| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Petee dkj" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2003 11:35:02 AM |
| Object: |
how divided is the scientific community? |
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
.
|
|
| User: "Sarah Berel-Harrop" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 02:41:44 PM |
|
|
"Richard Uhrich" <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F3661A1.7010409@san.rr.com...
I interpreted his 'gorge' as any tiny molecular mechanism (e.g.,
flagellum) for which he can not see a step by step evolution, each step
being useful to the organism.
Well I guess I need to re-read the book. It certainly
is applicable in that regard. I will have to reread to
determine how I got the impression he was complaining
about natural selection in general as well.
Altho for one thing, complexity plays no part whatsoever
in the analogy. The complaint is the perceived "gap"
that was jumped. But I do not recall him stating
you percieved the "gap" because of complexity. I read
it as a straightforward comparison of one organism with
another, and a complaint that you can't get here from
there without some kind of help.
Pennock I believe also points out that there really
is not much difference between Behe's "IC" and
the standard creationist complaints that organs
can't develop using evolutionary mechanisms.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 04:36:25 PM |
|
|
Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
"Richard Uhrich" <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F3661A1.7010409@san.rr.com...
I interpreted his 'gorge' as any tiny molecular mechanism (e.g.,
flagellum) for which he can not see a step by step evolution, each step
being useful to the organism.
Well I guess I need to re-read the book. It certainly
is applicable in that regard. I will have to reread to
determine how I got the impression he was complaining
about natural selection in general as well.
I don't think he ever really supports natural evolution. He merely
argues for some examples that he thinks could not be natural.
Altho for one thing, complexity plays no part whatsoever
in the analogy. The complaint is the perceived "gap"
that was jumped. But I do not recall him stating
you percieved the "gap" because of complexity. I read
it as a straightforward comparison of one organism with
another, and a complaint that you can't get here from
there without some kind of help.
You might be right. Perhaps the gorge analogy was an implied argument
against *all* natural selection, but I don't recall having that impression.
Pennock I believe also points out that there really
is not much difference between Behe's "IC" and
the standard creationist complaints that organs
can't develop using evolutionary mechanisms.
The question is whether Behe believes some beneficial mutataions can and
do occur naturally and are selected for. If someone can answer that,
please do.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 07/30/2003
--
Richard Uhrich
---
"so skeptical, I can hardly believe it" -- Penn Jillette quoting Chip Denman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dunk" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 05:22:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:36:25 +0000 (UTC), Richard Uhrich
<uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote:
Sarah Berel-Harrop wrote:
"Richard Uhrich" <uhrich@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3F3661A1.7010409@san.rr.com...
I interpreted his 'gorge' as any tiny molecular mechanism (e.g.,
flagellum) for which he can not see a step by step evolution, each step
being useful to the organism.
Well I guess I need to re-read the book. It certainly
is applicable in that regard. I will have to reread to
determine how I got the impression he was complaining
about natural selection in general as well.
I don't think he ever really supports natural evolution. He merely
argues for some examples that he thinks could not be natural.
Altho for one thing, complexity plays no part whatsoever
in the analogy. The complaint is the perceived "gap"
that was jumped. But I do not recall him stating
you percieved the "gap" because of complexity. I read
it as a straightforward comparison of one organism with
another, and a complaint that you can't get here from
there without some kind of help.
You might be right. Perhaps the gorge analogy was an implied argument
against *all* natural selection, but I don't recall having that impression.
Pennock I believe also points out that there really
is not much difference between Behe's "IC" and
the standard creationist complaints that organs
can't develop using evolutionary mechanisms.
The question is whether Behe believes some beneficial mutataions can and
do occur naturally and are selected for. If someone can answer that,
please do.
Oh yes, 'fine tuning' is accepted. It's just that natural selection
is relegated to doing what he perceives as the easy stuff, and vice
versa. Recall that under 'making distinctions' towards the end, he
vaguely indicates that hemoglobin is 'a poor case for design', or in
other words our two hemoglobins that form the tetramer (two of each)
and allow highly efficient loading and unloading of O2 obviously
evolved via gene duplication and subsequent mutation.
He just neglects to say that hemoglobin is a case of IC - but that is
probably why it was on his mind. Why else does he bring it up?
But overall, I think that looking for a consistent interpretation of
everything in his book is a will o' the wisp.
He is sure that evolution can't really work. The analogies,
neologisms and so on are attempts to 'prove' this to himself and
others. The pseudo acceptance of common descent is an attempt to
convince himself and others that he is reasonable none the less.
Remember that he had to fill a book of a certain length and have as
broad an appeal as possible while essentially scutling evolution (if
you believe him). I see no point in searching for the 'true meaning'
of jumping the canyon, except: It is just another way of saying that
evolution can't get very far without the Designer. It has nothing to
do with common descent. Making babies is trivial (in his philosophy)
as long as the Designer has made the DNA.
Dunk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 01:01:16 AM |
|
|
In article <238b53a4.0308091715.4ba24bca@posting.google.com>,
(Lenny Flank) wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
(Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is
a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
As I understand it the modern theory of biological evolution involves
descent from a common organism via mutation followed by natural
selection. There is no evidence to support any supernatural
intervention. ID, supported by Behe and others, may involve common
descent, but I don't see how the rest of his ideas square with any
current scientifc theory.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 08:55:44 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message news:<jhachm-F2544F.23014509082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308091715.4ba24bca@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is
a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
As I understand it the modern theory of biological evolution involves
descent from a common organism via mutation followed by natural
selection. There is no evidence to support any supernatural
intervention. ID, supported by Behe and others, may involve common
descent, but I don't see how the rest of his ideas square with any
current scientifc theory.
Au contraire, Behe's idea square exactly with all current scientific
theories, since he is quite unable to point to anything that
distinguishes "supernaturally guided evolution" from plain old
ordinary run-of-the-mill commie pinko atheistic godless evolution. He
TRIED (and failed) to do so with his "irreducible complexity" baloney,
but when pressed, he simply has no way at all to tell if this or that
evolutionary process was or was not divinely guided. So not only does
"divinely directed evolution" square exactly with current scinetific
theory, but it is precisely the same. There is no difference between
them, other than the gratuitious added-in religious presumptions.
Which is, ultimately, why science ignores ID. It simply has nothing
new to say.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 11:54:06 PM |
|
|
In article <238b53a4.0308100556.11674f59@posting.google.com>,
(Lenny Flank) wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-F2544F.23014509082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308091715.4ba24bca@posting.google.com>,
(Lenny Flank) wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
(Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes
there is
a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
As I understand it the modern theory of biological evolution involves
descent from a common organism via mutation followed by natural
selection. There is no evidence to support any supernatural
intervention. ID, supported by Behe and others, may involve common
descent, but I don't see how the rest of his ideas square with any
current scientifc theory.
Au contraire, Behe's idea square exactly with all current scientific
theories, since he is quite unable to point to anything that
distinguishes "supernaturally guided evolution" from plain old
ordinary run-of-the-mill commie pinko atheistic godless evolution. He
TRIED (and failed) to do so with his "irreducible complexity" baloney,
but when pressed, he simply has no way at all to tell if this or that
evolutionary process was or was not divinely guided. So not only does
"divinely directed evolution" square exactly with current scinetific
theory, but it is precisely the same. There is no difference between
them, other than the gratuitious added-in religious presumptions.
Which is, ultimately, why science ignores ID. It simply has nothing
new to say.
That was the point that I was trying to make. What Behe's 'irreducible
complexity' nonsense boils down to is that the evolution of certain
complex structures like the eye is a complex process, so complex that
he feels that we can't explain it in terms of naturalistic
evolutionary processes. However, to invoke the 'divine', the designer,
or whatever it was that supposedly accomplished this task, he should
provide evidence for such an entity. Otherwise, it becomes a question
of faith or belief and not science. If on the other hand, he says that
we cannot easily explain the evolution of the eye, bacterial
flagellum, etc., simply because we don't know all of the steps in the
process, that is a good scientific answer. There is a lot that science
doesn't know and scientists are the first to admit it.
Until someone comes up with objective and verifiable evidence for ID,
or any other supernatural intervention in the natural world, science
should and will ignore it.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 06:39:25 PM |
|
|
Lenny Flank wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-F2544F.23014509082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308091715.4ba24bca@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:<jhachm-E36402.00465609082003@central.giganews.com>...
In article <238b53a4.0308081436.67c1414e@posting.google.com>,
lflank@ij.net (Lenny Flank) wrote:
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message
news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific
community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes
there is a
huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
I can't think of any legitimately degreed biologist who rejects
evolution. Not a one.
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Uh, Behe doesn't reject evolution. Behe accepts that life had a
common ancestor, and that humans are evolved from apelike primates.
In fact, Behe thinks young-earth creationists are nut cases.
Hence:
Even the 'intelligent design theorists' don't reject evolution ---
they simply assert (without any support) that God, er, I mean "The
Unknown Intelligent Designer", manipulates this process towards a
desired end.
As I understand it the modern theory of biological evolution involves
descent from a common organism via mutation followed by natural
selection. There is no evidence to support any supernatural
intervention. ID, supported by Behe and others, may involve common
descent, but I don't see how the rest of his ideas square with any
current scientifc theory.
Au contraire, Behe's idea square exactly with all current scientific
theories, since he is quite unable to point to anything that
distinguishes "supernaturally guided evolution" from plain old
ordinary run-of-the-mill commie pinko atheistic godless evolution. He
TRIED (and failed) to do so with his "irreducible complexity" baloney,
but when pressed, he simply has no way at all to tell if this or that
evolutionary process was or was not divinely guided. So not only does
"divinely directed evolution" square exactly with current scinetific
theory, but it is precisely the same. There is no difference between
them, other than the gratuitious added-in religious presumptions.
Which is, ultimately, why science ignores ID. It simply has nothing
new to say.
Occam's razor. "Thou shall not needlessly multiply entities".
If X = Y = Z explains A, then adding G to X + Y + Z adds nothing
to the explanation.
ID has nothing to do with evolution directly, but involves physics.
Physicists have better possible explanations, of which ID is but one
candidate. And not the best.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One yahoo!" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 06:54:34 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Even Behe has problems. Most biochemists/biologists tend to laugh when
they hear his name brought up as a "reliable source" - or even "a fellow
scientist".
--
The Great Hairy One,
AIM: TheGreatHairyOne
ICQ: 118086514
BAAWA BAAWA baby BAAWA
Anyone up for a SMASH(ing) good time?
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
I'd think up a sig, but I'm too
busy getting laid...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
10 Aug 2003 01:21:37 AM |
|
|
In article <3f34deba$0$23602$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
The Great Hairy One <"the_great_hairy"@yahoo.com (yahoo!)> wrote:
johac wrote:
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Even Behe has problems. Most biochemists/biologists tend to laugh when
they hear his name brought up as a "reliable source" - or even "a fellow
scientist".
Behe has published a few reasonable papers on protein structure, but
these had nothing to do with evolution.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One yahoo!" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
11 Aug 2003 04:21:29 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Behe has published a few reasonable papers on protein structure, but
these had nothing to do with evolution.
Aye, and that was a while ago, too.
--
The Great Hairy One,
AIM: TheGreatHairyOne
ICQ: 118086514
BAAWA BAAWA baby BAAWA
Anyone up for a SMASH(ing) good time?
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
I'd think up a sig, but I'm too
busy getting laid...
(Remove spam block to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 11:07:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:54:34 +0000 (UTC), The Great Hairy One
<"the_great_hairy"@yahoo.com (yahoo!)> wrote:
johac wrote:
Well, there are people like Behe (protein biochemist) and maybe a few
more like him, but I would be willing to wager that they don't even
account for 1% of the total.
Even Behe has problems. Most biochemists/biologists tend to laugh when
they hear his name brought up as a "reliable source" - or even "a fellow
scientist".
Even Behe accepts common descent, which makes him just as much of an
embarrassment to the creationist camp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 06:01:34 PM |
|
|
In article <3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>,
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote:
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
*
I have never seen any data (surveys, etc.) on the ratio of scientists
who believe in evolution. I have seen data on their religious beliefs.
The scientific journal "Nature" reported recently on the religious
beliefs of top scientists. The first survey was conducted in 1916.
The same study was repeated in 1933 and recently (more than 80 years
after the first study) in 1998:
From "NATURE"
Leading Scientists Still Reject God
Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)
(C) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18.0 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53.0 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29.0 23.3
Figures are percentages.
Details:
"NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate
of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey
involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half
replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7%
responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal
disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in
the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined
from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the
"human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2%
claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with
43.7% in Leuba's original measurement [Dr. James Leuba,
Psychology Professor at Bryn Mawr University conducted the
original study]. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in
a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%, while the lowest
was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
From "NATURE" 394, 313 (23 Jul 1998) Correspondence
earle
*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dunk" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
08 Aug 2003 10:02:57 PM |
|
|
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote in message news:<3F33D762.2C9E1777@wayne.edu>...
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
Slap him and he'll come out of his dream.
Dunk
I have taken the liberties of xposting to talk.origins, since this is more
the type of question someone over there can answer, but I'll throw
in my two cents. . .
Well it depends on what scope you are limiting scientists to. If you are
talking about people w/Ph.D.'s in biology that do active research in the field
of biology, I would be willing to bet the number would be about 100%--
afterall evolution is pretty much the backbone of modern biology (if
I have any of this wrong, somebody else is welcome to correct me).
I don't think it should matter what scientists in other fields think,
since I don't think anyone would take a sick pet to a garage mechanic,
much like you wouldn't expect an expert opinion on evolution from a
physicist. However, I would still expect the percentages to be pretty
high for scientists in other fields.
That being said, if you don't have the talk.origins site bookmarked,
do so immediately, as it is an excellent resource for just this sort of topic.
Also you may want to check out the National Center for Science Education,
which also maintains this sort of information.
Link for talk orgins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Link for the NCSE
http://www.ncseweb.org/
Keep in mind that whomever you are debating with may not consider
talk.origins or the NCSE to be reliable sources, saying something
like "those are just evil atheist sites," or somesuch nonsense.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: how divided is the scientific community? |
09 Aug 2003 11:58:40 PM |
|
|
david asman <dasman@wayne.edu> wrote:
Petee wrote:
Anyone have any good links with stats on where the scientific community
stands on evolution, etc.? Arguing with a xian, who believes there is a huge
divide - something like 50/50 on the validity of evolution.
Thanks.
Well it depends on what scope you are limiting scientists to. If you are
talking about people w/Ph.D.'s in biology that do active research in the field
of biology, I would be willing to bet the number would be about 100%--
afterall evolution is pretty much the backbone of modern biology (if
I have any of this wrong, somebody else is welcome to correct me).
Well, it isn't *quite* 100%, as I know of at least one practicing
biologist who is a Creationist. (And I sort of know of one or two
others). But of course that is still 99.999% agreement.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
