish. I suggest you buck up a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 11:01 AM Elmer has not yet responded

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 14 of 49 (442608)
12-21-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fosdick
12-21-2007 2:35 PM


Re: "For the good of the species"?
Hi again;

You say;


Hi Elmer,
Here’s one statement against the “for-the-good-of-the-species” concept:

This citation is pertinent to the thread, since Evolutionary Psychology, like Wilson's Sociobiology, Watson and Skinner's Behaviourism, and other mechanical explanations for human behaviour, are all dependent upon genetic determinism or some other materialist/determinist interpretation of reality. IOW, 'genetic determinism' is the 'sine qua non' of materialist biology. Therefore
I'll examine it in detail.

[qs]

quote:

Why are adaptations not for the good of the species?

Adaptations evolve through the differential reproduction of alternative alleles within a population or species.


This is senseless verbiage, AFAIAC. The cart, as is so often the case in materialist biology, has been placed before the horse. The empirical fact of the matter is that "differential reproduction" is not a cause of, nor even a contributing factor to, the evolution of adaptive/productive trait functions. Rather, the evolution of an organism, that is, the generation/origins of its personal adaptive traits is, if not the direct and essential efficient cause that is responsible for "differential reproduction" between it and its 'taxon
mates', then it is at the least a very important contributing factor.

IAC, the issue we have before us is not differential statistical fluctuations in the comparitive quantities of surviving offspring between members of any given population or taxon or whatever. The issue is the mechanism/engine that drives the origins of adaptive phenotypic traits that cause or contribute to increased productivity, including increased "differential reproduction".

quote:

Thus, organisms acquire properties which allow them to out-reproduce members of their own species, not members of other species.

What an arbitrary, hence silly, distinction to make!! Surely the fact that invasive exotic species, such as cats, rats, rabbits, pigs, goats, fish, tree snakes, and on and on and on, that displace and even drive native species to extinction, cannot be airily dismissed from an examination of "differential reproduction", "adaptation", and even, "natural selection"?!?!

quote:

It is theoretically possible for the differential survival of gene pools (species) to result in the evolution of organism features

It is fantastically imaginative, he means. Basically he is saying that if the status quo persists long enough, it will somhow change itself, all by itself. That stasis causes change. Next he'll claim that long cold winters cause hot summers, or somthing equally absurd.

quote:

which would promote species survival at a personal reproductive cost to individual members of the species;

"Species survival" is not a matter of "personal reproductive cost", but of collective, i.e., species, "productivity", or lack of same. Just so long as the birth rate equals the death rate, it does not matter to 'species survival' just which individuals supply the requisite number of offspring, just as long as at least some do. Connecting his " differential survival of gene pools (species)" to his "would promote species survival' is simply uttering the inanity, 'differential survival of species would promote species survival'. This stuff is so stupid that it's giving me a headache!

quote:

... differential reproduction of alleles within species can produce complex functionality much faster than can differential reproduction between species.

First, who says that "differential reproduction of alleles", which, once again, is a case of an effect that may sometimes be the result of 'complex functionality', being falsely put forward as the cause of 'complex functionality'. By which I take him to mean, in darwin-speak, that 'fitness'[differential reproduction rates] causes 'adaptedness', when most adaptationists, including Darwin, [and possibly even Fisher, et al], would say that it is really just the reverse.

quote:

An allele that provided a benefit to the species at an expense to the individual would be driven to extinction long before it could have a measurably positive impact on the survival of the species.

Nonsense. Apparently he has never heard of eusociality, as in honey bee hives, termite colonies, etc., or even cellular apoptosis [where healthy cells self-destruct once they have finished being constructively useful to the biosystem]. Which is strange, since ev. psych is built around eusocial insects, and so forth.
The empirical facts show us that in fact individuals do sacrifice themselves for the common good. The only explanation for that fact is either that such self-sacrifice is epigenetic, or that, quite simply, every individual in a 'population', 'species', or other taxon, that possesses a 'gene for' [genetic determinism] altruism and self-sacrifice is never suddenly called upon to sacrifice themelves, en masse, and so such a 'gene' persists unless and until all members of a population/species with that genotype have been driven to simultaneous, fatal, self-sacrifice. This guy really needs to catch up on his reading.


This seems relevant to your OP question because it pertains to cause and effect.

Actually it pertinence lies in its connection to 'genetic determinism'.


And, wrt, don't you suppose that a "cause" and a "facilitation" are conflations of each other?

I do not take 'cause' and 'facilitate' [or 'enable'] for synonyms. That is, for example, I do not believe that a nest in a tree was 'caused' by the tree. Nor do I believe, for instance, that a broken window causes insects to enter a room, or heat to leave it. But it certainly remains a contributing factor.


When a single gene can alter a mouse's natural fear of cats, for example, did that gene "cause" the change or "facilitate" it.

As I said to molbiogirl, when it comes to evolution, I speak only of the supposition that random genetic mutations 'cause'[determine, impel, force] increased adaptedness, productivity, and functionality. I heve no problems with accidental mutations causing a decrease in adaptedness, productivity, and functionality. As is the case with any mouse that loses its fear of cats.


Does a sperm "cause" a woman to become pregnant or does it only "facilitate" it?

I would say that a viable sperm cell, [and a viable egg cell], are necessary to conception, and so enable it. I'm not sure that they can be said to 'cause' it, since in many cases, even in 'in vitro' fertilization attempts, they simply do not. They are necessary, but not sufficient. What actually causes fertilization/conception to take place, I do not know.

IAC, the nature of causation is an interesting and difficult question. I still prefer Aristotle's approach to it. But, thankfully, in this thread we only have to decide whether or not random, accidental, unintentional genetic mutations can and do deterministically and mechanically cause the origin of particular, novel, productive, and adaptive traits and functions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 2:35 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Fosdick, posted 12-21-2007 9:54 PM Elmer has not yet responded

    
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 15 of 49 (442616)
12-21-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Elmer
12-21-2007 7:31 PM


Re: "For the good of the species"?
Elmer writes:

The issue is the mechanism/engine that drives the origins of adaptive phenotypic traits that cause or contribute to increased productivity, including increased "differential reproduction".


Boy, do I agree with you, Elmer! And, yet, what an impossible question it is—this question of driving forces and mechanisms.

"Species survival" is not a matter of "personal reproductive cost", but of collective, i.e., species, "productivity", or lack of same. Just so long as the birth rate equals the death rate, it does not matter to 'species survival' just which individuals supply the requisite number of offspring, just as long as at least some do. Connecting his " differential survival of gene pools (species)" to his "would promote species survival' is simply uttering the inanity, 'differential survival of species would promote species survival'. This stuff is so stupid that it's giving me a headache!

Elmer, I think he's refuting species survivalism.

IAC, the nature of causation is an interesting and difficult question. I still prefer Aristotle's approach to it. But, thankfully, in this thread we only have to decide whether or not random, accidental, unintentional genetic mutations can and do deterministically and mechanically cause the origin of particular, novel, productive, and adaptive traits and functions.

In a biological world where cause and effect are organically blurred, digital genetic determinism is one of the precious few options we have to consider on a cause-and-effect basis. Otherwise it's either the woo-woos of trait "plasticity" or the raw gears of chemistry that randomly make humans out of apes and eukaryotes out of prokaryotes.

But I have to say that your kind of questioning is fairly agreeable to my own.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Elmer, posted 12-21-2007 7:31 PM Elmer has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019