Abiogenesis Challenge

_{November 16, 2015

Chemistry, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments

@66 Mapou The Bird Watcher Ernst Mayr said "Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." In other words, Just so stories. I don't mind the butterfly and moth collectors coming up with their evolutionary just so stories, they could be published as bedtime stories. They shouldn't however be mooching off the state with their story telling.Jack Jones_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Notice the continued empty chair on the stage? What does that tell us about the confident manner of evolutionary materialism advocates and fellow travellers?kairosfocus_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

mike1962 @63, Well said. The inability of Darwinists to formulate an experiment that could falsify Darwinian evolution is the reason that Karl Popper called it a "metaphysical research program". It boggles the mind that Darwinists have managed to turn their little chicken-shit religion into a government funded and mandated "science". Future historians will have a hard time figuring that one out. It's almost as if a powerful but invisible hand is pushing this crap onto humanity.Mapou_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Mike: "I can verify or falsify your car-making proposal empirically. As it turns out, I can actually provide a step-by-step account of car-making." Yes, by dismantling the car and reassembling it, you could posit a step by step process for assembling the car. But could you conclude that your process was the exact same one used to first construct it? No. Much in the same way that we know the DNA sequence required for a specific protein, we could probably posit a series of mutations that could result in the needed sequence. But that would be pointless as there is no way that we could conclude that it actually arose in that fashion. But we have gone way off topic. With regard to OOL, I have already stated that I have no idea how it came about, and that an intelligent agent is a valid inference. As is a natural one. But the only way that you can test the strength of either inference is to continue to research all possible natural possibilities. I think that we would all agree on this. Unless someone has any idea for testing the idea of an intelligent cause to OOL.brian douglas_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Correction, that should read "6 brown beetles"Jack Jones_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

brian douglas: evolution just proposes the mechanism, not a step by step account of how it occurred. How do we empirically verify or falsify that the proposed mechanism can generate what occurred? Much in the same way that I can propose the mechanisms involved in the production of a car without knowing the step by step process that is actually used. I can verify or falsify your car-making proposal empirically. As it turns out, I can actually provide a step-by-step account of car-making. You can make proposals all day long, but you need to specify the means of verifying or falsifying your proposals. Otherwise it's not science. Take, for example, the conjecture that something like a chimp brain evolved, without any intelligent intervention, into a human brain. You can propose a variety of "mechanisms" for this, but how would you go about verifying or falsifying this conjecture?mike1962_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

In regards to Mr Arrington's comment "As for evolution generally, it is true that mechanisms have been proposed (genetic drift; natural selection, etc.). But don’t you see that when you say that you “know” these mechanisms account for the observations that you have just engaged in a colossal exercise of question begging? This is patently obvious. " On the evolution berkeley site then their example for genetic drift is a foot dreading on some green beetles and you end up with 1 green beetle to 5 brown beetles which already existed. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_24 How the hell is that evolution so that over time a new creature will emerge? And if the green beetle was to have offspring with the brown beetle then that doesn't produce a mechanism for new organs and body parts over time. You might get some cosmetic variation like you get when humans of light skin have children with people of darker skin but that provides no mechanism for the humans to give rise to a new body plan over time. In the past I was told that the peppered moth story was an example of natural selection which they equivocate for evolution. Even if the peppered moth story were true then how is that supporting evolution? You started with black moths and light colored moths and ended with the black moths because the light ones get eaten up. How is that supporting evolution? You have a reduction of information in the population and no mechanism has been produced for a moth to evolve towards a new life form over many generations. And increasing the amount of black moths over time is not going to provide a mechanism for them to become something else. The death of the light colored moths did not create The moth in the first place. Why is it that evolutionists use these pathetic ideas as support for their faith when it has nothing to do with how new organs and body parts originate? "When it comes to OOL, as EA’s post shows, there are no causal forces currently in operation that could even conceivably (much less actually) turn dead matter into living matter. As EA observes, this is true even if we give the process an enormous head start. If you are saying you know the general mechanism (as opposed to step-by-step details) by which dead matter was turned into living matter in the remote past, you are wrong. You don’t even know a mechanism that will meet EA’s toy challenge. Therefore, with respect to OOL, your mountain formation example fails, because there is absolutely no known mechanism for materialist OOL, much less a mechanism that we currently see in operation. " Mr Arrington, they go outside of what is known for how nature operates and then they claim they are sticking to natural causation. They need to stick to what is known with how processes in the present operate, when they step outside of what is empirically known for how nature operates, while claiming natural causation, then they are not being consistent with their own rule.Jack Jones_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Barry: “brian is apparently against cop outs except when he is not. ” How is this a cop out? Do you agree that we understand the basic mechanisms behind mountain formation? If so, why do we not question them because we can’t describe step by step how Mount Everest came to be the shape it is?
There is a theory of mountain formation. That theory is based on the extrapolation of causal forces we see in operation today. In other words, geologists go outside, look at processes that result in the formation of mountains today, and say “Gee, I theorize that is how mountains formed in the past.” Perfectly reasonable chain of inference. When it comes to OOL, as EA’s post shows, there are no causal forces currently in operation that could even conceivably (much less actually) turn dead matter into living matter. As EA observes, this is true even if we give the process an enormous head start. If you are saying you know the general mechanism (as opposed to step-by-step details) by which dead matter was turned into living matter in the remote past, you are wrong. You don’t even know a mechanism that will meet EA’s toy challenge. Therefore, with respect to OOL, your mountain formation example fails, because there is absolutely no known mechanism for materialist OOL, much less a mechanism that we currently see in operation. As for evolution generally, it is true that mechanisms have been proposed (genetic drift; natural selection, etc.). But don’t you see that when you say that you “know” these mechanisms account for the observations that you have just engaged in a colossal exercise of question begging? This is patently obvious. Go outside. Do you see natural selection or genetic drift forming new body plans (as opposed to making minor modifications to existing body plans)? Do you see natural selection or genetic drift forming genomes (as opposed to making minor modifications to existing genomes)? I can go on and on. The answer is “no.” You will almost surely respond that my criticism is misdirected because those processes work on a geologic time scale and therefore we cannot expect to see them in operation today. The problem with this response is that there is good reason to believe that unlike the causal forces we observe with respect to mountain formation, there is reason to believe that the causal forces proposed for materialist evolution are incapable in principle of doing the work ascribed to them. To cite one example of many, how can natural forces even in principle create a semiotic code? And even if they have an existing semiotic code to work with, how can natural forces coordinate the multitude of simultaneous modifications to that code necessary to create significant changes to body plans?Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Brian A mountain only obeys the laws of nature it is inanimate matter. You are animated matter there is a mountain of difrence between you and that mountain. Inanimate can not become animated unless there is an animator.Andre_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I’m not going to look up words for you, particularly since the word is used in context. Zach: We did look up the term, but it generally seems to refer to cell populations, not to cell structure.
My suggestion would be to not ignore context.
Upright BiPed: A living cell is a heterogeneous system. It requires discrete parts in order to function, and reproduces itself by means of prescriptive synthesis. This process requires the translation of an informational medium. A simple replicator in a membrane is heterogeneous in the normal sense of the word, but doesn’t include translation, so is not a “heterogeneous cell” as you are using the term.
I am using the word in the sense of our universal observation of living cells. They are heterogeneous entities that reproduce themselves by the translation of prescriptive memory.
Upright BiPed: The minimum requirements for the origin of the system are therefore established by what is physically necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself into memory. Zach: The “therefore” is misplaced. Rather, you are *claiming* that such a system can’t derive from a simpler system.
Wrong. A heterogeneous self-replicating system that reproduces itself by the translation of prescriptive memory, must be able to describe itself into that memory. The minimum requirement for the system is therefore established by what is necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself into memory. The word “therefore” is not misplaced.Upright BiPed_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Barry: "brian is apparently against cop outs except when he is not. " How is this a cop out? Do you agree that we understand the basic mechanisms behind mountain formation? If so, why do we not question them because we can't describe step by step how Mount Everest came to be the shape it is? Physicists have a very good understanding of radioactive decay and the mechanisms involved. The fact that they cannot predict when any atom will decay is not evidence against the theory.brian douglas_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Zach said " "The existence of a gap is not a strong argument for design. " We argue from what is known, not from what is not known. You argue from what is not known to occur in nature with your rejection of known chemistry and the law of biogenesis. " In any case, abiogenetic hypotheses have been scientifically fruitful," Like Virgil said. "Your opinion is not an argument." Zach "while Intelligent Design has been scientifically sterile." On the contrary, it is the presuppositions of those that believed in a designer that gave rise to modern science. Kepler's motivation was a result of his belief in a Designer, so it is funny when you talk about planetary motion in your comments. The idea that our sense of self is an illusion produced by determined matter in a universe where stuff happens, provides no grounds for doing science. None of the presuppositions of science have any grounding on materialism. If humans are nothing more than determined matter in motion as they are on materialism, then not only is the investigator illusory but the matter that gave rise to the illusion of self is just doing what ever any other such configuration of matter would so, as matter can be reduced to chemical elements on the periodic table then please do tell what chemical elements are free? Truth requires freedom, it makes no sense to say determined chemistry is false which you would be doing when arguing against others. Maybe you can do what Professor Moran has failed to do and tell me. which chemical elements are free?Jack Jones_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Eric You should be even more surprised at the fact that a self replicating molecule happened for absolute no reason whatsoever..Andre_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

KF @29 (quoting Rational Wiki):
Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.
I note that abiogenesis has been elevated to an actual process that definitely exists (albeit an unknown one). To be accurate, they should have said that "abiogenesis is a theoretical process that . . ." My favorite part though is the claimed existence of the never-before-seen, hypothetical entity: the self-replicating molecule. Ah, yes. Ever an important character in the materialist creation story.Eric Anderson_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Zach,
You might want to check out Szostak’s Lab. They’ve done a lot of research into abiogenetics.
Before I follow you link, can you tell me whether Szostak's lab has solved any of the basic problems facing a materialist OOL account? If yes, I must have missed the headlines and Nobel Prizes that surely followed. If not, what is the point of checking them out?Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

JJ, in many cases the new atheist radicals and fellow travellers are SJWs seeking to demand approval and to impose a massively transforming ill-considered agenda on the emotionally loaded assumption that this restores justice for groups they see as unjustly oppressed by that now likely mortally wounded civilisation formerly known as Christendom. They are often angrily right and wise in their own eyes while being amoral and/or radically relativist, routinely speak with disregard to truth, double down on claims when challenged and use the turnabout accusation agit prop tactic so beloved of Hitler, Goebbels and co. Vox Day may be an extremist with questionable views and approaches of his own, but he does have a sharp mind when he wants to use it. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

The existence of a gap is not a strong argument for design.
True, but it is a start in that direction.
In any case, abiogenetic hypotheses have been scientifically fruitful,
Your opinion is not an argument.
while Intelligent Design has been scientifically sterile.
And your ignorance is not an argument.
A simple replicator in a membrane
Your imagination is not an argument.
Rather, you are *claiming* that such a system can’t derive from a simpler system.
Yes, that is the claim that neither you nor anyone else will ever refute.
Intelligent design implies manufacture, which is mechanistic,
Yes, it does. However it is a given that we do not have to know the mechanism before we can determine if the object/ structure/ event in question was the result of nature, operating freely or intelligent design. That is what is meant by saying ID is not a mechanistic theory. This has been explained to Zacho many times and it still refuses to learn.Virgil Cain_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

The ID proponent bases his beliefs based on known chemistry and the law of Biogenesis and how nature is known to operate. The ID proponent accepts that life cannot originate spontaneously in nature and thus accepts you have to go beyond a natural cause for how a living organism or organisms originated. The Person that has faith that life originated spontaneously from non living matter is basing their faith based on what is not known for how nature operates, they reject known chemistry, they reject the law of biogenesis. Just like they reject logic when they deny a cause that is not natural for the origin of nature and believe in infinite finite natural past events. They not only believe they can count back an infinite amount of past natural events, but they believe in the tautological oxymoron of "infinite finiteness" It shows their position is based on emotion and not reason.Jack Jones_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Virgil Cain and Jack Jones: You have some valid points. Let's try to keep the focus on the substance and the name-calling to a minimum . . . Thanks,Eric Anderson_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Earth to sock puppet- Natural selection and drift ARE the alleged step-by-step processes that produced the diversity of life. However no one knows how to test that claim. And it is very telling that you don't grasp the significance of that.Virgil Cain_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: OOL is such an easy win for ID that there is almost no fun in debating it. (I know, you will not agree :) ) The existence of a gap is not a strong argument for design. In any case, abiogenetic hypotheses have been scientifically fruitful, while Intelligent Design has been scientifically sterile. There's no there there. Upright BiPed: I’m not going to look up words for you, particularly since the word is used in context. We did look up the term, but it generally seems to refer to cell populations, not to cell structure. Upright BiPed: A living cell is a heterogeneous system. It requires discrete parts in order to function, and reproduces itself by means of prescriptive synthesis. This process requires the translation of an informational medium. A simple replicator in a membrane is heterogeneous in the normal sense of the word, but doesn't include translation, so is not a "heterogeneous cell" as you are using the term. Upright BiPed: The minimum requirements for the origin of the system are therefore established by what is physically necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself into memory. The "therefore" is misplaced. Rather, you are *claiming* that such a system can't derive from a simpler system. Eric Anderson: Abiogenesis proponents have claimed that life arose by purely natural and material processes. You might want to check out Szostak's Lab. They've done a lot of research into abiogenetics. http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/ Eric Anderson: Intelligent design is not a mechanistic theory. Intelligent design implies manufacture, which is mechanistic, or as brian douglas terms it, "Smelting, cold rolling, painting, casting, stamping, drafting, milling, welding, etc." - And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. — Genesis 2:7Zachriel_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

KF @13: That is an excellent observation by Johnson and one that is critical to keep in mind. I note that the materialistic mindset manifests itself in various ways, including demands for mechanistic explanations, as I outlined @41.Eric Anderson_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

EA, 41: Excellent. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @7: gpuccio @8 is right. I'm willing to grant you all the nucleotides you want, if you prefer that approach, instead of amino acids. I'll even give you the base, sugar and phosphate group already nicely put together for good measure.Eric Anderson_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

brian douglas:
Now, keep in mind, that god-did-it is a cop out.
brian douglas
Joe/Jack/virgil/Frankie/whoever, evolution just proposes the mechanism, not a step by step account of how it occurred. Much in the same way that I can propose the mechanisms involved in the production of a car without knowing the step by step process that is actually used.
brian is apparently against cop outs except when he is not. :-)Barry Arrington_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Virgil/Joe/Frankie/Jack, using my car analogy, here are the mechanism: Smelting, cold rolling, painting, casting, stamping, drafting, milling, welding, etc. Based on these mechanisms, please provide me the step by step process of building the car.brian douglas_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

BD, unless you have concrete demonstrative proof of sock puppetry, kindly cease and desist from making unsubstantiated allegations. So far, you are doing little more than atmosphere poisoning. FYI, there is an empty chair on the stage, with two Wikis standing in. Believe you me, if there is not something substantial put up, these Wikis are going to be shredded, point by point. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

brian douglas @3:
Now, keep in mind, that god-did-it is a cop out. I expect the same level of detail, with mechanisms and intermediary steps, that you expect of the evolution side. . . . I could go on, but this should be a good start. You answer all of this, and I will attempt to answer your question.
Sounds like you are trying to avoid having to provide a naturalistic explanation, which is not surprising. You will also note that I have not claimed that "god-did-it" and that no further discussion is needed. More foundational to your comment however, is the fact that you are (i) misunderstanding the nature of scientific critique, (ii) making a logical category mistake, and (iii) misunderstanding the design inference. (i) It is perfectly legitimate for me to offer a critique of a particular claim without offering an alternative theory. Abiogenesis proponents have claimed that life arose by purely natural and material processes. Fine. Let's hear what they are and examine them. And when pressed on the details it isn't a very impressive response by the abiogenesis proponents for them to say, "I'm not going to tell you the details about how my theory works, nor am I going to even consider the possibility that my theory is full of holes, until you come up with some alternative theory and give me all the details of your theory." That is nothing more than a confession of ignorance and we might be forgiven for suspecting that the abiogenesis proponent has no idea how his own theory would work. The abiogenesis proponent claims that a natural and material process can produce life. Fine. Let's hear it. And we are perfectly justified in critiquing that claim on its own merits. (ii) More importantly, you make a category mistake in demanding details of "mechanisms and intermediary steps" in an intelligent design situation. Intelligent design is not a mechanistic theory. That is the whole point. Whereas naturalistic scenarios must, by definition, be explainable by purely natural mechanisms, things that are designed are not explainable solely on the basis of mechanisms. This is a very common intellectual trap that abiogenesis proponents and materialists fall into. They think that a demand for "mechanisms" of design is a valid critique of the design inference. It is not. However, it is understandable why they would approach things that way -- material mechanisms are all they have to work with in their limited world view; intelligence is not allowed. Thus whenever they approach any question of origins they do so with the blinders of materialism firmly in place and naturally fall into the intellectual trap of assuming that there must be a mechanistic explanation. (iii) The design inference asks whether something is designed. That is it. Once we conclude that something is designed we can of course continue with interesting follow-up questions, such as the why, or the how, or the when, or the by whom? But we are not required to answer any of these follow-up questions to draw an initial design inference. For example, we can see that the Egyptian Pyramids were designed. And we can do so without knowing exactly how they were built -- whether a "mechanism" of rollers or mud slides was used, whether a steel hammer or a wooden mallet cut the blocks, whether ramps or pulleys and ropes were used, and so on. We can speculate on the particulars of how something like life was intelligently designed, but it is not germane to the design inference. ----- Unlike a design inference, naturalistic mechanistic scenarios live and die by mechanisms. If you don't have a natural, physical mechanism, you don't have a valid mechanistic scenario. So I ask again, what is the proposed mechanism of the alleged mechanistic abiogenesis claim?Eric Anderson_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Sock Puppet:
evolution just proposes the mechanism,
Umm the mechanisms proposed are all step-by-step processes. Darwin's whole point was that natural selection was a step-by-step process for explaining the design observed in living organisms. The same can be said for drift. Gradual. Incremental. Steps.
not a step by step account of how it occurred.
The posited mechanisms are gradual step-by-step processes. That means it is up to the position making the claim to support the claim, or withdraw it until it can be supported. Science 101Virgil Cain_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Sorry Zach, I'm not going to look up words for you, particularly since the word is used in context.
A living cell is a heterogeneous system. It requires discrete parts in order to function, and reproduces itself by means of prescriptive synthesis. This process requires the translation of an informational medium. The minimum requirements for the origin of the system are therefore established by what is physically necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself into memory.
You'll have to find someone else to play games.Upright BiPed_{November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply