Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:07 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,152 Year: 9,188/19,786 Month: 1,610/2,119 Week: 370/576 Day: 45/128 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   The Word Evolutionists
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 93 (118142)
06-24-2004 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by almeyda
06-23-2004 11:52 PM


more information?
You must provide evidence of an increase in information

Please show me how I would measure the "information" you are talking about. The only place it can be is in the genome, right?

In addition, I think you have suggested elsewhere that this "information" that you are talking about can decrease. Describe a genetic change that would count as a decrease in "information".

Note, it does no good to talk about adding or losing legs or somesuch. Each of those changes in phenotype are due to a change in the genes, right? You do understand that, correct? Since the information that is passed from generation to generation is in the genes tell us what a loss of information would be.

Once you've made it clear what this "information" thing you are talking about it then we'll see about it increaseing or not.

If you don't know what it is, don't bring it up again.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 12:58 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by almeyda, posted 06-23-2004 11:52 PM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by almeyda, posted 06-24-2004 7:41 AM NosyNed has responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 93 (118208)
06-24-2004 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
06-24-2004 1:58 AM


Re: more information?
quote:
I think you have suggested elsewhere that this "information" that you are talking about can decrease. Describe a genetic change that would count as a decrease in "information". Since the information that is passed from generation to generation is in the genes tell us what a loss of information would be.

Once you've made it clear what this "information" thing you are talking about it then we'll see about it increaseing or not.


If you can say how new information came into being, then you would have the key to answer the question about the origin of life. All living things have a 'code' containing information to reproduce life. Non-living things in nature have no such code, therefore information to produce life is not available to them. Evolution is a theory about living things coming into being by natural selection. Natural selection can change living things, it can adapt to environments, it can lead to beneficial mutations, and is observed in the present all around us. Creationists love and agree 100% with natural selection. The problem is evolutionists have used natural selection to account for all living things. However, a mutation does not necessarily reduce specified complexity, just that it is so likely to do so that it cannot be the mechanism for generating the huge amount of specified complexity that we see in supermliving things. Mutations are known primarily by the defects they cause, it testifies to the overwhelming tendency for them to reduce the information in living things (just like a mistake on my computers keyboard will decrease the information content of what I am typing). If you buy two copies of the newspaper, do you buy twice as much information? no. Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening, theres only been evolutionary imagination). If "superman" were the duplicated 'gene', and mutations in the letters changed it to "sxyxvawtu ", you have clearly lost information though you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity.

There has been a lost of information, although one specie may have adapted elsewhere alot better. This cannot be used to explain change such as fish-to-people. We still only observe horses dublicating with equine kinds. Therefore producing the variety of equine kind we have today through natural selection. This fits with a biblical framework because God made living things to reproduce after their kind. But this means natural selection is not a valid answer to evolutions claims. Evolution claims structures ‘evolved’ into other structures. For example scales into feathers, gills into lungs, fins into legs etc. Birds for example have the information built into the genetic code for feathers. Reptiles have information built into the genetic code for scales. The information in the reproduction and mutation does not include the information required to make the transformation from A to B. In the same way, the genetic program in living things does not change the genetic data.

Observation on natural selection and kinds has taught us that it is very faithful to reproduce the original pattern exactly. Random mutations only confuse and corrupt the genetic data. They never create new forms. No matter how healthy or beneficial a mutations in a fruitfly or mosquito may seem. Natural selection does not change the genetic data. It merely causes different emphases, or rearrangements, of the same data. Thats why we see so much change in living things. So many types of dogs through the canine kind etc. We do not see the change that evolution speaks of. The single cell in the premeval pond does not have the information and using natural selection could not get past the next step. The information problem gets to the very heart of the evolution issue. You can argue all you like about the similarity of species, transitional forms, or natural selection. There is still one basic element missing which is the mechanism for change which requires the addition of new information for evolutionary change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 1:58 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 12:01 PM almeyda has responded
 Message 79 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-24-2004 12:14 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 78 of 93 (118243)
06-24-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by almeyda
06-24-2004 7:41 AM


Re: more information?
If "superman" were the duplicated 'gene', and mutations in the letters changed it to "sxyxvawtu ", you have clearly lost information though you have a new sequence. This is the difference between complexity and specified complexity.

As requested please define "information". Why is "sxyxvawtu" less information than "superman". It is not at all clear to me that information has been lost. It just looks like different information to me.

Your whole post is a series of assertions about "information" which you have not yet defined and "specified complexity" which you have yet to define also.

If you buy two copies of the newspaper, do you buy twice as much information? no

In the definition used in information theory you do have more information (but not twice as much). What is your definition? In what way is it different from that used in information theory? How do I calculate the information content of your newspapers or more pertently, your genome?

Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening, theres only been evolutionary imagination).

Could you give some examples of where you've been given "evolutionary imagination" instead of real examples?

If you are given examples of useful proteins appearing would you admit to being in error about evolution not being able to add "information"?

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 11:02 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by almeyda, posted 06-24-2004 7:41 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 06-26-2004 3:14 AM NosyNed has responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 79 of 93 (118250)
06-24-2004 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by almeyda
06-24-2004 7:41 AM


Re: more information?
Alymeda-

I happened to be looking over this thread and see you arguing again:

If you buy two copies of the newspaper, do you buy twice as much information? no. Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene wouldnot add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein...
There is still one basic element missing which is the mechanism for change which requires the addition of new information for evolutionary change.

I have replied to you on this point in another thread, describing this required mechanism:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=251&m=73#73 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=251&m=73#73">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=251&m=73#73
It seems you have chosen to ignore me and start up your same argument with someone else - using "newspapers" instead of "VHS tapes" for your analogy.

The process of duplication and/or rearrangment followed by divergence can produce "more information". Please see the link above for the mechanism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by almeyda, posted 06-24-2004 7:41 AM almeyda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 12:26 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 80 of 93 (118253)
06-24-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by pink sasquatch
06-24-2004 12:14 PM


Re: more information?
I beg your pardon. You mean he's ignoring what he's already been told? He's actually being dishonest in this discussion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-24-2004 12:14 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 93 (118940)
06-26-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by NosyNed
06-24-2004 12:01 PM


Re: more information?
quote:

As requested please define "information". Why is "sxyxvawtu" less information than "superman". It is not at all clear to me that information has been lost. It just looks like different information to me.

In living things, information is stored in patterns of DNA, which encode the instructions to make proteins, the building blocks for all the machinery of life. Natural selection works only on information in the genes and with mutations. But this means it cannot account for the complexity and diversity of all living things we see in the present today because natural selection according to evolutionary theory has life evolving and changing throguh natural selection. But there are flaws in natural selection as an explaination for evolution. There is complex biological machinery of which Darwin was simply ignorant. Real motors, transport systems, the blood clotting cascade, the complex visual machinery. These require many parts or they would not function at all so they could not have been built in small steps by natural selection.

Mutations never add information only reduces it, this includes even the rare helpful mutations. The reason why the change in Superman and the sxyxvawtu is less information is because it has been a mutation of the latter. Mutations of course simply corrupting and confusing the genetic data. This speciation through natural selection involves sorting of the genetic information present. Not the adding of information that evolution needs for fish-to-people. Natural selection and variation no matter how profound a change may be over time is due to populations changing there genetic data within the constraints of the present information. Evolution requires massive amounts of genetic information over and over again. But natural selection does not work like that. This mechanism evolution uses has nothing to do with the evolution of more complex life forms. Over and over again until we arrive at people. Again it does not matter how beneficial a fly may be with larger wings there is a constraint. A block between the interchanging of genetic information between these so called "kinds".

quote:
In the definition used in information theory you do have more information (but not twice as much). What is your definition? In what way is it different from that used in information theory? How do I calculate the information content of your newspapers or more pertently, your genome?

You mention you dont have twice as much. And i agree with you. So naturally the change in natural selection would be restricted to just the letters in those newspapers. So if the paper reproduced without the first few pages of information. It would naturally be a loss of information. Using the information present and it cannot add new information for it is not in its genes. So this paper may go on and live happily in cold weather somewhere. It is not evolution but natural selection. So natural selection cannot be used to explain the diversity we see today and how eventually using this mechanism we can easily arrive to people and everything else. There must have been already created kinds to reproduce and diverse with natural selection like the biblical framework states. You asked how do you measure the content, well i dont know exactly but creationists have mention many such as

quote:
The information content of the genome is difficult to evaluate with any precision. Fortunately, for my purposes, I need only consider the change in the information in an enzyme caused by a mutation. The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:
* Level of catalytic activity
* Specificity with respect to the substrate
* Strength of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of binding to cell structure
* Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation

quote:
Could you give some examples of where you've been given "evolutionary imagination" instead of real examples?

Evolution is full of them. Fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, dinasaurs to birds. We dont see such astonishing transitions in the present because they dont occur. Certainly not by using natural selection.

quote:
If you are given examples of useful proteins appearing would you admit to being in error about evolution not being able to add "information"?

The problem is that evolution can point to something that has won the battle over a poison. Or fruitflys with a beneficial mutations. But do you realise what evolution needs to explain todays living things?. It needs massive amounts of information being added and we should observe it everyday clear as day. But frankly, we know what natural selection is and we observe it. And its not what the evolutionists require to explain there theory. Mutations, random accidental changes in copying hereditary information are overwhelmingly a downhill process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 06-24-2004 12:01 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2004 3:22 AM almeyda has responded
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 06-26-2004 3:40 AM almeyda has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 93 (118943)
06-26-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by almeyda
06-26-2004 3:14 AM


Mutations, random accidental changes in copying hereditary information are overwhelmingly a downhill process.

When you say "overwhelmingly", you you mean that mutations never go uphill, even slightly, or do you mean that mutations seldom but occasionally do go slightly uphill?

If you agree that the latter is true, what if we had a kind of process that could "pick" or "select" only those "uphill" mutations? Would you agree, then, that in that situation, mutations could provide "uphill" movement?

Mutations never add information

Never? Or seldom? You don't sound too sure, frankly, and while I might agree that "seldom" is accurate, I know that "never" is just plain wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 06-26-2004 3:14 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 06-27-2004 2:22 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3883
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 83 of 93 (118945)
06-26-2004 3:31 AM


Terminal topic drift
I haven't been following this topic, nor am I going to now review it, but I strongly suspect the theme was last touched upon many messages back.

Should probably close this one down, but I won't.

Adminnemooseus


    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 84 of 93 (118948)
06-26-2004 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by almeyda
06-26-2004 3:14 AM


Re: more information?
You mention you dont have twice as much. And i agree with you.

My goodness but you do read selectively. I did say you had more information based on the information theoretic definition. You have yet to supply a definition yourself. Until you do I am forced to use the only one I am aware of. In the case of the newspapers two copies has a small increase in information content.

And the information content of sxyxvawtu" is at least as great as "superman" (in fact it may be greater but that is a nitpicky detail)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by almeyda, posted 06-26-2004 3:14 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-27-2004 2:25 AM NosyNed has responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 93 (119158)
06-27-2004 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
06-26-2004 3:22 AM


quote:
When you say "overwhelmingly", you you mean that mutations never go uphill, even slightly, or do you mean that mutations seldom but occasionally do go slightly uphill?

They never go uphill. Because using only the information present it cannot go uphill. What i mean when i say overwhelming and not never is because there is the rare beneficial mutation which is a loss of information however an insect may live happily in his new environment. Theres nothing wrong with a loss of information with natural selection because it uses adaptation. But when evolutionists talk about natural selection, they put it in a catergory which natural selection has not been observed doing.

quote:
If you agree that the latter is true, what if we had a kind of process that could "pick" or "select" only those "uphill" mutations? Would you agree, then, that in that situation, mutations could provide "uphill" movement?

These uphill movements you speak of arent what evolutionists require. The very name selection implies that your choosing between two or more variants. So that means that the end result is extinction of one in favour of the other. Natural selection never increases the number of variants, only decreases them. Leaving mutations as the answer is not a valid explaination, leaving chance mutations as the only source of new information. You have to have all these new genes coding for new features all interacting precisely with one another, continually arising as animals get more complex. As evolutionary philosophy suggests. To believe in this requires faith, again going back to the religios nature of evolution. Also we go back to the facts being interpreted as i kept mentioning but noone agreed or understood. Natural selection is the fact, evolution interpret the fact to fit there framework in which this mechanism has given rise after rise of new species. Its certainly not something we see in natural selection. Since no new information is added, this has nothing to do with ‘fish to people’ evolution, for which one needs processes capable of such change.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 06-26-2004 3:22 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2004 2:33 AM almeyda has responded
 Message 89 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-27-2004 4:56 PM almeyda has responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 93 (119159)
06-27-2004 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by NosyNed
06-26-2004 3:40 AM


Re: more information?
quote:
In the case of the newspapers two copies has a small increase in information content.

Keep in mind Nosyned that we are talking about identical newspapers. With the same letters of information. Natural selection could only cause change with a reshuffling of those letters. It cannot add new letters causing new information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by NosyNed, posted 06-26-2004 3:40 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2004 3:42 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 93 (119163)
06-27-2004 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by almeyda
06-27-2004 2:22 AM


They never go uphill.

Now, that's just not true. Slight "uphill" changes, at random, must be possible. I mean, if I have a random letter generator, there's a slight random chance that it'll generate, at random, a meaningful sequence. It's mathematical fact.

These uphill movements you speak of arent what evolutionists require.

Don't get ahead of yourself, now. Are uphill changes, even slight ones, possible? Just answer the question.

Oh, and don't confuse natural selection with mutation, which you keep doing. Nobody has suggested that natural selection is a creative process. It's simply a selective process.

So, answer the question. If you had one process that took us downhill most of the time, but occasionally, randomly took us uphill; and then you had a process that kept us from going downhill and only let us go uphill; and put them together, wouldn't you have a process that would take us nowhere but uphill, very slowly? Sounds like we would to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 06-27-2004 2:22 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by almeyda, posted 06-28-2004 5:13 AM crashfrog has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 88 of 93 (119170)
06-27-2004 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by almeyda
06-27-2004 2:25 AM


Re: more information?
Keep in mind Nosyned that we are talking about identical newspapers. With the same letters of information. Natural selection could only cause change with a reshuffling of those letters. It cannot add new letters causing new information.

Yes I know that. What you don't know is what information is.

For now I can only go with the definition of information that I know. Shannon information which has a defined method for calculating it. So I can determine if there is more or less information by doing the calculations.

And using the same 26 letters, without adding any new ones I can construct "newspapers" with lots and lots of information.

If you say I have to add letters then you are saying that
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ has exactly as much information as a complete 30 volume encyclopedia. It doesn't have any new letters does it? Is that actually what you are saying?

Since you haven't given any other definition of "information" I don't have any choice but to use the one I know. Until you define the terms you are using or accept the commonly used definitions you simply can't talk about anything.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 02:44 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by almeyda, posted 06-27-2004 2:25 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4188 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 89 of 93 (119267)
06-27-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by almeyda
06-27-2004 2:22 AM


ALMEYDA – I’ll repeat (for the second time in this thread) that it is quite frustrating to find you arguing "no mechanism for additional information" in this thread, after I’ve given you a valid mechanism in another thread, and you gave no refutation of it. I’m reposting here in hopes that I won’t be ignored for a third time.

If there is something you don’t understand in the post, please let me know and I’ll do my best to explain. The basic idea is that mutation accumulation AFTER DUPLICATION can result in two genes with different function, and hence additional genetic information.

I’ll thank you in advance for your reply to this post:
_________________________

Almeyda, in another thread writes:

There has been a loss of genetic information, the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution needs.

I'm sure you'll deny it by your incorrect VCR tape analogy, but duplication and rearrangement at chromosomal and smaller genetic units is a means to increase the "genetic information."

I think your misconception on this point comes from the idea that: if a gene is copied, you'd just have two copies of the same gene, and therefore nothing new would come of it.

If so, you are not thinking about what happens later, as the two copies of the gene accumulate different mutations, and diverge in function. Indeed, evolution predicts that one copy of the gene would be lost if no changes occurred since completely redundant function would leave no selective force to have both copies.

This is why we have what are called "gene families," a simple example being the ERBB receptor family. It has four members, duplicated from a single ancestral ERBB receptor gene, but each member has since changed sequence, and hence function. Thus the receptors' ligand specificities have diverged, as has their downstream signaling pathways. Loss of any one ERBB results in embryonic lethality.

"Lower" organisms like the fruit fly and nematodes have one ERBB gene homologue. Indeed, it is not that humans some how have ‘better’ or novel genes compared to "lower" organisms – but more often that the human genome contains large specialized gene families while "lower" organisms have only one or two types of that gene. Also, complexity not at the gene coding level but in expression of the genes adds much complexity to the human genome.

Also, duplications and rearrangments can "remix" existing genes, coding for hybrid proteins with functions from each of the original proteins. These hybrid genes can accumulate mutations.

Also, duplications/rearrangments can leave gene coding sequence intact, but change regulatory elements associated with the gene, causing it to be expressed in a new tissue site, or at a different level.

So, it is not that every single gene has arisen by chance. Most genes are made up of domains that have similar sequence and produce protein domains with similar function. Thus, only one ancestral kinase domain could have been duplicated to produce the hundreds of different genes containing a kinase domain.

Imagine a gene that codes for a protein with an extracellular domain that attaches to something outside of the cell. Duplication, rearrangment, and now a new hybrid gene exists with an extracellular binding domain and a cytoplasmic kinase domain - a kinase receptor is born...

This kinase receptor can duplicate, rearrange, mutate; and now you have a family of several kinase receptors...

This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 06-27-2004 09:29 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by almeyda, posted 06-27-2004 2:22 AM almeyda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by almeyda, posted 06-28-2004 5:04 AM pink sasquatch has responded

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 93 (119413)
06-28-2004 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by pink sasquatch
06-27-2004 4:56 PM


Sorry for the delay Sasquatch.

quote:
I think your misconception on this point comes from the idea that: if a gene is copied, you'd just have two copies of the same gene, and therefore nothing new would come of it.

Its not a misconception, it is what we observe in natural selection. A reshuffling of the information present only. When i say loss of information i dont mean it wont be as capable and sooner of later they will die out. But that its a downhill process. For example. We started with a canine kind, and now we have thousands of different types of dog and canine. All this occured through downhill processes and natural selection. The information for the canine kind was in its genes. And a reshuffling can change into what we see today. A canine kind will not change into a new kind of animal, this would be a increase in information.

quote:
Also, duplications and rearrangments can "remix" existing genes, coding for hybrid proteins with functions from each of the original proteins. These hybrid genes can accumulate mutations.

Likewise with my dog example. These hybrids you speak of can only be achieved through a reshuffling on the genes present. It cannot add new letters of information. When we talk about a mutation in a dog, we mean a change in structure. It has a characteristic that its ancestors did not show. This change in the information it inherits is caused by a change either in the genes or in the chromosomes. It is a mutation, which is downhill. Evolution must be observed all around us. The complexity and diversity of living things. We must be able to point to millions of instances were a dog grew feathers, then many mutations later into a bird. These sort of changes dont occur. A dog has always been in its kind just like all kinds. So the theory of evolution has got serious problems if its relying upon natural selection.

Im not sure about your example. Many words i dont understand. However it seems that a mutation has remixed the genes etc causing more information. Which is not case as it cannot add new genetic data. Only whats present. no matter how much distortion and change of the genes. It can only work with what its got. And thats why horses breed and use natural selection only with equine kinds, dogs with canines etc. Natural selection seems to be somewhat the opposite of what evolution requires.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-27-2004 4:56 PM pink sasquatch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-28-2004 2:09 PM almeyda has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019