Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE END OF EVOLUTION?
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 226 of 284 (506604)
04-27-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by alaninnont
04-27-2009 6:43 PM


Re: End of evolution??
Are you saying that you have discovered other species that have come out of homo sapiens? Prepare you Nobel speech. I'm submitting your name.
That is most definitely notwhat I'm saying. What I'm saying is: How would you test a fossil that looks like modern H. sapiens for inter-fertility with modern H. sapiens?

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by alaninnont, posted 04-27-2009 6:43 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 5518 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 227 of 284 (506608)
04-27-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Wounded King
04-27-2009 7:14 PM


Re: All this and anti-vax too?
Why do so many arguing against evolution seem not only to not understand evolution but also to not understand simple arguments, or even plain English.
Who is arguing against evolution? Perhaps you have not been following the thread but the discussion is about whether homo sapiens are an evolutionary dead end or whether another species will come from the homo sapien line.
That is most definitely notwhat I'm saying. What I'm saying is: How would you test a fossil that looks like modern H. sapiens for inter-fertility with modern H. sapiens?
I don't think you could. There is some work being done on replicating DNA from an extinct species using Polymerase Chain Reaction or splicing genes into the genome of another animal. This process is far from creating a replica of the extinct living thing.
I maintain that it is highly unlikely that any species split from homo sapiens during the last 100 000 years and has not been discovered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Wounded King, posted 04-27-2009 7:14 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by DrJones*, posted 04-27-2009 10:28 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 228 of 284 (506610)
04-27-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by alaninnont
04-27-2009 10:20 PM


Re: All this and anti-vax too?
I don't think you could.
So you can't show that modern humans are the same species as humans of the relativly recent past.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by alaninnont, posted 04-27-2009 10:20 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 229 of 284 (506611)
04-27-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by alaninnont
04-27-2009 6:38 PM


Re: End of evolution??
I am not talking about micro or macro in general. I'm talking about a new species coming out of homo sapiens. Percy said in post 143 that for speciation to occur it is required that genes don't intermingle. How can that happen with homo sapiens in todays global village?
What if there wasn't a global village? Would you then be okay with the idea that two human species could develop? Say, for instance, that we sent a population of humans to a distant planet where they became stranded for 10 million years. In this situation, are you saying that the resulting populations will be the same species no matter what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by alaninnont, posted 04-27-2009 6:38 PM alaninnont has not replied

  
pcver
Junior Member (Idle past 5183 days)
Posts: 22
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 03-30-2009


Message 230 of 284 (506645)
04-28-2009 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Granny Magda
04-27-2009 9:37 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
Granny Magda, Greetings to you too.
Granny Magda writes:
But to be clear, you do believe that DNA cannot be formed naturally due to the 2nd Law. Isn't that the case?
No, you put that incorrectly.
Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT.
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible.
The 2nd LOT is not an active force or agent that prevents something from happening. It merely provides a reason why something is impossible.
Granny Magda writes:
You are nit-picking. Evolution, at its most basic, is simply change over time. You can describe it in any number of more descriptive and more sophisticated ways, but it remains, in essence, change over time.
I notice the qualification "...at its most basic..."
Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating.
If evolution is merely "change over time", then the word evolution is quite redundant.
Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ??
Granny Magda writes:
Which is pretty much the same as what Percy was suggested you had said. You are nit-picking again when you suggest that Percy has misrepresented you.
Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things.
Granny Magda writes:
Actually, Lucy brought up the topic of the 2nd Law. This is Lucy's thread. That leaves the onus on Lucy and anyone else who wants to make the same argument.
Yes, it's all HER fault.
Seriously now... actually the onus is on anyone that makes a positive claim to provide an evidence. If you believe evolution positively leads to DNA structure formation then my friend, may you have the pleasure of presenting your evidence, and spare Lucy the agony.
Granny Magda writes:
The overwhelming majority of biologists and physicists see no reason why thermodynamics should present a problem for the ToE. If you disagree so strongly with the experts in these fields, the onus is on you to explain why. Otherwise, you will likely be dismissed as just another crank (sorry).
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness. Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT, as well as a contradiction in terms.
Granny Magda writes:
WTF? Why on Earth would you assume that? News flash; not every life form in the human evolutionary tree would have lived for 50 years. Most would have lived far, far shorter lives....you are creating bogus calculations. No-one is impressed.
I thought that was quite enlightening and I don't know why you got so excited.
How about you provide a guess-estimate how many mutations will be needed for evolution to form a human from scratch?
Granny Magda writes:
I'm sorry, but this is utter crap. You are being lied to, hardly a surprise when you get your information about science from a website with "creation" in the title.
Lenski's bacteria evolved a new ability, the ability to metabolise citrate. It was not an ability which they possessed before. It was a new ability. It emerged right there in the lab. If that is not an emergence of new function, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us precisely what would qualify as such...
Think about your statement "the ability to metabolise citrate".
Now think harder... then tell me what constitute data and function in that statement?
Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".
So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate.
Guess what, if E.Coli can learn a new skill (a new function) that enables them to choose what to eat and to spit out what taste yucky, then I would be really impressed. May they also evolve taste bud and a smart brain to support that new skill/function.
Granny Magda writes:
It's not relevant. Concentrate on what is being said, not who is saying it.
May be I ought to tell you to mind your own business.
Peepul writes:
This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen.
You've said the smartest thing all day.
Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT.
Wounded King writes:
In what way does the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibit an evolutionary origin for the cell?
Like I implied above, the 2nd LOT is not a force or agent that takes action to prevent something from happening. The 2nd LOT only provides a reason why something is not possible.
Wounded King writes:
As others have pointed out, you and Lucy are both making a very specific claim that the 2LOT makes evolution by random mutation and natural selection producing cells or DNA or some other complex organismal system impossible. Yet neither of you can give any reason actually connected to thermodynamics why this should be the case.
I very much wish I can mathematically illustrate why 2nd LOT explains evolution by random chance is impossible.
But as you might have figured out by now that I'm actually quite ignorant. 2nd LOT can also provides a reason why I'm entirely incapable of providing such a mathematical illustration.
Percy writes:
So describe for us how creation of a new "structured information system" would violate 2LOT.
I assume the word 'creation' implies a non-random process. In which case creation of a system may not violate 2LOT.
I recall learning about a mathematical series deduction when in school, something that I can only vaguely describe this way:
In a mathematical series, Element{N) is true. Element(N+1) is also true. Now if it is proven that Element(N+1) is true DUE TO THE FACT THAT Element(N) is true, then the series is infinitely true, meaning Element(N+2)...Element(N+x) are all true.
Does anyone know about this?
For quite some times I have day-dreamed that a proof or a disproof of evolution will require mathematical deduction of this nature... But it's been just a dream so far.
(p/s. I talked too much and I've promised myself to take a break )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Granny Magda, posted 04-27-2009 9:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Peepul, posted 04-28-2009 7:55 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 232 by Peepul, posted 04-28-2009 8:04 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 233 by Granny Magda, posted 04-28-2009 8:05 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 234 by Peepul, posted 04-28-2009 8:09 AM pcver has not replied
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 04-28-2009 8:54 AM pcver has replied
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 04-28-2009 9:12 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5100 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 231 of 284 (506649)
04-28-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen.
You've said the smartest thing all day.
Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT.
Very good - what I really meant was that the 2LOT does not apply in these circumstances. It only applies to closed systems and strictly it only applies to systems in equilibrium also. It is applied in practice to closed systems outside equilibrium, but this is an approximation.
Are you also aware that 2LOT is also a statistical law rather than an absolute one? ie it is only the case that increase / no change in entropy is overwhelmingly more likely than decrease in entropy.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5100 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 232 of 284 (506651)
04-28-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".
So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate.
Are you a software engineer by any chance? It would be natural to take this view if you were - but metabolism isn't like that - there is no single function called 'metabolise' that can work on different inputs. Each pathway is different (up to the point where it feeds into the main metabolic processes that are always running). Plus I believe changes to allow transport of citrate into the cell are also part of the picture, but I could be wrong here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 233 of 284 (506652)
04-28-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
Thanks for your reply pcver,
quote:
Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT.
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible.
Oh well then, that's not a problem then. No-one is claiming that DNA formed by "random chance". No current theory of the origins of life base the origins of DNA on random chance.
An unguided process acting under natural forces is not random, it is merely unguided.
quote:
Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating.
Don't be silly. Words have multiple levels of meaning.
quote:
Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ??
Most certainly not! That would be less correct. Evolution is not random, it is governed by natural selection.
quote:
Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things.
Then why not tell us all what you mean by "structured information system"? The term does not seem to be a biological one. You can't just use random terms and expect everyone to know what you mean.
quote:
the onus is on anyone that makes a positive claim to provide an evidence.
And claims have been made to the effect that the 2nd LoT poses a problem for the ToE. If this is your contention, then kindly provide some evidence to that effect.
I am not going to hand-walk you through every single interaction between the theory of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics, demonstrating at each point that there is not a problem. That would take an infinity. If you think that there is a problem, point it out. Shit or get off the pot.
quote:
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness.
Make up your mind. Is there a problem or not?
Also, I must point out once again that evolution is not random. The mechanism you refer is well known and has been so for 150 years! It is called natural selection.
quote:
Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT
Actually it can, it just can't do it forever and it can't do it for any length of time without additional information being added. But as we know, evolution isn't random and the sun adds new energy to the systems on the Earth, so that's cool eh?
quote:
I thought that was quite enlightening and I don't know why you got so excited.
I am not excited. I have seen people get things wrong before.
quote:
How about you provide a guess-estimate how many mutations will be needed for evolution to form a human from scratch?
Why? What value would it have? Pointless and uninformed speculation isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
quote:
Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".
So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate.
Listen, however you choose to wriggle around it, the fact remains; Lenski's bacteria evolved a new trait. They did not "learn" to eat citrate, they evolved a new capacity, changing from non-citrate-eating bacteria to citrate-eating bacteria. If that is not an example of new information forming then whatever definition of "information" you are using is meaningless.
quote:
Guess what, if E.Coli can learn a new skill (a new function) that enables them to choose what to eat and to spit out what taste yucky, then I would be really impressed. May they also evolve taste bud and a smart brain to support that new skill/function.
Er... You do realise don't you, that if we were to observe that in a lab, it would completely blow the Theory of Evolution out of the water?
quote:
May be I ought to tell you to mind your own business.
Maybe not. It might sound a bit hypocritical coming from someone who is so keen to delve into other members personal details.
Forum Rule 10
Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
My emphasis.
In summary, you have provided no evidence that the 2nd LoT is even relevant to evolution. You haven't even made an argument. If this conversation is to have any value, you need to at least provide a detailed description of how the 2nd law effects evolution. Otherwise you're just whistling in the dark.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5100 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 234 of 284 (506653)
04-28-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist.
Yes it does - it is called natural selection. There's plenty of evidence of this occurring in nature, ie alteration of allele frequencies in non-random ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 235 of 284 (506663)
04-28-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
pcver writes:
Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT.
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible.
You keep saying things like this without providing any supporting evidence or argument. Instead of repeating unsupported assertions, please describe for us how the formation of DNA by random chance violates 2LOT.
The reality is that it isn't impossible, and 2LOT doesn't say that it is. The probability of spontaneous formation of DNA is a function of the starting conditions. Are you starting with a simple mixture of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and potassium? Of the nucleic bases, cynine, adenine, guanine and thymine? Are sugars present in the mixture? Phosphates?
But while the probability of spontaneous DNA formation is not zero, it must be extremely tiny, and scientists do not believe that this is how DNA first formed. They believe that it developed gradually over time from simpler predecessors via a process of imperfect replication and selection. In other words, you're not only wrong about what 2LOT says and doesn't say, you're arguing against a scenario that is a common layperson's misunderstanding of the origin of life and that is not something that scientists propose ever happened.
Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating.
If evolution is merely "change over time", then the word evolution is quite redundant.
Most words in most languages have more than one definition, so I hope that doesn't make you feel like you're being tricked, else you'll feel tricked much of the time.
It also shouldn't surprise you that the deeper you delve into a topic that the more complexity emerges. That's why we have dictionaries for the simplest level of definitions, encyclopedias for more detail, and textbooks for more detail yet. That there is more to evolution than you originally suspected might come as a surprise to you, but no one's trying to pull a fast one on you.
Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ??
Evolution definitely does not mean *random* change over time. Selective forces guide evolution toward better adaptation to the environment. For example, that's why white fur evolves in the far north and not in jungles. If evolution were random change then white bears could emerge anywhere, but they don't.
Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things.
No, they really aren't. Each requires the creation of new information, it's just that one requires more new information than the other. Your "structured information system" requires that information defining that system first be created before the information contained within that system is created. There is nothing in 2LOT that constrains the creation of new information. Billions and trillions and quadrillions of bits of information are being created in the universe every second.
The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness. Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT, as well as a contradiction in terms.
It's becoming obvious that you're just invoking 2LOT for everything you don't like, and since you don't understand 2LOT, your claims never make any sense.
2LOT can be expressed in many different ways. You could say that the entropy of a closed system can never decrease. You could say that heat can only travel toward lower heat. You could say that no process is reversible. You could say that the amount of energy available in a system to do work can never increase.
But you definitely cannot claim that 2LOT says that, "Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction." I don't know what that even means in any scientific sense, and I'm very sure that you don't.
Concerning Lenski's E. coli, you seem to concede that a new function evolved ("So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new..."), but then you say you're not impressed, and so your stance on this is unclear. Do you understand that Lenski's E. coli evolved a new function, and that this runs counter to your 2LOT claims of impossibility?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add emphasis to the word "random".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by pcver, posted 05-02-2009 11:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 236 of 284 (506666)
04-28-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by pcver
04-28-2009 7:27 AM


Re: Evolution; information theory; 2nd LOT
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible.
Does formation of water from its elements "by random chance" violate the 2LoT?
You're talking nonsense, pcver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by pcver, posted 04-28-2009 7:27 AM pcver has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 284 (507044)
05-01-2009 8:22 AM


FIN!
This has turned into a very interesting debate.
I tried to move away from 2LTD.
But it persists.
Today is less ordered than yesterday.
Yesterday is less ordered than the day before.
Where did the order come from?

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Son, posted 05-01-2009 8:38 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 8:53 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 238 of 284 (507047)
05-01-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by LucyTheApe
05-01-2009 8:22 AM


Re: FIN!
Before moving the topic again, shouldn't you answer the other posts related to 2LOT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-01-2009 8:22 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22610
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 239 of 284 (507052)
05-01-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by LucyTheApe
05-01-2009 8:22 AM


Re: FIN!
Every few days you check in and attempt to reset the discussion to square one, forcing everyone to remake their arguments from scratch. Please go back and respond to the messages that have been posted to you. If you don't understand what was said then ask questions.
But more importantly, if you don't want to talk about 2LOT (you said you were trying "to move away from 2LTD") then you shouldn't be participating in this thread, and incredibly, you're the actual originator of this thread. Oh, the irony, the thread's originator doesn't want to talk about his own topic!
Since you've obviously forgotten, you began this thread by saying it was about 2LOT. This is from your opening post, Message 1:
LucyTheApe in his opening post writes:
The second law of thermodynamics in action. Convergence.
My question is; does evolution comply? And to what end?.
So if you don't want to talk about 2LOT, then I'm afraid you'll have to stop participating in your own thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-01-2009 8:22 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-01-2009 10:08 AM Percy has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 284 (507069)
05-01-2009 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Percy
05-01-2009 8:53 AM


Re: FIN!
Percy writes:
Every few days you check in and attempt to reset the discussion to square one, forcing everyone to remake their arguments from scratch. Please go back and respond to the messages that have been posted to you. If you don't understand what was said then ask questions.
Which messages do you want me to respond to Percy? Please be specific.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 8:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 10:19 AM LucyTheApe 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