Gorilla Genome

Split Rock · Mar 20, 2015

mark kennedy said:
Same old Darwinian tactic, ignore the science in favor of fallacious ad hominem attacks.

Patterns emerge, the most important are the amino acid triplet codons.

There there are the RNA based regulatory genes. With the Gorilla Genome what you want to pay particular attention to are the brain related genes. All you are going to get from Darwinians is disinformation, the actual science is neither difficult nor inaccessible. Brain related genes do not respond well to mutations, Darwinians will talk about anything else but that because it proves their a priori assumption of common ancestry of humans and apes false, due to sheer statistical impossibility.

It's interesting to note that none of the Darwinian commentary is on the comparison of the Gorilla and Human genomes. Then, when an actual scientific line of evidence is introduced it gets buried in fallacious rhetoric.

Predictable...

Have a nice day
Mark

What "ad hominem" attack did I make? What is an ad hominem attack, anyway? Its supposed to be ad hominem fallacy not attack, btw.

How does one measure "statistical impossibility," in any case, Mark. If something is improbable, does that make it impossible?

Also, when are you going to explain that "98% of mutations are deleterious" remark you made and never defended? Are we supposed to ignore it (as a "tangent"), even though it is a major pillar of your argument??

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2015

BlueLightningTN said:
I don't see anything here but word salad. Basically it says, "Here is chart. Pay attention to chart. People I disagree with not like chart. Chart easy to read.

The chart is amino acids triplet codons. No one is disagreeing with it, they ignore the actual science with a vengeance, derailing the topic and resorting to fallacious ad hominem rhetoric. Your a prime example.

Brain genes not respond well to mutations, but I not explain why I think this or how chart show it. People I disagree with wrong."

Brain related genes do not respond well to mutations, every single time they are introduced. I could give a you long list of deleterious effects but I'm being ignorant of science if I don't assume the massive overhaul of brain related genes happened.

Ignoring the facts is not a disagreement, it's an argument that never happened.

Explain the chart. What does the chart mean. Why do you think it shows design?

Did you really just demand an explanation for amino acid triplet codons?

Priceless...

Have a nice day
Mark

Split Rock · Mar 20, 2015

mark kennedy said:
Which is what happens to the vast majority of Creationists. The petty insults get tiresome and they leave, truth is, probably the best way of dealing with it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Here is what you do , Mark. You post an argument, citing some papers. Others post a reply. You post how the people who replied don't know what they are talking about. They explain that they do and why you are wrong. You claim "ad hominem" and leave. You then go to the Creationists only sub-forum and tell the rank and file creationists there that you post genetics arguments here and evolutionists "run away with their tales between their legs." You then tell them the real reason you reject common descent, which is that Adam had to be an historical person, or the bible is a lie. You wait a while, then come back here and repeat the process.

That is what gets tiresome.

BL2KTN · Mar 20, 2015

Mark said:
The chart is amino acids triplet codons. No one is disagreeing with it, they ignore the actual science with a vengeance, derailing the topic and resorting to fallacious ad hominem rhetoric. Your a prime example.

Okay, that's step one. Now step two is saying what you think the "actual science" is. Step three is saying why you think it demonstrates design.

Brain related genes do not respond well to mutations, every single time they are introduced. I could give a you long list of deleterious effects but I'm being ignorant of science if I don't assume the massive overhaul of brain related genes happened.

Feel free to provide the "long list" using authoritative sources.

Ignoring the facts is not a disagreement, it's an argument that never happened.

And getting you to say what you think the facts are so we can have the "argument" is like pulling teeth.

Did you really just demand an explanation for amino acid triplet codons?

No, I asked you to explain the chart as you understand it and demonstrate why it reflects design. It's sort of the minimal level of requirement for you to have a conversation.

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2015

Split Rock said:
What "ad hominem" attack did I make? What is an ad hominem attack, anyway? Its supposed to be ad hominem fallacy not attack, btw.

Ad hominem fallacy, aka, personal attack. In answer to the question, when have you not

How does one measure "statistical impossibility," in any case, Mark. If something is improbable, does that make it impossible?

The concept of cost and benefit is a common consideration in genetics.

Also, when are you going to explain that "98% of mutations are deleterious" remark you made and never defended? Are we supposed to ignore it (as a "tangent"), even though it is a major pillar of your argument??

First of all I don't jump through hoops for you guys, quote me in context and we can talk about substantive issues. I don't chase your pedantic demands for answers because you respond with more circular pedantic questions.

Getting to the point, mutations in protein coding genes:

the genome-wide deleterious mutation rate (U) can be estimated from the product of the number of nucleotide sites in the genome, μ, and the mean selective constraint per site. Although the presence of many weakly selected mutations in human noncoding DNA makes this approach somewhat problematic, estimates are U ≈ 2.2 for the whole diploid genome per generation and ~0.35 for mutations that change an amino acid of a protein-coding gene. A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is “hard,” but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis.

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans

The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they effect nothing. When they happen in protein coding genes the vast majority are deleterious, producing frameshifts.

Have a nice day
Mark

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2015

Split Rock said:
Here is what you do , Mark. You post an argument, citing some papers. Others post a reply. You post how the people who replied don't know what they are talking about. They explain that they do and why you are wrong. You claim "ad hominem" and leave.

Close, I post expositions and commentary based on the scientific literature. There are a few general comments, sometimes relatively substantive before the trollers flood the thread with fallacious remarks intended to bury the substantive discussion. When the thread is reduced to an unbroken string of personal attacks it is enough to tell be you have nothing else so I move on.

You then go to the Creationists only sub-forum and tell the rank and file creationists there that you post genetics arguments here and evolutionists "run away with their tales between their legs." You then tell them the real reason you reject common descent, which is that Adam had to be an historical person, or the bible is a lie. You wait a while, then come back here and repeat the process.

You don't seem to appreciate the fact the Creation is a Christian doctrine, the first three lines of the Nicene Creed emphasizes it. I try to avoid the religious aspects in the secular, common forums, I focus instead on the scientific literature but it's not my primary interest. So, I spend most of my energy discussing the doctrinal aspects in a Christian context while occasionally popping in here to shoot a few Darwinian fish in a barrel.

That is what gets tiresome.

What is tiresome is the fallacious, circular nature of these discussions. You want to pontificate about science and evolution but when the actual research is introduced you flood the thread with wave after wave of pedantic personal flames. That's because in a very short space of time you have nothing else, it would not be so bad if it were not every single time.

Have a nice day
Mark

BL2KTN · Mar 20, 2015

Mark said:
So, I spend most of my energy discussion the doctrinal aspects in a Christian context while occasionally popping in here to shoot a few Darwinian fish in a barrel.

And yet nobody has found your thoughts convincing (in this thread or the Christian-Only thread).

lasthero · Mar 20, 2015

mark kennedy said:
Which is what happens to the vast majority of Creationists. The petty insults get tiresome and they leave, truth is, probably the best way of dealing with it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Please point out the petty insults that were thrown at SpyderByte.

sfs · Mar 20, 2015

mark kennedy said:
The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they effect nothing. When they happen in protein coding genes the vast majority are deleterious, producing frameshifts.

It is not true that the vast majority of mutations in protein coding genes produce frameshifts, or that the vast majority are deleterious. Only a tenth or so of mutations are indels, and of these maybe three-quarters produce frameshifts (which are very likely to be deleterious). The other 85 or 90% are single-base substitutions, and cannot produce frameshifts.

Of substitutions, roughly a third are synonymous, the bulk of which are neutral in humans. Some fraction (something like a third, I think) of nonsynonymous substitutions are also neutral. Very roughly, half of mutations in coding regions are deleterious.

Split Rock · Mar 20, 2015

mark kennedy said:
First of all I don't jump through hoops for you guys, quote me in context and we can talk about substantive issues. I don't chase your pedantic demands for answers because you respond with more circular pedantic questions.

When you contradict yourself on a point central to you argument, then yes Mark, we are going to call you on it. What you call "pedantic demands for answers because you respond with more circular pedantic questions," we call asking you to explain yourself. Perhaps you sometimes forget you are in a discussion forum, not "Mark Kennedy's What I Say Goes So Don't Question Me" forum.

mark kennedy said:
Getting to the point, mutations in protein coding genes:

the genome-wide deleterious mutation rate (U) can be estimated from the product of the number of nucleotide sites in the genome, μ, and the mean selective constraint per site. Although the presence of many weakly selected mutations in human noncoding DNA makes this approach somewhat problematic, estimates are U ≈ 2.2 for the whole diploid genome per generation and ~0.35 for mutations that change an amino acid of a protein-coding gene. A genome-wide deleterious mutation rate of 2.2 seems higher than humans could tolerate if natural selection is hard, but could be tolerated if selection acts on relative fitness differences between individuals or if there is synergistic epistasis.

Rates and Fitness Consequences of New Mutations in Humans

The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they effect nothing. When they happen in protein coding genes the vast majority are deleterious, producing frameshifts.

Have a nice day
Mark

sfs said:
It is not true that the vast majority of mutations in protein coding genes produce frameshifts, or that the vast majority are deleterious. Only a tenth or so of mutations are indels, and of these maybe three-quarters produce frameshifts (which are very likely to be deleterious). The other 85 or 90% are single-base substitutions, and cannot produce frameshifts.

Of substitutions, roughly a third are synonymous, the bulk of which are neutral in humans. Some fraction (something like a third, I think) of nonsynonymous substitutions are also neutral. Very roughly, half of mutations in coding regions are deleterious.

L.M. and I have been trying to explain this to him as well... he just ignores what the data says and repeats his erroneous statements. Typical Mark.

sfs · Mar 20, 2015

Split Rock said:
L.M. and I have been trying to explain this to him as well... he just ignores what the data says and repeats his erroneous statements. Typical Mark.

Yeah, I know. I haven't had the time or the patience to deal with the forum for a few days.

morse86 · Mar 20, 2015

Here are some pictures of "real life photographs" of DNA and artist renderings (my opinion is BOTH are artist renderings):

Do you even think DNA is real? Just look at the official images of it. Are you so deceived?!?!?

Romans 1:22:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

There is no DNA. There are no mutations. God created us and what he creates is perfect without errors. He doesn't need "DNA". He doesn't make "copy errors".

The blind man is blind for a purpose.

John 9:9:
And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Matthew 9:37:
Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;

Romans 10:17:
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Matthew 11:15:
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Additional research on the DNA hoax can be done at View topic - DNA Technology ? Cluesforum.info

mark kennedy · Mar 20, 2015

sfs said:
It is not true that the vast majority of mutations in protein coding genes produce frameshifts, or that the vast majority are deleterious.

Your minions seem adverse to that point, not that it matters.

Only a tenth or so of mutations are indels, and of these maybe three-quarters produce frameshifts (which are very likely to be deleterious). The other 85 or 90% are single-base substitutions, and cannot produce frameshifts.

That wasn't what we were talking about, we were talking about an amino acid substitution in a lab that produced a color change in mice. This has nothing to do with single base substitutions, aka point mutations, vs insertions or deletions.

Now single base substitutions are more often the case but when comparing human and Chimpanzee genomes the indels, actually just large gaps of sequence divergence, could only be cause by indels, some over a million base pairs in length. They, in the words of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium 'dwarf' the single base differences. You want to dismiss them by saying they are less frequent when the truth is you want to ignore the indels entirely because you have no explanation for how they got there.

Of substitutions, roughly a third are synonymous, the bulk of which are neutral in humans. Some fraction (something like a third, I think) of nonsynonymous substitutions are also neutral. Very roughly, half of mutations in coding regions are deleterious.

Now that part is very interesting, thanks.

Have a nice day
Mark

mark kennedy · Mar 21, 2015

morse86 said:
Here are some pictures of "real life photographs" of DNA and artist renderings (my opinion is BOTH are artist renderings)

I honestly believe that most of the creationists who post to these discussions are simply making a mockery of the doctrine of creation. A number of Creationists I have talked to at length focus exclusively on the age of the earth, an issue completely irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

I think your one of those posters.

Have a nice day
Mark

mark kennedy · Mar 21, 2015

Split Rock said:
When you contradict yourself on a point central to you argument, then yes Mark, we are going to call you on it. What you call "pedantic demands for answers because you respond with more circular pedantic questions," we call asking you to explain yourself. Perhaps you sometimes forget you are in a discussion forum, not "Mark Kennedy's What I Say Goes So Don't Question Me" forum.

Because the trolling regulars do nothing but make corrections of the first thing that comes to their mind and argue it in circles. I have no complaint, I will simply point out that fallacious arguments are empty rhetoric, not to be confused with substantive thought.

This post is a prime example, you have now shifted the entire focus on me dragging the argument where is goes no matter where it starts. The inevitable ad hominem attack because that's all you guys have learned over the years.

L.M. and I have been trying to explain this to him as well... he just ignores what the data says and repeats his erroneous statements. Typical Mark.

The Gorilla Genome paper was something I kind of stumbled onto after I had lost interest in the subject matter. Like most of the comparative genomics it is the requisite changes to brain related genes that are the most vital adaptation. It is telling that you are unaware that brain related genes are even being compared since you will never read it, let alone question if the a priori assumption of common ancestry is beyond skepticism.

That's really all this is about, belittling those who dare doubt Darwinian a priori assumptions.

Have a nice day
Mark

sfs · Mar 21, 2015

mark kennedy said:
Your minions seem adverse to that point, not that it matters.

You are not a reliable reporter of others' views, I'm afraid.

That wasn't what we were talking about, we were talking about an amino acid substitution in a lab that produced a color change in mice. This has nothing to do with single base substitutions, aka point mutations, vs insertions or deletions.

What I'm talking about was this statement: "The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they effect nothing. When they happen in protein coding genes the vast majority are deleterious, producing frameshifts." You made that statement. It was incorrect. There is no context in which it is correct.

Now single base substitutions are more often the case but when comparing human and Chimpanzee genomes the indels, actually just large gaps of sequence divergence, could only be cause by indels, some over a million base pairs in length. They, in the words of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium 'dwarf' the single base differences. You want to dismiss them by saying they are less frequent when the truth is you want to ignore the indels entirely because you have no explanation for how they got there.

As I said, you are not a reliable reporter of others' views. I have no desire to dismiss indels, and many of my colleagues have spent a great deal of effort finding and understanding indel mutations in humans. Maligning the efforts and motives of people you don't know, and whose work you've never read, is not a good thing to do.

mark kennedy · Mar 21, 2015

sfs said:
You are not a reliable reporter of others' views, I'm afraid.

There's a lot of that going around.

What I'm talking about was this statement: "The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they effect nothing. When they happen in protein coding genes the vast majority are deleterious, producing frameshifts." You made that statement. It was incorrect. There is no context in which it is correct.

Talk about not reliably reporting someone's views. Indels cause frameshifts when base pairs are added or deleted, when the lengths of the resulting amino acid is not divisible by three:

There are two types of coding indels: those that have lengths that are divisible by 3, and those that do not. Indels with lengths that are not divisible by 3 cause frameshifts, and are presumed to be deleterious to gene function. (SIFT Indel)

That's just to be clear, it should be obvious but the semantic shell game that will no doubt follow often corrects the obvious no matter how wrong the correction is.

You seem to be insisting that this isn't true, that indels are not causing frameshifts which would be absurd.

Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples of two) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless.

As I said, you are not a reliable reporter of others' views. I have no desire to dismiss indels, and many of my colleagues have spent a great deal of effort finding and understanding indel mutations in humans. Maligning the efforts and motives of people you don't know, and whose work you've never read, is not a good thing to do.

Every time I get into one of these debates, and they are always debates, I search through the available scientific literature. This morning I browsed no less then three and this one I spent considerable time on.

Did we really just go through all that to make the point that most effects from mutations are neutral?

57646 Single amino acid substitutions 36825 neutral 20821 deleterious.
729 Deletions 652 deleterious, 77 neutral
171 Insertions 110 were deleterious 61 neutral
79 Replacements 79 deleterious 59 neutral
21662 deleterious 37022 neutral 58684 totals

Predicting the Functional Effect of Amino Acid Substitutions and Indels

I am very interested in what you and your colleagues are finding and I've read as much of the scientific literature as I could find and digest. I ran into this once before with the Nylon eating bacteria and instead of being a mutation the reading frame was being swapped out, something I found fascinating and the Darwinian horde ignored. This go round the color of mice comes up and apparently a single amino acid substitution in the lab was sufficient to produce the color change, which is very interesting. I also brought up the arctic cod that has an entire gene built from simple repeats, something else I find fascinating and the Darwinian horde ignores.

Now, this pedantic correction over frameshifts. All I can tell you is so what? So the effect is more likely to be neutral then deleterious or a frameshift, so what Steve? Is that all we are supposed to care about when exploring what you and your colleagues do, that creationists are wrong and Darwinians are right? Would it be too much to ask that every once in a while you actual offer a genuine insight into how adaptive evolution actually happens?

These guys make gross and glaring errors constantly and you do nothing but encourage it. LM should be one of the best read individuals on the board and he is still struggling to understand the basics. I blame you.

Have a nice day
Mark

Papias · Mar 21, 2015

Spiderbyte wrote:

Thank you for reminding me why I quit posting here pap. I had forgotten your m.o. Throw out a talkorigins link, and then hammer away with the personal attacks. See ya! I certainly don't have time for that type of childish nonsense!

How did I personally attack you? You asked for evidence, then when it is given to you, you claim you've been personally attacked and leave. Hmmmm.

Here's my post for you convenience - post #42 on this thread:

Originally Posted by Papias View Post
Spiderbyte, on post 28 it was pointed out that you ignore evidence, even when shown.

Then on post 31 you claim you haven't been shown evidence.

On post #37 you are shown 29 different lines of evidence, supported by experts in a dozen different fields, endorsed by the Smithsonian, the American Academies of Science, the geological society, and other top societies of experts, and you reply, in post 39 (drum roll please........)

Wow, thanks for confirming that you ignore evidence. Epic fail.

Would not Christ be honored by the attention to His creation, instead of your continued denials of it?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

sfs · Mar 21, 2015

mark kennedy said:
There's a lot of that going around.

Talk about not reliably reporting someone's views. Indels cause frameshifts when base pairs are added or deleted, when the lengths of the resulting amino acid is not divisible by three:

There are two types of coding indels: those that have lengths that are divisible by 3, and those that do not. Indels with lengths that are not divisible by 3 cause frameshifts, and are presumed to be deleterious to gene function. (SIFT Indel)

That's just to be clear, it should be obvious but the semantic shell game that will no doubt follow often corrects the obvious no matter how wrong the correction is.

You seem to be insisting that this isn't true, that indels are not causing frameshifts which would be absurd.

Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples of two) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless.

Every time I get into one of these debates, and they are always debates, I search through the available scientific literature. This morning I browsed no less then three and this one I spent considerable time on.

Did we really just go through all that to make the point that most effects from mutations are neutral?

57646 Single amino acid substitutions 36825 neutral 20821 deleterious.
729 Deletions 652 deleterious, 77 neutral
171 Insertions 110 were deleterious 61 neutral
79 Replacements 79 deleterious 59 neutral
21662 deleterious 37022 neutral 58684 totals

Predicting the Functional Effect of Amino Acid Substitutions and Indels

I am very interested in what you and your colleagues are finding and I've read as much of the scientific literature as I could find and digest. I ran into this once before with the Nylon eating bacteria and instead of being a mutation the reading frame was being swapped out, something I found fascinating and the Darwinian horde ignored. This go round the color of mice comes up and apparently a single amino acid substitution in the lab was sufficient to produce the color change, which is very interesting. I also brought up the arctic cod that has an entire gene built from simple repeats, something else I find fascinating and the Darwinian horde ignores.

Now, this pedantic correction over frameshifts. All I can tell you is so what? So the effect is more likely to be neutral then deleterious or a frameshift, so what Steve? Is that all we are supposed to care about when exploring what you and your colleagues do, that creationists are wrong and Darwinians are right? Would it be too much to ask that every once in a while you actual offer a genuine insight into how adaptive evolution actually happens?

These guys make gross and glaring errors constantly and you do nothing but encourage it. LM should be one of the best read individuals on the board and he is still struggling to understand the basics. I blame you.

Have a nice day
Mark

All of that response, and no acknowledgement of his error. Just a bunch of chaff thrown into the air, along with a new error. (No, I did not suggest that indels don't cause frameshifts.)

Split Rock · Mar 21, 2015

Mark accusses other of using a "shell game," when he is the most adept at it. Case in point for the lurkers (since pointing anything out to Mark is a wasted effort):

sfs said:
It is not true that the vast majority of mutations in protein coding genes produce frameshifts, or that the vast majority are deleterious. Only a tenth or so of mutations are indels, and of these maybe three-quarters produce frameshifts (which are very likely to be deleterious). The other 85 or 90% are single-base substitutions, and cannot produce frameshifts.

Of substitutions, roughly a third are synonymous, the bulk of which are neutral in humans. Some fraction (something like a third, I think) of nonsynonymous substitutions are also neutral. Very roughly, half of mutations in coding regions are deleterious.

Here sfs is explaining that the majority of mutations do not produce frameshifts. Mutations mind you, not specifically indel mutations.

sfs said:
What I'm talking about was this statement: "The vast majority of mutations are neutral because they effect nothing. When they happen in protein coding genes the vast majority are deleterious, producing frameshifts." You made that statement. It was incorrect. There is no context in which it is correct.

Here sfs is explaining why Mark's earlier statement concerning mutations is incorrect.

mark kennedy said:
Talk about not reliably reporting someone's views. Indels cause frameshifts when base pairs are added or deleted, when the lengths of the resulting amino acid is not divisible by three:

There are two types of coding indels: those that have lengths that are divisible by 3, and those that do not. Indels with lengths that are not divisible by 3 cause frameshifts, and are presumed to be deleterious to gene function. (SIFT Indel)

That's just to be clear, it should be obvious but the semantic shell game that will no doubt follow often corrects the obvious no matter how wrong the correction is.

You seem to be insisting that this isn't true, that indels are not causing frameshifts which would be absurd.

Here Mark is doing his typical shell-game trick by claiming that sfs was refering to indels and not total mutations. Clearly sfs was refering to mutations not just indel mutations. He even broke it down by type (see above).

Mark purposely conflates terminology to muddy the waters... like conflating "mutation" with "indel mutation." Since indel mutations trend to be more often deleterious than mutations overall, he want people to think that statistics concerning indel mutations are the same as overall mutations to make them appear to be a bigger problem for evolution than they really are.

If Mark were really interested in an honest discussion as he claims to be, he would instead of said "the vast majority of indel mutations in coding regions are deleterious." No one would argue with that. The problem is, the stats concerning indels alone are not as dramatic and he wants it to appear that the mutation rate is a big problem for evolution. In reality Mark is not interested in any "genuine insight into how adaptive evolution actually happens." He wants to pretend it cannot.

I am done with Mark and this thread... he has had his fun. The rest of you can continue playing with him if you like.

Gorilla Genome

Conflation of Blathers

Natura non facit saltum

Conflation of Blathers

Scholar, Author, Educator

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Scholar, Author, Educator

Newbie

Senior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Senior Member

Junior Member

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Member

Natura non facit saltum

Listening to TW4

Senior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency