|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 1:01:44 PM |
And it could also be the by-product of a genetic change that was beneficial. You earlier referred to genetic redundancy.
Doh, of course, thats the obvious factor i'm overlooking.
One benefit of this is that the functions of one gene can be replaced (usually not as efficiently) by another gene.
Would this not meen though that the disadvantages of dyslexia would be bread out over time as new more efecient genes took over the job of the deficentcies of dyslexia? | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 702 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 1:14:51 PM | Hi Raziel, I’m not sure why dyslexia developed. (By-the-by… you always get your points across, and if I don’t get it, I can always ask for clarification). It’s genetically heritable (interesting lit review http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/~gayan/ch1.pdf). I suspect that the cultural focus on reading and writing and the possible selective benefit that would offer haven’t existed for the vast majority of human history. Simply, it just may not have been selected against. Especially, since in terms of sexual-selection, it’s a hidden trait. Well… perhaps in anything but online-dating. 
It might be somewhat like wisdom teeth. Humans have been slowly loosing their wisdom teeth (I only have 2 and the ones I have are small). Before antibiotics and dental surgery many people died from infections from their wisdom teeth coming in. But wisdom teeth don’t come in until rather late in our normal reproductive age and previously our lifespan was quite short. So the selection pressure is small. And now with dentistry, that small pressure, at least in affluent nations, is virtually non-existent.
Sexual selection is really interesting, and at times counter-intuitive. Pays to remember, it’s not simply whether you survive, it’s the number of progeny you leave behind.
The male peacock’s showy display doesn’t make sense from a survival-energy budget perspective. But since female peacocks preferentially mate with the showier ones, those traits continue in a positive feedback loop until the cost of trait is so high, that they would tend to die before they can mate.
There was an interesting study on this with widow-birds. The males have very long tails, and the female’s preferentially mate with the those with the longest tails. The long-tails hinder the males. The researchers went a step further and gave them tail-extensions, which were so long the birds could barely fly. This would significantly reduce their survival, because they couldn’t escape from predators. No surprise… the females mated with those with tail extensions. The tail-length found naturally and the associated reduced survival is a balance point; a trade-off which maximizes offspring.
Hamilton and Zuk (1982) hypothesized some bird species will have more parasites and that the males would have more extreme secondary sex characteristics (bright colouration) would indicate resistant males. They samples about a 100 species and found a strong correlation between the two variables - bird species that suffer more from
parasites do have brighter male coloration
If the male has sufficient fitness to survive the high parasite load and make bright feathers (or make the brightly coloured tail, or haul around the long tail, or spend all that energy to make antlers…) then his genes must be exceptional. Lol!
(*grin* this maybe the true reason women ask men to unscrew the lid off of jars… it’s a fitness test… glad we don’t do the parasite load one… blek)
smart people thought in words and dumb people thought in pictures
hehe, I rarely think in words, unless I’m actually in the process of trying to write something or talk to someone. Even then it’s a bit of a hit and miss translation. We just don’t have the words I’m afraid…
Although, it’s exciting when you find another language, where the culture does have a name for the concept you’re trying to express.
I have determined that most concepts can be successfully communicated over pints and with a pen/pencil and sufficient numbers of napkins to sketch on.
----------------
edit: which genes are redundant? examples? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 1:22:44 PM | Yes, Raziel, it occurred to me that school must have been pretty challenging for you. Is it easier to get your thoughts out verbally, or is that just as tough as writing? There's some pretty good voice recognition software around now.
Ever thought your Dyslexia is related to your fertile brian? LOL - like a laser amplifying light before it lets it out! Maybe it allows you to think differently - more creatively. Imagine how Steven Hawking must feel! But I understand and empathise with the price you are paying. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 1:33:47 PM | | Wow, imagine being selected because you deal well with having lice. That seems much easier than buying a fancy car. Raziel- I understand you fine for the most part, and when I don't, you qualify it adequately. I think you may perceive it as more of a handicap than it is for you. Remember, many of the great minds in history were so partly because they had to transcend diversity. I say keep on the path with who you are. It seems to be working successfully. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 2:07:25 PM | I think we're mostly agreeing again wonka. I found a cool site for the depth perception stuff - http://psych.hanover.edu/Krantz/art/. I omitted to recognize some of it had been around for waaaay longer than the Impressionists. But you can't just disgree with my explanation - do you have any opinion on the value of art for survival? Actually, someone just pointed out to me that art and science are relatively recent developments. Before that, people were natural philosophers - at liberty to dabble in whatever they wanted, unfettered by society's labels.
Dryad - Not entirely sure where I came upon the notion of redundant genes - and you called me on it! 
Well, I actually said genetic redundancy as an abbreviation of Raziel's comment on the redundancy of DNA (so go pick on Raziel instead!  ) LOL - no - not really - I'd heard the notion before, probably even in seminars, but I think it's also the basis of those Lamarck supporting papers on the increased rate of advantageous mutations in bacteria exposed to evolutionary pressures that we discussed (and sorta dismissed) earlier. If I recall, the bacteria selected had a redundant, inefficient and suppressed extra lac gene (or something close) which became activated after gene mutation if the normal lac gene was removed. I also Googled redundant genes and came up with lots of links. Try Ute Hochgeschwender & Miles B. Brennan Redundant genes? Nature Genetics 8, 219 - 220 (1994). They take exception to the term, but in a page of gobbledygook I divined that another basis for the term is that the elimination of certain genes in 'knockout mice' still results in apparently normal mice, leading to the conclusion that the gene wasn't necessary. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 2:13:23 PM | "But you can't just disgree with my explanation - do you have any opinion on the value of art for survival?"
Yeah, as an artist myself I could expound on that for the length of a book, but, like you said, I wasn't really disagreeing with you. All I meant by saying that I don't totally agree with that particular sentiment was that, in scientific terms, depth perception was quite well understood at the time of the impressionists, but I agree with you about understanding it in what I would say, is profound in a different way, but not a better one. That's all, just trivial quibbling. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 6:33:17 PM | Raziel with the spelling thing, I was teasing you. I am an abysmal speller, I have my spell check and dictionary by my side but I have a rather profound apathy for too much dictionary digging, at least for spelling. I am an ardent believer in communication and spelling shouldn't pretain if the thoughts are conveyed.
My questions lean toward where we define evolution. Is it simply the body, or as In man, are we defining evolution as cognitive growth? The ability to reason. For if we are to consider as criteria, the evolution of man's cognition then I believe we can not use animals as examples of proof, as it were, to establish evolution. Animals learn through experience, creating neuro pathways, similarly to man, which hard wire themselves into the DNA, a perfect example of this is the inhierent caution animals exhibit when interacting with new species, of course we know this as adaptation, instincts, which leads subsequently to survival of the species. Does this mean that they reason? Or is their existance based on a prescribed program of survival and only adapting when survival is required?
If we do not use animals as proof within this argument, then I feel the basis of conviction should be the evolution of the human mind.
Does man have enviromental stimulated adaptation similar to animals that would initiat physical generational changes? and is this the only criteria that determines evolution? As I stated in earlier posts, I believe there is a definete division between the chemical body process which programs the survival mechinisms of our existance (body mind consciousness) and the mind that reasons or analogical mind.
(note to wonka: "ana": greek, meaning up. logic: greek, meaning reason, or upward reasoning mind, a focused mind. thats the defn used in this reference, if that helps)
Therefore I believe the definition of evolution should not lie solely within the realm of the physical but rather by the one thing that sets us apart from all other species on the planet, out minds.
I have to step out. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 6:33:33 PM | Raziel with the spelling thing, I was teasing you. I am an abysmal speller, I have my spell check and dictionary by my side but I have a rather profound apathy for too much dictionary digging, at least for spelling. I am an ardent believer in communication and spelling shouldn't pretain if the thoughts are conveyed.
My questions lean toward where we define evolution. Is it simply the body, or as In man, are we defining evolution as cognitive growth? The ability to reason. For if we are to consider as criteria, the evolution of man's cognition then I believe we can not use animals as examples of proof, as it were, to establish evolution. Animals learn through experience, creating neuro pathways, similarly to man, which hard wire themselves into the DNA, a perfect example of this is the inhierent caution animals exhibit when interacting with new species, of course we know this as adaptation, instincts, which leads subsequently to survival of the species. Does this mean that they reason? Or is their existance based on a prescribed program of survival and only adapting when survival is required?
If we do not use animals as proof within this argument, then I feel the basis of conviction should be the evolution of the human mind.
Does man have enviromental stimulated adaptation similar to animals that would initiat physical generational changes? and is this the only criteria that determines evolution? As I stated in earlier posts, I believe there is a definete division between the chemical body process which programs the survival mechinisms of our existance (body mind consciousness) and the mind that reasons or analogical mind.
(note to wonka: "ana": greek, meaning up. logic: greek, meaning reason, or upward reasoning mind, a focused mind. thats the defn used in this reference, if that helps)
Therefore I believe the definition of evolution should not lie solely within the realm of the physical but rather by the one thing that sets us apart from all other species on the planet, our minds.
I have to step out. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 709 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 7:26:06 PM | As I stated in earlier posts, I believe there is a definete division between the chemical body process which programs the survival mechinisms of our existance (body mind consciousness) and the mind that reasons or analogical mind.
Ah, separating the mind from the brain… fascinating. But why? If I hit you on the head with a brick, it without doubt messes with your ‘analogical mind’. Not that I would, I just think the separation is questionable.
I think we are arguing two very different theories… the terminology is confusing things.
Therefore I believe the definition of evolution should not lie solely within the realm of the physical but rather by the one thing that sets us apart from all other species on the planet, our minds.
I’ve often thought about why we are so intent in setting ourselves apart from nature. I suspect it’s ego. After thinking about this question of what separates us from other species', I think the answer might just be... a little bit of DNA.
I don’t see consciousness or abstract thought or language (by the way honeybees use abstract language and only have a couple ganglia to rub together) as the end-game of evolution. It’s one of many adaptations that had some benefit to reproductive fitness. To use an economic metaphor; like money denominating value, in evolution the successful passing of genes is the common measure.
All organisms that exist now are evolutionary equals. You could envision it for any cross-section of time through the phylogenic tree. It’s dynamic though; populations rise and fall, conditions change and what may have once been a wonderful adaptation may be a species Achilles heel in the future.
Consider the millennia before any type of brain existed. If it is only conscious intent modifying DNA, what about the mindless things that made up and still make up the vast majority of life on Earth?
I’m not convinced consciousness is what we think it is ;)
Hmmm… maybe QuietJohn knows the details of this one… but I remember a study where the people were hooked up ala EEG-ish wires that measured the electrical potential of thier motor-cortex. They were shown a slide and told to flick the slides once they were done looking at them. However, it wasn’t them pressing flicker that changed the slide, it was a change in electric potential. The interesting thing was it seemed to change the slide before they consciously intended to (greater than just reflex time). They all reported that it was eerie… the slide machine seemed to ‘know’ when they wanted to change it. Perhaps our brain informs our consciousness?
I think our consciousness can only focus on one thing at a time. It’s a bit like our vision as this optical illusion demonstrates:
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/S%20Stephens/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/WH2NSPIN/260,24,Slide 24
(Hehe, see if you can stop the motion… it’s very difficult to unfocus/multiple focus)
I know when I really want to work something complex out, I kind of ‘file it’ and chew on it for awhile. It seems to spit out an answer fairly shortly. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/13/2005 7:39:11 PM | "After thinking about this question of what separates us from other species, I think the answer might just be... a little bit of DNA."
Yes. I would only add that that little bit of DNA manifests itself in aspects that subjectively set us apart, mostly our ability to share, store and compare/contrast information through many generations. This ability in other species is rudimentary in comparison. I think it's easy, considering the dramatic divide in that regard, to think there must be some profound biological difference, but I feel that is erroneous. A hyperdeveloped neocortex in conjunction with opposing digits is all that is required to understand what sets us apart. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 12:17:38 AM | I don't have any answer for the mind/consciousness - body duality. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the notion that when we die, the mind/consciousness goes away but the body remains, ergo they must be separate. Maybe a big part of it has to do with not wanting to disappear, so we invent a mythical existence that keeps on going outside our bodies. I've pondered it for many years, read books by some of the greatest brain researchers and still can't come up with any sensible notion of what the mind and consciousness are - or why we even need them. I'd agree with Dryad in suspecting that we're not even thinking about consciousness in the right way - more energy?
I really don't buy the 'humans are special' notion. The thing most exquisitely overdeveloped in the human species seems to be ego. Another interesting view of the difference between species is the contrast between birds and mammals. Have you ever seen the clips of birds figuring out how to get a seed out of a maze of knobs and switches. Dryan probably knows a lot more about New Caledonian Crows and their ability to use tools. Yet the structure of a bird's brain was long thought to be much simpler than a mammalian brain.
There are now quite a few experiments to suggest we figure out the solutions to problems or the need for actions before our consciousness becomes aware of them but I haven't managed to dig up good citations yet. I seem to recall that decisions can be detected as much as a half second before individuals become aware that they have made a decision. Antonio Damasio is one researcher working on this topic. He has an interesting article in Science, Vol 275, Issue 5304, 1293-1295 , 1997. A little different, but he is offering his subjects choices and notes that they develop skin responses (similar to the lie detector test) which coincide with them figuring out a winning strategy. However, they don't become consciously aware of the winning strategy for many more trials.
The idea of using brain signals to control things has gone much further than the work you describe, Dryad. Now they are using brain signals to drive robot arms in the hope of developing artificial arms for disabled people - Wessberg, J. et al. Nature 408, 361-365 (2000). Another interesting line of work was the split brain surgeries done by Sperry to alleviate epileptic seizures. He divided the brain so that there were no connections between the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere. He could demonstrate that one hemisphere was conscious of an experience on one side of the body, but the other half of the brain was unable to communicate what the experience was. So it seems that consciousness requires nerve connections to get around the brain. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 712 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:46:00 AM | Hmm... neat QuietJohn
edit: just realized the link I gave for the slide was a dead one :(
here's a good link
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~moraes/illusion.html
Oh, you can watch videos on the crows QuietJohn mentioned (to watch the videos click on the left images):
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 9:51:01 AM | So it seems that consciousness requires nerve connections to get around the brain.
Very interesting. I have read about some of the same things. I think I actually saw a program on this on the science channel (formerly Discover) in 2004.
I am familiar with a case where at least one totally paralyzed person was connected to a computer through his brain. Somehow he was able to use what were formerly his motor nuero-pathways to send electical signals. He was able to move the curser through concentration so that he could communicate. It took him a long time to be able to do it, but it proved definitively that it could be done.
Obviously, the potential for such technology is amazing. What if a body was built for the guy using the same principal? That is at least a century off, but its nice to think that paralyzed people might have some options. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 10:45:59 AM | Yah, Crows are really smart animals. I knew this old guy in Alaska that had a pet crow and it was always escaping its cage. It could untie trash bag twisties and bore holes through the vulnerable parts of the cage with its beak. It was also intelligent enough to do this while no one was watching it.
The owner could also talk to the bird and it would respond to commands. Like it understood the word french fry. It liked french fries. But the damn thing was mean as hell. You had to watch out because it could snap the tip of your finger right off. You could never trust it either. I think the only person it wouldn't attack was the owner.
Another interesting thing is that crows are supposed to be migratory birds in Alaska, but there are crows that live in and around the dumpsters of McDonalds and Wendys that don't migrate. They are also so fat that they can't fly, they can sort of lift off and glide for about 20 feet but that is about it. I remember my aunt was afraid of birds and when we would go outside in the picnic area to eat these things would skulk around and wait for you to put your guard down and steal your food and then run and hide in the dumpster or under cars. This were big crows too. They could run off with a whole big mac. Anyway, one time back in 1989 a crow took a chicken sandwich right out of my aunt's hand when she wasn't paying attention and she almost had a heart attack. I will never forget the day this fat Raven snuck up on my aunt and stole her chicken sandwich and then ran under a caddilac. I am not making this up.
These crows just decided they didn't need to migrate because McDonalds is always there. They also helped clean up the the litter by eating all of the food left outside so it didn't seem like the people running these resteraunts protested their presence.
I guess this isn't too off topic because it shows that evolution has produced intelligence in animals other than humans. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 10:52:59 AM | | Actually the corvids (crows, magpies and ravens) are all very intelligent birds. They rival the African Grey Parrot in reagards to reasoning skills. I think people often tend to think of intelligence as an all or nothing proposition without realizing that it is a continuum. Human intelligence did not just pop into existence. It evolved. In fact studying the parallels in other animals only serves to buttress the theory of evolution. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:06:07 AM | | Now that I recollect, the bird the guy had was a Magpie, not a crow. I'm pretty sure there were both crows and ravens living around the dumpsters of fast food resteraunts all year long that were not migrating due to the constant supply of food there. The Ravens were the great big ones. They were all extremely fat; much fatter than they are supposed to be. McDonalds is not good for birds either. That is what stole my aunt's food, a Raven. Crows were smaller and more numerous. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:25:42 AM | | Now that I think about it, Crows also seemed to have cooperative strategies for stealing food. Like there would be a group distracting people and then two hiding under a car darting out intermittantly to steal. Then later in the day they would all share. I am absolutely not making this up. I used to love watching them when I was a little kid. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:35:20 AM | "Like there would be a group distracting people and then two hiding under a car darting out intermittantly to steal. Then later in the day they would all share."
That is fascinating. Corvids are really cool birds. Are you familiar with the work that Irene Pepperberg has done with the african gray parrot over the last twenty or so years? Mind boggling stuff. I think it's imperative to better understand the evolution of intelligence if we want to even begin to define our own. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:37:39 AM | "Now they are using brain signals to drive robot arms in the hope of developing artificial arms for disabled people"
We can rebuild him; we have the technology. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 720 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 11:48:08 AM | I absolutely believe you Lizard. Lots of birds and other animals feed each other. I have a couple of service berry trees in my backyard and the large groups of hang out in them Cedar Waxwings feeding each other for hours. (There are even records of birds, most commonly bluejays, feeding pond goldfish, but I think that might me a case of false-stimulus trigger … the goldfish mouths look like gapping hatchlings mouths).
Growing up by the escarpment I’ve seen crows play some type of aerial football with bags, Tim Horton’s coffee cups, etc… Actually I’ve seen tree swallows do the same with a feather. The best though is in the winter when they roll on their back and toboggan down in the snow, shooting out off the edge of the cliff into the air and fly back and do it again.
edit: is that the parrot they taught to talk? The one that knows over one-hundred words and the images/objects they relate too? Much like some of the sign-language some captive primates have learnt. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 12:08:08 PM | | Yes, Drayad. That is the one. I think she works with a few greys, but that is her star pupil. the amazing thing is that, like gorillas and chimps, the greys are able to not only parrot (sorry for the pun ) what they are taught, but also to combine their learned relations of word to object in novel ways to express themselves. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 4:54:46 PM | Well, that was a fun exchange! I loved your posts about the crows / ravens / magpies, Lizard - still chuckling.
Looks like we're backing off on what sets humans apart. I'd say that many animals educate their young. Definitely most carnivores, so I'm not sure if Wonka's criterion of passing information down the generations is especially human either.
Does man have enviromental stimulated adaptation similar to animals that would initiat physical generational changes? What about skin color? Dark skin to protect from the sun, light skin to supplement vitamin D production. Just to be clear, it isn't so much that the environment stimulated the adaptation as much as created a survival rate differential between individuals with slightly different genetic dispositions. Thus amplifying the differences between their genetic makeup. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 5:00:33 PM | Evolution is simply change, but in relation specifically to the body, is that change necessitated through survival adaptation?
Physical evolution has been documented (and debated) for hundreds of years.
What is in question is defining brain compartmentalization. What part of the brain is used for survival existance, (maintaining life, feeding, reproduction and the facilitation of these things), and what part of the brain is used for reason, creative thought, dreaming, psycic phenomenon, the asthetics of existance.
In understanding body mind consciousness perhaps the definition could be determined by what functions the brain facilitates for the body for basic survival, or more specificily, what regions of the brain are used in the expediting of survival functions and what regions of the brain facilitates the analogical functions of the brain.
Is every thought mapped by a neuro pathway?
Most definetly every physical action is initiated through the brain from specific neruo pathways, also emotional reactions being chemical based which then elicit a physical response again provide a verifiable neuro response. Most of these are based primarily within the cerebrum. The exception being the cordination of complex somatic motor patterns and specific memory functions which are located within the cerebellum, the latter being considered to deal with associative and spacial memory where basic recall is located again within the cerebrum. These function's neuroactivity levels are recorded at a very minimal precentage which are further excentuated considering the dense concentration of neurons within the cerebellum compared to that of the cerebrum. (In truth the primary functions of the cerebellum are still a mystery to medical science)
So what regions of the brain are used during dreaming, focused and creative abstract thought processes?
Argh !!!! Time constraints. Everyone should be blessed with children, at the least to teach us the meaning of patience.
gotta run. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 7:15:32 PM | | quitejohn- as I recall I made specific reference to the degree to which we are capable of sharing information. Perhaps I did not express myself well. Certainly you must agree that there is a tremendous difference in scale between teaching rudimentary skills such as a chimpanzee collecting ants with a stick or a wolfs hunting techniques, and the vast architechture of knowledge that has been developed by the human species? What I was mostly referencing, by my mention of the hyperdeveloped neocortex in conjunction with opposable digits, was the advent of advanced language, the written word and visual media. This is what sets us apart in my opinion. Take a modern human and let them grow up feral, in a state of nature, and there will be little difference to a human fifty thousand years ago. The difference is our ability to share information at such a level that we can continually expand upon our pool of knowledge. In a sense, for the time being, physical evolution has been supplanted by social evolution, because it moves much faster. We are born with a leg up over previous generations, or to paraphrase Einstein, standing on the shoulders of giants. In fact the evolution of information seems to be an almost exponential growth as opposed to a linear one. (I think I mentioned that before) The more we know the more we know more. I agree it is very problematic trying to pin down why we are different, but we clearly are different in some fashion, because no other species can conform their environemnt to their necessity with anywhere near the ability that humans do. I think that difference is most attributable to the level with which we can share information and continually expound and expand upon it. Okay, I'm kind of tired. Did that make sense? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/14/2005 7:25:08 PM | Silivros-
"what part of the brain is used for reason, creative thought, dreaming, psycic phenomenon, the asthetics of existance."
To a degree the brain is compartmentalized as to the tasks it peforms, for instance reason largely takes place in the neocortex, but that notion often is not balanced with the fact that the entire brain works in conjunction as well. Even processes that take place in the more primal limbic system still play a role in higher cognition. Psychic phenomenon I find no viable evidence in all the years it's been studied, so I would leave that out. the aesthetics of existence, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I would like to hear an experts response to some of your questions as to where certain functions are located. | |
|
|
| Page 29 of 156
|
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 |
|
Home
login 
