It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 150
31
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Apparently you don't. You said the Starchild was a zygote. ALL multicellular animals start out as zygotes.

As for the rest, what proof do you have that that's what happened? That a human woman was a surrogate for an alien couple? That's crazy.
Well then you must have completly missed his video about SC because thats what the whole thing was about. He even gives a slide show on how it happened. This alien has alien nuclear DNA and human mtDNA. The lab that did the work for him had to explain to him what it looks like happened to achieve this because he had a hard time accepting it as well.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





So why is it "allowable" or "permissible"? I have blue eyes, too. So what?

You're not making any sense at all.
All I'm saying is that there is no way for us to know that they were just allowable differences that were always in the genetic package to begin with.

I'll make an example.
Lets say for the first time ever a person is born with purple eyes. Now we have blue, brown, green, and hazel, even black, but we have never seen purple before. It is possible that it was always an option but for some unknown reason it just never surfaced.


There are people with purple eyes. Elizabeth Taylor was one of them, although most people whose eyes look violet really have very deep blue eyes. True violet eyes is a form of albinism.

Blue eyes are less than 10,000 years old, probably closer to 6,000 years. Only 2% of the world's population has them, so we know it was very recent, caused by a mutation on the OCA2 gene.

So you and I have a common ancestor.

Again, please define "allowable differences." Is that a term you made up?
edit on 12/30/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





We know beyond doubt that the mother is human from haplogroup C. The father is human, too. Which blows your theory right out of the water.
Depends on which mother your talking about. The nuclear mother or the mtDNA mother.
As far as the father being human the only thing I remember them saying about that is that SOME of the DNA appears to be human. I don't specifically remember hearing the father was human.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





We know beyond doubt that the mother is human from haplogroup C. The father is human, too. Which blows your theory right out of the water.
Depends on which mother your talking about. The nuclear mother or the mtDNA mother.
As far as the father being human the only thing I remember them saying about that is that SOME of the DNA appears to be human. I don't specifically remember hearing the father was human.


Oh, please. You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





There are people with purple eyes. Elizabeth Taylor was one of them, although most people whose eyes look violet really have very deep blue eyes. True violet eyes is a form of albinism.



Again, please define "allowable differences." Is that a term you made up?
Yes its not a lab term. I'm just trying to explain them as being differences that are acceptalbe within a species.
Just like in speciation when they were explaining those differences going out of bounds, they fall into defects and the species dies.

I'll use you as another example.
Lets say your 6' now, but you could have been only 5'. Now thats allowable but if you grew to be only 2' then thats a defect.
Our species may never reach 10' but if we did, it might not be a defect, but an allowable difference.
It's really a hard thing to explain because we set the rules on what we consider normal and whats a defect. I think there could be room here for error and purple eyes may not be a defect at least from the DNA perspective. Not the norm however.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


The first test was able to find both X and Y chromosomes. The only way this would be possible is if both of its parents were human. The test you're referring to is the most recent. That one found around 250 base pairs of human DNA and 350 base pairs of unidentified DNA. However, as I have pointed out in the past that is a common problem with BLAST when using small samples. Considering the human genome is composed of over 3 billion base pairs I'd say that 600 base pairs is a pretty small sample.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillyTJames
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Ok, evolution is a fact.... it happens... ok you cant deny evolution!!! if wings provided an evolutionary advantage then wings would be developed, but they havent because our brains have provided the adaptation of flight through the invention of aeroplanes!!! thats a rediculous example you provided

And i stated previously that i dont think humans evolved from apes so i dont know what your point is. Just because we may not have evolved from apes does not mean we are not evolving because evolution is a fundemental aspect of all physical life.... other wise there would be no way in which a species could adapt to changing environments. Can you see where im coming from?


I don't deny some natural mechanism of adaptation within species but the blueprint coded in the genome is very interesting to me. It's amazing really how easy it is to mess around with dna. I mentioned earlier to IterationZero about having to be able to "jump off the page" when thinking about subjects such as this one and I guess we're at another one of those points where it comes down to the difference between linear and non-linear thinkers. Linear thinkers are the egoist "evolutionists" who think we're the only ones who evolution applies to and they have a confident grasp around its waist. To them there is no left, right, up, down, spin, charm, color, nothing but straight ahead building only on what is accepted by the herd. We've already begun finding Earthlike planets outside our solar system. When are people going to accept the fact that, if we can self-assemble out of slime after about 4 billion years and already be exploring our immediate solar system and sending out probes to other planets, then it has probably happened many times on other Earthlike planets that are much older than this one? You have to be able to turn your head around 360 in order to assemble the reality of all of this.

Non-linear thinkers have something linear thinkers don't have- the ability of intuition. It takes intuition to connect the 4d set of dots that make up this picture. Watch the joke machine attack me for saying that now.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





There are people with purple eyes. Elizabeth Taylor was one of them, although most people whose eyes look violet really have very deep blue eyes. True violet eyes is a form of albinism.



Again, please define "allowable differences." Is that a term you made up?
Yes its not a lab term. I'm just trying to explain them as being differences that are acceptalbe within a species.
Just like in speciation when they were explaining those differences going out of bounds, they fall into defects and the species dies.

No, the organisms carrying that defect are usually weeded out.


I'll use you as another example.
Lets say your 6' now, but you could have been only 5'. Now thats allowable but if you grew to be only 2' then thats a defect.
Our species may never reach 10' but if we did, it might not be a defect, but an allowable difference.


Bad example because of the square cube law. People who are very tall (< +3 standard deviations) tend to have multiple health problems and until recently, didn't live very long.


It's really a hard thing to explain because we set the rules on what we consider normal and whats a defect. I think there could be room here for error and purple eyes may not be a defect at least from the DNA perspective. Not the norm however.


No, albinism is not a good thing. Albinos are at much higher risk for certain cancers because they have no melanin. They also have a lot of visual problems. And non-albinos can be carriers of the defect. They don't have to have albinism themselves.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 

they had less of a sample with Neanderthal when they declared it not the same species as modern man.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I think you have that backwards. Its the interventionists and creationists who have this notion that humanity and Earth are special in some way. Those who have looked at the scientific evidence and support evolution are some of the first ones to speculate about life on other planets. At the same time however they recognize that evolution has no end-goal. Just because the unique environment of Earth produced a sentient species capable of space travel does not mean these other Earth-like planets have had events occur that have produced similar species. Look back at the 4.35 billion year history of Earth and find all the events necessary for the emergence of humans. Now calculate the odds of those exact same events occurring on another planet. The laws of evolution apply to every organism in the universe. However, that doesn't mean that every organism doesn't have its own unique environment.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


You're once again confusing facts. The Neanderthal DNA sample was mtDNA. mtDNA is always easier to analyze as you are only looking at the DNA of one parent. When the nuclear DNA was analyzed they used a sample of over one million base pairs. Also, I thought I would point out that there is still an argument regarding whether or not Neanderthals are a separate species or a sub-species of Homo sapiens.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





The first test was able to find both X and Y chromosomes. The only way this would be possible is if both of its parents were human. The test you're referring to is the most recent. That one found around 250 base pairs of human DNA and 350 base pairs of unidentified DNA. However, as I have pointed out in the past that is a common problem with BLAST when using small samples. Considering the human genome is composed of over 3 billion base pairs I'd say that 600 base pairs is a pretty small sample.
Well having x and y in anything other than human would be ludicris. However we don't know anything about aliens, so it is still possible as odd as it sounds.As far as the base pairs how did you come to the conclusion about using blast? How are you familliar with this?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Bad example because of the square cube law. People who are very tall (< +3 standard deviations) tend to have multiple health problems and until recently, didn't live very long.
Ok well it was a bad example. I was trying to make the argument that we had never seen anyone 10' tall to determin it to be a defect but I guess we have, and now that I think about it, I knew that too.

Anyhow pretending we never had, the only way we would be able to identify it as a defect is if the person ends up having a lot of health problems or dies quickly. We basically profile others health based on that one, or several. Now if we had nothing to base it on because it had never happened before, we would be unsure if its allowable or a defect. Like I was using purple eyes as a possibility. My point here is that there is no clear cut way of knowing that these associations with defects are actually defects or something else along with them.

In other words purple eyes might be allowable but usually people that have purple eyes also have purple lime disease. (of course im making that up) and they actually die from the lime disease not the purple eyes.
There is so many possibilities simply because all we have is association with these defects. We think that because most people are between 5 and 7' that thats the norm. It could be so many other things associated with them.

Back to my point, there could be hidden options in our DNA that we just simply never find out about, like purple eyes. that ARENT a defect.

So back to your point, about different things that pop up in species having to be a form of either evolution or speciation, I say its just as possible that it was an option all along and we just never knew it.
edit on 30-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   



I'm sorry, your slang is throwing me off sometimes.
Dont remember using any


Let me try again.
When I'm talking about aliens doing it, I'm only thinking about humans specifically. While its just a theory that aliens made everything, it would certainly make more sense if there was a grand creator, or creators that werent aliens as in the realm that we understand them to be.
Like I said, IMO there is no way that a creator, or evolution could have made all of this becuase we always get stopped at the starting point. Which came first the chicken or the egg? If aliens made us, who made the aliens, if a grand creator made us, who made the creator. If evolution made us from slime, who made the slime. So you see we always get stuck at the begining.
If you only want to discuss human evolution you are on the wrong thread. Here we are meant to be discussing how to explain diversity without refering to evolution by those that believe it wrong.

I ask you. What came first life or a breathable atmosphere that supports life today?

Again in plain language I will remind you that Evolution says nothing about the creation of life. Please, Please stop talking about slime it makes you look like an uninformed idiot who has not taken time to read any reply or link and that cannot be true, can it?


From a program I watched. It would appear that planets equipped with life are magically formed through a combined process of creation and evolution. We know that evolution plays a part in the forming of a planet, it has to, there is no denying this. But at the same time there seems to be life allready equiped on new planets. But it doesn't seems like everything is evolving from something else but that there was specific life gifted into the process. This gets complilcated because like in the design of humans you would have to have several hundred or thousand so that you don't end up with incest. So its not just a hit and miss process like that thought of in evolution, its very solid and robust.
I dont know how many times you need to be told. The program you watched either does not exist or you made the info it offered fit you fantasy.

We know of NO LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS. The chances are there is but ATM there are none. Zilch, Nadda, Zero. Please try to understand this at least.

Given that do not know of any other life beyond this planet the rest of your fantasy really has no validity at all.


I watched a different program about quantium physics saying that the chances of a human being created accidently are like .01 to the 21st power. And thats just one human, not many and not other life. Basically you have a better chance of hitting lotto 100 times in a row.
Statistics and lies. A common phrase. People get struck by lightning despite the odds. Some more than once.


To answer your questions, how did earth end up with so much diversity in life, they had to be all created. Now if I'm wrong, then there is an evolution bug that is a trillion times smarter than Einstien, and knows how to reprogram DNA and how to predict the future.I doubt seriously if aliens made all this but you never know. Maybe they designed a cocktail of life that once exploded, expands and has billions of life forms. As far as trying to realize how someone could achieve such a task, you have to remember that aliens had atomic bombs in biblical times, there is no telling what machines they could design to make life, even a plethora of life. There could be mass life making machines out there, the skys the limit.
Or maybe they used Evolution as the tool to produce diversity. A tool we see evidence for its use and effect. As stated before. Evolution does not mean you cannot have a creator

If there isn't a creator behind all of this work, then its impossible to imagine how. I'm even taking evolution into consideration. The only reason creationisim has the lead at this point is because religion was slayed to rest with mitochondrial DNA telling us that we have a common ancestor 200,000 years ago. Now one thing they have clearly omitted in this is our true age. The funny part is they actually know our true age because they are also admitting to have successfully mapped out the whole genome. So they are keeping it from us on purpose. The only reason why is because its saying that we are older than earth, and as you can guess, that just wouldn't sit well with anyone.

Fantasy world again. They are not saying we are 200,000 years old. You have been told this till it hurts. 200,000 years ago is were they traced the original mother too. That does not mean she sprang from the ground. Her ancestors stretch even further back in time.


Of course we are older than earth, we arent from earth.
Fantasy based on zero evidence.
edit on 31-12-2011 by colin42 because: format

edit on 31-12-2011 by colin42 because: Spelling

edit on 31-12-2011 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So which is it, do I not read my own material or do I lie, or are you just profiling me?

It's pretty clear that they're not mutually exclusive e.g. you didn't read the read the wiki page you used as a source and then lied about humans not being primates.


Ok here are some that will kill you without medical intervention.

You're changing your stories again. The list you provided earlier consisted of diseases that were contracted from an external pathogen. The lists you're providing now are a mix of genetic disorders (and, again, we're not the only species that suffers from genetic disorders, contrary to your earlier claims) and those arising from external pathogens.

Let's take the first couple from the first link you provided and see if they would cause us to go extinct, as you claim.

1. Batten Disease -- "Batten disease is very rare and occurs in an estimated 2 to 4 out of every 100,000 births in the United States." And it's autosomal reces(en.wikipedia.org...)

Hardly an extinction level event without medical treatment given that there's no cure or vaccination for it.

2. Bubonic Plague -- A vaccine wasn't developed until about 2005 and it's not even part of the regular set of vaccinations given to children. We've survived several outbreaks of it in the history of our species.

Again, hardly an extinction level event...

3. Buerger's Disease -- Results from tobacco use, and is neither a genetic disorder or one resulting from exposure to pathogens.

How is this one going to make us extinct? I think you didn't read/understand your own source material. Again.


I'm laughing that your challenging me on this part because your basically saying doctors are not needed for the most part and we would still be alive today without them. It's shocking to realize they go through 9 years of schooling, earn the highest respected position in our society for you to sit back and say they don't do that much. Maybe what you can do since your so sure we don't need medical intervention to survive is go out and infect yourself with some of the aformentioned and refuse medical treatment and watch how long you live. Or rather how quick you die.

We survived as a species without doctors. We would continue to survive as a species without doctors. Doctors improve our quality of life, they aren't essential to it. So again, please provide some evidence that we would be extinct without the doctors that have only existed for less than 1% of the history of our species.


You know I had web pages that supported this before I formatted my computer. I allready told you it was a mistake. You must live a flawless life and never make mistakes. I must also point out that I was never hiding my mistakes.

It's hard to hide them when you keep parroting the same ones over and over again.


Only those related to those that profile me.

So do you profile yourself? Because it's the sources that you're providing that you're not reading.


Which requires the altering of DNA to result in change. There no way those changes can be made without it going through the DNA. Otherwise we would all have identicle DNA.

Yes, and those changes to DNA aren't evolution. Evolution is the action of selection on various heritable traits.


Another postulated theory?

No, the definition of evolution. And observable fact.


I'm sure there are differences but you started with a bananna and ended up with a bananna, It was all allowences within the species to being with. I see no magic here.

You said that scientists couldn't create a new species. Except we did -- cultivated bananas and wild bananas are two different species, incapable of even producing a hybrid.


Both.

So we were "pushed out" by the other species of life that we were superior to and we chose to leave. That makes little sense.


Actually thats not true, you lack the ability to set yourself apart from your experiences in life, to see this for yourself. There is nothing here that ties us to earth, its ok that you sidesteped my question, its ok I understand, you couldn't answer it if you wanted to. It was a trick question, there is no answer because we aren't from here. Anything you could possibly mistake otherwise could ealily be shot down.

Not sidestepped, I'm putting the burden of proof where it belongs -- on the person making the positive claim. You're claiming that we were brought here by aliens. Present your unequivocal evidence for it. Here, I'll even give you a starting point -- according to your hypothesis, how many thousands of years ago were we brought to this planet?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Dont quote me on the specifics, I just understand the basics.

Don't quote you on the facts, you just understand what you've been spoon-fed in a 'tube video.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


I mentioned earlier to IterationZero about having to be able to "jump off the page" when thinking about subjects such as this one and I guess we're at another one of those points where it comes down to the difference between linear and non-linear thinkers.

It has nothing to do with linear vs non-linear. Speculating is part of science, the problem is when people take speculation as science, like you and itsthetooth do constantly. Without facts to back your speculation, that's all it is. What's even worse is that you cling to the same speculation when the facts actually contradict it. Here's the ironic part, you have to rely on the people you label as "linear thinkers" to verify or falsify your speculation.


Linear thinkers are the egoist "evolutionists" who think we're the only ones who evolution applies to and they have a confident grasp around its waist.

No, I don't think there's anyone that accepts evolution that thinks it only happens to humans. That's just a bizarre statement.


We've already begun finding Earthlike planets outside our solar system. When are people going to accept the fact that, if we can self-assemble out of slime after about 4 billion years and already be exploring our immediate solar system and sending out probes to other planets, then it has probably happened many times on other Earthlike planets that are much older than this one? You have to be able to turn your head around 360 in order to assemble the reality of all of this.

I agree in principle with everything you say here. But going from "life exists on other planets" to "aliens visited us here and guided the course of human evolution" is speculation. It's like the underpants gnomes from South Park and their plan to make money:

Phase 1. Collect underpants.
Phase 2. ?
Phase 3. Profit!

Start filling in phase two.


Non-linear thinkers have something linear thinkers don't have- the ability of intuition. It takes intuition to connect the 4d set of dots that make up this picture. Watch the joke machine attack me for saying that now.

There's plenty of intuition utilized in "linear-thinking" science. Look up August Kekulé's discovery of the structure of benzene and how he initially envisioned the ring structure for an example. But the people who then have those intuitive moments have to back them up with evidence. They don't, as you have, just stop with intuition and speculation, and assume they must be correct because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside to cling to those beliefs.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Look back at the 4.35 billion year history of Earth and find all the events necessary for the emergence of humans. Now calculate the odds of those exact same events occurring on another planet. The laws of evolution apply to every organism in the universe. However, that doesn't mean that every organism doesn't have its own unique environment.


here is your problem:

en.wikipedia.org...

you need to be able to do this kind of thinking when looking at evolution theory and then intervention theory makes a better argument for the big questions.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 31-12-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If your talking about what you have provided me in links, I have answered in clear words back, showing that they are not proof of any type.


I have said numerous times in "clear words" to post objective evidence or refer to the links with quotes to explain which parts are wrong. Funny, you are so sure evolution is wrong, but know absolutely nothing about it and won't even defend your viewpoint. Your opinion does not equal fact.



"Microevolution has never been observed in humans" - Proven wrong, regardless of trying to change the subject back to macroevolution and failing again to address races of human. Neanderthal isn't a race of human. Australopithecus Afarensis is not a race of human.

I know that, I used it to explain the possibility of someone we evolved from

Good. So at least you admit microevolution in humans is proven.




I have answered all comments that I'm aware of (and its not even my OP) and I have backed up as much as I can even though there is no proof from biblical times aside from documentation. I'm sorry if you missed something but if you feel I did, ask me again, I will answer.

You backed up absolutely nothing. Where are the science papers and peer reviewed journals? Where are your links? Where is your proof that the links I posted are wrong or inconclusive? You responded back with one line saying "oh, just read the first couple lines and you'll see" is completely bunk. You are being intentionally dishonest and ignoring everything presented to you. I wanted you to read that entire link and provide quotes and referrerences to YOUR SOURCES that show its wrong. Your opinion means nothing in this thread, as I've explained countless time. You enjoy ignoring everything that goes against your beliefs however.


I'm thinking your just not happy with my answers because they are the truth and the truth can be tough to swallow provided the subject here.


That's a good one. Yes, they are truth even though you haven't provided 1 single piece of objective evidence. You are guessing, not giving truth or anything remotely factual. I've been waiting for this the entire time but you have failed miserably and are completely ignoring the topic. Please post in a more relevant thread.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

It has nothing to do with linear vs non-linear. Speculating is part of science, the problem is when people take speculation as science, like you and itsthetooth do constantly.


it's not speculating, it's connecting what we know about the past with what we know today. It's using things like erosion patterns on the Sphynx and ancient canals along the North American east coast to question our established "time line of facts". Ancient texts from around the world that talk about the same things such as humans being created by other worldly forces, it's more than just what you (as a linear thinker) can handle as evidence to a bigger picture.


Originally posted by iterationzero
Without facts to back your speculation, that's all it is. What's even worse is that you cling to the same speculation when the facts actually contradict it. Here's the ironic part, you have to rely on the people you label as "linear thinkers" to verify or falsify your speculation.


I do my own verifying. I don't base reality on what wikipedia says.



Originally posted by iterationzero
I don't think there's anyone that accepts evolution that thinks it only happens to humans. That's just a bizarre statement.


sorry meant to imply us on Earth. the point is that if there are billions and billions of Earthlike planets out there with millions and millions that are older than this planet, then Occam's reasoning would suggest we are not the first sentient beings in not only the galaxy but the universe. If H Sapiens can evolve out of slime here on Earth it certainly can somewhere else. The tangible evidence here on Earth is all around us. To think that 15,000 years ago we came out of caves with a sophistication in math, art, culture, astronomy, literature, social codes, metallurgy never seen before in the human record on our own is silly and egoist in my opinion. If evolution is universal the universe should be teeming with life of all kinds imaginable.... to a non-linear thinker.



Originally posted by iterationzero
I agree in principle with everything you say here. But going from "life exists on other planets" to "aliens visited us here and guided the course of human evolution" is speculation. It's like the underpants gnomes from South Park and their plan to make money:


Although I'm a huge SP fan, it's nothing like that. Like I've been saying all along, the evidence is all around us. It is tangible, objective evidence that your kind pooh-poohs such as quarrying and transporting and manipulating huge pieces of stone in a very short period of time that couldn't be done today. Again the egoist in you guys comes out and you completely ignore mechanical physics, embrace speculation and give them some undetermined superpower technology and then make jokes about how "crafty they were". Our historical records all agree that it wasn't them who came up with all this stuff. Even the Nazi turned Nasa scientists (Von Braun and Oberth) said they had help from people not of this planet. But to you that's not raw data therefore it doesn't factor into the linear equation. I can read you like a book.



Originally posted by iterationzero

There's plenty of intuition utilized in "linear-thinking" science. Look up August Kekulé's discovery of the structure of benzene and how he initially envisioned the ring structure for an example. But the people who then have those intuitive moments have to back them up with evidence. They don't, as you have, just stop with intuition and speculation, and assume they must be correct because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside to cling to those beliefs.


et voila!!! c'est le jokemachine




top topics



 
31
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join