Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Bird Origins
| User | Post |
Thayer
Posts: 876/988 |
Originally posted by Slay
We tend to think of "dinosaurs" as a single thing, but I reckon that they were as varied as modern animals -- some with soft skin and feathers or fur, some with scales like modern reptiles.
Variation within a group isn't evidence of polyphyly, especially when the variation is the presence of derived characters (i.e. feathers and featherlike integument). Please provide support for suggesting that Dinosauria does not represent a monophyly.
Oh yes, let's all argue about how smart Slay is, that'll get us somewhere.
I had nothing to say against you, just that Ziff seems to take your posts as being some kind of omfg pwnd, whereas I just don't see it, I'm afraid. 
I find it much more plausible that life sprang up all across the globe, in independant instances. In general, like creatures today stem from like ancestors, in that most if all reptiles descend from one or a few instances, most if all mammals descend from one or a few instances, and so on. I don't necessarily think that we had to go from fish to reptile to bird to mammal.
Given what I've read, I've not seen anyone propose that mammals are descendants from birds. Try fish are a paraphyletic grouping, where mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor somewhere within that arrangement, and then birds are reptiles. 
For clarification, microevolution is changes within a species (dogbreeding) while macroevolution is change of species (fish to reptile).
"Fish" is not a species. "Reptile" is not a species. Those are groupings of species, the difference between the two is that "fish" is a paraphyletic grouping of chondrichthyians (sharks, rays, skates and their sister taxa closer to them than they are to other "fish" and tetrapods) and osteoichthyians (other "fish" and tetrapods), whereas "reptiles" are a monophyletic grouping (Reptilia).
As for your question, probably yes. If there were certain species of dinosaur that were warm-blooded and feathered, it's completely likely in my mind that they could have microevolved into the birds we see today. I don't necessarily think that reptilian dinosaurs of the past would have turned into mammalian birds of the present.
You just defined "microevolution" above as being within a species. Doesn't that defeat what you are saying here given that you're proposing "microevolution" is occuring from species to species? Incidentally, why are you saying birds are mammals?
See, another problem arises that our classification system is simply constructed to organize our thoughts, and it may not be fully accurate. For example, let's say we have feathered, warm-blooded dinosaur X and modern bird Y. We have seperately classified them under completely different Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species, but the fact may indeed be that Y is a descendant of X -- we currently have no missing link thus no way of knowing. That throws our entire organization system into chaos, if we suddenly had to merge the categories of birds and certain dinosaurs. It's nice and clean and neat to organize our scientific classification so that each animal we come across has it's own classifications, but nature and life itself is anything but neat and clear-cut.
Linnean System died decades ago. Where have you been? 
So I think my hesitation towards macroevolution stems mostly from a disagreement with the scientific classification system, not from disbelief that Fido was once Dino.
You're not really making sense here, no one's proposed that dinosaurs gave rise to mammals, as far as I know. What are you talking about?
Now, here's where my views differ from conventionally accepted science. I don't believe that all life started in the ocean as fish, then fish became amphibians which moved on to land and became reptiles which adapted to become birds which further adapted to become mammals, and so on.
Again, what are you talking about? Birds to mammals? wtf 
That theory, I imagine as this...
• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - •
One line. One central ancestor for all life - be it plant or animal, microscopic or normally visible - that exists today.
No, try more like a giant tree.
And since "species" is a term of scientific classification, it is useless to debate as well. My use of the term "species" when referring to micro and macroevolution in this post was for the sake of simplicity, to illustrate that I don't believe dogs were once reptillian or humans were once aviary.
No one has proposed that dogs were reptiles or that humans were once avians (I assume that is what you meant, an "aviary" is where birds are kept).
But, then again, I could be wrong. As for the original topic material; my view is that reptilian dinosaurs begat modern reptiles, birdlike dinosaurs begat modern birds, i.e. that dinosaurs were not all reptiles, but they weren't all birds -- they were highly varied, biologically.
So you're proposing that modern (I assume non-"bird") reptiles descended from dinosaurs? Got character support for it?
Anyway, your overall views seem to be a murky mix of a lot of creationist works I've read, very Sarafti-like, a lot of misinterpretations of what's been proposed in regards to paleontology and evolution, and just in general, a lot of outdated information. |
Slay
Posts: 317/339 |
The Thayer says...
Some dinosaur fossils (mostly maniraptorans from the Yixian Formation of China) have been recovered with imprints of feathers, but also with scales too (NGMC 91 and Scansoriopteryx come to mind). Tyrannosaurid skin impressions are known and they show scales on at least part of the body. Same for the few ceratopsians and hadrosaurs with skin integument preserved.
We tend to think of "dinosaurs" as a single thing, but I reckon that they were as varied as modern animals -- some with soft skin and feathers or fur, some with scales like modern reptiles.
The Thayer says...
Sparking interest in paleontology is something I like to do ~ Anyway, as far as preserved organs, at least Scipionyx comes to mind, but its organs were rather smashed. I'll dig out my "Dinosaurs of the Air" by Gregory S. Paul if necessary as a good general defense of dinosaur warm bloodness, if I need to go into details. You can also check the archives of Dinosaur Mailing List (in fact, I encourage you to do so if you are interested!).
Why do I suddenly feel six years old again? But seriously, paleontology has a certain romatic appeal to it. Traveling the world, scrounging around at ancient ruins for relics of ages past, recording extensive journals of your research and findings. I almost became an archeologist, for these reasons.
The Thayer says...
You seem very offended, and I can't really understand why. All of my comments seem justified. And incidentally, I don't really see Slay's post as doing anything that has hurt what I've said overall.
The Ziff says...
As for my comment about Slay. Generally his posts although contradictory to my beliefs, are fairly interesting and although a long read, a worthwhile read.
Oh yes, let's all argue about how smart Slay is, that'll get us somewhere.
The Zer0wned says...
How about dogs? Or moths? Maybe not the end-all proof, but certainly in the favor of those who find "macroevolution" to be a very likely answer.
I never said it was unlikely, just yet to be proven. I simply don't subscribe due to the lack of direct proof. If you'll check my most recent post in the afterlife topic, I reckon it's probably the correct assumption, but for now it's just that -- an assumption. I specifically disbelieve Darwin's Origin of the Species, however, the theory that suggests all modern life stems from a single lifeform that branched out widely. I find it much more plausible that life sprang up all across the globe, in independant instances. In general, like creatures today stem from like ancestors, in that most if all reptiles descend from one or a few instances, most if all mammals descend from one or a few instances, and so on. I don't necessarily think that we had to go from fish to reptile to bird to mammal.
The Zer0wned says...
We really only have like 10000 or so (I'm throwing a number out here, so don't take that too seriously, I'm talking about recorded history, I just don't find it entirely necessary to find out very specifically how far back this goes for the sake of this arguement) years of give or take "reliable" evidence to tool around with. So instead of looking for the millions of year process of large-scale from single cell organism to fully formed human as proof of "macroevolution", we have to find smaller scale examples, like the survival of the fittest with the white moths during the industrial revolution, which from what I recall, died out in certain areas because they no longer blended in with the trees they hid on, and thusly a darker version of this moth came out on top, because they did blend in with the trees that were consequently darker from the smoke in the air
Ahh, an interesting reference, but who is to say that the moths turned dark specifically in response to their environment? I find it more plausible that there were various colors, and white simply fell out of favor for the afforementioned reasons. So, it was all there to begin with, and certain traits simply survived in greater numbers to future generations, not there was one trait that turned into another trait in future generations. I hope that makes sense.
The Zer0wned says...
Now I think dogs are the closest thing to proof we have. Through selective breeding, we've specialized these creatures for hunting various animals, for being obedient, and/or being fairly docile for more house-pet purposes. I find it extremely unlikely that nearly all of each of these were wild breeds that were captured and domesticated in each of their entireties, and just happened to be well suited in catching what people wanted them to in a way they wanted them to.
I think you're confused -- dogbreeding is microevolution. We may have altered them significantly, but it's all superficial, just appearance. They're all still dogs by species, they all have the same inner anatomy, be it at different strengths and sizes.
The Thayer says...
Slay: Personally, I don't subscribe to that microevolution is separate from macroevolution. I don't see any difference between the two. Out of curiousity, would you like to consider looking at this from a classification standpoint? I realize given your viewpoints (if I understood them correctly), this would be arbitrary, but do you feel that birds can be classified as dinosaurs?
For clarification, microevolution is changes within a species (dogbreeding) while macroevolution is change of species (fish to reptile). As for your question, probably yes. If there were certain species of dinosaur that were warm-blooded and feathered, it's completely likely in my mind that they could have microevolved into the birds we see today. I don't necessarily think that reptilian dinosaurs of the past would have turned into mammalian birds of the present.
See, another problem arises that our classification system is simply constructed to organize our thoughts, and it may not be fully accurate. For example, let's say we have feathered, warm-blooded dinosaur X and modern bird Y. We have seperately classified them under completely different Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species, but the fact may indeed be that Y is a descendant of X -- we currently have no missing link thus no way of knowing. That throws our entire organization system into chaos, if we suddenly had to merge the categories of birds and certain dinosaurs. It's nice and clean and neat to organize our scientific classification so that each animal we come across has it's own classifications, but nature and life itself is anything but neat and clear-cut.
Another macro/microevolution problem also arises from our scientific classification structure; what could be inferred as a jump from one species to another (macroevolution) may in fact be evolution within a species (microevolution), which is what I was trying to illustrate with the XY example. We classify, for example, most mushrooms and most ferns as belonging to utterly seperate Kingdoms, when in fact we really don't know if they came from a single organism long ago. So I think my hesitation towards macroevolution stems mostly from a disagreement with the scientific classification system, not from disbelief that Fido was once Dino.
The beneficii says...
Speciation has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
This, again, involves my disagreement with the scientific classification system. Let me start from the very begining of how I think life came to be in it's modern form, so we're clear on how I see things differently than they are presented in the scientific classification system.
From my understanding, there was once no life on Earth. Then, at some point, life came to be on this planet. If I remember correctly (from a Discovery Channel program), it's been shown that simple chemicals, given the right conditions, can spawn life where there once was none. So that's how it started; chemicals in ancient Earth formed simple proteins and bacteria and unicellular orginisms.
Now, this process of the creation of life didn't occur at one single spot, it happened all over this vast world, under different conditions, with different chemicals present and at different stages in Earth's history -- some when the planet had just recently formed, and some after an atmosphere had been established. These different instances of life, due to their environment and the energy sources available to them, evolved in completely different ways. In general, unicellular organisms would become multicellular organisms. In the oceans, some instances became fish, some became mollusks, some became cepholopods. On land, primitive versions of reptiles, mammals, insects and such would grow differently depending on the plant life that had formed around it and other factors.
Now, here's where my views differ from conventionally accepted science. I don't believe that all life started in the ocean as fish, then fish became amphibians which moved on to land and became reptiles which adapted to become birds which further adapted to become mammals, and so on. That theory, I imagine as this...
• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - •
One line. One central ancestor for all life - be it plant or animal, microscopic or normally visible - that exists today.
My belief is that it was more like this...
• - - - • - - - •
• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - •
• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - •
• - - - •
• - - - • - - - • - - - • - - - •
Many various lines with many various ancestors. The lines don't crisscross or jump from one to another, even though a dot early on might represent a creature that is vastly different from a later dot that represents it's ancestor. Due to the sporadic and unpredictable nature of life, I don't think these lines can be successfully plotted out in two dimensions, as in A1 to A2 to A3, B1 to B2, C1 to C2 to C3 to C4, etc. under the scientific classification system, as per my XY example above. I realize the value and importance that comes from having scientific classification, I simply don't believe it's a reliable or even useful method to use when examining the origins of life.
Repeated for emphasis, I don't think that scientific classification should be considered when pondering the origin of life, if only because our scope of understanding is so limited. If we could somehow instantly know exactly how life came to be today, then I believe a reliable taxonomic classification of creatures could be established. Since we're far from that, I don't see scientific classification as useful in this regard.
And since "species" is a term of scientific classification, it is useless to debate as well. My use of the term "species" when referring to micro and macroevolution in this post was for the sake of simplicity, to illustrate that I don't believe dogs were once reptillian or humans were once aviary.
I hope this makes my viewpoint a bit clearer. I just came up with an analogy. Scientific classification is a deck of cards thrown forward; each individual card may have landed in a different place, but you can trace them all back to a common point. My view is that there were multiple decks of cards to begin with, not just one.
But, then again, I could be wrong. As for the original topic material; my view is that reptilian dinosaurs begat modern reptiles, birdlike dinosaurs begat modern birds, i.e. that dinosaurs were not all reptiles, but they weren't all birds -- they were highly varied, biologically. |
Skytroopa
Posts: 124/175 |
I vote first choice.
I'm sure birds are from dinosaurs because some dinosaurs are similar as big birds. |
Thayer
Posts: 705/988 |
I don't need third party sources if I've read the original works which are widely available. If you want, I can send you the original sources of information for all. Just pester me on AIM some time, and I'd be happy to send you as much as you want and discuss at length there or in this thread. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5327/5458 |
Thayer, stop using Wikipedia please. |
beneficii
Posts: 502/567 |
Originally posted by Slay
About the poll; the term thecodont is no longer is use. It's an obsolete term. As for the topic at hand, I'm not educated enough on the subject to form an opinion, but I do not subscribe to theories of macroevolution. Microevolution is observable, macroevolution boils down to, "Given billions of years, it's plausible that microevolution changes creatures so radically as to become entirely new species." This has yet to be proven, demonstrated or observed.
Hmm, a thought; has it ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs had reptilian scales? I seem to recall a program on the Discovery channel exploring the possibility that dinosaurs had feathers and soft skin, rather than scales. The CG models looked quite plausible in my eyes. I don't know why, but I never saw giant reptiles as anything other than horror movie fodder.
I'm curious, have we ever found the organs or tissues of a dinosaur? From what I understand, all we have are bones. Therefore, can anyone really say with any certainty that dinosaurs were reptilian, or cold-blooded? Unless we could see their organs or such, all we have is postulation and theory. This topic has sparked my interest into paleontology...
Speciation has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
|
Thayer
Posts: 589/988 |
Slay: Personally, I don't subscribe to that microevolution is separate from macroevolution. I don't see any difference between the two. Out of curiousity, would you like to consider looking at this from a classification standpoint? I realize given your viewpoints (if I understood them correctly), this would be arbitrary, but do you feel that birds can be classified as dinosaurs? |
Zer0wned
Posts: 134/181 |
Originally posted by Slay
"Given billions of years, it's plausible that microevolution changes creatures so radically as to become entirely new species." This has yet to be proven, demonstrated or observed.
How about dogs? Or moths? Maybe not the end-all proof, but certainly in the favor of those who find "macroevolution" to be a very likely answer.
We really only have like 10000 or so (I'm throwing a number out here, so don't take that too seriously, I'm talking about recorded history, I just don't find it entirely necessary to find out very specifically how far back this goes for the sake of this arguement) years of give or take "reliable" evidence to tool around with. So instead of looking for the millions of year process of large-scale from single cell organism to fully formed human as proof of "macroevolution", we have to find smaller scale examples, like the survival of the fittest with the white moths during the industrial revolution, which from what I recall, died out in certain areas because they no longer blended in with the trees they hid on, and thusly a darker version of this moth came out on top, because they did blend in with the trees that were consequently darker from the smoke in the air
Now I think dogs are the closest thing to proof we have. Through selective breeding, we've specialized these creatures for hunting various animals, for being obedient, and/or being fairly docile for more house-pet purposes. I find it extremely unlikely that nearly all of each of these were wild breeds that were captured and domesticated in each of their entireties, and just happened to be well suited in catching what people wanted them to in a way they wanted them to.
A counter arguement to that I would expect is saying that there is a huge difference between selective, controlled breeding, and the debated natural selection. To that I would like to say that the only difference I see is in who is making the decision on what traits are considered favorable. |
Thayer
Posts: 586/988 |
You're referring to the Yixian and Jiufotang formations in China (yep, near Korea too), and Sinosauropteryx prima, which is not the same as Scipionyx samniticus, which is from Italy (which is what I was referring to above), and only has the stomach contents (but not the stomach itself) preserved. There is no "sacred Confucius lizard", you're thinking of Confuciusornis (which would mean something like "Confucius bird"). What other spelling are you aware of? Because I'm not. And I'd dare challenge that there isn't another one either. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5321/5458 |
Slay: Yes they have. A quary in China near Korea. They made some really neat finds regarding the classifications of many dinosaurs. They found a stomach with most of the contents preserved. I can't remember the dinosaur...But it may have been the Sacred Confuscious Lizard, or something similar to that. It was a long time since I bothered picking up the university newspaper. Thayer mentioned it, although I know it by another spelling
As for my comment about Slay. Generally his posts although contradictory to my beliefs, are fairly interesting and although a long read, a worthwhile read. |
Thayer
Posts: 585/988 |
Originally posted by Slay
About the poll; the term thecodont is no longer is use. It's an obsolete term. As for the topic at hand, I'm not educated enough on the subject to form an opinion, but I do not subscribe to theories of macroevolution. Microevolution is observable, macroevolution boils down to, "Given billions of years, it's plausible that microevolution changes creatures so radically as to become entirely new species." This has yet to be proven, demonstrated or observed.
I recognized that "thecodont" is obsolete. That's why it's in quotes.
Hmm, a thought; has it ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs had reptilian scales? I seem to recall a program on the Discovery channel exploring the possibility that dinosaurs had feathers and soft skin, rather than scales. The CG models looked quite plausible in my eyes. I don't know why, but I never saw giant reptiles as anything other than horror movie fodder.
Some dinosaur fossils (mostly maniraptorans from the Yixian Formation of China) have been recovered with imprints of feathers, but also with scales too (NGMC 91 and Scansoriopteryx come to mind). Tyrannosaurid skin impressions are known and they show scales on at least part of the body. Same for the few ceratopsians and hadrosaurs with skin integument preserved.
I'm curious, have we ever found the organs or tissues of a dinosaur? From what I understand, all we have are bones. Therefore, can anyone really say with any certainty that dinosaurs were reptilian, or cold-blooded? Unless we could see their organs or such, all we have is postulation and theory. This topic has sparked my interest into paleontology...
Sparking interest in paleontology is something I like to do  ~ Anyway, as far as preserved organs, at least Scipionyx comes to mind, but its organs were rather smashed. I'll dig out my "Dinosaurs of the Air" by Gregory S. Paul if necessary as a good general defense of dinosaur warm bloodness, if I need to go into details. You can also check the archives of Dinosaur Mailing List (in fact, I encourage you to do so if you are interested!).
Originally posted by alte Hexe
I've found that with this slump in decent posters (SLAY YOU ARE A GODSEND KEEP POSTING FOR GODS FUCKING SAKE!) that I just don't have the energy to use my brain, which is being put to better use for interpreting Charlemagne's campaign rather than arguing with accusatory pricks on some moronic website. Really, I'm surprised that you and your IMMENSE intelligence couldn't detect the LOL and get off your srs buzinss train
You seem very offended, and I can't really understand why. All of my comments seem justified. And incidentally, I don't really see Slay's post as doing anything that has hurt what I've said overall.
Anyways, I have my right to privacy. I live in Canada. And I don't go to the university that everyone thinks I go to :o OH NO! Regardless of this, the gentleman upstairs simply told me what he told me. Believe it if you want. But otherwise you're just not being lol enough.
Don't make statements that you can't back up, enough said. I really recommend you don't play the name-dropping game with me on this. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5318/5458 |
I've found that with this slump in decent posters (SLAY YOU ARE A GODSEND KEEP POSTING FOR GODS FUCKING SAKE!) that I just don't have the energy to use my brain, which is being put to better use for interpreting Charlemagne's campaign rather than arguing with accusatory pricks on some moronic website. Really, I'm surprised that you and your IMMENSE intelligence couldn't detect the LOL and get off your srs buzinss train
Anyways, I have my right to privacy. I live in Canada. And I don't go to the university that everyone thinks I go to :o OH NO! Regardless of this, the gentleman upstairs simply told me what he told me. Believe it if you want. But otherwise you're just not being lol enough. |
Slay
Posts: 310/339 |
About the poll; the term thecodont is no longer is use. It's an obsolete term. As for the topic at hand, I'm not educated enough on the subject to form an opinion, but I do not subscribe to theories of macroevolution. Microevolution is observable, macroevolution boils down to, "Given billions of years, it's plausible that microevolution changes creatures so radically as to become entirely new species." This has yet to be proven, demonstrated or observed.
Hmm, a thought; has it ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt that dinosaurs had reptilian scales? I seem to recall a program on the Discovery channel exploring the possibility that dinosaurs had feathers and soft skin, rather than scales. The CG models looked quite plausible in my eyes. I don't know why, but I never saw giant reptiles as anything other than horror movie fodder.
I'm curious, have we ever found the organs or tissues of a dinosaur? From what I understand, all we have are bones. Therefore, can anyone really say with any certainty that dinosaurs were reptilian, or cold-blooded? Unless we could see their organs or such, all we have is postulation and theory. This topic has sparked my interest into paleontology... |
Thayer
Posts: 584/988 |
I'll assume then that you just BS'd through this whole thread. I really expected more from you. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5316/5458 |
way to ct and pst frum wizkcki lolz |
Thayer
Posts: 583/988 |
So in other words, you can't back up your statements. gjZiff~ |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5315/5458 |
Those that know know where I go, and if they read this I'd ask them to not tell you.
Sorry but I <3 privacy from pppl. lozl |
Thayer
Posts: 582/988 |
Which university and which museum? Name? |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5313/5458 |
The 3rd year paleontologist that works with the universities projects at the museum? I don't know. His degree must not mean anything |
Thayer
Posts: 577/988 |
Uhm, I'm not sure where you're reading this, or if you've just pulled this out from between your legs to write it, but you're wrong on several points.
There are oppositions to the idea that birds are dinosaurs (I'll use the popular abbreviation-BADD, i.e. birds are dinosaurian descendants), those primarily being that that birds were descended from small early archosauromorphs (like megalancosaurids, protorosaurs, and Longisquama, they rarely settle on how this works exactly, this is usually called by the abbreviations-BAND i.e. birds are not dinosaurs; or ABSRD- i.e. anything but a small running dinosaur). The only other alternatives that were suggested was that birds were descended from primitive crocodile-ancestors (not crocodiles themselves, but that they would share an ancestry between them) or that birds were descended from primitive mammal-ancestors (same comment as on the other one). As for what you said, no one ever suggested that dinosaurs and mammals shared a common ancestor, and the idea was that both birds and mammals are warm-blooded and share similiar genes (but has anyone ever actually gotten dinosaur DNA, not counting Michael Chricton of course ?) And as for laying eggs, that's hardly a boundary to such an idea, afterall primitive mammals like monotremes lay eggs (echnidas and platypi, of course ). As for Arwon was saying, I think you've misinterpreted it. He said that the opposition gets attention due to creationists (which is partly but not totally true), and he never said anything about your mammal-dinosaur statements that you then went on to make.
As for the rest of what you said, you might want to investigate the Dinosaur Renaissance a little more closely than a glance through Wiki/Google, the majority of articles written in favor of the revived views of dinosaurs were seen as largely heterodox until the mid 80s. Yes, during the early periods of dinosaur studies, dinosaurs were accepted as being somewhat more active than average reptiles, but no where near what was suggested later on. And the idea that birds were related to dinosaurs closely lost favor as well until the Dinosaur Renaissance started. And Iguanodon (not "Iguanadon") was discovered, it was regarded as a large lizard like animal with a horn on its snout. It wasn't until the Bernissart specimens that this changed drastically. And even then, Archaeopteryx lithographica and Compsognathus longipipes were far more impactful on the idea than Iguanodon
Out of curiosity, where did you get your information for what you wrote previously? |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
