Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Select all that apply and I encourage you to explain by posting.

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    This is a followup of this poll (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...Evolution-Poll) focusing in on the understanding of the Theory of Evolution and not how it relates to God or anything like that

    ---------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 AM ----------

    Because of the poll limit of 10 options, I have had to generalize the options to those I think most important. If you think I have missed something, please post about it. Thanks.

    ---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 AM ----------

    I am honestly curious about this from an educational/outreach stand point.

    Frankly I think Evolution is poorly taught in schools, even at the introductory College Biology level and I am curious as to what aspects of evolution are being well communicated to the public and which are not.

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

    On the topic of the "Debates of level of Selection" a brief explanation and my thoughts on this matter. The debate centers on the question of where does Natural Selection occur. If we boil Natural Selection down to "Survival of the Fittest" how do we define the "fittest". Typically we think of this in terms of the individual organism. For example one lion is more fit than another lion and so that lion will survive while the other dies (this is an oversimplification, but its for the purpose of explanation). Selection at this level seems obvious, but many have theorized selection at different levels. For example Group Selection is the theory that Natural Selection will act at on a population of organisms even at the expense of the individual. One way to think about this is how a human is made up of cells and those cells operate for the good of the whole (again an oversimplification) even at the level of the individual cell, some will die. These theories were largely proposed to help explain altruistic behavior as well as insect species that operate as a "hive" like some bees or ants. A variant of this is Kin Selection. At the other extreme is the gene-centered view (commonly referred to as the selfish gene) initially proposed by Hamilton, Pittendrigh, and Williams and popularized by Richard Dawkins. This theory argues that selection doesn't even occur at the individual level, but can be reduced to the level of the gene. Finally there is Multi-Level Selection which argues that on a case by case basis different levels of selection can predominate.

    This debate has been long going and one of hot contention within Evolutionary Biology. Gould was an advocate of Group Selection and frequently butted heads with Dawkins. The two rather hated each other. Ernst Mayr is also an opponent of the Gene-centric view. E.O. Wilson is a proponent of Multi-level Selection. So this is a debate that has engaged some of the best known names in Evolution.

    As for myself, I lean heavily towards Multi-Level Selection. The Gene-centered view is valid in certain limited cases. I think this is particularly true of transposable elements. However Natural Selection operates on phenotypes, which are expressed not in the genes, but in the organism and the organism is complex network of the entire genome. As beneficial as one allele may be, its effects can be negated by linkage to a negative allele and vice versus. So in the vast majority of cases, the gene-centered view fails to explain Natural Selection. Group and Kin Selection in most cases can be reduced to the level of the individual. However I think there are also circumstances where these can predominate, particularly in the social insects like bees or ants. So going in a case by case, primarily evolution will occur at the individual level and in certain circumstances at the group or gene level.
    Last edited by chadn737; April 10th, 2012 at 09:15 AM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    I'll get back to you when I can, because I have some expertise in this subject, having studied physical anthropology in college; and having kept up with anthropology journals to this day. So, I understand the four forces, have seen some statistics, some specimens, have thumbed through sequences. Some things like the complexity of the human blood varieties, baffle me as to their origin (I haven't seen any explanations I would support yet), as well as some other odd examples of codominance.

    Looking at the spotted moths in England, and what industrialism did to them, and the evidence accumulated up to now from then, we can be certain of micro and macro evolution, at least in terms of three of the forces; mutation is a bit harder to pin-point as a strong force, because phenotypes are selected for, not genes. The selfish gene theory has a hurdle of plausibility and probability to get past, methinks.
    Last edited by Lukecash12; April 10th, 2012 at 12:40 PM.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    I'll get back to you when I can, because I have some expertise in this subject, having studied physical anthropology in college; and having kept up with anthropology journals to this day. So, I understand the four forces, have seen some statistics, some specimens, have thumbed through sequences. Some things like the complexity of the human blood varieties, baffle me as to their origin (I haven't seen any explanations I would support yet), as well as some other odd examples of codominance.

    Looking at the spotted moths in England, and what industrialism did to them, and the evidence accumulated up to know from then, we can be certain of micro and macro evolution, at least in terms of three of the forces; mutation is a bit harder to pin-point as a strong force, because phenotypes are selected for, not genes. The selfish gene theory has a hurdle of plausibility and probability to get past, methinks.
    Fascinating. I come from kind of the opposite end of the spectrum. I started as a traditional molecular biologist, with my work eventually taking me more towards work on whole genomes. Collaborative projects that have me working on non-model species means that I often have to do cross-species comparisons of the genomes, so I find myself increasingly interested and learning about the application of evolutionary genetics to my work. I have worked primarily in plants, some work in bacteria, along with applications towards vaccine production and HIV drug development.

    Following the latest techniques typically means reading the work done in human genomics and evolution and so I have been reading a lot of the work on human population genetics. For me the the genetics is easily understood, but I often get hung up on the anthropological end, the endless distinctions between populations, their migration, history, etc. We could probably have some very interesting discussions on these topics.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Fascinating. I come from kind of the opposite end of the spectrum. I started as a traditional molecular biologist, with my work eventually taking me more towards work on whole genomes. Collaborative projects that have me working on non-model species means that I often have to do cross-species comparisons of the genomes, so I find myself increasingly interested and learning about the application of evolutionary genetics to my work. I have worked primarily in plants, some work in bacteria, along with applications towards vaccine production and HIV drug development.

    Following the latest techniques typically means reading the work done in human genomics and evolution and so I have been reading a lot of the work on human population genetics. For me the the genetics is easily understood, but I often get hung up on the anthropological end, the endless distinctions between populations, their migration, history, etc. We could probably have some very interesting discussions on these topics.
    We certainly could, if you're interesting in the relationship between evolution and behavior. As for stuff like abiogenesis and the forces of evolution, you would probably have a thing or two to teach me, and I'm very interested in any publications of yours on the subject, considering your background. I'm more used to looking at teeth, using a bunch of made up words mixed with Latin and Greek to talk about hundreds of different species, you know... The stuff that cultural anthropologists wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, because it bores them to death.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukecash12 View Post
    We certainly could, if you're interesting in the relationship between evolution and behavior. As for stuff like abiogenesis and the forces of evolution, you would probably have a thing or two to teach me, and I'm very interested in any publications of yours on the subject, considering your background. I'm more used to looking at teeth, using a bunch of made up words mixed with Latin and Greek to talk about hundreds of different species, you know... The stuff that cultural anthropologists wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, because it bores them to death.
    I frankly have found abiogenesis to be boring. Almost all the work done on it is hardcore chemistry, like the development of certain organics under various conditions, the stereochemistry of fatty acids, etc almost entirely divorced from a biological context. This will shock some and will sound heretical, but I find such chemistry to be boring. Thats ok, because there are lots of chemists out there who find it fascinating and find biology boring. Now when one puts chemistry in a firm biological context. Such as enzyme activity in signaling, that I find interesting. But the abiotic origin of organics under different conditions....yawn. I do keep up on reviews of the subject to know that it hasn't really advanced much. The prevailing theory for several years, the RNA world, is plagued by problems with nonenzymatic synthesis of biopolymers and template replication. Alternatives such as the metabolism first lack evolvability. You look at the field, there hasn't been much significant progress for decades. I have no papers on the subject. My current work is primarily molecular and developmental biology with little emphasis on evolution, although a collaborative project of mine that will hopefully produce a paper this fall will compare transcription between different species, which has led me to really begin exploring these topics in depth and thinking about their application to future work.

    But your kind of anthropology is actually what I like. I'm not much for cultural anthropology. Doesn't really interest me how some tribe designs its baskets differently. But the teeth.....thats a phenotype. Thats biology and when you can associate something like that with genes or regions of the genome and how that explains the difference between this population and that.....that I like.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    So far what I have gathered from the poll, some surprises, some not.

    1) I am not surprised that most people are familiar in some way with the evidences for micro/macro. Most popular books and programs focus on this and the typical evolution debate involves one side talking about fossil records, moths, etc.

    2) I'm not entirely surprised that many are familiar with mutations. Again this is a common issue of debate, discussed a lot in popular books, etc.

    3) I am not surprised that fewer are familiar with population genetics. Its a sub-field (with its on culture) in genetics and many evolutionary biologists don't understand it themselves. Gould was trained as a paleontologist and Dawkins was more of a classic behavioral evolutionary biologist. Neither delve deeply into population genetics in any of there work (Population Genetics is heavy on the statistics and modeling). However, if you are familiar with the term "Modern Synthesis" then you almost have to be familiar at least with the general idea of what population genetics is. And the poll reflects this from my limited samples.

    4) I guess I am and am not surprised with the knowledge of the Modern Synthesis. I would hope that it would be taught at least in some fashion when Evolution is taught. Darwin was important, but the Modern Synthesis is the 2nd major development of Evolution next to Darwin's natural selection.

    5) I am a bit surprised that so few have heard of the debates on the levels of selection. The reason I am surprised is that this debate is one that has engaged and enraged many of the best-known names associated with Evolution. Steven J. Gould, Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, E.O. Wilson, etc. Dawkins first book, the Selfish Gene was written primarily on this subject and the phrase "Selfish Gene" has worked its way even into our pop-culture. So I assumed that this would be more familiar than it seems to be.

    6) I am also a bit surprised that few have opinions on the level of selection, again because of the reason above. I have met individuals who having read the Selfish Gene, assumed this view, so I thought there might be more votes on that matter.

    7) I am surprised by how many know about Genetic Drift. Natural Selection....thats a given, but Genetic Drift is a more obscure term that often isn't pulled out till a college level genetics course and even then often not till a more advanced genetics course.

    On the whole then, lots of confirmations of what I had assumed, with some surprises.
    Last edited by chadn737; April 11th, 2012 at 07:06 AM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,534
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    5) I am a bit surprised that so few have heard of the debates on the levels of selection.
    As far as different levels and other significant factors that drive natural selection, I think the science of epigentics definitely comes into this category. It's a simple and common sense idea, yet one that was heretical decades ago, but not anymore.

    The Changing Concept of Epigenetics
    Originally, epigenetics referred to the study of the way genes and their products bring the phenotype into being. Today, it is primarily concerned with the mechanisms through which cells become committed to a particular form or function
    and through which that functional or structural state is then transmitted in cell lineages. We argue that modern epigenetics is important not only because it has practical significance for medicine, agriculture, and species conservation, but also because it has implications for the way in which we should view heredity and evolution. In particular, recognizing that there are epigenetic inheritance systems through which non-DNA variations can be transmitted in cell and organismal lineages broadens the concept of heredity and challenges the widely accepted gene-centered neo-Darwinian version of Darwinism.
    http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/p...etics.2002.pdf


    Nature Insight: Epigenetics
    Genetic mechanisms alone cannot explain how some cellular traits are propagated. Rapid advances in the field of epigenetics are now revealing a molecular basis for how heritable information other than DNA sequence can influence gene function. These advances also add to our understanding of transcriptional regulation, nuclear organization, development and disease.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/supplem...ics/index.html


    Why Your DNA Isn't Your Destiny
    At its most basic, epigenetics is the study of changes in gene activity that do not involve alterations to the genetic code but still get passed down to at least one successive generation. These patterns of gene expression are governed by the cellular material — the epigenome — that sits on top of the genome, just outside it (hence the prefix epi-, which means above). It is these epigenetic "marks" that tell your genes to switch on or off, to speak loudly or whisper. It is through epigenetic marks that environmental factors like diet, stress and prenatal nutrition can make an imprint on genes that is passed from one generation to the next.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...952313,00.html


    What if everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
    What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate?
    What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
    Evolutionary thinking is having a revolution . .

    Inevitably, those of us who aren't professional scientists have to take a lot of science on trust. And one of the things that makes it so easy to trust the standard view of evolution, in particular, is amply illustrated by the legend of the Nasa astronomers: the doubters are so deluded or dishonest that one needn't waste time with them. Unfortunately, that also makes it embarrassingly awkward to ask a question that seems, in the light of recent studies and several popular books, to be growing ever more pertinent. What if Darwin's theory of evolution or, at least, Darwin's theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school and believe we understand it is, in crucial respects, not entirely accurate?

    Such talk, naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage, or, in the case of Richard Dawkins, into even more of a rage than usual. They have a point: nobody wants to provide ammunition to the proponents of creationism or "intelligent design", and it's true that few of the studies now coming to public prominence are all that revolutionary to the experts. But in the culture at large, we may be on the brink of a major shift in perspective, with enormous implications for how most of us think about how life came to be the way it is. As the science writer David Shenk puts it in his new book, The Genius in All of Us, "This is big, big stuff perhaps the most important [discoveries] in the science of heredity since the gene."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...on-genes-wrong


    The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease and Inheritance
    Epigenetics can potentially revolutionize our understanding of the structure and behavior of biological life on Earth. It explains why mapping an organism's genetic code is not enough to determine how it develops or acts and shows how nurture combines with nature to engineer biological diversity. Surveying the twenty-year history of the field while also highlighting its latest findings and innovations, this volume provides a readily understandable introduction to the
    http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=aJ5zaEG0TN4C
    Last edited by eye4magic; April 11th, 2012 at 02:32 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Ugh epigenetics, in recent years this has become one of the most twisted and poorly understood concepts to penetrate into the public sphere. This is especially evident in your cited articles from the Times and The Guardian. In typical newspaper science fashion they completely butcher the science and actually spread misinformation rather than improve the public's understanding, typical of the pathetic state of science reporting.

    I'll expound on this later tonight when I am done working.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    I'd say I have an average understanding of evolution, compared to other Americans. That is to say, not a very good one. In fact, probably above average. The average knowledge level in any subject is usually lower than what a person educated in that subject would like to think.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,459
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    There is just a huge gap from the average american, who gets the general notion but that's about it, to the real experts in the field.

    I said average, but I'd say average among those who have actually read something on the subject. I'd call myself at the "popular science" level in my understanding. I get many of the basic ideas but I'm not well versed on the details.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    There is just a huge gap from the average american, who gets the general notion but that's about it, to the real experts in the field.

    I said average, but I'd say average among those who have actually read something on the subject. I'd call myself at the "popular science" level in my understanding. I get many of the basic ideas but I'm not well versed on the details.
    Considering that 40% explicitly do not believe (and likely not know) about evolution, I'd say 'average' is a pretty low bar.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Considering that 40% explicitly do not believe (and likely not know) about evolution, I'd say 'average' is a pretty low bar.
    On a scale of 100 (100 being total knowledge and zero being no knowledge), I would think that 45% (which is the number I have always heard) of the people being at zero would be considered a non-trivial error. Also, considering these people do not simply lack information, (most believe misinformation) a lot of them could be said to be in the negative

    The scarier stat is that in addition to the 45% who don't believe, there is something like 38% who believe it occurred, but with some divine intervention, which as you can see leaves a very small percentage who are right (Before everyone starts angrily responding, I am joking not posing a serious rebuttal at this time to what are frankly silly beliefs)

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    On a scale of 100 (100 being total knowledge and zero being no knowledge), I would think that 45% (which is the number I have always heard) of the people being at zero would be considered a non-trivial error. Also, considering these people do not simply lack information, (most believe misinformation) a lot of them could be said to be in the negative

    The scarier stat is that in addition to the 45% who don't believe, there is something like 38% who believe it occurred, but with some divine intervention, which as you can see leaves a very small percentage who are right (Before everyone starts angrily responding, I am joking not posing a serious rebuttal at this time to what are frankly silly beliefs)
    Why do you assume that those who don't believe or believe that God has a hand in it don't understand Evolution? You and MyXenocide both equivocate understanding with acceptance. I see no reason to believe that those 17% who think Evolution occurs without any involvement of God understand Evolution any better. Rather I think most of them believe what they are told on the matter and thats it. Nor is there a truly good reason to assume God does not have a hand in Evolution. (Just saying, not a serious rebuttle, I just think your assumptions are silly).

    I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe in both God and Evolution.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Why do you assume that those who don't believe or believe that God has a hand in it don't understand Evolution? You and MyXenocide both equivocate understanding with acceptance. I see no reason to believe that those 17% who think Evolution occurs without any involvement of God understand Evolution any better. Rather I think most of them believe what they are told on the matter and thats it. Nor is there a truly good reason to assume God does not have a hand in Evolution. (Just saying, not a serious rebuttle, I just think your assumptions are silly).

    I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe in both God and Evolution.
    Did you notice the part where I said the shot at theistic evolutionists was a joke? I never said anything akin to them having less understanding, I am simply saying that I view adding the need for a god the same way you would view a person who believed in gravity, but added the it was controlled by millions of magic fairies. My expression was that the 40 or so percent adding the god was not good from my point of view.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtPeppers View Post
    Did you notice the part where I said the shot at theistic evolutionists was a joke? I never said anything akin to them having less understanding, I am simply saying that I view adding the need for a god the same way you would view a person who believed in gravity, but added the it was controlled by millions of magic fairies. My expression was that the 40 or so percent adding the god was not good from my point of view.
    Well I tend to think that when people express an opinion but then try to dismiss by saying they are just joking, that they are actually quite serious, but wanting to just get in a cheap shot rather than be called out and forced to defend themselves.

    And I tend to think atheism is an uninformed view and not good (just joking hahahaha...or am I?).
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution, what do you know? (Another Another Evolution Poll)

    I think the debate about levels of selection is moot. What does natural selection prefer? Better-adapted genes, individuals or groups? The answer is: natural selection prefers anything that has characteristics that are conducive to successful reproduction. A gene that's essential for walking is conducive to reproduction because walking itself is conducive to reproduction. Different levels; same thing. Natural selection doesn't "see" genes, though. I think that's accepted by all sides. This would mean that natural selection selects on the basis of phenotypes (and possibly group basis) and that the question shouldn't be "what does natural selection judge by?" but rather "what unit is it that's "competing" for its own survival?". And, once you put it like that, the answer would be equally affirmative on both levels. However, given the non-purposive nature of evolution, the question of "competition" (it's an apparent competition only) is a moot one anyway. Both gentlemen should stop the silly debate, go for a beer, get some sleep and then get on with doing biology (and, in the case of Dawkins, traveling the world, signing books and making speeches to heathens).
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Another Evolution Poll
    By chadn737 in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 11th, 2012, 06:34 AM
  2. Poll: Where do you stand on Evolution?
    By Sigfried in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 10th, 2011, 05:42 PM
  3. FD Discussion: Evolution of color perception poll.
    By Vandaler in forum Formal Debate Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 26th, 2009, 09:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •