EVOLUTION: Arguments For and Against

  • Thread starter Thread starter GeorgeCooney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Part 1 of 2

“the panda’s thumb… it is not a good design”
How so?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Endo et al. 1999. "Role of the giant panda’s ‘pseudo-thumb’
Nature 397: 309-310.
Hideki Endo*, Daishiro Yamagiwat+, Yoshihiro Hayashit+,
Hiroshi Koiet++, Yoshiki Yamaya++, Junpei Kimura++
*Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Tokyo,
Shinjuku, Tokyo 169, Japan e-mail: [snip]
+Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University of Tokyo,
Tokyo 113, Japan
++College of Bioresource Sciences, Nihon University,
Kanagawa 252, Japan
The article’s entire text:
The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda
melanoleuca
, uses the radial sesamoid bone-- its
‘pseudo-thumb’-- for grasping makes it one of the most
extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian
evolution^1-5. The bone has been reported to function as
an active manipulator, enabling the panda to grasp bamboo
stems between the bone and the opposing palm^2, 6-8. We
have used computed tomography, magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) and related techniques to analyse a panda
hand. The three-dimensional images we obtained indicate
that the radial sesamoid bone cannot move independently
of its articulated bones, as has been suggested^1-3, but
rather acts as part of a functional unit of manipulation. The
radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone form a
double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides
of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate
objects with great dexterity.
Code:
 {Figure 1  Schematic drawings of the grasping mechanism
 of the giant panda (medial view of right hand, with the
 proximal direction at the bottom).  
 a, Hand open.  
 b, Hand open but with the phalanges flexed.  
 c, The grasping action (from a small palmar angle).  The
 radial sesamoid and accessory carpal bones do not move
 independently of their articulated bones in the grasping
 action, but constitute two functional units:  the PRO
 complex (see text) in the medial part of the hand, and the
 AU complex (see text) in the lateral part.  Pincer-like
 structures are made by the phalanges and the RRM
 complex in the medial part, and by the phalanges and the
 AU complex in the lateral part 
 d, As c, but showing the muscles in the pincer-like
 structures on both sides of the grasped hand (arrows).}

 Schematic drawings based on computed tomography and
 three-dimensional reconstructed images (Fig. 1a-c) explain
 the grasping mechanism used by the giant panda. 
 Three-dimensional data obtained from artificial grasping of
 a carcass hand show that the radial sesamoid bone does not
 abduct or adduct independently of the first metacarpal and
 the radial carpal bones, and that the accessory carpal bone
 does not move substantially in the gripping action.  When
 the movement is compared for open and gripping hands,
 the radial sesamoid bone, the first metacarpal and the radial
 carpal are actually moulded into a single bone, and the
 accessory carpal bone and the ulna constitute a single
 functional unit.  When the hand is opened, the radial
 sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone therefore
 protrude at different angles from the plane of the palm (Fig.
 1a).

 The radial carpal bone forms an enlarged articulated
 surface to the distal end of the radius.  In the gripping
 action, the five long phalanges are crooked (Fig. 1b) while
 the panda flexes the wrist joint (Fig. 1c).  This wrist flexion
 means that the radial sesamoid bone is parallel to the
 accessory carpal bone, and the distal phalanges are parallel
 with the radius and ulna.  This arrangement gives the panda
 a degree of opposability between the phalanges and the
 functional unit comprising the radial sesamoid bone and
 the accessory carpal bone (Fig. 1c).

 The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone do
 not move independently of their articulated bones in the
 grasping action, but constitute a functional unit with the
 first metacarpal and the radial carpal, and the ulna,
 respectively.  The panda has three functional units:  the
 RRM complex (radial sesamoid -- radial carpal -- first
 metacarpal), the AU complex (accessory carpal -- ulna),
 and the phalanges (Fig. 1a-c).  The RRM complex flexes
 and the radial sesamoid bone becomes parallel with the
 accessory carpal bone, and the phalanges bend and hold
 
Part 2 of 2
Code:
 things in the hollow of the hand during the grasping action. 
 The phalanges make a pincer-like apparatus with the RRM
 complex in the medial part of the hand, and another with
 the AU complex in the lateral part of the hand (Fig. 1a-c). 
 It is this pair of 'pincers' that gives the panda its manual
 dexterity.

 The MRI images indicate that the _abductor pollicis
 brevis_ and the _opponens pollicis_ muscles serve as a
 cushion for objects grasped between the radial sesamoid
 bone and the first metacarpal.  The two muscle bundles
 surround the objects, increase friction between the hand
 and the objects, and alter the size and shape of the area in
 the hand.  In the lateral part of the palm, the _abductor
 digiti quinti_ muscle is well developed between the
 accessory carpal bone, the fifth metacarpal and the
 phalanges^2.  We suggest that the muscle pads may also
 help the panda to receive and hold objects grasped by the
 AU complex (Fig. 1d).

 Our idea that the radial sesamoid bone does not function
 independently, but as part of the RRM functional complex,
 takes no account of the role of its abductor and adductor
 muscles.  We suggest that the three functional units, and
 the double-pincer-like apparatus of which they are made,
 can be completely controlled only by the same muscular
 system that is found in other bear species.  The wrist
 flexion and the manipulation of the double-pincer
 apparatus have been observed in three live individuals in
 Ueno Zoological Park in Tokyo, Japan, when they were
 grasping food plants.

 We have shown that the hand of the giant panda has a
 much more refined grasping mechanism than has been
 suggested in previous morphological models^2, 6-9.

 1.  Lankester, E. R. & Lydekker, R. _Trans. Linn. Soc._ 8,
     163-171 (1901).
 2. Davis, D. D. _Field. Zool. Mem._ 3, 41-124, 146-198
     (1964).
 3. Gould, S. J. _Nat. Hist._ 87, 20-30 (1978) [probably
http://web.archive.org/web/20030626013213/http://home.earthlink.net/~kslinker/the_pandas_thumb.htm].
4. Pocock, R. I. Nature 143, 206 (1939).
5. Endo, H. et al. J. Anat. 189, 587-592 (1996).
6. Wood-Jones, F. Nature 143, 157 (1939).
7. Wood-Jones, F. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. B 109,
113-129 (1939).
8. Beijing Zoo Morphology of the Giant Panda.
Systematic Anatomy and Organ Histology
148-152
(Science, Beijing, 1986).
9. Bourliere, F. Traite de Zoologie XVII 234-236
(Masson, Paris, 1955).

The article’s first and last sentences could perhaps have been
better written as, “The way in which the giant panda,
Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone-- its
‘pseudo-thumb’-- for grasping makes it one of the most
extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian intelligent
design. … We have shown that the hand of the giant panda has
a much more refined grasping mechanism than has been
suggested in previous morphological models, which were
developed under the delusion that totally-mindless processes
were responsible for the panda and its ‘thumb.’”
 
“it makes no sense”

The collapse of the World Trade Center towers following burning jet fuel’s weakening of the structural integrity of the buildings’ steel demonstrates the presence of many stupid flaws in these
allegedly-designed buildings.
For example, if mind/intelligence were indeed responsible for the
towers, the steel used therein would have been protected from the degrading effects of prolonged, intense heat from large quantities of burning jet fuel. Or better yet, mind/intelligence would have taken steps to prevent any Islamic-terrorist-guided airplanes from even entering the buildings: an intelligent designer(s) of the buildings
would have made it so that colliding airplanes bounce off of the
towers.
Because of the presence of these and other stupid flaws, I
conclude that the World Trade Center towers were not the workproduct of mind/ intelligence.
IOW, totallyblindprocessesdidit.

“the very nature of design is compromise between competing goals a car that ‘never’ broke would be too expensive or heavy or excede some other design limit.”
Intriguing.

“confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution”
What exactly is “the fact of evolution”?
What exactly is “the theory of evolution”?
About your responses, if you use the word ‘evolution,’ I’ll ask for a definition of that word.

legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

“evolution of species thorugh natural selection appears to be the best candidate”
What are 3 of the other “candidate”?

“davidford quoting some guy”
That “guy” was Crick. You might have heard of him before.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the atheism-adherents Watson and Crick
From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com

In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
Time later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
Code:
 "If a child were not declared alive until three days
 after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
 choice only a few are given under the present
 system.  The doctor could allow the child to die
 if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
 and suffering.  I believe this view is the only
 rational, compassionate attitude to have."
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service
as saying,
Code:
 ". . . no newborn infant should be declared human
 until it has passed certain tests regarding its
 genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
 it forfeits the right to live."
 
Vincent Lewis:
Nature is in accord with God’s will but to say that evolution occurs has not a been proven.
No scientific theory is ever proven. The theory of gravity is unproven and so is the theory of evolution. A scientific theory is the best explanation of the data available. As new data comes in the theory changes to incorporate the new data. The theory of evolution changed after the discovery of DNA to incorporate the new data. Mathematical theorems can be proved, scientific theories cannot.
Vincent Lewis:
I am not aware of any experiment where evolution was observed.
Then you need to look a bit harder. Try here and here for starters.
Vincent Lewis:
Scientist have used computer simulations to produce what is supposed to show evolution. Those experiments are misleading to the because computers do not produce results that are not intended beforehand
You have obviously never programmed a computer; computers are always producing unintended results. However that is not your argument.
Victor Lewis:
Properly working computers do not generate random numbers or events.
You are correct in your description of pesudo-random number generators. If truly random numbers are needed then that is also possible; just buy the appropriate card to slot in. For example a mild radioactive source and a geiger counter can be put on a card and will produce truly random numbers.

None of this effects the functioning of genetic algorithms on computers. For some examples see here. A good pseudo-random number generator will be close enough to a true random number generator for the algorithm to work as expected.
Victor Lewis:
Until we have direct evidence of new species evolving from an existing species, it cannot be assumed that evolution is natural.
We do, see the references I gave above. Scientists are very reluctant to assume anything because all assumptions will be pounced on as a weakness by other scientists when they publish their results. Evolution has been well confirmed both experimentally and by observations in the field.
Victor Lewis:
Based upon what little I do know about reliable scientific studies most if not all mutations have proved harmful and all other changes within a species resulted from genes in the gene pool under the control of man, so if, you allowed nature to take its natural course those differences would be greatly diminished.
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. The majority of mutations are neutral because they have no effect on the next generation. Of those that do have an effect, the great majority are deleterious. Just a few are beneficial. For an example of a beneficial mutation in humans see this webpage. Bear in mind that “deleterious” and “beneficial” are both relative to the organism’s environment. The gene for sickle-cell anaemia is beneficial in an environment where malaria is prevalent but deleterious in a malaria-free environment.

Evolution works like compound interest. Even a small advantage compounded over many generations will spread that gene through the whole population.

rossum
 
40.png
davidford:
I take it you don’t appreciate the work of the NIEH. Here’s one of their press releases:

BETHESDA, MD, June 4, 01:03:57 EDT: A team of scientists at the prestigious National Institutes of Evolutionary Health has proposed a bold new plan for improving the human race.
Judging by the contents of the press release the organisation is spurious. No bona-fide scientific institution is going to infect people, even volunteers, with the range of diseases specified. A google search for your NIEH produces nothing except other forum entries from yourself. Terminological inexactitude is not going to enhance your credibility. If you were attempting a joke, then learn to use smilies. 🙂

rossum
 
“If you were attempting a joke, then learn to use smilies.”

I began electronic dialoguing in 1996, and have no intention of ever using “smilies.”

“No bona-fide scientific institution is going to infect people, even volunteers, with the range of diseases specified.”

Do you think a “bona-fide scientific institution” would never kill people to improve a ‘race’?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Proctor, Robert N. 1988. Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 6:
“The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs.”

2004 Richard Weikart: “physicians… were committed to a racist eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com

2004 Kater
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126752603.953619.262940%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
“Himmler, a former chicken farmer…, was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans-- by way of positive selection for the
‘Aryans’ and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.”

Hitler’s human breeding plan using selection + mutations
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
 
Do you think a “bona-fide scientific institution”-- say a hospital-- would never kill people to ‘improve’ the ‘human race’?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
the atheism-adherents Watson and Crick

From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
Time later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
Code:
 "If a child were not declared alive until three days
 after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
 choice only a few are given under the present
 system.  The doctor could allow the child to die
 if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
 and suffering.  I believe this view is the only
 rational, compassionate attitude to have."
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service
as saying,
Code:
 ". . . no newborn infant should be declared human
 until it has passed certain tests regarding its
 genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
 it forfeits the right to live."
 
David << I began electronic dialoguing in 1996, and have no intention of ever using “smilies.” >>

No problem, but I began in 1994 and use them too much. 😃 :rolleyes: They weren’t available when I started on Fidonet. What’s with all the links to Google Groups? :confused: :whacky:

Phil P
 
40.png
davidford:
Part 1 of 2

“the panda’s thumb… it is not a good design”
How so?..
Oh I never said it wasn’t an ingenious adaptation
It clearly is and you don’t need vast quotes or links to MRI’s to see that. 😉

It is just a poor grasping mechanism when compared with others.
 
40.png
davidford:
…….
What exactly is “the fact of evolution”?
That isolated populations diverge from each other over time.
40.png
davidford:
What exactly is “the theory of evolution”?
That evolution occurred via the mechanism of natural selection
40.png
davidford:
That “guy” was Crick. You might have heard of him before.
……
Yes, I’ve heard of him (I referred to him as some guy because sometimes your nested quotes are difficult to follow and for expediency)

I’m not sure what Crick’s pronouncements on atheism or eugenics have to do with evolution though.
 
40.png
davidford:
………

“the very nature of design is compromise between competing goals a car that ‘never’ broke would be too expensive or heavy or excede some other design limit.”
Intriguing.
………
Irony meter off the scale! :eek:

You’re good, real good :tiphat: :bowdown:

Almost had me. 😉

Yes I know that designed things are often sub-optimal (a poor choice of words when applied to living things I know) that they need to be “good enough” and that, similarly, evolved things just have to have a slight edge on the competition. (And that after 4 billion years good enough may be indistinguishable from optimal in some features) But that wasn’t really my point.

My point was that a designed thing could have different components than a previously design thing that did the same function.

To use your World Trade Center example; the building code of the City of New York required that structural steel be encased in concrete and that separate fire stairs be provided in skyscrapers. For economic reasons the code was changed so that the WTC did not have those features that every earlier skyscraper did.
 
I see the whole Creationism vs. Evolutionism thing as a non-issue.
Someone (I think it was C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton or some similarly brainy person) once said, quite simply, that science and religion need not conflict. And if you think about it, this is true, to a point.
I think it would be especially true in regards to how the universe and humans came about. Unlike, say, the Gospels, the book of Genesis is more symbolic than historical. It doesn’t tell us exactly how man and all creation came about; it just tells us that it did. That’s all that really matters.
Science tells us how things happen. Religion tells us why. Science, through such theories as evolution and the Big Bang, can tell us how we came to exist, and as Catholics we should focus on finding out why we exist.
Thar be my two cents. :twocents:
 
“What’s with all the links to Google Groups?”
I use them the way others use smilies.

“the panda’s thumb” “an ingenious adaptation It clearly is”
To you, does it have the appearance (whether real or false/ deceptive) of having been the product of mind/ intelligence?

“It is just a poor grasping mechanism when compared with others.”
What are 2 not-poor “grasping mechanism” “when compared with” what the panda has?

Suppose one panda’s paws were replaced with human hands. Would the panda be better, or worse, off?

“the fact of evolution” = “That isolated populations diverge from each other over time.”
“isolated” how/ by what?
“diverge” how/ in what ways?

“the theory of evolution” = “That evolution occurred via the mechanism of natural selection”
What are 2 states of affairs that, if they existed, would mean “the theory of evolution” was incorrect/ erroneous?

“I’m not sure what Crick’s pronouncements on atheism or eugenics have to do with evolution”
Do you disagree with any of this Sagan?:

Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark
(New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
“I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.”

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

“I know that designed things are often sub-optimal (a poor choice of words when applied to living things I know)”
Do you think the human brain was designed, i.e. was the product of mind/ intelligence?

highly-advanced ‘computer’ found in nature; Benyus; Tomlin
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411131155.3c571bd5%40posting.google.com

“a designed thing could have different components than a previously design thing that did the same function”
What’s an example of that situation?

“Science, through such theories as evolution and the Big Bang, can tell us how we came to exist”

Meaning of “evolution”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dallas Willard: “science says nothing. It is not the kind of thing that can say anything. Only scientists say things…”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407260437.2d8959da%40posting.google.com

The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
 
Suppose one panda’s paws were replaced with human hands. Would the panda be better, or worse, off?
It would be a little more efficient at harvesting bamboo. This is no small thing,since it has a carnivore digestive system that is not very efficient at plant material, and so it must eat almost continuously.

"the fact of evolution" = "That isolated populations diverge from each other over time."
“isolated” how/ by what?
Various things. Geographically, as in the case of Kebab squirrels, caught on both sides of the Grand Canyon. Mating isolation, as in the slight change in preference for color/plumage in birds that leads to speciation. Lots of other ways.
diverge" how/ in what ways?
Mutation and recombination. Slight differences, usually in geographically separated populations, lead eventually to speciation.

The theory of evolution" = "That evolution occurred via the mechanism of natural selection"
What are 2 states of affairs that, if they existed, would mean “the theory of evolution” was incorrect/ erroneous?
If there were significant differences in the phylogenies obtained by genetics/biochemistry/anatomy/fossil record. A fossil rabbit in undisturbed Precambrian rocks would do it, too.
 
40.png
davidford:
…“the panda’s thumb” “an ingenious adaptation It clearly is”
To you, does it have the appearance (whether real or false/ deceptive) of having been the product of mind/ intelligence?
It is clearly an adaptive feature
The specialized bones in the wrist are similar to all that are found in all descendants of the lobe-finned fish just in a modified form.
40.png
davidford:
“It is just a poor grasping mechanism when compared with others.”
What are 2 not-poor “grasping mechanism” “when compared with” what the panda has?

Huh?
There are a wide variety of grasping mechanisms with tentacles and pincers being evolved independently many times among the invertebrates. As vertebrates however the ancestors of the panda would not have those available. Off the top of my head, the available repertoire for mammals appears to be the mouth, opposable phalanges and palm with or without an opposable thumb, the prehensile tail, the claw, or the opposable wrist that it does have.
40.png
davidford:
Suppose one panda’s paws were replaced with human hands. Would the panda be better, or worse, off?
Human hands may hamper locomotion
Ape or monkey hands or probably raccoon hands might be better
but pandas took a different path so they have what they have
40.png
davidford:
“isolated” how/ by what?
Plate tectonics, glaciation, flooding, fire, distance
Any number of things
40.png
davidford:
“diverge” how/ in what ways?
Diverge in various ways until they are separate species
40.png
davidford:
What are 2 states of affairs that, if they existed, would mean “the theory of evolution” was incorrect/ erroneous?
What do you mean by “states of affairs”?
A hypothesis has to be supported by the preponderance of the evidence before it can be accepted as a theory. In order for evolution to be declared incorrect or erroneous vast changes in the available data for molecular biology, geology, embryology, physics, biochemistry, paleontology, and a host of other sciences would have to take place.

Any “state of affairs” that would be similar to gravity turning off or a change in the value of Pi would probably suffice 😉
40.png
davidford:
Do you disagree with any of this Sagan?:
I’ve met people who were personally offended by evolution. Very strange, kind of like the fat guy blaming gravity for his being so heavy. Or someone complaining that winter is cold :rolleyes:

Some have a knee jerk reaction while others are much more thoughtful.

I’m still not sure what point you think the views of Sagan or Crick has to do with the evolution?
40.png
davidford:
Do you think the human brain was designed, i.e. was the product of mind/ intelligence?
What are 2 structures in the human brain that do not have precursor structures in related animals? 😉

It doesn’t matter what I think, it is clearly evolved
40.png
davidford:
“a designed thing could have different components than a previously design thing that did the same function”
What’s an example of that situation?
You mean in addition to the WTC example I previously gave? 😉

The watch I’m wearing has springs and an escapement as its energy source rather than the weights and chains that clocks had for centuries. I’ve also a digital watch that has no mechanical clockwork at all and is powered by a battery

The computer I’m typing on has no mechanical linkages like the typewriter I used 25 years ago nor does it have the vacuum tubes that the TV I used 35 years ago had

My 1976 Corolla had rear wheel drive while my 1986 one had front wheel drive.

Take your pick.
All of them have completely new components rather than a modification of existing ones.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top