Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Liberal college prof takes aim at the the fairytale world of an “evolution” textbook

Spread the love

Robert F. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, and author of The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology’s Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion.

If his target, Strickberger’s Evolution, is anything like a typical “evolution” textbook, it is simply a catechism for Darwinism. Anyway, Shedinger writes,

The textbook consistently side-steps the problem of the initial stages of variation. That is, if an orchid developed a slightly longer corolla, how could a hawk moth pollinate it if the hawk moth had not yet developed the slightly longer tongue necessary? What was the initial stage of variation that set this coevolutionary process in motion? This problem appears in many different parts of the textbook, most prominently when discussing major transitions in evolutionary history. In these discussions, Hall and Hallgrimsson set aside science and engage in the telling of fairy tales worthy of Hans Christian Andersen.

For example we are told, “The change from unicellularity to multicellularity occurred a number of times, giving rise to different lineages of organisms.” But what drove this transition? There must be advantages to multicellularity that would be preserved by natural selection. A multicellular organism’s food gathering surface, we are told, increases which ensures a more stable food supply and the ability to attack and digest larger particles of food. This would be accompanied by an increase in gene numbers and regulatory pathways.

But if by chance some ancient unicellular organism mutated in such a way that its offspring became multicellular, and these multicellular offspring were perpetuated by natural selection due to the advantages they enjoy over their unicellular parents, they would have eventually replaced their unicellular ancestors and the world today would be awash only in multicellular organisms. But as anyone who has battled a bacterial infection knows, unicellular organisms continue today as perhaps the most successful organisms on the face of the planet. Multicellularity somehow evolved, but it does not seem to be because multicellularity confers a clear selective advantage. After all, most multicellular organisms have gone extinct.

Robert F. Shedinger, “The Fairy Tale World of an Evolution Textbook” at Evolution News and Science Today

Questions need not be answered if the people who ask them can be identified as suspicious elements and canceled.

The evolution textbook for public high school and first-year college that we really need for today would be a grand project for a person with the courage and connections. But be warned: The ability of both the author and publisher to withstand hundreds of trolls with degrees, advertised and unadvertised boycotts, and teacher union activism—to bring students up to date with what has changed—is a serious requirement indeed.

29 Replies to “Liberal college prof takes aim at the the fairytale world of an “evolution” textbook

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    The theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, is not gospel nor is it claimed to be. It is an explanation of what we observe in nature of living things and it is necessarily incomplete, like all other scientific theories, because our data and knowledge are far from perfect. Darwinism is, however, a credible alternative to Paleyism which faces as many, if not more, unanswered questions. Any claim to be in possession of some absolute truth is both suspect and highly dangerous based on past experience.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    This isn’t new. I’ve listened to a lot of ‘educational’ discussions from radio in the 1940s and 1950s, when FCC required this sort of thing as public service. The range of permissible dissent was the same. Nobody questioned Darwin, nobody questioned Freud. All discussions started with an automatic agreement on all important points.

    What’s new now is the availability of public channels for dissent. Before 2000, running the equivalent of a blog would require owning a printing press and setting type or cutting VariTyper stencils and buying reams of paper and running the press and mailing out the copies. Only a few rich and determined people could afford to do it.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. seversky is either a liar or willfully ignorant.

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    Everyone should define what is meant by the term “evolution” before discussing a theory of it. Too many discUssions proceed with people using different definitions.

  5. 5
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. seversky is either a liar or willfully ignorant.

    Is this really a constructive comment? I don’t understand why UD continues to tolerate this type of nonsense. It certainly does not advance the argument for design.

  6. 6
    EugeneS says:

    The theory of evolution…

    Is there one? The so called ‘theory of evolution’ is void of any substance. It cannot be falsified. It does not generate any non-trivial predictions. Not sure? Try to substitute ‘evolution’ with any other word and see for yourself if it changes anything…

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Earth to Mac- I will call out liars and BS’ers as they post. And yes that is constructive.

    Maybe Mac thinks that lying and BS’ing are constructive. That certainly fits its narrative.

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    Is there a theory of evolution. I have been reading about this topic for 25 years. Have not seen one yet. There is at best speculation. So to refer to one in a comment Is confused because none exists.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Testable hypotheses precede scientific theories. We are still waiting for testable hypotheses with respect to blind and mindless processes.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Seversky,

    Have you ever read Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall? Start with Part II. In a nutshell, he identifies massive problems with variation through random mutation. He then proposes five, perhaps six, currently observed mechanisms that can take the place of random mutations, hence the title.

    These alternative genetic reprogramming mechanisms are: transposition, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, symbiogenesis, and genome duplication.

    It’s an interesting read if you’re open minded and don’t get turned off by the multimillion dollar prize he’s offering. :-/

    -Q

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    A problem with religion professors critiquing science publications is that generally they don’t have the basic knowledge necessary to understand the actual process of natural selection. Shedinger illustrates this misunderstanding when he asks “[w]hat was the initial stage of variation that set this coevolutionary process in motion?” There is no “initial stage” of variation; organisms are dynamic in that they are always adapting to the present situation. Shedinger does not seem to understand the idea of intra-species variation from a statistical standpoint. If we take his example, the coevolution of the orchid and hawk moth is easy to understand, and illustrates one of the fundamental concepts of natural selection. First, evolutionary biologists work with populations, not individual organisms because selection is a population concept. At any given time, there will be random distribution of the length of the orchid corolla in a given population or sample of orchids. This means, in layman’s terms, that there will be a normal or bell curve distribution of corolla length, and because of our understanding of descriptive statistics, we can determine just what percentage of the population of orchids have what length corollas. The exact same is true regarding the hawk moths tongue length. Because we know that they “coevolved” (i.e. we can observe this behavior in the field) we also know that at some point in the past, long-tongued hawk moths and short corolla orchids distributions overlapped and that group of flowers and moths passed on their genes ultimately causing the distribution curves to shift. This is a constant process so it is misleading to look at it statically as if one day hawk moths grew their tongues longer or orchids shortened their corollas.
    Another problem Shedinger seems to have is with the concept of ecological niches:
    [If} “these multicellular offspring were perpetuated by natural selection due to the advantages they enjoy over their unicellular parents, they would have eventually replaced their unicellular ancestors and the world today would be awash only in multicellular organisms.” In fact, multicellular and single cell organism inhabit different ecological niches. Evolutionary “advantages” are not a zero-sum game. This was one of the very first things Darwin observed among the finches of the Galapagos and forms the entire basis of the study of ecology and population dynamics.
    Finally, Shendinger states: “Multicellularity somehow evolved, but it does not seem to be because multicellularity confers a clear selective advantage. After all, most multicellular organisms have gone extinct.” The term “clear selective advantage” is also misleading also because, again, it ignores the fact evolutionary success is not a static, zero-sum game. Dinosaurs populated the planet for 165 million years. By any measure they were successful organisms. Our measly 200,000 years pales in comparison…

  12. 12
    Mac McTavish says:

    ET

    Earth to Mac- I will call out liars and BS’ers as they post. And yes that is constructive.

    Maybe Mac thinks that lying and BS’ing are constructive. That certainly fits its narrative.

    I guess declaring everyone who disagrees with you a liar and BS’er is a way to make you feel superior, but that is not the impression others have of you when you do this. I think KF and others would agree with me that your behavior in this respect is beyond the pale.

    But if it makes you feel better when you are abusive towards others, I can’t change that, but I can feel pity for you.

  13. 13
    aarceng says:

    “But if by chance some ancient unicellular organism mutated in such a way that its offspring became multicellular, and these multicellular offspring were perpetuated by natural selection due to the advantages they enjoy over their unicellular parents, they would have eventually replaced their unicellular ancestors”
    This is just a variation of “if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes”. It shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution (all life developed naturally from a single original life form that arose naturally from non living matter).

  14. 14
    ET says:

    LoL! @ Mac:

    I guess declaring everyone who disagrees with you a liar and BS’er is a way to make you feel superior…

    I guess being a jerk is your way to make yourself feel superior. seversky wasn’t disagreeing with me. seversky merely told a lie. A lie seversky has repeated numerous times. So I called seversky on that BS.

    If you can point to a case where I called someone a liar and BS’er for merely disagreeing with me, present it. Or admit that you are just a troll.

    I am abusive towards abusive people. Liars are abusive people. Saying either is a scientific theory of evolution is either a lie or a case of willful ignorance. Others here agree. And to date no one, anywhere, has been able to reference the alleged scientific theory of evolution. I am sure that everyone here would love to read it.

    So I am not going to let liars lie, unabated. If that bothers you then you are part of the problem.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Earth to Chuck Darwin- Natural selection is a mere process of elimination. The less fit of a population will be eliminated over time.

    Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained.

    By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.- Ernst Mayr in “What Evolution Is”

    Just earlier Mayr said that NS is a process of elimination. Natural selection is non-random is the most trivial sense- that not all individuals have the same probability of being eliminated. Genetic variation is all due to chance:

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction. Ibid

    Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity.

    The variation occurs in individuals. That variation is then tested against its population and its environment. What is beneficial is relative: it could the fastest, slowest or anywhere in-between. The tallest, the shortest or anywhere in-between Best sight to no sight. It’s all contingent serendipity.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    As Stephen Meyer documented in his book on the Cambrian Explosion, “Darwin’s Doubt”, Darwinists simply have no clue how a single cell became all those different multicellular creatures (phyla) composed of tens of trillions cells.

    Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design – video (excellent lecture on the Cambrian Explosion – Oct. 2015)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl802lHAk5Y
    Oct 18, 2015 – Trinity Classical Academy’s Speaker Series welcomes Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, author of the New York Times® Bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which won “Book of the Year” by The Times of London Literary Supplement.

    In fact, such extensive mutual cooperation of the tens of trillions of cells in our body for the ‘exclusive good’ of the organism as a whole is simply completely antithetical to the entire ‘survival of the fittest’ logic that underpins Darwin’s theory. Here is Charles Darwin’s own logic,

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species;”
    – Darwin

    if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the entire notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.

    One Body – animation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

    In fact, IMHO to think such a high level of extensive cooperation between trillions of individual cells can possibly be the result of “survival of the fittest” Darwinian evolution is simply insane. As Jay Homnick commented in 2005, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    – Jay Homnick – American Spectator – 2005

    In fact, Darwin also stated that

    “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

    The logic of Natural Selection is nicely illustrated in the following graph:

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    The insurmountable problem that the ‘logic of natural selection’ presents for Darwin’s theory is humorously illustrated in the following Richard Dawkins video

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – with video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? To repeat what Charles Darwin himself stated.

    “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

    Any other function besides successful, and efficient, reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, programmed cell death, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. all would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down the primary criteria of successful reproduction.

    Besides multicellularity contradicting the logic behind Natural Selection, Darwinists simply have no realistic ‘scientific’ clue how it is remotely possible to change a single celled organism into a multicellular creature.

    As Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells have both pointed out, you can mutate DNA til the cows come home and you are still not going to change the basic biological form of an organism.

    No one, and I repeat NO ONE, has a clue how any organism achieves is basic biological form via Darwinian Mechanisms:

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    In fact, in order to give an adequate causal account for how any organism achieves its basic biological form it is, because of quantum non-locality, necessary to invoke a beyond space and time cause:

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1635

    In fact, due to advances in quantum biology, it is now shown that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand molecular biology in the first place.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    In short, Darwin’s theory is contradicted at every turn. From logic to empirical evidence. There is simply nothing of any substance to Darwin’s theory. It is a imaginary fairy tale full of ‘just-so stories’ for adults who simply don’t want to believe in God for whatever severely misguided reason!

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    The only problem with the tome that Chuckdarwin wrote @ 11 is that he should have added “Once upon a time” at the beginning!

    All of his assertions are speculations and fantasies from the 19th century, the age of schooners, steamboats, and colonialism, that have become obsolete both from the lack of expected fossil evidence and the abundance of unexpected discoveries.

    It’s a nice story, but it’s not science anymore.

    -Q

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Querius @ 10

    Have you ever read Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall?

    No, but I have read critiques of his work by the likes of P Z Myers and Larry Moran. My impression is that researchers acknowledge that there is still a great deal to learn about evolutionary processes but, when it comes to evaluating the current state of play in this particular field, I’m bound to prefer the opinions of professional biologists over those of an engineer and marketing consultant.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    LoL! Opinions over science! Damn you all! Neither PZ nor Larry know how to test the claims of the position they hold true. And “evolutionary processes” is just an equivocation based on willful ignorance. Part of the debate are whether or not evolutionary processes are part of the intelligent design or are they all blind and mindless. See “Not By Chance” Spetner 1997- 23 years ago.

    Only those who do not understand the science go with the opinions of those who cannot produce any to support their own position.

    In “Evolution 2.0”, Perry presents a 10+ million dollar challenge. I am sure PZ and Larry could use 10+ million dollars. Yet that money remains unclaimed. All the challenge asks is for materialists to support their claims pertaining to nature’s ability to produce coded information creating and processing systems. The money is very safe. Might as well up it to 100 million dollars.

  20. 20
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 16

    As Stephen Meyer documented in his book on the Cambrian Explosion, “Darwin’s Doubt”, Darwinists simply have no clue how a single cell became all those different multicellular creatures (phyla) composed of tens of trillions cells.

    As you have been told many times before, Darwin’s theory proposed processes that brought about the diversification of life after it had appeared. As both you and Meyer should both know, it is not a theory about the origins of life itself.

    In fact, such extensive mutual cooperation of the tens of trillions of cells in our body for the ‘exclusive good’ of the organism as a whole is simply completely antithetical to the entire ‘survival of the fittest’ logic that underpins Darwin’s theory.

    There is nothing in the theory of evolution that prohibits co-operation for mutual survival from being advantageous in terms of fitness.

    if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the entire notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.

    What makes you think that those other cells are other species rather than the same species?

    In fact, IMHO to think such a high level of extensive cooperation between trillions of individual cells can possibly be the result of “survival of the fittest” Darwinian evolution is simply insane.

    What makes you think there is no survival advantage in numbers? Surely, the more individuals there are of your species the greater the chances of those genes being passed on.

    Any other function besides successful, and efficient, reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, programmed cell death, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. all would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down the primary criteria of successful reproduction.

    Which only goes to show how much you misunderstand the logic behind natural selection. If larger and more capable multicellular organisms have an advantage over single-celled organisms in the competition for resources then they will experience a selective advantage. If larger multicellular organisms, by virtue of their size, have access to environmental niches that are unavailable to singe-celled organism then that will be a further advantage.

    As Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells have both pointed out, you can mutate DNA til the cows come home and you are still not going to change the basic biological form of an organism.

    Evolution is not just about mutation but, that said, give evolutionary processes enough time and the cows will – and have – come home.

    No one, and I repeat NO ONE, has a clue how any organism achieves is basic biological form via Darwinian Mechanisms:

    Citing your own videos is not persuasive evidence of anything.

    In fact, in order to give an adequate causal account for how any organism achieves its basic biological form it is, because of quantum non-locality, necessary to invoke a beyond space and time cause:

    You are no more a quantum physicist than I am and my layperson’s understanding of the theory indicates that your speculations are simply not warranted.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    seversky:

    As you have been told many times before, Darwin’s theory proposed processes that brought about the diversification of life after it had appeared. As both you and Meyer should both know, it is not a theory about the origins of life itself.

    The two go hand-in-hand. If blind and mindless processes didn’t produce life then they didn’t produce its diversity.

    Darwin’s ideas remain untested and untestable. They remain outside of science. He had an idea but no one has ever found any support for it. The idea of design without an intelligent designer remains a pipedream. Natural selection is nothing more than contingent serendipity. If it has any use at all it is to keep populations more or less the same.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky,

    As you have been told many times before, Darwin’s theory proposed processes that brought about the diversification of life after it had appeared. As both you and Meyer should both know, it is not a theory about the origins of life itself.

    Seversky, it might help you to have a clue what you are talking about before you start talking about it. ‘Signature in the Cell’ was Meyer’s book on the insurmountable problem that the OOL presents for atheistic materialists. ‘Darwin’s Doubt’, which was the book I referenced, was Meyer’s subsequent book on the Cambrian Explosion. In that subsequent book on the Cambrian explosion Meyer explains exactly why Darwinian processes in particular are grossly inadequate to explain the origin of multicellular creatures from single celled organisms.

    The rest of your post does not get any better after that major blunder on your part. Frankly, a middle schooler could have done a better job being logically coherent and staying on subject than you did in that post.

    Again, if you are going to talk about something, at least try to study it and understand it before you try to comment on it.

    It does not reflect well on you and I know you can do better. Much better.

  23. 23
    BobRyan says:

    When has macro-evolution ever been observed in nature? Micro is not evidence of macro. Adaptation is not the same as speciation. In order for any hypothesis to become a theory it must first be witnessed and the results replicated. Neither has happened, which means it cannot be classified as a valid theory. Theories are not facts, but based on what is known at any given time. Theories change over time as more data disproves previous beliefs. Darwinism is not science.

  24. 24
    jerry says:

    Darwin’s ideas and the modern synthesis have essentially morphed into modern genetics but nothing more. And few will claim genetics while extremely useful is a theory of evolution.

    So anyone who cites natural selection as evolution is just making wild speculation. What’s needed is a source of new genetic material that is not trivial. No one has done that. Consequently, there is no theory of evolution (term stilled not defined) outside of pure speculation or begging the question.

    But yet for the gazillionth time people hold forth based on speculation and bad logic.

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Mutation is the source of the variation, Jerry. That variation is the source of new genetic material- via gene duplications and recombinations. And it is part and parcel of natural selection

  26. 26
    Querius says:

    Seversky @18,

    You might consider reading Evolution 2.0 for yourself without the appeal to authority. I found it refreshing and provided a far better rationale for evolutionary re-programming of DNA and epigenetic code than anything that I received on the subject in college.

    The problem with authorities is that they have too much invested in their positions to be open to new ideas. Why else do you think the obviously frustrated German physicist Max Planck said the following?

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    To be generous, authorities in a science do filter out a massive influx of hopeful and crackpot ideas. I’ve heard stories. So, each field seems to have a circle of experts who primarily listen to each other and don’t want to lose the respect of their peers in their circle. This is the same problem in peer reviews.

    I think it would do science a service by having students read the original submissions by Watson & Crick, Susumu Ohno, Jack Oliver, Albert Einstein, and many others who initiated significant progress in their respective fields, along with the opposition they encountered.

    -Q

  27. 27
    jerry says:

    Mutation is the source of the variation, Jerry.

    I’ve written at least 50+ comments on this in the last 13 years. Alan MacNeil use to call it the 47+ engines of variation and the number increased into the 50’s at a later time. See a post I made 11 years ago.

    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/why-richard-dawkins-wont-debate-william-lane-craig/#comment-343176

  28. 28
    ET says:

    OK, we seem to agree.

    One point you missed about Allan’s 47+ engines- are they blind watchmaker engines or engines that are built-in responses to environmental cues (Spetner 1997).

  29. 29
    Peer says:

    “The evolution textbook for public high school and first-year college that we really need for today would be a grand project for a person with the courage and connections.”

    In Germany we already have this textbook:

    https://www.amazon.de/Evolution-kritisches-Lehrbuch-Reinhard-Junker/product-reviews/3921046106?pageNumber=5

Leave a Reply