Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
This is a satisfying rant about the state of affairs in public science education - probably most of you have read it already, but if not . . . .
NY Times Article |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
When it comes to the age of things, the ignorance, and/or intellectual dishonesty/lack of rigor, and/or denial, of the young earth creationists is readily discernable, and their young-earth POV is obviously and laughably erroneous to anyone with merely a superficial understanding of geology and cosmology. So it’s hard for me to get too upset over a Kansas school board chairman/veterinarian who also happens to believe that God created the universe 6,500 years ago. (He apparently “compartmentalizes,†as they say.)
Additionally, what many of these folk are actually fighting is the blatant atheism that many neo-Darwinian proponents, e.g. Dawkins, insist biological evolution mandates. So, IMO, it’s pretty much a bullshit debate. Besides, I’d guess that the veterinarian/school board chairman referred to in the article probably has the highest regard for the importance of basic math and science, which is really where so many American kids are failing, and which is really the scientific/mathematical “illiteracy†that we need to be concerned about; not whether they’ve bought into the Dawkins neo-Darwinian view of a directionless evolution. I’d say there’s lots of ignorance, and/or disingenuousness, and/or agendas on both sides of this issue. A blatant example on the pro Darwinian side is in the article itself when the author, regarding what he says is a “remarkable misunderstanding of the nature of the scientific method,†and that we use “evidence from the past in formulating hypotheses,†asserts that, “This is how we distinguish theories that work, like evolution or gravitation.†But lumping “evolution†and “gravitation†into so-called “theories that work†is a disingenuous, misleading non sequitur—“evolution†and “gravity†are different things. The reality is simply that the available evidence indicates that life, like everything else in the universe, evolved over time—“evolution,†essentially, is simply a fact, and the actual question/issue is by what mechanisms life evolves. E.g., selection pressures imposed by the environment appear to be a factor. Gravity, OTOH, is a basic force of nature, and Newton’s laws of motion and gravity and Einstein’s general relativity are superb theories of gravity that provide equations that make (extraordinarily accurate) predictions, and that are obviously falsifiable. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Second, when the author compared gravitation to evolution, he was referring to the sense in which evolution is a flat fact, just like gravity. Many of the school board members who oppose evolution in the classroom actually believe that evolution (regardless of the mechanism) didn't/doesn't happen at all. Such a position is just as ludicrous as believing the world to be flat, or that there is no gravity. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Actually Carey, you have “encountered a biology teacher who is as hostile toward religion as religious zealots are toward evolution†and "feels compelled to teach 'atheism'"— Mr. Selfish Gene himself, Richard Dawkins, the highly credentialed Oxford zoologist and one of your most famous Darwinian gurus and spokesmen—recall his teachings:
Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
1) Richard Dawkins's primary contributions to the field, such as 'Selfish Gene', made few reference to religion, which were not in a negative light. Granted, Dawkins has spoken quite aggressively against religion in other contexts, but to assume that his views are concordant with those of all (or even most) other evolutionary biologists, or with the everyday teachers in real science classrooms, is deeply inaccurate. In fact, many evolutionists resent his behavior - not necessarily because they embrace religion themselves, but because the evolution and religion don't usually belong in the same conversation, and certainly not in the same classroom.
2a) Whether or not he was referring to evolution in general, or to evolution by natural selection in particular, is not easy to discern because he used the word "theory". Either way, his message is correct. That evolution occurred is a fact. That the theory of natural selection works is undisputed among people who actually study this subject (and other people who don't study this subject professionally but are willing to honestly address it), both theoretically and empirically. 2b) Think again about gravitation. That gravity exists is indisputable, just like evolution. As to what causes gravitation - we have only theory, albeit very strong and well-supported theory. Guess what? The state of affairs with natural selection is similar: it is a theory regarding what causes adaptive evolution to occur, and it is supported by a massive amount of evidence. I think the NY Times author's comparison is pretty tight. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
The question is not what “causes†gravitation, but more what gravitation is and do we understand it enough so as to predict it’s affect/effect—Newton said it was a “force†(and most of us still think of it that way), and his theory predicted planetary positions/orbits to, I think, maybe 6 or 7 decimal places. However, under Einstein’s general relativity, and his foundational principle of “equivalence,†gravitation is no longer regarded as a “force,†as was Newton’s gravity, but rather gravitation manifests itself as space-time curvature. And using Einstein’s general relativity equations, Hulse and Taylor (received Nobel in 93) were able to predict and affirm the accuracy of the orbits of a double neutron star system to better than a trillionth percent precision (14 decimal places). As Penrose notes, Hulse and Taylor's work "makes Einstein’s general relativity, in this particular sense, the most accurately tested theory known to science." Evolution OTOH, is really nothing more than a term that more or less encapsulates our observations from the available evidence—that life, over time, well, “evolves.†But then everything in the universe “evolves,†so BFD. Of course now you mention “natural selection,†and I suppose that it does seem that various environments do impose selection pressures, similar perhaps in some ways to how various human breeders select for various traits in whatever they happen to be breeding; and it does seem that this so-called natural (unconscious) selection (as opposed to the “artificial conscious selection of human breeders) results in the selection of traits that are the most adaptive, the fittest. And sure enough, we always observe, over the long haul, that the fittest survive and reproduce, and the rest don’t—and we know that the ones that survive are the fittest b/c otherwise they’d not have survived. And although I find the circularity of that “natural selection†somewhat troubling, you, as you’ve noted elsewhere, insist that the “apparent circularity [of natural selection] just isn't important at all.†So I suppose that’s why you naively believe that natural selection is somehow comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity as explained by Einstein’s general relativity, which actually is “the most accurately tested theory known to science." Fine. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Okay . . . by extension from this last post, I must ask what you think would actually qualify as a theory of evolution on par with Einstein's general relativity. Do you think that there is a set of tractable equations that could be used to predict the composition of earth's biota years from now? No, there isn't. The growth of a simple logistic population in isolation, much less the entire planet's biological composition, can be impossible to predict ten generations in the future.
A problem here seems to be that one needs more basic biology in order to think of the ways in which natural selection is a powerful unifying concept. To take a basic example: how would you explain the existence of vestigial structures, without invoking natural selection as a process that steers populations along the shortest possible route to an adaptive peak? Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
As I’ve noted previously, Ernst Mayr has acknowledged that, “biology is not the same sort of thing as the physical sciences,†and that the “philosophy of biology has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.†So maybe we won’t see a whole lot coming out of the “philosophy of biology,†that provides the predictive power, understanding, and coherence of the discoveries and theories that come out of the physical sciences, especially if those doing biology are actually convinced that their natural selection is in any substantial way comparable to, say, Einstein’s superb general relativity/theory of gravity. I’d say that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like “evolutionâ€â€”or natural selection for that matter—being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation; and maybe also avoid making arrogant assumptions and decrees like Mr. Selfish Gene Dawkins’s, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [blah, blah, blah].†|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
This was my question, which you ignored (because you don't have an answer, I suspect - but please, prove me wrong):
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Regarding what "the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life," well, here it is, again: We sapient beings find ourselves in a universe that began about 14 billion years ago, apparently from a singularity, with inexplicably low entropy. Life on Earth seems to have begun around 4 billion years ago, but for most of that time not much seemed to be “evolving†except for single cell stuff and some algae . . . until the “Cambrian Explosion,†a little over ½ billion years ago, when lineages of almost all animals we see today, rather suddenly, appeared . . . and today, somehow, voila, we sapient beings find that we exist. Why the sudden explosion and why we sapient beings? Well, for one thing, only b/c of the extraordinary 'specialness' of the Big Bang and the absurdly low entropy of the universe that we sapient beings find ourselves in, a universe where where such "Cambrian explosions" and sapient beings are even possible, and perhaps even inevitable, depending on one’s views regarding determinism. But beyond that, who Knows? As noted at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li...2.html— Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
I don't know why Fred has failed to cite one of the most prominent proponents of his views, Ann Coulter. As a favor for Fred I'll post some of her recent words and perhaps the blinders will drop from your eyes and you, Carey, will start to see the wisdom in Fred's (and Ann's) worldview.
On July 27 Ann Coulter talked about her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism, published by Crown Forum. The book proposed that liberalism was a godless religion with a belief system in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition. In making her case, Ms. Coulter wrote that liberalism has its own sacraments (abortion), its own clergy (public school teachers), and its own creation myth (evolution). Ms. Coulter gave her thoughts on conservative and liberal ideals and answered questions from members of the audience of women at Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute held at the National Press Club. She also responded to questions from the audience and signed copies of her book after the event. In a recent online issue of The New Republic, Ezra Klein noted this interaction between a member of the audience and Ann Coulter. Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler in analyzing Klein's report, wrote this: Quote:
Quote:
Margaret |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
This would be hilarious, if it wasn't so depressing. But still, I laughed.
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
1) To characterize pre-Cambrian life as "not much" is very strange . . . the origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous (this is where you should really have directed your critique; too late now, though), and how about the evolution of photosynthesis, eukaryota, and multicellularity? Invertebrates and early chordates also arrived tens of millions of years before the Cambrian. 2) There is no doubt that a lot happened in a relatively short time period in the Cambrian, but 'relatively short' is an important phrase. We're talking about ~40 million years, here. Also, our knowledge of the Cambrian is largely restricted to the Burgess Shale fossils, which represent only a thin 'slice' of time and give the false impression that the origin of new phyla was "all-of-the-sudden". Quote:
[Nothing Much] - - -> [Cambrian Explosion] - - - [Voila!!] - - -> [Humans] I don't even know where to start with this one. Just consult a biology textbook and another resource on hominid evolution. In previous posts, you have implied that biologists have it all wrong, that they are delusional about what 'the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life', that they are a bunch of self-important, myopic people. I ask for some enlightenment, and you respond by describing the work of paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. But wait . . . didn't you say that they don't know what they're talking about? Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
And I’m inclined to agree that the “origin of bacteria in the first place was momentous.†And you may have a point in that that is where I “should really have directed [my] critiqueâ€â€”so if you want to start a new thread (or continue this one) explaining how your natural selection explains the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria during that 4 billion years, go for it. But I suspect that you’ll not be furnishing much in the way of theories/ explanations/ evidence that will provide the predictive power, understanding, and convincing coherence of a good physical science theory, say like gravity. Nevertheless, still, go for it. If nothing else, perhaps you’ll see better the current shortcomings in, as Mayr calls it, your “philosophy of biology.†Nonetheless, however you cut it, the evolution from single cell creatures to sapient beings in a little over ½ billion years via, primarily, “random mutation†and “natural section†(and yes, I know, there’s the other incidentals you’ve mentioned like your drift, migration, recombination) is, to my way of thinking, well, not nearly as convincing as say the explanation of gravity by Einstein’s general relativity theory. Quote:
I’d say that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like “evolutionâ€â€”or natural selection for that matter—being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation; and maybe also avoid making arrogant assumptions and decrees like Mr. Selfish Gene Dawkins’s, “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [blah, blah, blah].â€But Carey says that "No one with all his marbles thinks that higher intelligence (or any other adaptation) is the result of pure (or mostly) chance," but then adds that, "things might turn out very differently (e.g. if the earth's orbit were such that the end-Cretaceous asteroid didn't hit us . . .)"???? Whatever. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Are you qualified to compare general relativity and natural selection? Granted, general relativity is superb, but do you even know what it is, aside from the verbal descriptions you get from Penrose? Do you know how to do multivariate calculus, ODE and PDE's? Differential geometry? Topology? Do you know population genetics, quantitative genetics, or Fisher's fundamental theorem? The Price equation? Hamilton's rule? Game theory? Somehow, I doubt it. If you aren't intimately familiar with the mathematics of both physics and evolution, in addition to the vast wealth of empirical data that they both enlighten, then you can't comment that one is 'better' than the other. So, put a plug in it. Quote:
To say that intelligence or any adaptation is the result of pure or mostly chance is to say that the features in question spontaneously popped into existence . . . obviously, that is false. The point Gould makes in his exposition is that if the history of life were re-run, then different evolutionary trajectories may have transpired. Historical contingency is an important feature of any phylogeny, but without natural selection, there would be no adaptive evolution in the first place. The chance events involved in the history of life are irrelevant without reference to the evolutionary process, and are therefore secondary to it. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Fair enough. But don’t be too hard on yourself and your fellow biologists. Even physicists don’t know everything. For example, what physicists do know, at least based on the current science and evidence, is that the universe “began,†apparently from a singularity, 14 billion years ago, having absurdly low entropy (especially when one considers the huge entropy in the singularity of black holes), after which the universe EVOLVED to what we see today. (Ever notice how physicists typically don’t to invoke “selection†in explaining how it is that our galaxy/solar system/planet evolved?—of course they don’t have to b/c they have superb theories like gravity to explain things.) But nothing in physics today can explain how/why entropy is/was so absurdly low. And of course one of the results of that EVOLUTION of the universe is our planet; and, as you know, again based on the current science and evidence, it appears that life “began†about 4 billion years ago here on Earth, and EVOLVED to what we see today—but let’s face it Carey, the Darwinians really haven’t explained all that much regarding the “beginning†and evolution of life, except perhaps for the obvious that life does indeed evolve, and that selection pressures from the environment certainly seem to have some impact on that evolution (as well as do things like drift, migration, recombination). So yes Carey, indeed, undoubtedly, life, like the universe itself, has a beginning, and evolves. And I remain convinced that Darwinians need to be a bit more modest and circumspect regarding what they think they actually know, what they can actually explain, and what the available science and the evidence actually tells us regarding the origin and evolution of life (and the universe too for that matter), and regarding the limitations and occasional circularity of their various theories/explanations/ assumptions; and thereby avoid half-ass notions like evolution/natural selection being comparable in any substantial way to the superb theory of gravitation. Have a nice day, Fred. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Wait . . . I explained why you aren't qualified to argue about the relative merits of physics and biology. I guess I was right, as you just repeated your stock low entropy post rather than addressing anything I had written.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Quote:
And, as I’ve opined b/f, where one stands on these issues seems to depend on how one sees the big picture. Some of us sees things as Roger Penrose—the eminently qualified Oxford mathematician and physicist, who recently also wrote The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 2005, “the most complete mathematical explanation of the universe yet publishedâ€â€”sees things: "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." While the rest see things primarily as being random and/or “effectively randomâ€; or perhaps blindly, mindlessly, algorithmically deterministic (essentially effectively random). Really Carey, please consider buying Penrose’s book (and I know you’re probably already overloaded with stuff to read/consider)—it is undoubtedly the best book on physics and the best mathematical explanation of the universe ever written. All the best, Fred |
Re: Note on adhominem
I will address some other points in a fothcoming post (which, I agree, should wrap things up), but just wanted to jot down a quick note on your ad hominem accusation.
The statement you put forward was, in essence, that the theory of physics (gravitation, in particular) is 'superb', while the theory of natural selection is 'half-assed'. You didn't cite anyone about this, or present any kind of particular argument; you just wrote it, and that was that. Thus, the only way to judge your arguement was to assess whether or not your experience would suggest expertise in both areas (physics and evolution) - and enough expertise for us to take your word for it. My conclusion was that we cannot do so (I did give you a chance to claim that you know the relevant math, though). |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
“Superb†is Penrose’s top ranking for certain theories (e.g., Galilean Dynamics, Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory, Einstein's Relativity Theories, Quantum Theory). I think he may have indicated somewhere that “natural selection†fell short of “superb,†although, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I think he’s also indicated that he’s a believer in natural selection. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Speaking of citation, your argument over the last year or so generally consists of: "Penrose said so". I trust that he's a very smart fellow and an authoritative figure among physicists. Does that mean we can take his word as final on science as a whole, including biology? Definitely not. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Additionally Carey, despite your nonsensical whine, you yourself have also acknowledged: “I think that comparing the two [natural selection (or "evolution") and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.†|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
|
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
If some elements of cosmic 'evolution' satisfy the requirements of inheritance coupled with differential 'reproduction' (I can't envision how this might be, but I'm not an expert in this area), then I can see why physicists may want to use the concept of natural selection to explain features of the universe. I can't comment in a detailed way upon this idea, since I'm not familiar with selection in space, so to say. I will note that your own quote a few posts ago acknowledged that physicists have only tried to borrow the concept of selection because it works so well in biology. Let's let this point rest since it really isn't relevant to the main discussion.
Now, please address this request: if natural selection is such a weak concept, then suggest something (even just a hint) that could take its place. If you actually have a viable idea that supersedes natural selection in the context of biological evolution, you will immediately become one of the most renowned scientists on earth. There's some motivation for you. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Well Carey, it seems to me that the point of our discussion here was merely that natural selection is not really comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity—and you’ve acknowledged: “I think that comparing the two [natural selection (or "evolution") and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.†So it seems that we more or less agree . . . isn’t that wonderful?
The Anthropic Principle (used to explain the structure of the universe considering how the forces are incredibly and precariously balanced—for no apparent reason—in a manner that constrains it to evolve to a point that allows us humans to have evolved and exist, and which is somewhat contrary to the Copernican principle) is interesting—it’s essentially the idea that the universe is fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life; or that the only reason we’re here is b/c the universe is fine tuned, otherwise we’d not be here; or that the laws of physics and the universe are the way they are so life could evolve and become aware of them. However, admittedly, the Anthropic Principle does seem to be about as circular/tautological as selection, doesn’t it? And, like natural selection, the Anthropic Principle really is not comparable to an actual superb theory, like say gravity. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Just to let Fred and Carey know that at least one other person is watching their (rather slow) discussion I thought I'd mention that one reason why Fred finds physical theories like gravitation so compelling and "superior" to "circular notions" like natural selection as a mechanism for evolution - may have little to do with the logical validity or elegance of the theories themselves.
That meta-study I have referenced a few times before Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition shows that a need for closure is one of the most highly correlated characteristics of conservative minds. Other interesting factors that also correlate positively with a conservative orientation are uncertainty avoidance and an intolerance of ambiguity. Conservative minds also show a strong negative correlation with the integrative complexity of the ideas they hold. So, while you both are having trouble understanding how the other can not see the simple truth in your positions - perhaps the reasons for that are not to be found so much in their respective objective validity - as in the minds that are seeing them. I'll add a little plug here for my hypothesis - this illustrates for me additional evidence for the emotional basis of one's beliefs. An interesting question to me is: If a conservative mind finds integratively complex ideas uncomfortable compared with less complex ideas - does a liberal mind find more integratively complex ideas more appealing than simpler ones? My first guess is no. I have not heard of any liberal-minded scientists (perhaps those who accept evolution and natural selection as elegant and highly useful descriptions of the living world) dismissing or criticizing the theory of gravitation because it is not integratively complex. Margaret |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
A valiant attempt to dodge the big question that you can't answer . . . I'll go ahead and give you another chance, though:
If natural selection is such a weak concept, then suggest something (even just a hint) that could take its place. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
I see that your buddy MM has weighed in, indicating that you and I seem to be “having trouble understanding how the other can not see the simple truth in [our] positions - perhaps the reasons for that are not to be found so much in their respective objective validity - as in the minds that are seeing them." Well, I think we can understand how it is that MM “feels compelled by her emotions,†to believe whatever it is that she happens to believe here since, as she has previously declared, she believes whatever it is she believes b/c that is what makes MM herself “feel good,†and, as she explains in her so-called “axiom,†MM “uses her brains to justify it†(and also, as MM has amplified, “what makes us different are the things that make us feel goodâ€). But really Carey, you and I actually see many things similarly: First, we agree that Einstein’s general relativity, his theory of gravitation, is a superb theory. Second, we agree, using your words, that “comparing the two [natural selection and gravitation] is a pretty empty exercise altogether.†Third, I don’t disagree that the idea of natural selection is compelling and even useful, but rather that it, like “emergence,†is, ultimately, merely one of those deceptively circular/tautological cool sounding terms that seem to explain a lot more than it actually explains (probably similar to how MM’s “axiom†seems to explain, to MM anyway, a lot more than it actually explains); while you, Carey insists that the “apparent circularity [of natural selection] just isn't important at all.†And BTW, perhaps you should tell MM that Einstein’s general relativity is amazingly complex, whereas natural selection, essentially survival of the fittest, is actually rather simplistic, and really could never begin to explain the momentous origin and evolution of life/bacteria. God, Carey, will this thread ever end? |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Tell you what - I'll agree to briefly address your question, if you agree to do the same. You've got two evasion strikes thus far - one more and you're out. I'll even give you the last word in this thread. Fair enough? If you want to bash my respone to the origin vs. evolution of life topic, fine . . . but you must also address my question this time; otherwise, you're essentially admitting defeat.
A clarification of terms: the origin of life refers to the way(s) in which the first entities capable of replicating themselves arose. This is actually a question of physics and chemistry, not evolution. The evolution of life refers to the ways in which populations of those entities change over time. Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptive evolution occurs; it is not, and was never intended to be, a mechanism by which replicators originated. As soon as those replicators arose, however, natural selection kicked in and contributed to their refinement. It is a fascinating topic and one of the enduring challenges in the life sciences. Go to Amazon, do a book search for "Origin of Life", and read more about it, if you're interested. Some classical ideas are covered in this excellent treatment from the mid-90's. The irony here is that if I hadn't pointed out this topic for you, you probably wouldn't have thought to try and hide behind it. Now, for the last time . . . rather than just stating that natural selection is circular and doesnt explain all that much, you must 1) articulate why exactly the theory of natural selection fails to explain what it claims to explain (adaptive evolution), and 2) suggest even a hint of a putative idea that could correct for the supposed inadequacy of natural selection. Really, Fred . . . if you could do these two things, you would be a revolutionary. If you can't do these things, then you're just a complainer, and the world is full to the brim with those. |
Re: Battle Against Scientific Illiteracy
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 1995-2023 Liviant Internet LLC. All rights reserved.