Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution vs. Other Ideas, Come On In!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Evolution vs. Other Ideas, Come On In!

    Originally posted by dalem View Post
    Are you looking for this in the fossil record or in the lab? Because the fossil record is tough to get information from and the lab is not operating on an evolutionary timescale.
    Fossil record, if evolution was all there was, then at some point after the Cambrian explosion we should have a successor emergence call them dalezoids and raverist for this discussion we don't. All we have is the types of life that emerge during before or during the Cambrian

    That's not how it works - characters are adapted for use - nothing new is "intended" for anything.
    Wrong, initial starts are accidental adaptations, then the life forms deliberately evolves specialization is response to pressure. This is something we can recreate quite easily in both the lab and the designer dog market.


    Maybe one of the reasons crocs and sharks, especially sharks, are so successful is because they have that adaptation.
    Which is the problem for evolution, a 200 million year old adaptation that still trumps the fastest evolving life forms on the planet...

    I don't really know where to start with this. Crocs are on the order of 200 million years old. They've been around for a long long time. Mass extinctions tend to kill everything over a couple of feet in length, then everything starts to get big again because size is generally an advantageous trait, and is selected for.
    Except we should see smaller versions of the crocs and other species on either side of the event and we don't. Yet here crocs are....

    -dale[/QUOTE]

  • #2
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Fossil record, if evolution was all there was, then at some point after the Cambrian explosion we should have a successor emergence call them dalezoids and raverist for this discussion we don't. All we have is the types of life that emerge during before or during the Cambrian



    Wrong, initial starts are accidental adaptations, then the life forms deliberately evolves specialization is response to pressure. This is something we can recreate quite easily in both the lab and the designer dog market.




    Which is the problem for evolution, a 200 million year old adaptation that still trumps the fastest evolving life forms on the planet...




    -dale
    [/QUOTE]

    Z You have to keep in mind that the fossil record is incomplete. Many branches of early life are not recorded. Although there is little doubt that life was abundant and diverse in Cambrian times that does not mean the earth didn't have similar "explosions of life" We also had many organisms in the cambrian age that simply didn't die at the right time and place so were not recorded in the fossil record.

    OK, Adaptations are like accidents because of the constant mutation rate of alleles. However the mutation rate is fairly constant. "Whatever works survives" is the order of the day. Humans don't play by the same rules and we can change the rules for other species at least for the short term. We can create wonder mutts and corn varieties at will but those new variations are not likely to remain viable without constant human input. Take turkeys for instance. We all crave white meat so turkeys are bred to be chesty. In fact they are so chesty that they can not breed on their own. Take man out of the equation and that whole line of turkeys becomes extinct. The point is that life on its own does not "deliberately" change. Life only drives to exist and, without man muddying up the place, only the lucky and the successful of one generation gets to procreate the next.

    crocks and gaters are not a problem for evolution. They are only successful as they are adapted to their environment. Throughout the ages nothing has been able to out compete them in their back yard and they have been able to find an environment that suits them. They have not changed much because they are successful just as they are.
    Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by zraver
      Fossil record, if evolution was all there was, then at some point after the Cambrian explosion we should have a successor emergence call them dalezoids and raverist for this discussion we don't. All we have is the types of life that emerge during before or during the Cambrian
      So you're looking for a brand new multicellular body plan to evolve?

      Wrong, initial starts are accidental adaptations, then the life forms deliberately evolves specialization is response to pressure. This is something we can recreate quite easily in both the lab and the designer dog market.
      No, I'm not wrong. Pollination by insect is an adaptation.

      Which is the problem for evolution, a 200 million year old adaptation that still trumps the fastest evolving life forms on the planet...
      Even if true, why is that a problem with evolution?

      Except we should see smaller versions of the crocs and other species on either side of the event and we don't. Yet here crocs are....
      It's been 65 million years - things increase their size in that amount of time. And the truly large crocs (i.e. 50') all died off. In other words, the crocs that survived are large in comparison to US, but not large in comparison to their largest evolutionary cousins that went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous.

      -dale

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dalem View Post
        So you're looking for a brand new multicellular body plan to evolve?
        Whole new type of life, not one of the existing kingdoms.

        No, I'm not wrong. Pollination by insect is an adaptation.
        Insects adapting to take advantage of flowers is adaptation/evolution. How are flowers an adaptation... where is the pressure to develop flowers.

        Even if true, why is that a problem with evolution?
        A 200 million year old life form immune to the best efforts of the worlds fastest evolving lifeforms is the problem. Per evolution that should not be possible, evolution precludes perfection.



        It's been 65 million years - things increase their size in that amount of time. And the truly large crocs (i.e. 50') all died off. In other words, the crocs that survived are large in comparison to US, but not large in comparison to their largest evolutionary cousins that went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous.

        -dale[/QUOTE]

        Comment


        • #5
          Z You have to keep in mind that the fossil record is incomplete. Many branches of early life are not recorded. Although there is little doubt that life was abundant and diverse in Cambrian times that does not mean the earth didn't have similar "explosions of life" We also had many organisms in the cambrian age that simply didn't die at the right time and place so were not recorded in the fossil record.[/quote]

          We have zero evidence of any type of life except what we have now, insect, plant, microbial, animal etc. There are no extinct kingdoms neither are there new ones. After the Cambrian that part of evolution simply stops.

          OK, Adaptations are like accidents because of the constant mutation rate of alleles. However the mutation rate is fairly constant. "Whatever works survives" is the order of the day. Humans don't play by the same rules and we can change the rules for other species at least for the short term. We can create wonder mutts and corn varieties at will but those new variations are not likely to remain viable without constant human input. Take turkeys for instance. We all crave white meat so turkeys are bred to be chesty. In fact they are so chesty that they can not breed on their own. Take man out of the equation and that whole line of turkeys becomes extinct. The point is that life on its own does not "deliberately" change. Life only drives to exist and, without man muddying up the place, only the lucky and the successful of one generation gets to procreate the next.
          Not all species created by man are so over specialized however. Outside of a very small number of species [excluding Africa], truly large mammals went extinct after the end of the last ice age. Cows, mules, horses, and water buffalo being the obvious exceptions.

          crocks and gaters are not a problem for evolution. They are only successful as they are adapted to their environment. Throughout the ages nothing has been able to out compete them in their back yard and they have been able to find an environment that suits them. They have not changed much because they are successful just as they are.
          everything not a microbe is not just competing in the environment it lives in, but is itself an environment for microbes. Yet sharks and crocs aren't.... That is a problem.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            whole new type of life, not one of the existing kingdoms.
            You want a new KINGDOM now? Or domain? a) maybe there is one we haven't discovered yet, b) we may have already seen that happen with the Ediacaran fauna.

            Insects adapting to take advantage of flowers is adaptation/evolution. How are flowers an adaptation... Where is the pressure to develop flowers.
            Flowering is just a trick for reproduction methods. One day a line of spore-breeding plants puts their spores on a weird bud or growth on a leaf of stem and it's easier for them to reproduce, so they do more of it, and their genetics are favorable for bud-spore growth modification and after a million years or so "poof!" - you have flowers.

            With arguments like this you're making a common mistake: you're confusing evolution - which is the process - with natural selection, which is a mechanism that drives the process.

            A 200 million year old life form immune to the best efforts of the worlds fastest evolving lifeforms is the problem. Per evolution that should not be possible, evolution precludes perfection.
            Even stipulating to your belief that it's somehow "perfection", where do you get this idea that "evolution precludes perfection"?

            Now unstipulating again, why is a strong resistance to bacteria considered "perfection" by you?

            -dale

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dalem View Post
              You want a new KINGDOM now? Or domain? a) maybe there is one we haven't discovered yet, b) we may have already seen that happen with the Ediacaran fauna.
              We haven't seen anything like the Edicaran after the Cambrian Explosion. Neither failed nor successful.


              Flowering is just a trick for reproduction methods. One day a line of spore-breeding plants puts their spores on a weird bud or growth on a leaf of stem and it's easier for them to reproduce, so they do more of it, and their genetics are favorable for bud-spore growth modification and after a million years or so "poof!" - you have flowers.
              Flowering plants literally explode across the face of the earth over a period of about 6 million years starting 130 million years ago. Without earlier ancestors/ missing links. Which begs another questions, if X gives birth to a mutated Y the ancestral adam or eve of a species, its progeny should show mixed traits, and those mixed trait fossils are completely missing.

              With arguments like this you're making a common mistake: you're confusing evolution - which is the process - with natural selection, which is a mechanism that drives the process.
              I've made multiple references to evolutionary pressures driving evolution.

              Even stipulating to your belief that it's somehow "perfection", where do you get this idea that "evolution precludes perfection"?
              Because if nature abhors a vacuum perfection is precluded because the competition never ends and evolution/progress must continue.

              Now unstipulating again, why is a strong resistance to bacteria considered "perfection" by you?

              -dale
              Perfection against microbes... Microbes can out evolve any other life form on the planet. Thier ability to adapt is mind boggling, yet they can't over come designs that are basically hundreds of millions of years old...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                We haven't seen anything like the Edicaran after the Cambrian Explosion. Neither failed nor successful.
                Indicates that competition (or the lack thereof) is the major factor for that level of taxonomic innovation.

                Flowering plants literally explode across the face of the earth over a period of about 6 million years starting 130 million years ago. Without earlier ancestors/ missing links. Which begs another questions, if X gives birth to a mutated Y the ancestral adam or eve of a species, its progeny should show mixed traits, and those mixed trait fossils are completely missing.
                You'd expect a group that develops something as cool and awesome as flowering to literally explode. As far as missing links - they're probably sitting in a museum back-room drawer someplace waiting for some poor grad student to discover.

                Reliance on the "where are the missing links?" challenge is a losing path anyway. You want proof of transitional forms? Look at Archaeopteryx, or modern snakes, or modern whales. So we have transitional fossils and other examples to hand - missing one "set" doesn't hurt the overall case for evolution.

                I've made multiple references to evolutionary pressures driving evolution.
                But not correctly.

                Because if nature abhors a vacuum perfection is precluded because the competition never ends and evolution/progress must continue.
                I don't understand your point here.

                Perfection against microbes... Microbes can out evolve any other life form on the planet. Thier ability to adapt is mind boggling, yet they can't over come designs that are basically hundreds of millions of years old...
                Certainly possible. Another way to look at it is that the immune systems of those animal lines have themselves evolved to the point where they are ahead of the curve. For the moment, they're winning the arms vs. armor battle. Tomorrow your microbes might develop the microbial anti-croc death ray.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  This thread is a little confusing so I presume various posts have been brought from other threads and lumped in here. Can someone explain to me what exactly is being discussed in relation to the Cambrian explosion as mentioned in the OP. It is worth pointing out that the Cambrian explosion is a contested event. It has becoming increasingly unclear if there was really a significant, rapid radiation and if the all the phyla really evolved during the period. Evidence is mounting that many evolved before and after this period. The evolution of hard body parts has also led to a bias in the recording of species with those features against previous periods.

                  Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  See section on "How real was the explosion"


                  Crocodilia are nor one species or perfect animals. The fact that crocodiles have evolved into crocs, alligators, caimans and all the various species within these three groups should be proof enough that there is no perfect animal plan to conquer the world.
                  Although crocodilians were thought of as living fossils for many years, review of their fossil record in the last decade has shown that their snout morphology has been continuously changing throughout evolutionary history.[15] Furthermore, snout and skull morphology seem to be functional adaptations to the selection pressures that crocodilians face from the diet in their environment.[16] For instance, long-snouted crocodilians, such as Gavialis gangeticus, that live in habitats where small, rapid, agile fish are the main food source need to be able to move, open and close their snouts rapidly through the water.[17] Thus, long snouts have evolved in such habitats in order to benefit from hydrodynamic efficiency, since a long out-lever allows crocodilians to quickly open and close their jaws while in water.[18] On the other hand, the need for a strong mandible is crucial for short-snouted crocodilians, such as Alligator mississippiensis, which are found in habitats where large terrestrial vertebrates, amphibians, and fish are the food sources.[19] Thus, these crocodilians have evolved to increase the mechanical strength of their mandibles by developing a larger mass of M. ptergoideus posterior muscles.[20] Therefore, natural selection seems to lead to the evolution of an effective crocodilian snout by creating a mechanical compromise between bite force and hydrodynamic efficiency.[21]
                  Crocodilia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                  On the arms race between bacteria and animals, I am a little confused regarding comments regarding crocodiles. Are crocodiles immune to bacterial infections? This does not seem likely to me. The arms race between bacteria, viruses especially is well documented with many species. The parasite finds a new way in, natural selection favours those who block it out, change the lock. Most of this occurs at the level of the immune system. The idea of a parasite wiping out a species is also very rare. A parasite which proves successful in doing so, also makes itself extinct.

                  Finally, I want to say that considering evolution at the level of kingdoms, taxonomic diversification or even at the species as not especially constructive. While the debate is still ongoing, Natural selection (NS) is acting at the level of the individual and the gene. It is at these levels competition is most intense, not species vs species. At these levels evolution occurs and results in the different species, where we can then apply our classification system too. Evolution does not occur at higher taxonomical levels.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                    This thread is a little confusing so I presume various posts have been brought from other threads and lumped in here. Can someone explain to me what exactly is being discussed in relation to the Cambrian explosion as mentioned in the OP.
                    Its a discussion on evolution.

                    I am not arguing for a side, just against the widely presented view that Evolution explains the origins of life and that evolutio/natural selection is the only force at work

                    On the arms race between bacteria and animals, I am a little confused regarding comments regarding crocodiles. Are crocodiles immune to bacterial infections?
                    Yes, crocodillians and sharks are almost completely immune to infection.

                    Dale,

                    Indicates that competition (or the lack thereof) is the major factor for that level of taxonomic innovation.
                    Multiple extinction events since then have opened up the playing field.... nothing....


                    You'd expect a group that develops something as cool and awesome as flowering to literally explode. As far as missing links - they're probably sitting in a museum back-room drawer someplace waiting for some poor grad student to discover.
                    You'd figure something so revolutionary would have been noticed upon discovery.

                    Reliance on the "where are the missing links?" challenge is a losing path anyway. You want proof of transitional forms? Look at Archaeopteryx, or modern snakes, or modern whales. So we have transitional fossils and other examples to hand - missing one "set" doesn't hurt the overall case for evolution.
                    Incorrect, whales for example show a species path that has apparently migrated from land to sea, we even see the individual transitional species we should. For example baleen whales derive from (Aetiocetus 29-34 million years ago). That is not the case with a lot of other life forms, millions of trilobytes, we have even found ancient bacteria fossiles , but we completely lack missing link species from the Cambrian that show evolution from simple to complex multicellular life forms and the beginnings of various types of life we see today.

                    I don't understand your point here.
                    Perfection in evolution requires stasis, if something is as good as ever can be, it is either over specialized and doomed unable to adapt when its perfection turns to liability, or a problem with evolution indicating other forces at work.


                    Certainly possible. Another way to look at it is that the immune systems of those animal lines have themselves evolved to the point where they are ahead of the curve. For the moment, they're winning the arms vs. armor battle. Tomorrow your microbes might develop the microbial anti-croc death ray.

                    -dale
                    Should not be possible, since crocodillians share the trait globally in environments that are ideal microbial habitats.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      I am not arguing for a side, just against the widely presented view that Evolution explains the origins of life and that evolutio/natural selection is the only force at work
                      What other forces ?
                      There are a number of theories about the origin of life ie. the origin of the first common ancestor. What parts of life on Earth trouble you that you dont think that NS explains their presence. NS is not the only selecting force in evolution. Are you familiar with sexual selection ?


                      Yes, crocodillians and sharks are almost completely immune to infection.
                      Can you cite something that indicates that this is both the case and execeptional ? and more importantly how do you think this is outside the theory of evolution ?

                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      but we completely lack missing link species from the Cambrian that show evolution from simple to complex multicellular life forms and the beginnings of various types of life we see today.
                      The evolution of hard body parts in this period resulted in a massive increase in the preservation of species in the fossil record. Things get alot clearer from the cambrian on for many animal phyla. Simpler lifeforms are small and soft bodied. They dont preserve. Evidence of multicellular organisms in the fossil record predate the cambrian explosion by over a billion years.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                        What other forces ?
                        Doesn't matter, if there are holes, then the theory of evolution needs to change or be discarded.

                        There are a number of theories about the origin of life ie. the origin of the first common ancestor. What parts of life on Earth trouble you that you dont think that NS explains their presence. NS is not the only selecting force in evolution. Are you familiar with sexual selection ?
                        My trouble with evolution is the way it is advanced as a pseudo-religion in the US. Like religion is shouts we have the answers, but when you ask hard questions it comes up short.

                        [quote]Can you cite something that indicates that this is both the case and execeptional ? and more importantly how do you think this is outside the theory of evolution ?

                        Researchers Probe Alligator Blood Proteins For Potential Antimicrobial Applications | ProteoMonitor | Proteomics | GenomeWeb

                        Growing up on the Gulf Coast and now living along the Louisiana bayou, Merchant said he has been around alligators all his life. In the wild, alligators with missing limbs are a common sight, he said. Territorial and aggressive by nature, the reptiles get into nasty smackdowns during which legs, arms, and tails get bitten and torn off. But in spite of their injuries and microbe-rich marshland habitat, they rarely develop serious infections.

                        Merchant wanted to know why: Did alligator blood kill bacteria?

                        “The answer was, yes, and it kills all kinds of bacteria,” Merchant said. “And it kills them very rapidly, it kills them without prior exposure, it kills them in a concentration-dependent manner … and it kills them in a temperature-dependent manner.”...

                        “For example, as humans, usually we have to be exposed to, let’s say, the flu virus in order for our bodies to learn how to fight that flu virus off,” Darville said at a press conference at the meeting. “Whereas the gators, they tend to be exposed to something and their bodies just know exactly what to produce to fight that off.”

                        It turns out alligator blood contains serum complement, a group of proteins that “acts coordinately in a cascade-like fashion to kill microbes in a non-specific manner,” Merchant said...


                        But in a study published in 2006, Merchant and others reported that alligator leukocyte extracts showed “substantial antimycotic activities” against six of eight Candida yeast species, as well as antimicrobial efficacy against 10 of 12 bacterial species, and “moderate activity” against HIV-1 and herpes simplex-1.

                        “These activities are most likely due to the presence of cationic antimicrobial peptides,” Merchant and his co-researchers concluded in the study.

                        The evolution of hard body parts in this period resulted in a massive increase in the preservation of species in the fossil record. Things get alot clearer from the cambrian on for many animal phyla. Simpler lifeforms are small and soft bodied. They dont preserve. Evidence of multicellular organisms in the fossil record predate the cambrian explosion by over a billion years.
                        I am aware of that, but there are questions about evolution that are not answered, yet it is taught as having the answers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Doesn't matter, if there are holes, then the theory of evolution needs to change or be discarded.
                          What holes then ? It is easy to see why gaps in the fossil record occur. Incidentally, even if the cambrian explosion did occur at the levels some believe (of which there are many good reasons to doubt), the scienitific community still hold that NS was the driving mechanism. There are many different credible theories to why a relatively rapid radiation over millions of years might occur.


                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          Growing up on the Gulf Coast and now living along the Louisiana bayou, Merchant said he has been around alligators all his life. In the wild, alligators with missing limbs are a common sight, he said. Territorial and aggressive by nature, the reptiles get into nasty smackdowns during which legs, arms, and tails get bitten and torn off. But in spite of their injuries and microbe-rich marshland habitat, they rarely develop serious infections.

                          Merchant wanted to know why: Did alligator blood kill bacteria?

                          “The answer was, yes, and it kills all kinds of bacteria,” Merchant said. “And it kills them very rapidly, it kills them without prior exposure, it kills them in a concentration-dependent manner … and it kills them in a temperature-dependent manner.”...

                          “For example, as humans, usually we have to be exposed to, let’s say, the flu virus in order for our bodies to learn how to fight that flu virus off,” Darville said at a press conference at the meeting. “Whereas the gators, they tend to be exposed to something and their bodies just know exactly what to produce to fight that off.”

                          It turns out alligator blood contains serum complement, a group of proteins that “acts coordinately in a cascade-like fashion to kill microbes in a non-specific manner,” Merchant said...


                          But in a study published in 2006, Merchant and others reported that alligator leukocyte extracts showed “substantial antimycotic activities” against six of eight Candida yeast species, as well as antimicrobial efficacy against 10 of 12 bacterial species, and “moderate activity” against HIV-1 and herpes simplex-1.

                          “These activities are most likely due to the presence of cationic antimicrobial peptides,” Merchant and his co-researchers concluded in the study.
                          Interesting. So they have a group of peptides with impressive antimicrobial activites. Do you have trouble with the idea that these evolved in response to bacterial infections ?

                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          I am aware of that, but there are questions about evolution that are not answered, yet it is taught as having the answers.
                          Well yes. Not everything has been studied. Not everything has been answered. But there is no evidence to suggest that evolution in the broad sense is false. Lots and lots of smaller details to still haggle over. The evidence is now so overwhelming I have to say there is no need to doubt it in the broad sense. Therefore it seems to me to be reasonable to predict that anything not known yet or which confusion exists over will be explained within the broad framework of how evolution is currently understood. I dont think such statements of confidence will satisfy you however and why should they. So tell me what specific questions cause you concern.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            I am not arguing for a side, just against the widely presented view that Evolution explains the origins of life and that evolutio/natural selection is the only force at work
                            The theory of evolution does not address the origins of life, merely how that life changes over time.

                            Multiple extinction events since then have opened up the playing field.... nothing....
                            Even the Permo-Triassic event didn't kill everything, just most everything. :) It's likely that to get something unique (and the higher level categories are pretty broad, remember) you'd have to empty the planet of all multicellular life for 10s or hundreds of millions of years. The stuff that survives mass extinction events is already dug in pretty well and radiates fairly quickly. That's not the same kind of open playing field that existed in the preCambrian (as far as we know).

                            You'd figure something so revolutionary would have been noticed upon discovery.
                            You've never been in the the back rooms of a museum then. :) Plus we have better mechanical tools and procedures available to us today. Could be something as simple as cutting a slice off of a Trilobite fossil that's been sitting there for a hundred years and putting it into an electron microscope - somebody could discover something fundamental about their shell structure that makes them non-Arthropods and bango - you'd have a new Phylum (for instance).

                            Incorrect, whales for example show a species path that has apparently migrated from land to sea, we even see the individual transitional species we should. For example baleen whales derive from (Aetiocetus 29-34 million years ago). That is not the case with a lot of other life forms, millions of trilobytes, we have even found ancient bacteria fossiles , but we completely lack missing link species from the Cambrian that show evolution from simple to complex multicellular life forms and the beginnings of various types of life we see today.
                            My example is actually quite correct: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have many transitional forms in the fossil record so if we are missing some it is logical to assume that we are simply missing them, not that they never existed. The fact that we lack those early transitional forms is unsurprising considering the distance in time and the fact that early life forms lacked the hard parts that make fossilization "easy". And again, reclassification of extant examples is possible - we may already have them without knowing we do.

                            Perfection in evolution requires stasis, if something is as good as ever can be, it is either over specialized and doomed unable to adapt when its perfection turns to liability, or a problem with evolution indicating other forces at work.
                            I truly don't get where you've been driving with this "perfection" argument. You seem to be trying to construct a "heads I win, tails evolution loses" argument, but the only person claiming "perfection" is you with your crocodile blood. No one else sees that as any sort of perfection.

                            Should not be possible, since crocodillians share the trait globally in environments that are ideal microbial habitats.
                            I hate to encourage the continuation of this line of reasoning, but again, stipulating to your logic, you'd have to consider population migration.

                            -dale
                            Last edited by dalem; 24 Sep 12,, 18:24.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              For some reason it is easier for me to believe apes are descendants from humans.

                              I see rather compelling evidence for this each day.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X