Jump to content


Photo

The macroevolution equivocation


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#41 IGE37

IGE37

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • North Dakota

Posted 03 June 2010 - 03:44 PM

I could’ve just said, “That’s just how we evolved” since that seems to be the type of answer you prefer. But yes, I suppose you could just say, “They were designed that way”.


I do find this interesting. In reality, isn't saying "They evolved that way" and "They were designed that way" equivalent in that they are an unfalsifiable explanation?

The meat, it seems, is in the response to the popular follow-up question, "How do you know?", which is what I think Isabella was trying to do.

(this may be more philosophical than anything, but it's interesting)

#42 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2010 - 04:10 PM

Red meat certainly helps with brain development, but it’s not the determining factor. If it were, lions would be more intelligent than us. But I suspect that our switch from eating mostly plants to eating large amounts of meat is one of the reasons humans were able to become more advanced than the other apes.


I forgot where I read this, but at least one writer said that hunting for meat requires more intelligence than foraging for plants.
That's why carnivorous dinosaurs had proportionately larger heads than vegetarian dinosaurs.
You can tell which is which just by looking at the pictures. A stegosaurus was larger than a house, but it had a brain the size of a walnut.

#43 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 04 June 2010 - 03:39 AM

I’m pretty sure that the common ancestor we shared with gorillas and other apes was a herbivore, meaning that gorillas have always eaten plants as their primary food source (but I could be wrong, so if anyone has more information on that feel free to correct me).

View Post

All of the above is a faith based statement. And, although I have absolutely no problem with your placing of your faith in that; it still needs to be acknowledged as such.


Red meat certainly helps with brain development, but it’s not the determining factor. If it were, lions would be more intelligent than us. But I suspect that our switch from eating mostly plants to eating large amounts of meat is one of the reasons humans were able to become more advanced than the other apes.

View Post

Basically, most of the above is speculation as well.


Well I really don’t have much more to say on this subject, Ron. You asked me why humans are the most intelligent animals, and I gave you an answer.

View Post


Isabella, I do appreciate your response, and I enjoy the point, counter point discussion as well. To me, this is as much an exercise in thought, rationale and logic, as much as it is simply an interactive dialogue.

You did answer, and I appreciate that. But (and I am not implying the negative here, but carrying the statement further), my question was more of; given close to the same amount of time (dependant upon who’s calculations you use), why are humans (man) the only creatures with the superior skill-set to do the following:

Can design and manufacture and automobile/airplane/submarine?
Write a sonnet/book/music?
Have the capability to wipe out all other life forms on this planet?
Invent a language including all the laws and rules that govern that language?
(there are many other such examples, but I think you get the picture)

In other words, if evolution were true; why are humans the only superior race.”

I think the answers were lost in the conversation, because all that was really said was that Giraffes have long necks, cheetah’s can run fast (etc…) without getting to the real questions, or providing substantive answers. All that was given was opinion. And opinion is fine, but opinion is not fact.

I could’ve just said, “That’s just how we evolved” since that seems to be the type of answer you prefer.

View Post

Basically, that’s all you did say. And that is pretty much my point encapsulated.

But yes, I suppose you could just say, “They were designed that way”.

View Post


Absolutely!

#44 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 04 June 2010 - 06:25 AM

I forgot where I read this, but at least one writer said that hunting for meat requires more intelligence than foraging for plants.
That's why carnivorous dinosaurs had proportionately larger heads than vegetarian dinosaurs.
You can tell which is which just by looking at the pictures.  A stegosaurus was larger than a house, but it had a brain the size of a walnut.

View Post


Which is why you would have question as to why gorillas developed such advanced intelligence, which relates to my statement that gorillas would have perhaps had an ancestor that was a hunter (meat was a large part of its diet). I'm sure diet is only one factor in intelligence developing, but its certainly an important aspect considering most of the advanced intelligent creatures are carnivores (killer whales, dolphins, humans, octopuses etc.).

I do see Ron's point though, a lot of living fossils for example (crocodiles, lizards, fish etc.) remain quite unintelligent, although physically remaining basically the same for many millions of years, and so too with any other animal, there intelligence is of a very basic level, yet everything else physically the animal poses has changed over time, then why not the intelligence? Does this perhaps affect the balance of natural selection, or for example if one predator gets smarter and its prey remains the same intelligence (fails to escape) then does the prey become extinct or evolve smarter, or reproduces rapidly to counter the advanced predator, and in turn if the predator flourishes, does it wipe out its food source (e.g. the prey) and thus wipe its own populations out for lack of food?

#45 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 05 June 2010 - 06:16 PM

I forgot where I read this, but at least one writer said that hunting for meat requires more intelligence than foraging for plants.

View Post

This is just my own personal guess, but it seems like group hunting may have been a factor in speech development. The need to communicate strategy with members of your group would necessitate some sort of language.

All of the above is a faith based statement. And, although I have absolutely no problem with your placing of your faith in that; it still needs to be acknowledged as such.

View Post

It wasn’t really faith based. It was based on the fact that I left my anthropology textbooks at my apartment in Vancouver, and it would take me 12 hours to drive out there and pick them up just so that I could look up evidence for the diet of gorillas. Needless to say, I don’t care enough about gorillas to do that and I couldn’t find the information of Google.

You did answer, and I appreciate that. But (and I am not implying the negative here, but carrying the statement further), my question was more of; given close to the same amount of time (dependant upon who’s calculations you use), why are humans (man) the only creatures with the superior skill-set to do the following:

Can design and manufacture and automobile/airplane/submarine?
Write a sonnet/book/music?
Have the capability to wipe out all other life forms on this planet?
Invent a language including all the laws and rules that govern that language?
(there are many other such examples, but I think you get the picture)

View Post


Our brains are able to process abstract thoughts and future events. Some animals can predict the consequence of their actions. For example, my dog knows that he’s not supposed to take socks out of the laundry hamper because he will get yelled at if he does. Humans can go a step further and make plans for a future version of ourselves (ie. “I think tonight I’ll feel like eating steak for dinner...”). We can also think about someone else’s thoughts (ie. “I wonder if she’s embarrassed or angry that the company fired her?”), which other animals appear to be incapable of. Using brain imaging technology, the areas of our brain used when we do this can actually be located. In other words, this abstract thought is a physical process made possible by a specific part of our brain.

Inventions, visual arts, music, ect. are all based on abstract ideas and planning future outcomes.

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 June 2010 - 07:00 PM

It wasn’t really faith based. It was based on the fact that I left my anthropology textbooks at my apartment in Vancouver, and it would take me 12 hours to drive out there and pick them up just so that I could look up evidence for the diet of gorillas. Needless to say, I don’t care enough about gorillas to do that and I couldn’t find the information of Google.

View Post

I really don’t think you took my inference of “faith based” to mean the diet of gorillas. That can be empirically observed and verified. You may want to re-read the assertion and rebuttal.

Our brains are able to process abstract thoughts and future events.

View Post

Yes, abstract thoughts. And prognostications based upon inductive evidences.

Some animals can predict the consequence of their actions. For example, my dog knows that he’s not supposed to take socks out of the laundry hamper because he will get yelled at if he does.

View Post

That is reactionary based upon conditioning ( i.e. Pavlovian application) and is nowhere near the same thing. Humans don’t just react like animals do.


Humans can go a step further and make plans for a future version of ourselves (ie. “I think tonight I’ll feel like eating steak for dinner...”).

View Post

Human reasoning cannot be compared to the conditioning of a dog anymore than a step can be compared to a thousand miles of staircases.

#47 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 June 2010 - 07:00 PM

We can also think about someone else’s thoughts (ie. “I wonder if she’s embarrassed or angry that the company fired her?”), which other animals appear to be incapable of.

View Post


We can reason what they might be thinking, but there maybe thousands of permeations due to the fact that that other person is thinking and reasoning at the same time. In other words, you can project what you think they are thinking or feeling, but you may be a mile shy of correct.

Using brain imaging technology, the areas of our brain used when we do this can actually be located. In other words, this abstract thought is a physical process made possible by a specific part of our brain.

View Post

Using brain imaging technology only tells us that the brain is working, and what parts of the brain “may” cause certain results. But, this technology cannot capture a thought anymore than you can paint a thought. A thought is no more physical that logic or love. The only way to understand any of them is by their affects. The affects are the only physicality that can be measured in any way.


Inventions,

View Post

= Human are superior

visual arts,

View Post

= Human are superior

music

View Post

= Human are superior

#48 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 05 June 2010 - 08:55 PM

In other words, this abstract thought is a physical process made possible by a specific part of our brain.


This is going too far. All brain imaging tells us is what part of the brain works when we think about something. This does not mean that abstract thought is a physical process, only that it has a physical effect on the brain.

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 June 2010 - 04:49 AM

This is going too far. All brain imaging tells us is what part of the brain works when we think about something. This does not mean that abstract thought is a physical process, only that it has a physical effect on the brain.

View Post


This is where the materialist attempts to take the metaphysical, and make it physical. It’s like seeing a rock roll down a hill, and saying “that's gravity”. But, it in fact, is not gravity, but evidence of (or the affect of) gravity.

It is, basically, grasping at straws in an attempt to make everything materialistic.

#50 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 06 June 2010 - 01:14 PM

I really don’t think you took my inference of “faith based” to mean the diet of gorillas. That can be empirically observed and verified. You may want to re-read the assertion and rebuttal.

View Post

No, I realize that you labelled it as faith based because I talked about common ancestry. But I have a feeling that my wording was part of the reason you chose to label it as such. I started my sentence with “I’m pretty sure...”.

That is reactionary based upon conditioning ( i.e. Pavlovian application) and is nowhere near the same thing. Humans don’t just react like animals do.

View Post

Human reasoning cannot be compared to the conditioning of a dog anymore than a step can be compared to a thousand miles of staircases.

View Post

That was exactly my point. When it comes to abstract thought, humans and dogs are so different that they can’t even be compared. Abstract thought is one of the things that makes our brains unique.

We can reason what they might be thinking, but there maybe thousands of permeations due to the fact that that other person is thinking and reasoning at the same time. In other words, you can project what you think they are thinking or feeling, but you may be a mile shy of correct.

View Post

I never suggested we could read minds.

This is going too far. All brain imaging tells us is what part of the brain works when we think about something. This does not mean that abstract thought is a physical process, only that it has a physical effect on the brain.

View Post

If it were possible to remove every neurotransmitter found in the brain while leaving the actual neurons intact, do you think that thoughts would still be possible? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I would just like to know your opinion.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 June 2010 - 03:44 AM

No, I realize that you labelled it as faith based because I talked about common ancestry.

View Post

No, it is faith because there is no evidence for common ancestry, only speculation and wish fulfillment.

But I have a feeling that my wording was part of the reason you chose to label it as such. I started my sentence with “I’m pretty sure...”.

View Post

Then you would be incorrect. It is faith because there is no evidence for common ancestry, only speculation and wish fulfillment. Your statement “I’m pretty sure...” just further epitomizes that fact, but it doesn’t complete it.

That was exactly my point. When it comes to abstract thought, humans and dogs are so different that they can’t even be compared. Abstract thought is one of the things that makes our brains unique.

View Post

And that, again, makes my original point, and further strengthens my hypothesis.

I never suggested we could read minds.

View Post

I never said you did. Could this be a little definition by conversion going on here?

If it were possible to remove every neurotransmitter found in the brain while leaving the actual neurons intact, do you think that thoughts would still be possible?

View Post

Does this somehow negate the fact that pictures of the brain at work are not pictures of a thought? If you remove blood from the body, do you think thoughts would still be possible? How about if we removed the heart? Do you think thoughts would still be possible then?

But, to get back to your question of meta-physicality; “WE” have no more idea as to the facts of that question, then we do this one; If someone were considered brain-dead, can they still think?

#52 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 June 2010 - 05:56 AM

Just my 2c

(sorry if this has been covered, I haven't read the whole thread yet)

I'd like to ask, IF we did evolve then why are we so smart....

IF we are meant to just be hunter-gatherers like our "ancestors", then why do we need the brains / creativity to even ponder about where we came from... Why "evolve" bigger brains, when animals get along just fine with their brain mass?

There is no purpose within evolution for this, surely we could "evolve" a higher reproduction rate / faster maturity rate / stronger bone structure / more muscle mass.... These things would be much more useful/ benefitial in the "survival of the fittest" regime of nature.

#53 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 07 June 2010 - 01:37 PM

Does this somehow negate the fact that pictures of the brain at work are not pictures of a thought? If you remove blood from the body, do you think thoughts would still be possible? How about if we removed the heart? Do you think thoughts would still be possible then?

View Post

I would argue that thoughts are just the product of chemical neurotransmitters interacting with neurons. But this argument has been covered before on the forum, so I’d rather not start a whole debate on the subject because I know we won’t get anywhere with it.

IF we are meant to just be hunter-gatherers like our "ancestors", then why do we need the brains / creativity to even ponder about where we came from... Why "evolve" bigger brains, when animals get along just fine with their brain mass?

View Post

Our brains are arguably the most advantageous trait we have. In a hunter/gatherer society, natural selection would have favoured the smartest individuals. From there you have a snowball effect of sorts. As the population becomes smarter, new tools and behaviours are developed. And as new tools and behaviours are developed, physical strength becomes less important. This has clearly happened with other animals as well (like chimps), but not to the extent that is has happened in humans. Art and music are just the by-products of our ability to have abstract thoughts.

For a different animal, perhaps speed was the most advantageous trait. Natural selection would favour the fastest individuals, and over the generations certain traits would be minimized or maximized to accommodate this. For example, legs may become longer while the torso becomes narrower in order to be more streamlined.

No animal is physically (as in, without the help of technology) able to do everything. You can’t have the biggest brain and the biggest muscles, there is just no way your diet and metabolism could keep up with that.

There is no purpose within evolution for this, surely we could "evolve" a higher reproduction rate / faster maturity rate / stronger bone structure / more muscle mass.... These things would be much more useful/ benefitial in the "survival of the fittest" regime of nature.

View Post

In the battle of intelligence vs. strength, intelligence wins. Just look at humans if you want proof of this. We are not the strongest animals, yet we are able to wipe out entire populations of much stronger animals because we possess the technology to do so. So I disagree that strength would be more useful when it comes to survival of the fittest. That being said, intelligence is not always going to be selected for. If a bear cub is born with shorter legs and weaker jaws, yet it is slightly more intelligent than the other bears, it will probably still be at a disadvantage. Bears are well adapted to their environments, and a slight increase in intelligence wouldn’t be enough to cause any significant change.

#54 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:09 AM

No animal is physically (as in, without the help of technology) able to do everything. You can’t have the biggest brain and the biggest muscles, there is just no way your diet and metabolism could keep up with that.


Neanderthals are exactly that, they were extremely smart, extremely strong and bulky, they were extremely well suited to the conditions they faced. It makes you ask the question, if Neanderthals were more dominant and clearly at an advantage when it comes to survival of the fittest why then did humans prevail and the Neanderthal disappear. Would you argue that when interbreeding with humans there genes are still present (I know of a claim that quite a few people posses Neanderthal features) but even then, I would have presumed the dominant genes would have been passed on to most if not all of European humans going by the Neanderthal timeline, yet this is not the case as the claim is that only some of the genetics are passed on and only to a smaller population. Isolation perhaps?
There is also controversy surrounding the Neanderthals in regards to there classification altogether.

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 June 2010 - 08:10 AM

Our brains are arguably the most advantageous trait we have. In a hunter/gatherer society, natural selection would have favoured the smartest individuals. From there you have a snowball effect of sorts. As the population becomes smarter, new tools and behaviours are developed. And as new tools and behaviours are developed, physical strength becomes less important. This has clearly happened with other animals as well (like chimps), but not to the extent that is has happened in humans. Art and music are just the by-products of our ability to have abstract thoughts.

For a different animal, perhaps speed was the most advantageous trait. Natural selection would favour the fastest individuals, and over the generations certain traits would be minimized or maximized to accommodate this. For example, legs may become longer while the torso becomes narrower in order to be more streamlined.

No animal is physically (as in, without the help of technology) able to do everything. You can’t have the biggest brain and the biggest muscles, there is just no way your diet and metabolism could keep up with that.

In the battle of intelligence vs. strength, intelligence wins. Just look at humans if you want proof of this. We are not the strongest animals, yet we are able to wipe out entire populations of much stronger animals because we possess the technology to do so. So I disagree that strength would be more useful when it comes to survival of the fittest. That being said, intelligence is not always going to be selected for. If a bear cub is born with shorter legs and weaker jaws, yet it is slightly more intelligent than the other bears, it will probably still be at a disadvantage. Bears are well adapted to their environments, and a slight increase in intelligence wouldn’t be enough to cause any significant change.

View Post


I don't disagree with anything you have said here... Actually you have proven my point with your bear hypothesis.

"Bears are well adapted to their environments, and a slight increase in intelligence wouldn’t be enough to cause any significant change."

If this is the case then how did humans "evolve" higher intelligence, since evolution is a slow process, with "slight" changes over time..

Also if humans are able to "evolve" intelligence then why not animals by the same evolutionary mechanism. Why in the whole world are we FAR more superior in intelligence to any other organism on Earth.. Perhaps it is asthe Bible says that God set Man apart from the animals :rolleyes: ;)

#56 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 June 2010 - 10:20 AM

Intelligence is a flexible solution to a variety of challenges and thus adaptive. Humans are indigenous to all continents bar Antarctica and will have faced varying environmental challenges in addition to primeval changes such as the move from arboreal to savannah lifestyle and temperate to ice-age climate.

Humans were intially migratory hunters and intelligence would be adaptive in confrontations between human groups that come into competition with each other - the benefits of improved socail oragnization and strategy can be observed in team sports.

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:36 AM

Intelligence is a flexible solution to a variety of challenges and thus adaptive.  Humans are indigenous to all continents bar Antarctica and will have faced varying environmental challenges in addition to primeval changes such as the move from arboreal to savannah lifestyle and temperate to ice-age climate.

Humans were intially migratory hunters and intelligence would be adaptive in confrontations between human groups that come into competition with each other - the benefits of improved socail oragnization and strategy can be observed in team sports.

View Post




Yet wolf packs hunt together, (much like a team sport), though they have no concept of music, arts and culture...

I will ask again, How did evolution bring about intelligence? Did "random mutations" affect the amount of neurons in the developing baby? lol

Or did these extra neurons just appear, by the magical works of natural selection. despite the modern scientific evidence stating that EVERYTHING in life was coded for in DNA... The needs to be a change in the code for the extra neurons to develop... (sorry this is a bit off topic)

Also, why just us. If humans "evolved" intelligence then why haven't any other animals gone down the same evolutionary path, via the same mechanism.

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 June 2010 - 03:43 AM

Also, why just us. If humans "evolved" intelligence then why haven't any other animals gone down the same evolutionary path, via the same mechanism.

View Post



And this is one of my main points gilbo. Given the same amount of time (or vastly more time on the evolutionary time line). Why are humans alone in this superiority of thought, abilities and skills. And, others may wish to attempt to refute this, but; we have achieved almost everything ALL the rest of creation can do (via our superior abilities), and they (ALL of creation) have achieved none of ours.

Via our intelligence, we can:

Fly higher than any bird
swim faster than any fish
go faster than any land animal

And that is just scratching the surface.

The only thing I can think of is swim deeper than any aquatic life form. But that is just a matter of time in my reckoning.

It makes absolutely no logical, rational or scientific sense. And is a detriment to the model of evolution.

#59 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 June 2010 - 11:12 AM

Yet wolf packs hunt together, (much like a team sport), though they have no concept of music, arts and culture...


Wolves are limited in the application (and thus adaptiveness) of intelligence in that interaction with their environment is limited to digging, biting scratching. The dextrousness of the human hand allows use of tools, building of forts etc.

I will ask again, How did evolution bring about intelligence? Did "random mutations" affect the amount of neurons in the developing baby? lol

View Post


Why lol? The idea of a mutation increasing the overall size of the neocortex is as plausible as a mutation increasing the height of the recipient.

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 June 2010 - 11:43 AM

Why lol?  The idea of a mutation increasing the overall size of the neocortex is as plausible as a mutation increasing the height of the recipient.

View Post


Tommy, plausibility is still a faith based assumption. And it isn't the explanation for anything, it is the attempt at an explanation. Hence, the word "idea"...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users