Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 544

Why Evolution is More Certain than Gravity

We all know that the theory of evolution is as well-established as gravity, because we have been taught this in school all our lives. What many people may not know, however, is why evolution is as well-established as gravity. 

In his 1888 book Evolution Joseph Le Conte, University of California professor of geology and natural history, and later president of the Geological Society of America, helps us understand why this is so. Of the fossil record, Le Conte writes:

[S]pecies seem to come in suddenly, with all their specific characters perfect, remain substantially unchanged as long as they last, and then die out and are replaced by others. Certainly this looks much like immutability of specific forms, and supernaturalism of specific origin. 

According to a Nov 5, 1980 New York Times News Service article, the fossil record 100 years later still does not support Darwin’s belief that species must have evolved gradually: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,” says Niles Eldridge, an American Museum of Natural History paleontologist. “There are very few examples—some say none—of one species shading gradually into another,” according to this report. “Darwin knew he was on shaky ground in extending natural selection to account for differences between major groups of organisms,” says the Times writer, but this does not suggest “weakness in the fact of evolution,” only in the “perceived mechanism.” 

Le Conte next concedes that natural selection cannot create anything new: 

… neither can it explain the first steps of advance toward usefulness. An organ must be already useful before natural selection can take hold of it to improve it.

Le Conte thus acknowledges the main problem with natural selection, which was called “the problem of novelties” in his day and today is known as the problem of “irreducible complexity.” 

As I pointed out in a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article, the evolution of life actually looks much like the evolution of software, or any other human technology: there is a progression from simple to complex, but major new features consistently appear suddenly. “Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large,” writes Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. But if we thought about what gradual transitions between major groups of animals or major software versions would look like, we would understand why we do not see them: they would involve puzzling new, but not yet useful, features. 

In another candid admission, Le Conte writes that while beauty in flowers can perhaps be explained by sexual selection, “The most gorgeous beauty is lavishly distributed even among the lowest animals, such as marine shells and polyps, where no such explanation is possible. The process by which such beauty is originated and intensified is wholly unknown to us.” 

So why then is evolution as well-established as gravity? Le Conte explains: 

We are confident that evolution is absolutely certain—not evolution as a special theory—Lamarckian, Darwinian, Spencerian…but evolution as a law of derivation of forms from previous forms…. In this sense it is not only certain, it is axiomatic… The origins of new phenomena are often obscure, even inexplicable, but we never think to doubt that they have a natural cause… 

[T]he law of evolution is as certain as the law of gravitation. Nay, it is far more certain. The nexus between successive events in time (causation) is far more certain than the nexus between coexistent objects in space (gravitation). The former is a necessary truth, the latter is usually classed as a contingent truth.

Finally we understand. The law of gravity is a “contingent” truth: we believe it only as long as the evidence supports it. The theory of evolution is a “necessary” truth, it is not contingent on supporting evidence. 

While Le Conte’s axiom that everything must have a natural explanation has certainly been a useful working hypothesis, it should be noted that since there is no chance of finding a “natural” explanation for the beginning of time, it would have forced scientists to reject the Big Bang theory before looking at the evidence. And it should also be pointed out that it requires us to believe (see the first chapter of my 2016 book Christianity for Doubters) that four fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles on our once-barren planet into computers, airplanes and Apple iPhones, and surely a reasonable person can be allowed to doubt this. 

As useful as Le Conte’s axiom may be, shouldn’t we at least teach our school children that evolution is considered as well established as gravity by most scientists because of an axiom they accept, and not because the scientific evidence is overwhelming?

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

What interests does “poor design of the human body” rhetoric serve?

Missed this from last summer but looking at it again raises a question: A review of Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. by Nathan Lents that indulges in outdated claims with impunity:

If it’s all that bad, why are there so darn many of us? Why are we supposed to be destroying the planet instead of dying out?

In his new book Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes, Nathan Lents, a professor of biology at John Jay College, CUNY, has demonstrated that the human body can’t possibly be considered the product of an intelligent designer. Rather, its flaws tell the story of evolution. No intelligent designer would have put our retinas in backwards, left us with the stump of a tail, deprived us of the ability to make the vitamins and nutrients we need, or sent our recurrent laryngeal nerve on such a circuitous path. No intelligent designer would have filled our genomes with genes that don’t work and viral carcasses of past infections. These and our many other defects are explained only by the quirks of evolution.Harriet Hall, “” at Science-Based Medicine

One of the interesting things about this type of rhetoric is that it doesn’t need to be in sync with anything in particular and it can be repeated indefinitely without facing challenges.

Given that it is incorrect and doesn’t make sense, we might be wise to ask, what interests it serves.

See also: Nathan Lents is still wrong about sinuses but is still writing about them

Does Nathan Lents, author of a “bad design” book really teach biology? A doctor looks at his claims about the human sinuses

and

Bad design of the human mouth enables us to speak

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

First human couple still in the news

Adam and Eve/Cranach the Elder, c. 1510

Yes, after all these years, everyone still knows who we mean by Adam and Eve. How many current celebs and straying politicos will still be news next century?

And the advent of genome mapping has kept them in the science news too. Think “mitochondrial Eve” and quarter million-year-old Adam.

Just a story, you say? Well, whatta story. It never ceases to produce fresh evidence and new arguments and it certainly did in 2018:

This question has been addressed by numerous scientists in the past, ever since human genetic data began to roll in. And all of them, as far as I know, have said that yes, our genome rules out Adam. We are the product of common descent. We are descended from an ape-like population of at least several thousand. This we have heard before.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. There has been a debate going on over at BioLogos for a number of months that was triggered by Venema’s book. The debate is about whether there could have been a bottleneck of two at some time in the human past. This discussion was started when Richard Buggs, Senior Research Leader (Plant Health) at Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, and Reader in Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary, University of London, challenged Dennis Venema about what Venema wrote in Adam and the Genome. Venema had argued:

“As our methodology becomes more sophisticated and more data are examined, we will likely further refine our estimates [of human population size] in the future. That said, we can be confident that finding evidence that we were created independently of other animals or that we descend from only two people just isn’t going to happen. Some ideas in science are so well supported that it is highly unlikely new evidence will substantially modify them, and these are among them. The sun is at the center of our solar system, humans evolved, and we evolved as a population.

“Put most simply, DNA evidence indicates that humans descend from a large population because we, as a species, are so genetically diverse in the present day that a large ancestral population is needed to transmit that diversity to us. To date, every genetic analysis estimating ancestral population sizes has agreed that we descend from a population of thousands, not a single ancestral couple. Even though many of these methods are independent of each other, all methods employed to date agree that the human lineage has not dipped below several thousand individuals for the last three million years or more — long before our lineage was even remotely close to what we would call “human.” Thus the hypothesis that humans descend solely from one ancestral couple has not yet found any experimental support — and it is therefore not one that geneticists view as viable. [Emphasis added.] “

Then two new scientists entered the debate with Venema and Buggs. Remarkably, neither is an ID advocate, both affirm evolutionary theory, and both came to similar conclusions by different routes. A population geneticist named Dr. Steve Schaffner of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, ran a simulation to determine whether a bottleneck of two individuals was possible. He found that, at dates older than 500,000 years ago, a bottleneck could not be ruled out. His analysis of allele frequencies could not distinguish between allele frequencies obtained after a bottleneck of two and those from current genetic data. Ann Gauger, “#4 of Our Top Stories of 2018: A First Human Couple? New Evidence and Arguments” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 5, 2018)

It’ll get more interesting still with new finds, we can be sure. Look what genome mapping did to Darwinism.

See also: “Adam And Eve” Researchers Say Their Work Does NOT Disprove Darwin (Well then, why do you have to tell people that?)

Adam and Eve reappear in a recent study Or someone does. We haven’t quite figured this out yet.

Ann Gauger talks about Adam and Eve with World editor Marvin Olasky. Gauger found two papers a few years later which suggested that the number of variants (allegedly disproving Adam and Eve) was much smaller. She is working on “an alternative population genetics model that doesn’t depend on evolutionary assumptions.”

and

Adam and Eve and Ann Gauger

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

How The Atlantic Wants Us to be More Like the Soviet Union

Since the days of the Terror, authoritarian leftists have been fundamentally the same everywhere. For example, the difference between the authoritarian progressives who run The Atlantic and the authoritarians who ran the Soviet Union is one of degree, not kind. The Atlantic’s recent call to ignore the plain text of the Constitution because it interferes with progressives getting what they want (see here) brings this point into relief. As Justice Scalia once observed, on paper the old Soviet Constitution was far superior to the United States’ Constitution:

Our Constitution isn’t the best, if you judge it by its guarantees.  Frankly, the old Soviet constitution was better, and it was full of all kinds of grand guarantees . . . For example, ‘Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person . . . Citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the home’ . . . But this Soviet constitution was just a piece of paper . . . A bill of rights has value only if the main articles of the constitution truly constitute the organs of government – establish a structure that will preserve liberties against the ineradicable human lust for power.

If the Soviet Constitution was superior to the US Constitution, why was the former a totalitarian hellhole, while the latter is one of the freest and most prosperous countries that has ever existed? The answer is obvious and simple. The Soviets did not respect the text of their constitution; it was a farce. Yes, the Soviet constitution guaranteed inviolability of the person. But cross the wrong official and they knocked down your door, arrested you and sent you to the Gulag. In contrast, in the United States we take the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments very seriously. Indeed, just the opposite often happens here when the government must release an accused person even though everyone knows he is guilty, because there was some transgression against his civil rights.

So how is The Atlantic in effect urging us to adopt the Soviet approach to constitutions? The Constitution guaranties each state shall have two and only two senators. The Atlantic says we should employ rank sophistry to justify ignoring the plain text of the Constitution. Why? Because the plain text interferes with the authoritarians who run The Atlantic getting what they want. There is no difference between this and when the Soviets ignored the plain text of their grand constitutional guarantees whenever the text interfered with them getting what they wanted (such as sending Alexander Solzhenitsyn to the Gulag).

What is the philosophical underpinning of this approach to law? Materialism of course. A constitution is a compact among the people who live under it. A compact is a mutual promise. The whole thing works only to the extent the promise is considered binding. Whether a promise is considered binding is fundamentally a moral question.

The materialists who ran the Soviet Union and the materialist editors who run The Atlantic have the same basic approach to moral questions. That is to say, no approach at all, since they both believe there is no ultimate grounding to morality. Which in turn means morality does not exist in any meaningful objective sense. And that means there are in this world no hard and fast binding moral rules — like honoring promises to name an example. There is only strength and weakness.

When Justice Brennan said that constitutional law amounts to the ability to count to five, he meant simply that when he was able to cobble five votes together, he had the strength to force you to bend to his will. What the constitutional text actually said regarding the matter was irrelevant to Brennan exactly in the same way it was irrelevant to the masters of the Soviet Union and the editors of The Atlantic. And whether it was moral or immoral to disregard the promises implicit in the constitutional compact was never even a consideration.

For Joseph Stalin, the only thing that ever counted was the raw exercise of power. And that is exactly the same vision modern progressives have for the United States today.

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

What happened to astronomer Martin Gaskell, dumped for thinking that the universe is designed?

Did you ever wonder what happened to Astronomer Martin Gaskell who got dumped at the University of Kentucky for someone of admittedly inferior qualifications because he thought the universe showed evidence of design? He settled with the university for lost wages and went on to work on a telescope in Chile. This was his crime.

He is currently at the University of California Santa Barbara:

My primary research interests are in theoretical and observational studies of what happens around the most bizarre objects in the universe: supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies. As matter spirals into these black holes, it produces a tremendous release of energy as what is called an “active galactic nucleus” or AGN for short. AGNs are the most powerful energy sources in the universe (more powerful than an entire galaxy of stars). Because they are so luminous they can be seen far away back in the early days of the formation of galaxies when the universe was young …

I enjoy teaching at all levels from introductory course for non-scientists to advanced graduate courses. I also greatly enjoy working one on one with students on individual research projects, theses, etc. More.

Apparently, a fulltime Darwin lobbyist was involved in the consultations, which tells you how much rot afflicted the system.

All’s well that ends well, this time. But calling off the pack might be an idea too.

See also: Martin Gaskell, The Darwin Lobby’s Astronomer Target, Supports Texas Anti-Discrimination Bill

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

Darwinists are not usually software engineers

And, in some cases, the reverse is also true:

Biologists are trained to use common descent as an organizing principle for all their data, and for most biologists the Darwinian mechanism comes in the same package. Evidently they don’t see much reason to doubt this mechanism. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, among biologists who have read Mike Behe or Stephen Meyer carefully. Some proponents of intelligent design believe in common descent, but not in natural selection.

On the other hand, computer scientists and software engineers are trained in design principles, and also have real experience of how complex functional systems appear and change constructively. In particular, software engineers know how complex it can be to implement a “simple” change. From this perspective, the Darwinian story is a lot less plausible. Natural selection seems just a little bit too easy.Andrew Jones, “Why We Don’t Evolve Software: A Computer Scientist Considers Darwinian Theory” at Evolution News and Science Today

See also: Does information theory support design in nature?

and

We don’t often hear space and time described as a quantum error-correcting code
But some argue, the same codes used to prevent errors in quantum computers might give space-time “its intrinsic robustness.” They certainly make it sound as though our universe is designed.

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

We don’t often hear space and time described as a quantum error-correcting code

Big Bang/NASA

But some argue, the same codes used to prevent errors in quantum computers might give space-time “its intrinsic robustness”:

But in the dogged pursuit of these codes over the past quarter-century, a funny thing happened in 2014, when physicists found evidence of a deep connection between quantum error correction and the nature of space, time and gravity. In Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravity is defined as the fabric of space and time — or “space-time” — bending around massive objects. (A ball tossed into the air travels along a straight line through space-time, which itself bends back toward Earth.) But powerful as Einstein’s theory is, physicists believe gravity must have a deeper, quantum origin from which the semblance of a space-time fabric somehow emerges.

That year — 2014 — three young quantum gravity researchers came to an astonishing realization. They were working in physicists’ theoretical playground of choice: a toy universe called “anti-de Sitter space” that works like a hologram. The bendy fabric of space-time in the interior of the universe is a projection that emerges from entangled quantum particles living on its outer boundary. Ahmed Almheiri, Xi Dong and Daniel Harlow did calculations suggesting that this holographic “emergence” of space-time works just like a quantum error-correcting code. They conjectured in the Journal of High Energy Physics that space-time itself is a code — in anti-de Sitter (AdS) universes, at least. The paper has triggered a wave of activity in the quantum gravity community, and new quantum error-correcting codes have been discovered that capture more properties of space-time. …

“It’s really entanglement which is holding the space together,” he said. “If you want to weave space-time together out of little pieces, you have to entangle them in the right way. And the right way is to build a quantum error-correcting code.”Natalie Wolchover, “How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code” at Quanta

They certainly make it sound as though our universe is designed.

See also: 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

Is the age of the gene finally over?

If so, it’s remarkable outcome for genome mapping:

So it has been dawning on us is that there is no prior plan or blueprint for development: Instructions are created on the hoof, far more intelligently than is possible from dumb DNA. That is why today’s molecular biologists are reporting “cognitive resources” in cells; “bio-information intelligence”; “cell intelligence”; “metabolic memory”; and “cell knowledge”—all terms appearing in recent literature.1,2 “Do cells think?” is the title of a 2007 paper in the journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.3 On the other hand the assumed developmental “program” coded in a genotype has never been described.

It is such discoveries that are turning our ideas of genetic causation inside out. We have traditionally thought of cell contents as servants to the DNA instructions. But, as the British biologist Denis Noble insists, “The modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong … DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system … DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.” …

Increasingly, we are finding that, in complex evolved traits—like human minds—there is little prediction from DNA variation through development to individual differences. The genes are crucial, of course, but nearly all genetic variations are dealt with in the way you can vary your journey from A to B: by constructing alternative routes. “Multiple alternative pathways … are the rule rather than the exception,” reported a paper in the journal BioSystems in 2007…

Genes now utilized in the development of our arms and legs, first appeared in organisms that have neither. Genes used in fruit flies for gonad development are now used in the development of human brains. And most genes are used in several different tissues for different purposes at the same time. KEN RICHARDSON, “It’s the End of the Gene As We Know It” at Nautilus

Does anybody here remember the 99% chimpanzee? So what? Maybe even he isn’t 99% chimpanzee… not the way they thought, anyhow… 

Oh, and anyone also recall the gene for how you vote? Stay tuned.

See also: New Find Sheds Light On How And When DNA Replicates

Mitochondrial DNA From Dad Might Affect Claims About “Mitochondrial Eve,” Says Biologist

Darwinsplaining the kids who get mitochondrial DNA from their dads
Researcher shocked: Human mitochondrial DNA can be inherited from dads

Ann Gauger on stacking the deck against Eve.

Rewrite the Textbooks (Again), Origin of Mitochondria Blown Up

and

Researchers: Mechanism may exist in all animals for filtering out mitochondrial DNA mutations

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

Real Intelligence Can Never Be Matched by the Artificial

Scary predictions are a thriving business but that does not make them a road map to the future:

In Salvo 46, we looked at the artificial intelligence doomsdays prophesied by media magnates like Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) and Elon Musk (“more dangerous than nukes”).

Media do not, as a rule, examine such claims carefully. There is a market for them, after all; why damage the brand? Debunking thus falls to comparatively obscure sources.

But what a land of opportunity awaits! The AI industry faces major, open, unsolved problems with the dream of replicating human intelligence. Some insights from ID thinkers and sympathizers can help us unpack the breathless claims.

First, what is intelligence? Intelligence enables us to know things. But what does it mean to “know” something?

We know things in the sense that our “selves” are aware of them. When we talk about knowledge, we assume a “knower,” a self to which the information is apparent. Absent a self as the subject of the experience of knowing, knowledge—in the sense in which we usually use the word—does not exist. As neurosurgeon Michael Egnor says, “Your computer doesn’t know a binary string [of code] from a ham sandwich. . . . Your cell phone doesn’t know what you said to your girlfriend this morning.”Denyse O’Leary, “It comes naturally” at Salvo

See also: Stephen Hawking and the AI Apocalypse

Noted astronomer envisions cyborg on Mars

AI machines taking over the world? It’s a cool apocalypse but does that make it more likely?

Software pioneer says general superhuman artificial intelligence is very unlikely The concept, he argues, shows a lack of understanding of the nature of intelligence

and

Machines just don’t do meaning And that, says a computer science prof, is a key reason they won’t compete with humans

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

Will artificial intelligence design artificial super-intelligence?

Eric Holloway: And then turn us all into super-geniuses, as some AI researchers hope? Like in the sci-fi movies? No, says Eric Holloway, and here’s why not:

In addition to this historical perspective, we can examine the question from a mathematical perspective and arrive at the same conclusion: *

There is an identity known as the data processing inequality, which states that if you have a dataset X with information about a quality Y, then processing the dataset X cannot increase the information regarding Y. AI is a form of processing so AI algorithms can only reduce the information in the dataset, not increase it.

The dataset is the source of the information that makes AI work. Therefore, in order to increase information, we must increase data. Assuming we have access to unlimited data, the limit on increasing the dataset’s size is the rate at which we can process it. The bottleneck in improving AI is the processing throughput.

May we expect a continuation of the boom-bust cycle for AI, and thus another spring after the predicted winter? If we assume that AI has advanced primarily due to processor improvements, then continued improvement is contingent on Moore’s law, which states that the number of transistors on a processor circuit doubles every two years. However, for the transistor density to increase, the size of the transistors must decrease.

Because there is a limit to how small transistors can be, there is a limit to the applicability of Moore’s law. Further, because Moore’s law is an exponential law, the numbers multiply rapidly and we could hit the physical limit rather suddenly. Current indications are that Moore’s law’s speed has already slowed or even ceased to be a true description of the information technology (IT) industry today… More.

Also by Eric Holloway: How can we measure meaningful information

and

Has neuroscience disproved thinking?

See also: How humans can thrive in a world of increasing automation (Bill Dembski)

Eric Holloway has a Ph.D. in Electrical & Computer Engineering from Baylor University. He is a current Captain in the United States Air Force where he served in the US and Afghanistan He is the co-editor of the book Naturalism and Its Alternatives in Scientific Methodologies. Dr. Holloway is an Associate Fellow of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

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