Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 442

How many Earth-like planets are there?

types of planets Kepler found/NAA

From ScienceDaily: One team’s estimate:

Based on their simulations, the researchers estimate that planets very close to Earth in size, from three-quarters to one-and-a-half times the size of earth, with orbital periods ranging from 237 to 500 days, occur around approximately one in four stars. Importantly, their model quantifies the uncertainty in that estimate. They recommend that future planet-finding missions plan for a true rate that ranges from as low about one planet for every 33 stars to as high as nearly one planet for every two stars.

“Knowing how often we should expect to find planets of a given size and orbital period is extremely helpful for optimize surveys for exoplanets and the design of upcoming space missions to maximize their chance of success,” said Ford. “Penn State is a leader in brining state-of-the-art statistical and computational methods to the analysis of astronomical observations to address these sorts of questions. Our Institute for CyberScience (ICS) and Center for Astrostatistics (CASt) provide infrastructure and support that makes these types of projects possible.”

The Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds at Penn State includes faculty and students who are involved in the full spectrum of extrasolar planet research. A Penn State team built the Habitable Zone Planet Finder, an instrument to search for low-mass planets around cool stars, which recently began science operations at the Hobby-Eberly Telescope, of which Penn State is a founding partner. A second Penn State-built spectrograph is in being tested before it begins a complementary survey to discover and measure the masses of low-mass planets around sun-like stars. This study makes predictions for what such planet surveys will find and will help provide context for interpreting their results.Paper. paywall – Danley C. Hsu, Eric B. Ford, Darin Ragozzine, Keir Ashby. Occurrence Rates of Planets Orbiting FGK Stars: Combining Kepler DR25, Gaia DR2, and Bayesian Inference. The Astronomical Journal, 2019; 158 (3): 109 DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab31ab
More.

Is this a high-tech Drake Equation or is it a good bet?

See also: Researchers: Toxic Gases Would Slow Emergence Of Life On Exoplanets

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

We don’t often hear debunking debunked

But that’s what happens when no one believes in reality any more:

Even on the individual scale, debunking is not the simple scene of deworming that we might be tempted to picture. What we should imagine instead of an impartial skeptic is a person who gets a charge out of being the rational member of the exchange – someone who is drawn, for reasons that might or might not be clear to him or her, and that are probably difficult to articulate, to the drama of unmasking. The adversarial scene of debunking breaks down into a strange collaboration between debunker, charlatan and dupe. This collaboration leaves us with a different way of thinking about ‘modernity’ itself. That’s the argument I make in my book, Credulity: A Cultural History of US Mesmerism (2018).

Emily Ogden, “Debunking debunked” at Aeon

Whatever. The debunker, a righteous “skeptic,” so often turns out to believe in the multiverse and human-like elephants. The one makes no sense and the other obviously isn’t true.

But then most debunking is merely an attempt to claim as much reality as possible for naturalism. Evidence-based reasoning hasn’t been the winner by any means.

When post-modernism declared war on modern science, there could only be one winner and postmodernism looks like surviving.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Another think tank now openly questions Darwinism

Get a look at this item:

Readers of Thomas Kuhn’s famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions will know his central thesis that when anomalies and contradictions arise in a reigning scientific theory it creates a crisis out of which new theories emerge to replace the old. We may be seeing the beginnings of such a crisis for modern Darwinism, which appears to have gaps and contradictions that can’t be explained or explained away. The rumbles about the anomalies in Darwinism are ruthlessly suppressed in the media and in academia, but as with all such crises, the problems are impossible to suppress forever, and the doubts are increasingly leaking out.

Steven Hayward, “The Power Line Show, Ep. 138: the Crisis in Darwinism?” at Power Line

So Power Line is interviewing J. Scott Turner, author of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. He’s not an “ID guy” but that doesn’t matter. His book’s title tells you what you need to know. He understands that something is wrong. And his insights into insects’ hive mind are a piece in the puzzle.

Here’s a summary of Turner’s views: “I can remember the day it happened: I could no longer be a Darwinist.”

Recently, the Hoover Institution also interviewed three thinkers on the serious reasons for dissent and this Powerline item seems to fall into the same category.

Hoover and Power Line are conservative outlets, yes. But there was a time when they would hesitate to get involved with criticizing Darwin, for fear of boarding Noah’s Ark.

But the mess is way too big for such worries now. Darwin can supposedly explain how we vote and shop and why we tip at restaurants, the mares who supposedly cause an abortion because they perceive that the stallion will not accept another stallion’s offspring, the Darwinbird of pop science who can control the sex of her offspring by thought processes alone— wouldn’t you be a bit behind the curve if you didn’t ask some questions about the biggest popular science theory of our time?

(The Big Bang is actually the biggest theory but it is unpopular due to theistic implications.)

How about: Isn’t most Darwinism today just pop culture trivia generated on behalf of a science theory that has outlived its usefulness but is, in many places, compelled by law or by official curricula? The dead hand, in other words.

If that is true, here is how we will know: Let’s start looking more closely at information whose significance Darwinians underplay. Just to start with some recent whistles through the mailbox.

– So creationism works— but only for genes? So 2/3 of the time, we have “ de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences, such that homologues genuinely do not exist?” (Many genes occur with no predecessors?)

– Researchers: Plants somehow got “remodelled” 450 mya to grow leaves It looks very much like a plan rather than an accident.

– Ordivician Radiation–Another Strike Against Darwin (PaV) The authors give away the store: the Cambrian Explosion produced a whole host of “body plans,” but few “species”—the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of Darwinian expectations, and, then, 80 million years later a whole host of species ‘explode’ onto the scene. No ‘gradualsim’; just a huge amount of diversification out of nowhere in an incredibly short amount of time. So, in the Cambrian: body plans, but not a lot of species. In the Ordivician: a lot of species, but no new body plans.

See also: Hoover Institution interview with David Berlinski

Mathematicians challenge Darwinian Evolution

The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.

and

David Gelernter warns against Darwin mob And he’s a Unabomber survivor.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

“Modern” eye pigment has been around over fifty million years

From ScienceDaily:

Eumelanin — a natural pigment found for instance in human eyes — has, for the first time, been identified in the fossilized compound eyes of 54-million-year-old crane-flies. It was previously assumed that melanic screening pigments did not exist in arthropods.

“We were surprised by what we found because we were not looking for, or expecting it,” says Johan Lindgren, an Associate Professor at the Department of Geology, Lund University, and lead author of the study published this week in the journal Nature.

The researchers went on to examine the eyes of living crane-flies, and found additional evidence for eumelanin in the modern species as well.

By comparing the fossilized eyes with optic tissues from living crane-flies, the researchers were able to look closer at how the fossilization process has affected the conservation of compound eyes across geological time.

The fossilized eyes further possessed calcified ommatidial lenses, and Johan Lindgren believes that this mineral has replaced the original chitinous material.

This, in turn, led the researchers to conclude that another widely held hypothesis may need to be reconsidered. Previous research has suggested that trilobites — an exceedingly well-known group of extinct seagoing arthropods — had mineralized lenses in life.

“The general view has been that trilobites had lenses made from single calcium carbonate crystals. However, they were probably much more similar to modern arthropods in that their eyes were primarily organic,” says Johan Lindgren. Paper. paywall – Johan Lindgren, Dan-Eric Nilsson, Peter Sjövall, Martin Jarenmark, Shosuke Ito, Kazumasa Wakamatsu, Benjamin P. Kear, Bo Pagh Schultz, René Lyng Sylvestersen, Henrik Madsen, James R. LaFountain, Carl Alwmark, Mats E. Eriksson, Stephen A. Hall, Paula Lindgren, Irene Rodríguez-Meizoso, Per Ahlberg. Fossil insect eyes shed light on trilobite optics and the arthropod pigment screen. Nature, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1473-z More.

Note that they are now wondering whether Cambrian arthropods’ eyes were really that different. Talk about stasis.

See also: Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Researchers identify a new sensory organism that detects pain

From ScienceDaily:

Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden have discovered a new sensory organ that is able to detect painful mechanical damage, such as pricks and impacts. The discovery is being published in the journal ‘Science’.

Pain causes suffering and results in substantial costs for society. Almost one person in every five experiences constant pain and there is a considerable need to find new painkilling drugs. However, sensitivity to pain is also required for survival and it has a protective function. It prompts reflex reactions that prevent damage to tissue, such as pulling your hand away when you feel a jab from a sharp object or when you burn yourself…

“Our study shows that sensitivity to pain does not occur only in the skin’s nerve fibres, but also in this recently-discovered pain-sensitive organ. The discovery changes our understanding of the cellular mechanisms of physical sensation and it may be of significance in the understanding of chronic pain,” says Patrik Ernfors, professor at Karolinska Institutet’s Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics and chief investigator for the study.

Paper. paywall – Abdo H, Calvo-Enrique L, Martinez Lopez J, Song J, Zhang MD, Usoskin D, El Manira A, Adameyko I, Hjerling-Leffler J, Ernfors P. Specialized cutaneous Schwann cells initiate pain sensation. Science, 2019 DOI: 10.1126/science.aax6452 More.

From the Institute:

Researchers at Karolinska Institutet have now discovered a new sensory receptor organ in the skin that is sensitive to hazardous environmental irritation. It is comprised of glia cells with multiple long protrusions and which collectively go to make up a mesh-like organ within the skin. This organ is sensitive to painful mechanical damage such as pricks and pressure.

“New pain organ discovered in the skin” at Karolinska Institutet

Assuming this holds up: Everywhere we look, more systems, more organization, and it all just sort of happened by magic, oops, Darwinism.

One wonders, at what point will the inability to distinguish between Darwinism and magic lead to some sort of re-evaluation of the origin of complex specified information in life forms?

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Ordivician Radiation–Another Strike Against Darwin

The Cambrian Explosion, demonstrated time and again to be an ‘explosion,’ is a problem for Darwinian theory. Darwin postulated gradualsim; in fact, he insisted upon it when pressed by supporters to modulate this position of his.

The problem is that multiple life forms are required to “build” new life forms. You need lots of species for higher taxa to accumulate over time. But we see almost the complete opposite in the Cambrian Explosion. Steven Meyer wrote a book about this: Darwin’s Dilemna.

Now there’s more. Another ‘explosion’ during the Ordivician. The authors of a study published in Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology had this to say:

The early evolution of animal life on Earth is a complex and fascinating subject. The Cambrian Explosion (between about 540 to 510 million years ago) produced a stunning array of body plans, but very few separate species of each, notes Stigall. But nearly 40 million years later, during the Ordovician Period, this situation changed, with a rapid radiation of species and genera during the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.

The triggers of the GOBE and processes that promoted diversification have been subject to much debate, but most geoscientists haven’t fully considered how changes like global cooling or increased oxygenation would foster increased diversification.

A recent review paper by Stigall and an international team of collaborators attempts to provide clarity on these issues. . . .

In their paper, Stigall and colleagues demonstrate that the main pulse of diversification during the GOBE is temporally restricted and occurred in the Middle Ordovician Darriwilian Stage (about 465 million years ago). Many changes to the physical earth system, including oceanic cooling, increased nutrient availability, and increased atmospheric oxygen accumulate in the interval leading up to the Darriwilian.

“Main pulse” of diversification? Yes, around 10 million years. Just like the Cambrian Explosion. Shall we call this “pulse” the Ordivician Explosion—to go along with the Mammalian Explosion and the Bird Explosion, etc.

The authors give away the store: the Cambrian Explosion produced a whole host of “body plans,” but few “species”—the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of Darwinian expectations, and, then, 80 million years later a whole host of species ‘explode’ onto the scene. No ‘gradualsim’; just a huge amount of diversification out of nowhere in an incredibly short amount of time. So, in the Cambrian: body plans, but not a lot of species. In the Ordivician: a lot of species, but no new body plans.

To an intellectually honest person, these facts should cause serious concerns about the scientific validity of Darwinian theory, to the point of abandonement. Most who have thoroughly studied the foundations of Darwinian theory and compared it to actual facts end up untethering themselves from this sinking ship.

Robert F. Shedinger is the latest to take this voyage.

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The ever-cycling universe cycles back to town

Big Bang/NASA

Pausing to rest for a moment at New Scientist:

You might think that the universe started with a big bang. Ten years ago, that is what I thought too. But then I came to realise that the issue is far from settled. Pursuing this question prompted me to change the tack of my career and become a cosmologist, even though I had just completed a PhD in the philosophy of quantum physics. What I have discovered since then supports a radically new response to the question that irked Augustine – what came before the beginning? The answer, thrillingly, may be that there never was a big bang, but instead a universe with no beginning or end, repeatedly bouncing from an epoch of contraction to expansion, and back again.

Anna Ijjas, “What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?” at New Scientist (paywall)

The war on the Big Bang as an actual beginning can never stop and never will. The main question is whether the war on evidence will settle the issue by allowing whatever view would prevail most “thrillingly” to stand in for science.

Evidence isn’t really at issue; many people today need a universe other than the one we live in and they will theorize their way to it, if only in their own imaginations. But “science” will cooperate if science knows what is good for it.

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon, our physics color commentator, writes to say,

Anna Ijjas was a post-doc for Paul Steinhardt, and in the past 5 years they have written a number of papers very critical of “inflation”. It’s ironic, because Steinhardt was one of the 3 founders of inflation theory. Just last week we had a mention of his 2017 SciAm blog describing the death of inflation. The problem is that no one knows how to solve all the designed features of the universe without inflation. Evidently Steinhardt and Ijjas came up with a solution (which turns out to be 40 years old), the “Big Bounce”. They argue that all the smoothness of the universe produced by inflation, can also be produced by repeated expansion-contraction-bouncing expansion-contraction-bouncing expansion…

Here’s their 2019 cyclic universe paper:

Abstract: Combining intervals of ekpyrotic (ultra-slow) contraction with a (non-singular) classical bounce naturally leads to a novel cyclic theory of the universe in which the Hubble parameter, energy density and temperature oscillate periodically, but the scale factor grows by an exponential factor from one cycle to the next. The resulting cosmology not only resolves the homogeneity, isotropy, flatness and monopole problems and generates a nearly scale invariant spectrum of density perturbations, but it also addresses a number of age-old cosmological issues that big bang inflationary cosmology does not. There may also be wider-ranging implications for fundamental physics, black holes and quantum measurement. (open access)More.

Sheldon also offers some thoughts on the paper:

Two points:

1) What is really recycling is not the universe, but this theory.

2) None of the previous objections to a “Bouncing Universe” are addressed, rather it is now seen (by Ijjas and Steinhardt) as less objectionable than the justifications for inflation, multiverse, etc. In other words, its new-found attraction is simply by comparison to all the other badly aging theories out there.

Note: Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent.

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

So creationism works—but only for genes?

From a bioRxiv preprint:

Abstract: The origin of ‘orphan’ genes, species-specific sequences that lack detectable homologues, has remained mysterious since the dawn of the genomic era. There are two dominant explanations for orphan genes: complete sequence divergence from ancestral genes, such that homologues are not readily detectable; and de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences, such that homologues genuinely do not exist. The relative contribution of the two processes remains unknown. Here, we harness the special circumstance of conserved synteny to estimate the contribution of complete divergence to the pool of orphan genes. We find that complete divergence accounts for at most a third of eukaryotic orphan and taxonomically restricted genes. We observe that complete divergence occurs at a stable rate within a phylum, but different rates between phyla, and is frequently associated with gene shortening akin to pseudogenization. Two cancer-related human genes, DEC1 and DIRC1, have likely originated via this route in a primate ancestor. – Nikolaos Vakirlis, Anne-Ruxandra Carvunis, View ORCID ProfileAoife McLysaght doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/735175 Pdf.More.

So 2/3 of the time, we have “de novo emergence from ancestral non-genic sequences, such that homologues genuinely do not exist?”

Okay. Somebody better go put their arm around the Selfish Gene. It’s tough being the Last Darwinian.

Gene, we did not do this to you. Francis Collins and Craig Venter did this to you. Honest.

Hat tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines

See also: De Novo genes and normal science

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

In a science media release: “Nature does everything for a reason…

A negative differential response occurs in substrate inhibition, in about 20% of all known enzymes/Khopkins2010, Wikimedia Commons

… and the presence of negative differential response in living organisms is no exception”:

Ever since the late 19th century, physicists have known about a counterintuitive property of some electric circuits called negative resistance. Typically, increasing the voltage in a circuit causes the electric current to increase as well. But under some conditions, increasing the voltage can cause the current to decrease instead. This basically means that pushing harder on the electric charges actually slows them down.

Due to the relationship between current, voltage, and resistance, in these situations the resistance produces power rather than consuming it, resulting in a “negative resistance.” Today, negative resistance devices have a wide variety of applications, such as in fluorescent lights and Gunn diodes, which are used in radar guns and automatic door openers, among other devices. Most known examples of negative resistance occur in human-engineered devices rather than in nature. However, in a new study published in the New Journal of Physics, Gianmaria Falasco and coauthors from the University of Luxembourg have shown that an analogous property called negative differential response is actually a widespread phenomenon that is found in many biochemical reactions that occur in living organisms. They identify the property in several vital biochemical processes, such as enzyme activity, DNA replication, and ATP production. It seems that nature has used this property to optimize these processes and make living things operate more efficiently at the molecular scale.

“This counterintuitive, yet common phenomenon has been found in a wealth of physical systems after its first discovery in low-temperature semiconductors,” the researchers wrote in their paper. “We have shown that a negative differential response is a widespread phenomenon in chemistry with major consequences on the efficacy of biological and artificial processes.” …

“Nature does everything for a reason, and the presence of negative differential response in living organisms is no exception.”

Lisa Zyga, “Counterintuitive physics property found to be widespread in living organisms” at Phys.org

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham, who notes,

Actually, according to Richard Dawkins and the presuppositions of Atheistic materialism, there is no reason to anything that Nature does:

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” ― Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

Is it getting to the point where you can say things that murder Darwin’s kid* and no one cares?

Darwin accused Wallace of that when Wallace suggested that the human mind was not simply a part of nature: “I hope you have not too completely murdered your own and my child” (the Darwin-Wallace theory of natural selection)”
Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Ancient pigs’ genome was almost completely replaced. How?

Their cheatin’ hearts, that’s how. From ScienceDaily:

New research led by Oxford University and Queen Mary University of London has resolved a pig paradox. Archaeological evidence has shown that pigs were domesticated in the Near East and as such, modern pigs should resemble Near Eastern wild boar. They do not. Instead, the genetic signatures of modern European domestic pigs resemble European wild boar…

The findings revealed that the first pigs to arrive into Europe alongside farmers 8,000 years ago had clear Near Eastern genetic ancestry. Over the course of the next 3,000 years, however, ancient domestic pigs hybridised with European wild boar to such an extent that they lost almost all their Near Eastern ancestry. Some low level of Near Eastern ancestry, however potentially remained in the genome of modern European domestic pigs, and this likely explains their characteristic black, and black and white spotted coat colours. Higher level of Near Eastern ancestry were also maintained in pig populations on Mediterranean islands maintained probably because these populations experienced comparatively less gene flow with European wild boar relative to pigs on the continent.

Professor Greger Larson, Director of the Palaeogenomics & Bio-Archaeology Research Network (PalaeoBarn) at Oxford and senior author of the study, said: “Having access to ancient genomes over such a large space and time has allowed us to see the slow-motion replacement of the entire genome of domestic pigs. This suggests that pig management in Europe over millennia was extensive, and that though swineherders maintained selection for some coat colours, domestic pigs interacted with wild boar frequently enough that they lost the ancestral signature of the wild boar from which they were derived.” Paper. (access?) – Laurent A. F. Franz et al., Ancient pigs reveal a near-complete genomic turnover following their introduction to Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019; 201901169 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1901169116 More.

Pigs ran wild and look what happened. Funny how a genome can be sort of a river like that. And they’re all still pigs.

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana