Luc Turpin Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 22 hours ago, swansont said: There are organisms without brains. How intelligent is a carrot? An amoeba? 20 hours ago, swansont said: I am aware that plants communicate. But to ascribe this to intelligence dilutes the concept to the point of being meaningless. 16 hours ago, Phi for All said: You should use a different word for what cells are, otherwise you're saying cells and humans are both intelligent, and I can't think of a context where that's meaningful, and doesn't cloud the issue with having to explain exactly what you mean every time you make the claim. "In their own manner"? You can use that with everything, you know. "Pigs can fly, in their own manner." "Manhole covers are coins, in their own manner." When we speak of intelligence in a normal scientific context, it does require a brain. When you're speaking about anything related to animal intelligence, plants aren't even considered. And when you're speaking of human intelligence evolved from a common ancestor with other primates, we often don't even consider insects. Intelligence may be a spectrum, but claiming individual cells are on the same spectrum with the higher level cognitive feats humans are capable of diminishes the concept. I looked at the reviews and didn't find the word "intelligent" at all. It seems to be drawing a parallel between chemical communication between cells and human communication between themselves. The cells "ask questions" and "receive answers" and "gather information", but that's just anthropomorphizing. Cells and their capabilities are astonishing, but individually there's NOTHING that suggests any popular definition of intelligence going on there. 18 hours ago, CharonY said: Your definition for intelligence seems to include simple biochemical processes, as such it does not seem to be a useful definition. I.e. you could as well use the term life or survival instead of intelligence. And none of those are directly linked to evolution. You could survival all you want, but if you do not procreate, it matters little for evolutionary purposes. The premise you seem to make is similarly broad. Everything contributing to survival is consider guidance. This is not only overly broad but also seems to suggest that there is a target that is being guided towards to, without specifying it. Together, these definitions are immensely unhelpful to discuss evolution, as it mostly ignores the actual connection to evolution, focuses on individuals rather than populations and largely ignores environmental selective pressures as well as stochastic mechanisms of evolution in favour of sliding the term "guided" in. Not sure what you mean, but I want to emphasize that evolution happens on the population level (i.e. the composition of the gene pool of a given population). Generations. Some form of undefinable intelligence is at play in nature The Secret Language of Cells Note: For those that say that I am cherry picking my results; see text below “The overwhelming conclusion of the best current research is that all process in the human body, in all animals and plants, and in microbe communities as well, are based on conversation and group decision making amongst cells.” “Cell conversation are also important when considering mechanisms of evolution and the origin of intelligence in nature. Are cells intelligent? Could cellular language of signaling be related to intelligence in creatures? Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions because there is no confirmed definition of intelligence. Nor are there serviceable definitions of awareness or consciousness; we say that cells are alive, but our definition of life is inadequate. For example, many researchers don’t consider viruses to be living entities, yet viruses have very elaborate lifestyles, with the ability to specifically counter actions of large complex cells through signaling and other processes.” “What can be said is that biology is based on information transfer. Ubiquitous transfer of information among cells somehow leads to actions of much larger and more complex organs and a multitude of organism, which include animals and plants. In current biology, information transfer begins with chemical reactions, DNA codes, RNA codes, and the exact shape of proteins, lipids and sugars. Cellular communication uses these information codes as signals.” “Information codes also exist at every level of biology across six orders of magnitude – from molecules to humans. At the molecular scale, information is in the form of chemical signals, at the scale of human societies, information is encoded in mathematics and language. It in not known how this flow of information is directed and organized at either of these levels.” "All of the following can serve as signaling devices: secreted chemicals launched sacs filled with genetic instructions electric currents electromagnetic waves physical contact by cells biological nanotubes between cells" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610717301748 “It is argued here that the essential processes of cognition, response and decision-making inherent in living cells transcend conventional modelling, and microscopic studies of organisms like the shell-building amoebae and the rhodophyte alga Antithamnion reveal a level of cellular intelligence that is unrecognized by science and is not amenable to computer analysis.” https://storage.googleapis.com/natureasia-assets/ja-jp/ndigest/pdf/v5/n3/ndigest.2008.080334.pdf “It is well-established that cells receive, interpret and adjust to environmental fluctuations, says microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, Illinois. But if the results stand up, he says, “this paper would add a cellular memory to those capabilities”” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-about-the-origins-of-biological-intelligence/ “In fact, intelligence—a purposeful response to available information, often anticipating the future—is not restricted to the minds of some privileged species. It is distributed throughout biology, at many different spatial and temporal scales. There are not just intelligent people, mammals, birds and cephalopods. Intelligent, purposeful problem-solving behavior can be found in parts of all living things: single cells and tissues, individual neurons and networks of neurons, viruses, ribosomes and RNA fragments, down to motor proteins and molecular networks. Arguably, understanding the origin of intelligence is the central problem in biology—one that is still wide open. In this piece, we argue that progress in developmental biology and neuroscience is now providing a promising path to show how the architecture of modular systems underlies evolutionary and organismal intelligence.” http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/htmltxt.htm “intelligence is a fractal property or/and an emergent property: ...Intelligent ecologies contain intelligent populations, which contain intelligent organisms, which contain intelligent cells, which contain intelligent compartments, which contain...and so forth.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627571-100-the-secrets-of-intelligence-lie-within-a-single-cell/ “LATE at night on a sultry evening, I watch intently as the predator senses its prey, gathers itself, and strikes. It could be a polecat, or even a mantis – but in fact it’s a microbe.” https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.25.449951v1.full “Although intelligence has been given many definitions, we can associate it with the ability to perceive, retain, and use information to adapt to changes in one’s environment. In this context, systems of living cells can be thought of as intelligent entities.” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233710423_On_Intelligence_in_Cells_The_Case_for_Whole_Cell_Biology “Living cells within the body are modelled in this paper as coordinated but essentially autonomous entities. We shall see how independent cells in nature have remarkable abilities to make decisions and take constructive action, which correlate with the definitions of intelligence.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4 “Simultaneous spatiotemporal transcriptomics and microscopy of Bacillus subtilis swarm development reveal cooperation across generations” https://scitechdaily.com/single-cells-are-more-intelligent-than-scientists-previously-thought/ “Single Cells Are More Intelligent Than Scientists Previously Thought” https://phys.org/news/2023-11-extracellular-vesicles-exchange-genetic-cells.html “Study show extracellular vesicles exchange genetic information between cells in the sea” https://phys.org/news/2023-11-underground-fungi-forests.html “How underground fungi shape forests” https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/plant-intelligence-primer-update-2015 Current research has uncovered many specific signals that produce decision-making in plants: · Plants respond to light changes during different times of day including shade, length of day, seasons and daily circadian rhythms. Plants respond individually to the wavelengths of ultraviolet, green, far red, blue and red. · Plants respond to temperatures in a variety of ways including the ability to calculate the number of days at specific temperature ranges. Plants respond to freezing with many defensive mechanisms. · Plants respond to many mechanical factors including sound, wind, touch, being moved and shaken and other vibrations. · Plants have elaborate mechanisms to respond to all aspects of water including too little, too much, and salt in water. · Plants respond to gravity in a variety of ways including sending roots down and shoot up, as well as bending, and weight of branches. · Plants can determine many qualities of soil including obstacles for roots, surface structures, and the elements in the soil such as clay, sand and stones. · Plants respond to electricity and send electrical signals. · Plants sense and distinguish differences between airborne chemicals including oxygen, CO2, mist, C2H4, NO. They help respond to nearby plants and roots, as well as predators. · Plants sense and distinguish many chemicals and qualities including acidity and alkalinity, insecticides, calcium, heavy metals, potassium, boron, nitrates, and phosphates. · Plants respond to their environment and space available. At times, they participate in re engineering of the environment, such as building up banks of soil. They are aware of and respond to plants that are nearby. · Plants are aware of their relatives and respond. https://phys.org/news/2023-11-silky-ants-aphids-medicine-sick.html “Silky ants turn to aphids for medicine when sick” https://phys.org/news/2023-10-honey-bees-inherit-altruistic-behavior.html “Honey bees may inherit altruistic behavior from their mothers” https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-intelligence-animal-behaviour Animal intelligence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZM9GpLXepU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6ChEmjsXCM A bit of fun Erratum - Forgot citation marks on text on decision-making in plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mar_mar Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 hours ago, Eise said: Strawman alert! If you are arguing against evolution, then argue against what evolution theory really says, not your uninformed interpretation of it. Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA) is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee and bonobo) genera of Hominini. Estimates of the divergence date vary widely from thirteen to five million years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor Here this evolution theory, and it contradicts itself. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 7 hours ago, mar_mar said: What time have passed since the first homo sapiens started walking straight? Homo sapiens has always walked upright; that behavior predates the species. 7 minutes ago, mar_mar said: Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor The chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA) is the last common ancestor shared by the extant Homo (human) and Pan (chimpanzee and bonobo) genera of Hominini. Estimates of the divergence date vary widely from thirteen to five million years ago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor Here this evolution theory, and it contradicts itself. Yes, humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Which means that a chimp did not turn into a human, as you claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mar_mar Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Homo sapiens has always walked upright; that behavior predates the species. Why don't scientists just accept creation? And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove. Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 3 minutes ago, mar_mar said: Why don't scientists just accept creation? It's not a scientific hypothesis, and the evidence against biblical creation is legion. 3 minutes ago, mar_mar said: And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove. Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think. There are scientists who accept the existence of a deity, but for many it probably boils down to the words of Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mar_mar Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 4 minutes ago, swansont said: and the evidence against biblical creation is legion. What evidence? How does this evidence explain harmony and mathematical accuracy of nature? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 52 minutes ago, mar_mar said: What evidence? How does this evidence explain harmony and mathematical accuracy of nature? ! Moderator Note We're not going there. This is off-topic and bad-faith framing of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: "Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions because there is no confirmed definition of intelligence." Exactly, and I think it's extremely sloppy to broaden the definition of "intelligence" just because cell communication has a similar pattern to sentient communication. IOW, I disagree with your author since I don't think there's a question there to be answered. Animal intelligence is completely different to the cellular processes described here. To equate the two is a big mistake and gives us no meaningful benefits. It's anthropomorphizing at the cellular level. 1 hour ago, mar_mar said: Why don't scientists just accept creation? It's too farfetched. Can you point to ANYTHING that implies there is a creator behind the universe's mechanisms? Because I can point to an ENORMOUS body of evidence that explains those things, and none of them needs me to imagine something omnipotent that refuses to be observed. Have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Creationism seems exactly like that, people like you telling people like me that the naked Emperor's clothes sure do look great. 2 hours ago, mar_mar said: And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove. One more time! Science isn't trying to "prove" anything. Science is looking for the best supported explanations. We don't need instruments to show us something that isn't there. 2 hours ago, mar_mar said: Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think. Thank you, this is EXACTLY the way I view the Abrahamic religions. I do have the capacity to think, you know, and that shows me your god probably isn't real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 2 hours ago, mar_mar said: Why don't scientists just accept creation? And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove. Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think. You've been holding that in for so long it must be a tremendous release to finally say it out loud! Feel better now that you've quit pretending you are actually interested in what the science says? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 34 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Exactly, and I think it's extremely sloppy to broaden the definition of "intelligence" just because cell communication has a similar pattern to sentient communication. IOW, I disagree with your author since I don't think there's a question there to be answered. Animal intelligence is completely different to the cellular processes described here. To equate the two is a big mistake and gives us no meaningful benefits. It's anthropomorphizing at the cellular level. It is like saying that mitochondria are the power plants of eukaryotic cells. Hence evidence for industrial revolution in cells. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 8 minutes ago, Phi for All said: Exactly, and I think it's extremely sloppy to broaden the definition of "intelligence" just because cell communication has a similar pattern to sentient communication. IOW, I disagree with your author since I don't think there's a question there to be answered. Animal intelligence is completely different to the cellular processes described here. To equate the two is a big mistake and gives us no meaningful benefits. It's anthropomorphizing at the cellular level. I am not the only one broadening the definition, others in the references are doing the same, because data is forcing all of us to do so! It's not because we dislike the results or have difficulty defining terms that we should be ignoring all of it. You picked on one specific area without responding to the rest. That, to me, appears to be cherry picking. And, I knew when putting that particular part of the text (The Secret Language of Cells document) that it would elicit exactly this kind of reaction. We are glad to say that we are descendants of animals when it pleases us, but then negate that when it comes to intelligence? I also thought that it was anthropomorphism until I went through the pile of studies describing what cells can actually do. Cell intelligence is the precursor to all forms of intelligence, and all plants and animals and us-humans are all made up of cells. It is our main fundamental physiological characteristic. I appreciate the discussion. Amitié (friendship) 1 minute ago, CharonY said: It is like saying that mitochondria are the power plants of eukaryotic cells. Hence evidence for industrial revolution in cells. Everything can be streched until it makes no sense. We have cells, animals have cells, plants have cells and possibly communicate in the same way. And, communication is a key part of intelligence. This at least needs to be investigated further, or do we decide what nature should be instead of her telling us what she is. I fielded a hypothesis, let's determine if it is right or wrong or maybe through science and facts. And if the hypothesis that I (not only mine) put forward is correct, then let's deal with its impact on evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 39 minutes ago, CharonY said: It is like saying that mitochondria are the power plants of eukaryotic cells. Hence evidence for industrial revolution in cells. Arise, oxysomes of the world! You have nothing to lose but your electron transport chains! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 I heard the cells in Petri dish #7 are planning to unionize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: The Secret Language of Cells document It’s a book. Which means it’s not peer-reviewed. And was written by a neuro-psychiatrist. Your own source says it’s not possible to say that there is cellular intelligence, so how do you come to that conclusion? Other of your sources say “It is argued here” and “if the results stand up” which indicates that these are not consensus views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted January 3 Author Share Posted January 3 1 hour ago, swansont said: It’s a book. Which means it’s not peer-reviewed. And was written by a neuro-psychiatrist. Your own source says it’s not possible to say that there is cellular intelligence, so how do you come to that conclusion? Other of your sources say “It is argued here” and “if the results stand up” which indicates that these are not consensus views. I appreciate your input as well as inputs from Phi for All and CharronY. Only time will tell if we are at the cusp of a paradigm shift or not. If we are, then evolution as we know it will also have to be reviewed. My opinion. In the meantime, I relent, as a discussion on this matter is not meant to be had in the current context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) On 1/2/2024 at 5:01 AM, Luc Turpin said: Guided evolution does not need the environment to be intelligent, only organisms. But organisms do shape their environment, at least their immediate one (e.g. slime mould) No. Let's get the meaning of the term straight, here. Guided evolution means something external to the evolving thing is making design decisions (e.g. iterative changes to car design, and thus the design of automobiles would be said to be "evolving" according to design decisions), otherwise the term "guided evolution" becomes completely meaningless, since just the simple term "evolution" would do. The second issue is that organisms shaping their environment has to do with guided evolution of the environment, and not those organisms. Let's not confuse what the term "guided evolution" refers to. Do you see the correspondence between the bolded parts of the previous statements? You're mixing everything together. On 1/3/2024 at 4:59 AM, mar_mar said: Why don't scientists just accept creation? And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove. Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think. Wait a second. That logic doesn't make sense. X could not be proved one way or the other, therefore X should be accepted ????????????????????? I thought the logical response would be: X could not be proved one way or the other, therefore judgement regarding X should be withheld ?????? Edited January 4 by AIkonoklazt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 33 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said: The second issue is that organisms shaping their environment has to do with guided evolution of the environment, and not those organisms. Let's not confuse what the term "guided evolution" refers to. Do you see the correspondence between the bolded parts of the previous statements? You're mixing everything together. I would argue that this not the case either. Mechanistically shaping the environment one or another might change selective forces acting on an population. But so does virtually any interaction as selective forces are only static in models. And if we call any action changing the selective landscape guiding, then, as others already pointed out, we would expand the term guidance likely to a non-meaningful way. I would probably rather state that guidance requires a sort of intention and goal, which are absent in this cases. I.e. the intent and goals of these actions are related to proximate survival but not with the intention focused on evolution (the only exception I could come up with would be breeding programs with specific goals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 24 minutes ago, CharonY said: I would argue that this not the case either. Mechanistically shaping the environment one or another might change selective forces acting on an population. But so does virtually any interaction as selective forces are only static in models. And if we call any action changing the selective landscape guiding, then, as others already pointed out, we would expand the term guidance likely to a non-meaningful way. I would probably rather state that guidance requires a sort of intention and goal, which are absent in this cases. I.e. the intent and goals of these actions are related to proximate survival but not with the intention focused on evolution (the only exception I could come up with would be breeding programs with specific goals). Yes agreed, I mentioned "design decisions" in the paragraph prior to the quoted one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mar_mar Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said: Wait a second. That logic doesn't make sense. X could not be proved one way or the other, therefore X should be accepted ????????????????????? No, this logic makes sense. X cannot be proven, because Y by DEFAULT doesn't have instruments to prove X. And X explains Y's white spots. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 39 minutes ago, mar_mar said: No, this logic makes sense. X cannot be proven, because Y by DEFAULT doesn't have instruments to prove X. And X explains Y's white spots. By default there's no judgement. When there's no proof there's still no judgement either way. You forget that when "X explains Y's white spots" it's not a scientific explanation, so whatever judgement you're forming is still outside of any scientific acceptance. Science and faith occupy two utterly distinct spheres, they should have zero to do with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, CharonY said: I would argue that this not the case either. Mechanistically shaping the environment one or another might change selective forces acting on an population. But so does virtually any interaction as selective forces are only static in models. And if we call any action changing the selective landscape guiding, then, as others already pointed out, we would expand the term guidance likely to a non-meaningful way. I would probably rather state that guidance requires a sort of intention and goal, which are absent in this cases. I.e. the intent and goals of these actions are related to proximate survival but not with the intention focused on evolution (the only exception I could come up with would be breeding programs with specific goals). What would then be the term to be used for improving one’s chance for survival, as in some form of intelligence improving one’s odds of surviving and passing on his-her genes to the next generation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: What would then be the term to be used for improving one’s chance for survival, as in some form of intelligence improving one’s odds of surviving and passing on his-her genes to the next generation You are mixing different things here. Survival does not equal passing on genes. They can increase chances, but very contextually. Conversely, there are multiple species where reproduction is coupled to death. Secondly, improving chance of survival does not necessarily involve intelligence. Effectively one would need go back to the basic definition of evolution, where we ultimately end up with terms like inheritable traits that are under positive selection, for example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mar_mar Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 8 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: By default there's no judgement. When there's no proof there's still no judgement either way. You forget that when "X explains Y's white spots" it's not a scientific explanation, so whatever judgement you're forming is still outside of any scientific acceptance. No, judgement is those white spots. And it seems like one have to accept what science says without questions. 8 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: Science and faith occupy two utterly distinct spheres, they should have zero to do with each other. Really?? I think this theory of evolution and a theory of bb are exactly matter of faith. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 9 hours ago, CharonY said: You are mixing different things here. Survival does not equal passing on genes. They can increase chances, but very contextually. Conversely, there are multiple species where reproduction is coupled to death. Secondly, improving chance of survival does not necessarily involve intelligence. Effectively one would need go back to the basic definition of evolution, where we ultimately end up with terms like inheritable traits that are under positive selection, for example. Thank you for your response; it clarifies somewhat things for me. I have a few more questions if I may: 'Survival does not equal passing on genes", but do you not need to be alive (have survived) to pass on your gene pool? "Conversely, there are multiple species where reproduction is coupled to death", again do you not need to get to procreation alive and then die as in the case of sockeye salmons? "Improving chance of survival does not necessarily involve intelligence", but then does this statement imply that it is involved in some cases? Additional questions, again, if I may: Can you tell me what role if any has intelligence played in human evolution? And if there is a role for intelligence, are we talking then of inheritable traits under positive selection? or not? or something more? or something else? I appreciate the time that you are taking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) On 1/3/2024 at 1:15 PM, mar_mar said: What evidence? How does this evidence explain harmony and mathematical accuracy of nature? Why does it need too? 4 hours ago, mar_mar said: No, judgement is those white spots. And it seems like one have to accept what science says without questions. Really?? I think this theory of evolution and a theory of bb are exactly matter of faith. The thing is, we can see the evidence, even the seemingly magical (placebo, cough), and we're free to question. Can you honestly say that you have seen god, or had an answer when you talked to him? And no, an epiphany, or seemingly magical intervention, doesn't count; for instance "as for my epiphany, so to speak, I woke up this morning with nothing to eat, no skins or truffles and no money for cider." And then "I went to the food bank at 9:30 (usually 12:30) just in case, to be told come back at 12:30, but on my way home 'the morgan' stopped me and asked if I wanted an hours work, I said yes, of course, and he dropped me back just in time to be 1st in que and money for skins and cider...", it had to be god, I'm never that lucky... If you want to question science about religion, your going to have to think of a much, much better question... Edited January 5 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now