Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 64

At EurekAlert: Earth’s magnetic poles not likely to flip

The emergence of a mysterious area in the South Atlantic where the geomagnetic field strength is decreasing rapidly, has led to speculation that Earth is heading towards a magnetic polarity reversal. However, a new study that pieces together evidence stretching back 9,000 years, suggests that the current changes aren’t unique, and that a reversal may not be in the cards after all. The study is published in PNAS.

The Earth’s magnetic field acts as an invisible shield against the life-threatening environment in space, and solar winds that would otherwise sweep away the atmosphere. However, the magnetic field is not stable, and at irregular intervals at an average of every 200,000 years polarity reversals happen. This means that the magnetic North and South poles swap places.

Note that the complex geomagnetic process that results in Earth’s magnetic field is widely recognized as an important design feature of our planet for habitability.

During the past 180 years, Earth’s magnetic field strength has decreased by about 10 percent. Simultaneously, an area with an unusually weak magnetic field has grown in the South Atlantic off the coast of South America. This area, where satellites have malfunctioned several times due to exposure to highly charged particles from the sun, is called the South Atlantic Anomaly. These developments have led to speculation that we may be heading for a polarity reversal. However, the new study suggests this may not be the case.

“We have mapped changes in the Earth’s magnetic field over the past 9,000 years, and anomalies like the one in the South Atlantic are probably recurring phenomena linked to corresponding variations in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field”, says Andreas Nilsson, geologist at Lund University.

The results are based on analyzes of burnt archaeological artefacts, volcanic samples and sediment drill cores, all of which carry information about the Earth’s magnetic field. These include clay pots that have been heated up to over 580 degrees Celsius, volcanic lava that has solidified, and sediments that have been deposited in lakes or in the sea. The objects act as time capsules, and carry information about the magnetic field in the past. Using sensitive instruments, the researchers have been able to measure these magnetizations and recreate the direction and strength of the magnetic field at specific places and times.

“We have developed a new modeling technique that connects these indirect observations from different time periods and locations into one global reconstruction of the magnetic field over the past 9,000 years”, says Andreas Nilsson.

By studying how the magnetic field has changed, researchers can learn more about the underlying processes in the Earth’s core that generate the field. The new model can also be used to date both archaeological and geological records, by comparing measured and modelled variations in the magnetic field. And reassuringly, it has led them to a conclusion regarding speculations about an imminent polarity reversal: “Based on similarities with the recreated anomalies, we predict that the South Atlantic Anomaly will probably disappear within the next 300 years, and that Earth is not heading towards a polarity reversal”, concludes Andreas Nilsson.

EurekAlert

Copyright © 2022 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

Eric Holloway: The Salem hypothesis as to why engineers doubt Darwin

Not because they’re terrorists or black-and-white thinkers, as claimed. A simple computer program shows the limits of creating information by chance:

Engineers are more likely to be creationists because they are familiar with what it takes to design complex things for specific tasks. Which is exactly what we see in the biological world. Additionally, engineers who work with computers know about randomized methods, which include evolutionary algorithms. We are aware of their significant limitations…

Let’s set my evolutionary algorithm a simple, fundamental task — to count by ones…

Exponential is bad news. Exponential means it took the evolutionary algorithm twice as long to count to 10 as it did to count to 9.

Let’s put exponential on a cosmological scale. The heat death of the universe is projected to occur in 10106 years. This is well beyond the lifetime of anyone who’ll even remotely know we existed. Seems like a lot of time, but not for exponential doubling!

If we generously say that a step of P’‘ runs in a nanosecond, which is nine decimal places to the right of the dot, then the universe will undergo heat death before the evolutionary algorithm can evolve a program that counts from 0 to 500. And it takes even longer if the program must start from 1 instead of 0. To go up to 501 doubles even that. Completely impossible.

Eric Holloway, “The Salem Hypothesis: Why engineers view the universe as designed” at Mind Matters News (June 7, 2022)

Takehome: Engineers doubt chance evolution because a computer using an evolution-based program to do simple tasks would be chugging away well past the heat death of our universe, as Eric Holloway demonstrates.

Note: The hypothesis was named in honor of Talk.origins contributor Bill Salem.

You may also wish to read:

Dawkins’ Weasel program vs the information life acquires en route To demonstrate what is wrong with fully naturalist assumptions like those of Richard Dawkins’ Weasel program, I developed Weasel Libs, modeled on Mad Libs. When we apply a Mad Libs “epigenetic” approach to Dawkins’ claims about how life’s information can be created, we quickly see a glaring flaw. (Eric Holloway)

Copyright © 2022 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

At Evolution News: Three Realities Chance Can’t Explain That Intelligent Design Can

Professor Granville Sewell appeals to common sense and the limitations of natural forces to argue the obvious: “Unintelligent forces cannot rearrange atoms into computers and airplanes and nuclear power plants and smartphones.” One who disbelieves in intelligent design, however, has to accept the notion that hydrogen gas, given enough time in our universe will be converted by the four forces of nature into every technological innovation ever seen. The unguided process can be summarized as follows: hydrogen gas coalesces by gravitational contraction into stars, that produce heavier elements via nuclear fusion, that get exploded into space during supernovae, that become part of earth-like planets, where millions of atoms arrange themselves by the blind, push-pull action of electric forces into complex, functional cells, that mutate by accident into humans who invent and produce technology and then attribute it all to chance.

The scientific establishment is slowly beginning to allow scientists who believe in intelligent design to have a platform. Why? It may be because the theory that the universe was crafted intentionally explains many realities that theories based on chance do not.

Perhaps the simplest and best argument for intelligent design is to clearly state what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design, as I did in my book, In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. Peter Urone, in his physics text College Physics, writes, “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.”

Launch of first Space Shuttle mission (STS-1).

This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design: that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics. Thus you must believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and Apple iPhones.    

These four unintelligent forces of physics may indeed explain everything that has happened on other planets, but let us look at three essential elements of our human existence and examine whether the currently believed origin theory can explain them.

1. The Origin of Life

To appreciate that we still have no idea how the first living things arose, you only have to realize that with all our advanced technology we are still not close to designing any type of self-replicating machine; that is still pure science fiction. We can only create machines that create other machines, but no machine that can make a copy of itself. 

Maybe human engineers will someday construct a self-replicating machine. But if they do…it will not show that life could have arisen through natural processes. It will only have shown that it could have arisen through design. 

2. The Origin of Advanced Life Forms

The idea that it could even be remotely plausible that random mutations could produce major improvements relies completely on the observed but inexplicable fact that, while they are awaiting rare favorable mutations, living species are able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants without significant degradation. We are so used to seeing this happen that we don’t appreciate how astonishing it really is.  

Also, here we have not even discussed what is generally considered to be the main problem with Darwinism: its inability to explain the appearance of major new, irreducibly complex features that consistently appear suddenly in the fossil record. (I discussed this problem in my article “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” and in the second part of my video “Why Evolution is Different.”)

3. The Origin of Human Intelligence and Consciousness

But even if they could explain how animals with mechanical brains evolved out of the primeval slime, that would leave the most important question — the one evolutionists never seem to even wonder about — still unsolved: How did I get inside one of these animals?

The argument for intelligent design could not be simpler or clearer: Unintelligent forces alone cannot rearrange atoms into computers and airplanes and nuclear power plants and smartphones, and any attempt to explain how they can must fail somewhere because they obviously can’t. Perhaps this is the best way to understand why explanations without design will never work, and why science may finally be starting to recognize this.

Evolution News

Copyright © 2022 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

At Big Think: “Spooky” quantum biology might cause your DNA to mutate

Researchers studying quantum tunneling within DNA implicate these effects as a possible cause of point mutations, and believe it or not, as a possible aid to the origin of life. At the same time, the researchers cite “highly efficient DNA repair mechanisms” within our our DNA replication machinery that “includes a ‘proofreading’ ability, in which mistakes are detected and corrected.” Sounds like further evidence of an intelligently designed system.

Theoretical research suggests that quantum effects could drive mutations in human DNA. This is the latest development in an emerging field called quantum biology.

3D illustration of a method of DNA sequencing. Credit: ktsdesign / Adobe Stock

The mechanism involves proton transfer through quantum tunnelling, a process that occurs in one-quadrillionth of a second. Cells have built-in proofreading systems that help prevent these mutations.

Could quantum mechanics — a field that Albert Einstein once derided as “spooky” — affect us in a highly personal way? Quite possibly. Theoretical research is beginning to suggest that quantum effects could drive mutations in human DNA. If true, this could change how we understand cancer, genetic disease, and even the origins of life.

Scientists once thought biological systems too warm, wet, and chaotic to experience weird quantum effects like proton tunneling, in which the particle’s waveform spreads out, allowing it to blip across an energy barrier that would normally block its passage. Generally, the more heat and chaos around, the smaller the quantum effect; so, for many years, scientists thought that in the human body quantum behaviors would be too small to matter.

But you can’t find what you aren’t looking for. As quantum physicists start to poke at the messy and complex world of biology, they are finding quantum mechanics at play, even within our DNA. Welcome to the world of quantum biology.

Quantum biology

For 50 years, researchers have debated whether protons switching positions between weakly bound strands of DNA could cause point mutations. The answer seemed like no. Many studies have concluded that the intermediate base-pair states created by proton switching were too unstable and short-lived to be replicated in the DNA. But a new study published in the journal Communications Physics finds that these states can be frequent and stable, and that quantum processes may drive their formation.

Instead of preventing protons from tunnelling, our biological warmth may act as a source of thermal activation, giving protons enough energy to pop over to the other side [of a G:C base-pair]. Indeed, proton transfer through quantum tunnelling is four times more likely than predicted by classical physics. Not only are these occurrences common, but they are also long-lived. Based on previous computational studies, the researchers predict that these molecular changes should be stable long enough to be replicated — causing a mutation.

Based on the team’s calculations, point mutations should appear in our DNA much more frequently than they do. The researchers attribute this difference to “highly efficient DNA repair mechanisms” that find and undo the damage. For instance, our DNA replication machinery includes a “proofreading” ability, in which mistakes are detected and corrected — sort of like a typo. Thank goodness for biological copy editors.

The ease of proton tunneling and the longevity of these intermediate states might even be relevant to studies on the origin of life, the researchers write, because the rate of early evolution is linked to the mutation rate of single-stranded RNA. Thus, though the quantum world might seem weird and distant, it might have played a role in giving us life — and also taking it away.

Big Think

Copyright © 2022 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

At Big Think: 5 ways the James Webb Space Telescope could change science forever

On July 12, 2022, JWST will release its first science images.

The James Webb Space Telescope, ahead of schedule and performing better than its design specifications dictated, is on the cusp of beginning its science operations.

While many new discoveries about the Universe are anticipated, from planets to stars to galaxies to dust to black holes and more, there are some amazing possibilities for what we don’t expect, but might still find.

Thanks to its unique, unprecedented capabilities, JWST might answer five currently open questions about the Universe in very surprising ways. Here are some clues about what we should keep our minds open to.

An ID-relevant potential discovery would be the James Webb Space Telescope’s ability to discern if biosignatures exist on nearby super-Earth exoplanets.

(Credit: NASA Ames/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle)

If other inhabited planets exist in our galaxy, near-future technology that will be at our disposal within this century, or perhaps even this decade, may be able to first uncover it. Equipped with both a coronagraph and tremendous spectroscopic infrared capabilities, the JWST could, if we’re very lucky, find the first evidence for life beyond our Solar System.

When an exoplanet passes in front of its parent star, a portion of that starlight will filter through the exoplanet’s atmosphere, allowing us to break up that light into its constituent wavelengths and to characterize the atomic and molecular composition of the atmosphere. If the planet is inhabited, we may reveal unique biosignatures.

When starlight passes through a transiting exoplanet’s atmosphere, signatures are imprinted. Depending on the wavelength and intensity of both emission and absorption features, the presence or absence of various atomic and molecular species within an exoplanet’s atmosphere can be revealed through the technique of transit spectroscopy.

Big Think

Even finding spectroscopic evidence of oxygen in a planetary atmosphere could be taken as evidence of photosynthetic activity from living organisms. Although understandable, the excitement over finding signs of life on an extrasolar planet needs to be tempered with the scientific reality that natural formation of the phenomenal biochemical complexity within a single cell exceeds by far any conceivable combination of natural forces.

Copyright © 2022 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

At Mind Matters News: Earth’s weirdest life forms show that ET life is possible

Whether it’s living in boiling water, breathing sulfur, or eating radiation, we’ve found life forms that do just that right here on Earth:

● Among the life forms known as extremophiles are many creatures that no scientist expected to find. That includes the Deinococcus radiodurans bacterium which can survive “15,000 gray dose of radiation, where 10 grays would kill a human and it takes over 1,000 grays to kill a cockroach. This species, in fact, is exemplary in many ways, encompassing also the ability to survive cold, dehydration, vacuum and acid.” (LiveScience, (August 2, 2011) From the BBC (September 22, 2020),we learned that some radiodurans survived three years on the outside of a spacecraft:

News , “ Earth’s weirdest life forms show that ET life is possible ” at Mind Matters News (June 4, 2022)

Takehome: Many life forms eat and breathe things we used to think were lethal. Life seems to want to come into existence any way it can. Exoplanets may well offer suitable environments.

You may also wish to read: Researcher: Only 4 in 1000s of ET groups are likely malicious. Historically, sci-fi has preferred aliens to be overlords or villains. But a researcher asks us to look at the history of conflict on our own planet… Conflict specialist Alberto Caballero finds that advances in technology correlate with less likelihood of mere aggression — but they don’t rule it out.

Copyright © 2022 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

Sabine Hossenfelder tackles trans women in women’s sports

And ends by saying that childhood genetic engineering will probably bring an end to high achiever sports altogether:

In 2019 a team of European researchers from the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium measured the change in grip strength for trans people after a year of hormonal therapy. They had about 250 trans women and trans men each who participated in their study. So this isn’t a huge sample but decent.

They found that grip strength decreased in trans women by minus 1 point 8 kilogram but increased in trans men by 6 point 1 kilogram. In trans men, but not in trans women, the change in grip strength was associated with change in lean body mass. So it seems that hormonal therapy does more for trans men than for trans women.

Another team of researchers from Sweden followed 11 untrained trans women and 12 untrained trans men before and up to one year after gender-affirming hormonal therapy.

They found that in trans women thigh muscle volume decreased by 5 percent and quadriceps cross-sectional area decreased by 4 percent, but muscle density remained unchanged and they roughly maintained their strength levels. In trans men, on the other hand, thigh muscle volume increased by 15 percent; quadriceps cross-sectional area also increased by 15 percent, muscle density increased by 6 percent, and they saw increased strength levels. Again it seems that hormonal therapy does more for trans men than for trans women.

It’d be rather tedious to list all the papers, so let me just say that this finding has been reproduced numerous times.

Sabine Hossenfelder, “Trans athletes in women’s sports: Is this fair?” at BackRe(Action) (June 4, 2022)

The rest of Hossenfelder’s take feels like it is aimed at avoiding watching her career sail off a cliff.

Hmmm. It is interesting that recently, Dave Chappelle, Bill Marr, and Ricky Gervais, American comics, have been able to say pretty much what they want on transgender claims — not without provoking rage — but without getting Canceled.

Copyright © 2022 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

Saturday night fun: Optical illusions: What causes them? Try some out!

Essentially, our brains — which would otherwise be overwhelmed — take shortcuts with the information they feed to our minds. Clever illusions reveal the shortcuts:

Illusions can be literal, physiological, or cognitive, depending on which aspect of your brain is the object of a con job on your vision.

News, “Optical illusions: What causes them? Try some out!” at Mind Matters News (June 3, 2022)

For example:

Many more at the link.

Copyright © 2022 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: Steve Gould’s Punk Eek is right; evolution can pause a long time, then happen rapidly

Punctuated equilibrium, that is. This one’s from 2020 but still worth a look. Author Renee Ducksworth is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona:

When things did settle back down, the pace of evolution would return to a virtual standstill. That’s the pattern we observe in the fossil record: disruption, change and then long periods of stasis. However, it took many years for scientists to accept this pattern. It contradicted the Darwinian paradigm, where evolution should occur through slow and gradual changes. Under the Darwinian view, the diversity of life can be explained by simply adding up many, many small inherited changes over a long period of time. Such gradualism was believed to be a necessary part of adaptation by natural selection – the process by which some variants of traits are lost each generation, because their bearers leave no offspring. The evolution of something new, such as eyes or feathers, requires a heck of a long waiting time But this persistent focus on natural selection as the sole mechanism of adaptive evolution has always been a sticking point. It can’t properly explain how anything new arises. After all, natural selection is a process that eliminates unfit variants – it doesn’t create, but changes the prevalence of what’s already there. Instead, novelty must come from the purely random process of genetic mutation. The problem is that when new mutations appear, they’re usually not a good thing. They are more likely to disrupt well-adapted systems than to improve them, especially if they have a big effect. The upshot is that the evolution of something new, such as eyes or feathers, requires a heck of a long waiting time. Not only is there a long wait for a beneficial mutation to come along, but then there’s the long process of accumulating enough of them to build up, step by step, a complex new structure.

Fortunately for the Darwinian paradigm, geological time gives evolution millions and billions of years to work with. Yet in the 1970s, the American palaeontologists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed that the pattern of stasis and disruption might be something more than just imperfections in the fossil record. This punctuated equilibrium, as they called it, might reflect the uneven way that evolution actually unfolds. If Gould and Eldridge were right, then natural selection on random mutation suddenly had a much shorter timescale in which to accomplish major evolutionary changes. Because of this, punctuated equilibrium was initially met with scepticism.

However, there’s been a growing acceptance of this pattern among evolutionary biologists and theorists over the years, as new studies and techniques reveal it again and again across diverse organisms. For example, Stevan J Arnold, an evolutionary biologist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues looked at patterns of body size evolution in vertebrates using three different types of data that span vastly different timescales: long-term field and museum studies that compare changes over tens to thousands of years, fossil measurements that assess changes over 100,000 to around a million years, and comparative data that can detect divergence among species (estimated using genetic data) over a period of tens of millions of years. They found that bursts of body-size evolution occur only on the order of every million years or so.

Renee Duckworth, “Catastrophes and calms” at Aeon (August 13, 2020)

Punctuated equilibrium is what we observe but it isn’t popular. Punk eek makes it even less likely that life develops due to unintelligent random processes. It just does not allow anywhere near enough time.

You may also wish to read: He Said It: As A Butcher Eyes A Sheep, So The Darwinists Eyed Paleontologist Steve Gould (1941-2002)

Copyright © 2022 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

Eric Anderson: Why randomness is “the wrong tool for the job”

Author and design theorist, Eric Anderson, clarifies the limitations of randomness in producing biological novelty.

Randomness is an important topic, true.  But not because it has, in and of itself, some deep substantive value or because it is going to help explain biological form and function.  It is important to the evolution-ID debate, primarily because it has been historically offered by evolutionary proponents as the fodder for change, the grist of the mill from which Darwin’s theory can operate, and we need to point out in the debate that this is a fool’s errand.

What does “random” mean in terms of mutations within evolutionary theory?

Despite the exciting headlines of several recent papers, it has nothing to do with whether there is some non-equal distribution across the genome, whether there are hot spots, or even what the actual cause of these mutations is behind the scenes.  That is not what we are talking about in terms of evaluating “random” mutations for evolutionary theory.

More critically, for purposes of intelligent design, we needn’t get into deep and esoteric discussions or hand wringing about what randomness actually means in some esoteric sense, whether anything in the universe is ever truly random, or even whether there is some underlying order that allows the randomness to be manifest.  And we needn’t all go back to get our PhD’s in mathematics or study number theory in depth in order to understand the issues.

For purposes of ID, the two corollary issues we need to appreciate are very simple:

First, randomness (specifically, random mutations for purposes of evolutionary theory), simply does not have the creative power to generate the biological novelty required to explain living organisms.  This has been discussed extensively in the ID literature….

Second, and more focused on the current discussion, we need to recognize that even if randomness isn’t truly random in some mathematical definitional sense, even if what appears random to us is governed by some underlying larger principles or follows discernible patterns, it still has no ability to generate the biological novelty required to explain living organisms. 

Law-like processes, by their very nature, are too general and generic to ever provide the specificity required to produce something like, say, the bacterial flagellum.  It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the four fundamental forces or some underlying “order” to the universe that governs things.  It doesn’t matter how far under the hood you look–law-like forces or processes simply cannot ever provide the creative purchase required for the functional, coherent, information-rich systems we see in biology. 

Therefore, in terms of explaining biological systems, any proposed underlying order or principle or force or process that either produces what we perceive as randomness or that acts as a backdrop against which randomness is manifest, simply cannot explain what needs to be explained.  It is the wrong tool for the job.

—– Lastly, if what someone is really talking about is a guided process, then they are talking about purposeful activity–intelligent design.  Occasionally confusing terminology is put forth, such as guided evolution, or guided randomness, or God working behind the scenes to influence quantum interactions, and so on.  Let’s be clear.  If it is guided, then it isn’t evolution as proposed by Darwin, as accepted within the modern academy, or as defined in the biology textbooks.  If it is guided, then we are talking about design.

Copyright © 2022 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