Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 96 (388891)
03-08-2007 3:41 PM


In other words - pocket gophers and their pubic lice.
Evolution gains another pillar of support when we find convergence between multiple phylogenies developed by multiple, independent means. For instance, the convergence between phylogeny developed from genetics and phylogeny developed from morphological characteristics of fossils. It's a basic principle of reason that when two independent groups, using independent methods, measure and get the same results, we strongly conclude that they're actually measuring something that's really there (like an evolutionary history) and not simply making it up. The odds of two parties working independently developing the same falsehood are very, very low.
Convergence between genetics and fossils aren't the only relevant convergences to speak of, however. I recently read an example of convergence between two genetically-derived phylogenies: The common pocket gopher (family Geomyidae) and species of the genus Geomydoecus, their pubic lice.
From the article:
quote:
Phylogenies based on mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) sequences for 15 taxa of gophers and 15 species of Geomydoecus show considerable congruence (Fig. 2). More detailed comparisons of these phylogenies revealed that 8 of the 12 ingroup nodes (67%) show potential cospeciation events (Page and Hafner, 1996). This amount of cospeciation is more than expected by chance alone (P < 0.01; reconciliation analysis, as implemented in TreeMap 1; Page, 1995). These comparisons indicate that cospeciation between gophers and lice is extensive.
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/1/165.full
Consider the plight of the pubic lice. Pocket gophers construct individual tunnel systems which one gopher will habitate; individual gophers rarely meet except to mate. Their lice are specialized, physically, for clinging to the hairs of their host; they are not highly mobile on other terrain. As a result, gopher pubic lice rarely encounter disparate individuals except when their hosts meet to mate.
From an evolutionary perspective, these ecological realities mean that gophers and their lice should undergo speciation in response to the same events; thus, we should see a large degree of convergence between the evolutionary histories of these organisms as their unrelated lineages speciate in parallel. That this prediction from ecology is satisfied by genetics is further support of the accuracy of evolutionary models.
On the other hand, from the perspective of creationism, where both of these species were created, independently, in recent time; and where the entire science of molecular phylogeny returns, not meaningful historical data, but random noise "interpreted" as meaningful; we should not expect to see such convergence. Any given species, no matter its ecology, should return results that are completely random and divergent from any other species.
That's not what we see, disproving creationism and lending support to evolutionary models. Parallel speciation, and the congruent phylogenies that result, supports evolution but cannot be reconciled with the creationist worldview.
Edited by crashfrog, : Fixed URL.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2007 7:14 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 73 by ICdesign, posted 03-12-2007 6:58 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 96 (388923)
03-08-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
03-08-2007 7:14 PM


Re: The problem with this kind of support
Fair enough - I don't expect much of a creationist response - but it shows an important principle in science in general and evolution in particular.
That principle is how scientific theories are supported by evidence. It's not that there's One Big Proof of evolution that, in the utterance, convinces all and removes all doubt; evolution is held up by a thousand little pillars. And each of those pillars represents a convergence of fact that is explainable only by evolution.
The evolutionary histories of the pocket gophers and their pubic lice were simply invention, there's no reason to think that they would match. But according to the ecology of their present, their pasts would be expected to be similar according to evolution. And they are.
That's the take-home message. Sure, when you run PCR-RFLP on mtDNA, and you're looking at a gel with a bunch of little bars on it, some interpretation comes into play.
But when you have a convergence like this, there's no interpretation possible but the evolutionary one. It's not simply a matter of "different interpretations" because there's no creationist interpretation of this phenomenon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 03-08-2007 7:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2007 7:53 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 7 by MartinV, posted 03-09-2007 1:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 96 (388926)
03-08-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
03-08-2007 7:53 PM


Re: The problem with this kind of support
Unfortunately, the creationists are going to yelp, "b-b-b-but, they're still gophers and lice!"
Sure. I advise them not to, since I would simply reply that this material substantiates molecular phylogeny, and molecular phylogeny substantiates macroevolution through deep time.
And wouldn't they find that rebuttal embarrassing? Good thing I warned them...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2007 7:53 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 96 (388979)
03-09-2007 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by MartinV
03-09-2007 2:03 PM


Re: contradicting the source
So this case maybe support evolution but I do not see how it support darwinistic explanation of it.
I still don't think we understand your objection. This supports evolution because it's irrefutable proof that these two organisms have a verifiable history in evolutionary time; their individual phylogenies corroborate each other, and by extension, the tools and procedures used to develop those phylogenies.
If these two organisms had no evolutionary history, and the science of molecular phylogeny was invalid, there would be no such convergence. If you don't understand how all that substantiates evolution by random mutation and natural selection, then I suspect it's because you're not clear on how this data was developed.
Added by edit: It's also proof that speciation occurs due to Darwinian mechanisms, and not by any saltational or preprogrammed means. The assertion that two completely unrelated organisms would be "programmed" to speciate in the same way, at the same position in time and space, is ridiculous; but that's exactly what would have to happen to observe parallel speciation under a saltational mechanism. This convergence is proof that speciation is caused by Darwinian mechanisms.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MartinV, posted 03-09-2007 2:03 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by MartinV, posted 03-09-2007 2:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 96 (388983)
03-09-2007 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by MartinV
03-09-2007 2:31 PM


Re: contradicting the source
I see explanation that two unrelated organisms speciate in the same way via undirected random mutation picked up by natural selection as utterly ridiculous and as darwinistic fancy.
They speciate the same way because of the way they live, as I explained. They speciate the same way because the pubic lice are forced into the same population distribution as the gophers, because the lice only meet to mate when the gophers do.
I've never claimed that they mutate the same way; mutation, really, has nothing to do with what we're talking about. What we're talking about is their evolutionary histories, which are constrained to converge under Darwinian mechanisms because of their ecology. Under creationism or saltational mechanisms, there would be no such constraint, because speciation would occur based on their separate individual programs, not their environment.
There's nothing fanciful about the data, which you haven't even addressed. And you provide absolutely no explanation under any alternative to evolution for why these organisms would experience parallel speciation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by MartinV, posted 03-09-2007 2:31 PM MartinV has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Brad McFall, posted 03-09-2007 8:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 96 (388991)
03-09-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by MartinV
03-09-2007 4:04 PM


Re: You are confused!
I'm willing to accept, for the moment, that you actually are someone for whom English is a second language, and not simply a John Davison sockpuppet effecting "language difficulties" as a diversion.
Nonetheless, none of us are going to be able to respond to your objections - if you have any beyond personal incredulity - until you're able to phrase them in a way we can understand. I've tried to respond to your objections as I understood them, but clearly I failed, since you have not replied to them.
Ah! My wife is fairly fluent in Russian. If that's a language you're more familiar in than English, perhaps you could state your objections in Russian and I'll have my wife attempt to translate? Not to imply that I don't know that there's a difference between Slovak and Russian, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by MartinV, posted 03-09-2007 4:04 PM MartinV has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 96 (389026)
03-10-2007 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by MartinV
03-10-2007 2:07 AM


Re: contradicting the source
You're getting way off-topic. This isn't a paper about mutations; this is a paper about parallel speciation, which, again, happened because of constraints on the population structure of both organisms.
It would mean that ratio of all possible mutations to the mutation preferred by selection is 100:1.
This has no meaning. Natural selection doesn't select mutations, it selects individuals, all of which have mutations. Some of those mutations produce a survival benefit, and they are preserved in the population. Some of those mutations produce a survival cost, and they will probably be selected against. Most of these mutations have no effect at all and they spread throughout the population stochastically, through genetic drift.
Your 100:1 example is make-believe.
Let us consider that to a cospeciation led 10 mutations of gene with 100 nucleotides.
This is not what speciation, or cospeciation, does. What we're talking about is population structure and phylogenic history, not mutations and genes. There's only one gene relevant to this example, and that's the gene they used to develop the molecular phylogenies in both groups of organisms - cytochrome oxidase I, a mitochondrial gene regularly used for this purpose because it's highly conserved.
I dare say that evolution is directed.
And I'm telling you that this example disproves directed evolution, because there's no coherent reason that pocket gophers and their pubic lice would be directed to speciate at exactly the same time, repeatedly.
Rather, this example proves that evolution is not directed, but rather, occurs in response to environment - not from a prior program inserted by intelligence. Lice and gophers are so radically different that it's impossible to believe that they were directed to speciate in the same way, with radically divergent genomes.
The parallel speciation phenomenon, in this case, proves that evolution here was not directed, but rather, occurred as a response to environment - the Darwinian explanation.
Yet if probability that random mutation wouldn't lead to cospeciation is only 0,01 (by "pure chance")
You've completely misunderstood the article if you're under the impression that where it says "pure chance", it's referring to random mutations.
This is not the case. "Pure chance" in this context simply means the chance of developing a convergent phylogeny between two populations that were, say, picked out of a hat. It has nothing to do with mutations in this context, and your arguments are all but nonsensical. (And again, I beg you to do a better job of rendering them readable in English.)
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 2:07 AM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by MartinV, posted 03-10-2007 4:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 96 (389028)
03-10-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
03-10-2007 10:01 AM


Re: contradicting the source
Interestingly, your own idea of directed evolution is also consistent with this evidence
Is it? If organisms speciated according to a built-in program of direction, wouldn't the gophers and the lice have speciated independantly, regardless of their ecological relationship? Doesn't the fact that one species is constrained to speciate parallel to the other prove that organisms speciate as a result of the effect of environment on population structure, and not according to some built-in plan?
It strains credibility to suggest that a pubic lice and a pocket gopher, being so different from each other, would be programmed to speciate on coincidentally the same schedule. (In fact the paper explains what the chance of that happening is - less than .01. ) And we don't see the same phenomenon in most parasite/host relationships, which would seem to buttress the proof against directed evolution.
Unless, I guess, MartinV wants to come out and say that they were directed to cospeciate to fool us into believing in evolution, which I guess I can't disprove. Maybe that's what you were referring to. Certainly if someone wanted to specify an "Intelligent Director" who wanted to make it look like evolution, they would need to provide evidence from a source aside from the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 03-10-2007 10:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 03-10-2007 10:19 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 96 (389056)
03-10-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Fosdick
03-10-2007 12:45 PM


Re: Is it the word "random"?
This explanation ignores the role of exaptation”alleles and genes already carried in the genome, remaining unexpressed until favorable changes of circumstances allow for their selection.
Yeah, but why were they already carried there? Random mutation, most of the time.
And those exapted genes and/or alleles do not have to come only from mutations”some find their way into a genome by way of horizontal DNA transfer, also viewed as gene flow.
HGT is a form of gene flow, sure. But where did those genes come from to be HGT'd? Random mutation.
All I'm saying is, it gets back to random mutation, eventually. The processes you're talking about explain how a given individual might come to possess a certain sequence, but the origin of that sequence is almost always random mutation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 12:45 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 1:17 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 96 (389067)
03-10-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Fosdick
03-10-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Is it the word "random"?
Tsetse flies, maybe?
Why, Hoot Man, you're not trying to substitute glib comebacks for intelligent debate, are you? Who on Earth would ever suspect you of acting so out-of-character?
Do you consider HGT a form of mutation?
You seem to have missed my point completely. Sure, there are mechanisms that move genetic sequences from individual A to individual B that have nothing to do with mutation. (Obviously reproduction is such a process, but so is HGT, or retroviral insertion, or genetic engineering by dudes in labcoats, or what have you.)
But how did it get to A in the first place? You can say "HGT" again, but then it's just a process of recursion. We follow the HGT's back to the individual who first had the genetic sequence without getting it via HGT or any other such process. That individual developed the sequence by random mutation.
Processes like HGT move genetic sequences. Random mutation creates genetic sequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 1:17 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 03-10-2007 3:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 96 (389091)
03-10-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Fosdick
03-10-2007 3:07 PM


Re: Is it the word "random"?
But let’s say something changes, something that would benefit the recessive hitchhiker’s thumb allele. Let’s say it assumes a sexual advantage”mate attraction, perhaps”so that those humans with hitchhiker thumbs are reproductively favored over those who don’t have them. Here would be a case of exaptation accounting for a selection advantage without the need for mutation.
What you've described isn't exaptation, it's just selection.
You say "without the need for mutation", but mutation isn't a part of selection; so naturally you don't see mutation in the parts that are just selection. Mutation comes in the part you've ignored - where the multiple alleles for this protein came from.
The mutation is that, where there was one allele for the ligament protein, there are now two. Selection is when, later, individuals with one of those alleles reproduce more than individuals with the other one.
How you misinterpreted that as a situation of exaptation, where the function of a biological characteristic becomes something other than what it had been as it evolved, is beyond me, but it only serves to illustrate another instance where you've displayed absolute confidence in your completely erroneous understanding of basic biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 3:07 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 03-10-2007 4:59 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 8:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 96 (389105)
03-10-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
03-10-2007 4:59 PM


Re: Is it the word "random"?
But even if I'm wrong and Hoot Mon's example is full of holes, the point he was trying to make still holds, that a mutation might already be expressed before something else changes to make it vulnerable to selection pressures.
Was that the point he was trying to make? I understood his point to be "random mutation isn't always the source of new features." I say that's his point because he appeared to repeat it, several times, but I guess it's possible I understood.
If, indeed, his point was as you've framed it... so what? Obviously the mutation responsible for a feature has to predate its selection - otherwise there's nothing to select.
If, say, a population of bacteria are exposed to an antibiotic before any individuals have mutated a resistance to it, the result is the complete extinction of the population. However, we know that an average population of bacteria will almost certainly have evolved the resistance before we expose them to the antibiotic - because, indeed, they've already developed, via random mutation, resistance to a whole spectrum of antibiotics, or to viruses, or to anything at all.
We know this from a hundred bioreactor experiments where a bacterial monoculture is incubated and a small sample is taken. Each sample shows a random distribution of mutations, some of which usually correspond to a degree of resistance to a certain antibiotic - before the antibiotic has even been introduced.
It's not that the bacteria are seeing the future, of course. Some of them just got lucky in the "mutation lottery."
Nonetheless, we're delving off-topic. I still maintain that HM's point, as I understand it, is fundamentally wrong - it's not appropriate to refer to things like HGT or endogenous retrotransposons as alternate sources of genetic novelty. They may very well be novel to that population, or to that organism, but ultimately those sequences came about as a result of mutation - before subsequently being transfered into a new organism by the means listed above.
But I have no idea what that has to do with picket gophers and their pubic lice. Maybe HM can explain the connection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 03-10-2007 4:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 03-10-2007 7:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 96 (389113)
03-10-2007 7:47 PM


For ICDESIGN
I'd like to pull my new friend ICDESIGN into this discussion, and in order to do so, I'd like to urge him not to be frightened by words like "Geomyidae"; I simply used the scientific nomenclature of these organisms in the title so that we didn't wind up with a whole thread called "Pubic Lice."
Since I know he's having some trouble with the material I'd like to invite his questions at this point. And I'd like to summarize my OP so that it makes a little more sense to the layperson:
Scientists working in a field called "molecular phylogeny" use genetic information contained in our cells to develop charts, called "phylogenies", that describe the evolutionary relationships of closely-related species. These charts purport to explain who evolved from who and at what time. They're basically family trees for species.
Evolutionists maintain that these charts accurately describe the evolutionary relationships of species, and since we can make these charts for any arbitrary number of species, it's fairly easy, in using them, to come to the conclusion that all species on Earth are related in this family tree, ultimately descending from a single life form.
Creationists disagree; since they assert that species are not related in this way, the charts and phylogenies that evolutionists develop must be false; they're either fictions that scientists agree, in a grand conspiracy, to act as though they're true; or else scientists are honestly mistaken and are interpreting meaningless genetic "noise", much as one might claim to hear voices in static or see faces in a TV turned to a dead channel.
Those are the two possibilities. In this particular case, I present research on two groups of organisms that live in close proximity - a scientific family consisting of many species of pocket gopher, and a scientific family consisting of many different species of pubic lice that live only on pocket gophers.
Scientists who generated phylogenies for both of these groups of organisms found that, despite the fact that gophers and lice are only held to be very distantly related (gophers are mammals and lice are insects, obviously), these separate charts were nearly identical in structure - indicating that, nearly every time a new species of gopher split off from an old one, a new species of lice split off from an old one, too.
The odds of this happening by chance are just like the odds of two TV's having identical static, or the same numbers winning the lottery twice, or two people flipping coins and coming up with the same result every time. A lot less likely than any of those things, in fact. Which means that the matchup isn't by chance. This is very good evidence for the evolution position, that molecular phylogeny techniques do tell us about the evolutionary history of organisms, and proof that creationists are wrong.
That's what we're talking about, ICDESIGN. I hope this has been helpful.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 96 (389123)
03-10-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Fosdick
03-10-2007 8:31 PM


Not so baffling bullshit
Do you actually believe that natural selection operates at the level of the individual? I don’t know of any credible biologist who thinks natural selection selects individuals.
We're all quite aware, HM, of exactly how much you don't know. This post, for instance, makes it abundantly clear that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
For example, many good neo-Darwinians will dismiss "convergence" and "parallelism" on the grounds that "deep homology" can acount for the same effect.
Homology between a tunneling mammal and a parasitic insect? Your whoppers strain credulity. But, you know, thanks for making it abundantly clear that your sole expertise in biology is in your ability to cut-and-paste random terms from a glossary.
He would be better served if we took our Occam's Razor to some of this evo-devo fluff.
"Evo-devo fluff"? Absolutely nothing on-topic in this thread has had anything to do with evolutionary developmentology. You're just making it obvious that your sole contribution to this thread is to make it precisely obvious how little you know about what you're talking about.
And if the word "random" is a bother for him, then he might take comfort in knowing that selfish genes have a distinctively non-random attribute: they deterministically adopt strategies for survival. Hamilton and Dawkins have provided much more "proof" of that than what is claimed to be "proof" by the evo-devo advocates.
I'll thank you to keep your pointless nonsense out of my thread. There's absolutely no sense to be made of these statements. "Deterministically adopt strategies for survival"? And, again, who said anything about evo-devo?
I have a low tolerance for nonsense, but that appears to be just about all you're capable of generating. "Deterministically adopt strategies." LOL!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 8:31 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 03-11-2007 9:58 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 96 (389124)
03-10-2007 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fosdick
03-10-2007 8:55 PM


Re: contradicting the source
More nonsense.
a subject population's size drops below a level where random genetic drift cannot be avoided,
Genetic drift can never be avoided, no matter the size of the population; there are merely populations so large that genetic drift doesn't constitute a significant force on the population's genetics.
genes and/or alleles from external populations enter the subject population’s gene pool,
As I've explained, and you have yet to reply to, introducing gene flow as an "alternative" to random mutation introduces a recursion problem. Genes may flow from A to B, but how did they get to A in the first place?
3. all individuals of the subject population do not have equal access to mating, and
4. all individuals of the subject population do not have equal success in reproduction.
These are both selection. Nobody's asserted that evolution is all about random mutation; but random mutation is the only source of genetic novelty in the natural world. Selection doesn't create alleles; it merely has effects on the frequency of alleles in a population.
Given those requirements it’s a wonder that any species lasts very long.
This doesn't make any sense at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 8:55 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 03-10-2007 9:19 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 58 by MartinV, posted 03-11-2007 9:37 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024