A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica

MSNBC.com is reporting on the discovery of a jawbone of an ancient whale in Antarctica: the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. The news story reports,

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday.

A scientist not involved in the find said it could suggest that whales evolved much more quickly from their amphibian precursors than previously thought.

Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.

Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.

“The relevance of this discovery is that it’s the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine paleontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish paleontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.

Paul Sereno, a University of Chicago paleontologist who wasn’t involved in the research, said that if the new find withstands the scrutiny of other scientists, it will suggest that archaeocetes evolved much more quickly than previously thought from their semi-aquatic origin in present-day India and Pakistan.

“The important thing is the location,” Sereno said. “To find one in Antarctica is very interesting.”

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has  previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time.  Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:

Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

31 replies
  1. Frank Turek says:

    Homology can never prove common ancestry because similar structure can equally be interpreted as evidence for a common designer rather than a common ancestor. In the case of the whale, Darwinists have to suggest dramatic changes to body plans to get a mammal to swim. Despite having no mechanism to do this in the time allotted as Jonathan points out, Darwinists will continue to insist it has happened because evolution is true. And how do they know evolution is true? Because of homology. The case is entirely circular.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  2. Toby R says:

    How does a Designist/Creationist account for there being only one genetic material? Certainly an all powerful designer could create a world in which there are multiple viable genetic materials across different species that would clearly indicate (possibly) that designing was done.

    Reply
  3. Frank Turek says:

    Toby,

    Why would a designer have to use different genetic materials? Designers of automobiles use the same materials and basic designs because they work best in this environment. Why wouldn’t you expect a Designer of life to do the same?

    Moreover, it might be that there couldn’t be a be food chain if we had different genetic material.

    The bottom line is that homology in body structure or genetics cannot be used as definitive evidence for a common ancestor because they could also be interpreted equally as evidence for a common designer.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  4. Toby R says:

    “Designers of automobiles use the same materials and basic designs because they work best in this environment. Why wouldn’t you expect a Designer of life to do the same?”

    What reasons are there that a designer wouldn’t design different genetic materials? Even if we assume the material had the same double helical structure, there very well could be different base pair molecules and sugar backbones that accomplish the very same purpose as DNA and would be fully compatible with this planet. You can make cars in 1000s of different configurations out of materials not typically associated with cars that would function just as well.

    “The bottom line is that homology in body structure or genetics cannot be used as definitive evidence for a common ancestor because they could also be interpreted equally as evidence for a common designer.”

    This is a stalemated argument because this door can swing both ways. I don’t know anything about ancient whales. Neither does anyone posting here. What we also don’t know is what the environment was like way back when, what the predation pressures were, what the food supply was like. It’s hard to make formulations with such huge gaps of missing information. Your bias is to jump straight to the supernatural, mine is to stick with nature.

    Reply
  5. Fred Hicks says:

    I found your statement, “It’s hard to make formulations with such huge gaps of missing information” very interesting. It seems to me that evolutionists do this quite frequently. We do not know what prehistoric conditions were like. We can’t recreate them. We can’t do laboratory experiments to show what happened. However, we do have eyewitness testimony ( an important part of “origins” science ) that naturalists routinely dismiss at the outset.

    Reply
  6. Ryan Frazier says:

    Toby,
    It is interesting that you say,

    “Certainly an all powerful designer could create a world in which there are multiple viable genetic materials across different species that would clearly indicate (possibly) that designing was done.”

    I don’t think anything would convince you of divine intervention/design. Even if a miracle happened, you would automatically assume that there was a natural explanation (yet unknown). If a miracle did happen, then, you make yourself unable to come to the correct conclusion.

    Reply
  7. Toby R says:

    “I don’t think anything would convince you of divine intervention/design.”

    Stalemate. I think you’d attribute an event or finding to divine intervention/design before a natural cause. What makes jumping to the conclusion that something is a miracle better than thinking that there is an unknown natural explanation for it? Certainly every event of our day, from the alarm clock ringing to the sun going down, has a natural explanation. Just because we’re lacking the knowledge of how or why something happened is no reason to jump to the conclusion that all of the known laws of the universe have been suspended and a miracle has happened.

    Reply
  8. Toby R says:

    “Toby R:

    I’m a bit confused. What kinds of genetic materials (besides DNA and RNA) would you have in mind?

    J”

    How should I know, I’m not some superhuman designer. Due to the nature of our planet I’d say it would be based on carbon. If it’s similar to what we know it might be single stranded molecule like RNA. Or double like DNA. or maybe even a strange configuration like a triglyceride.

    It is a bit of a mystery why we shouldn’t see multiple genetic types if life is designed.

    Having only one type of genetic material makes it look as if an all powerful designer has its hands tied in how it creates life and hence not all powerful. One can’t really argue that DNA is the best design for this planet when many things are quite toxic to our genetic material. If a designer is benevolent and omnipotent and omniscient, but makes this planet where radiation from some of its minerals is so destructive to its lifeforms genetic material then either the designer isn’t omniscient or it doesn’t care about the lifeforms so it’s not benevolent and though it might have the omnipotence to create life it’s woefully bad at creating it well.

    Reply
  9. Ryan Frazier says:

    It is interesting that the conversation goes to, “Choosing supernatural causes vs. natural causes” in conversations in which evolution is shown to not have explanatory power, such as the origin of life, the butterfly life cycle, fast change over whale species, animal death adaptations, etc. It should at least show that evolution is not the catch all for all biological occurrences

    In addition, making claims on the designer is that you do not know is like trying to judge an engineer’s invention in which you don’t know its purpose or constraints or history. 1) You don’t know all of the purposes of the design, so you can’t say it is badly designed. 2) Christian theology supposes that the design was corrupted by human sin, so history can play a part in design, too. Really, your last post was a “If God, why evil” question with a scientific twist.

    However much a “stalemate” we may be in, a theistic God explains physical and metaphysical (moral laws (not subjectivity), etc) phenomena, whereas only natural causes can explain on physical events. In this way, theism explains the “box top of life” in a holistic and more satisfying way than atheism.

    Reply
  10. Frank Turek says:

    Hi Toby,

    I agree with your admission that the central argument for macroevolution (structural and genetic homology) results in a “stalemate.” That is homology is equally evidence of a common designer as a common ancestor.

    So what breaks the stalemate between naturalism and supernaturalism? Several truths we have discussed before at greater length point to an immaterial, supernatural intelligence that breaks the stalemate. This means that philosophically ruling out supernature, as you do, seems illegitimate.
    1. The Big Bang– nature had a beginning which means something beyond nature (supernature) exists.
    2. the fine-tuning of the universe
    3. the origin of life
    4. the origin of the genetic code (which is immaterial)
    5. the immaterial laws of logic (which we are using now to converse)
    6. immaterial moral laws
    7. the laws of nature (including the truth that every effect has a cause, which makes science possible).
    8. biological irreducible complexity
    9. free will
    10. the existence of evil
    11. Old Testament prophecy
    12. The resurrection

    Of course we can’t discuss all of these on this thread. However, even if just one of these 12 listed above is true, atheism is false.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  11. Frank Turek says:

    Toby,

    The point is about breaking the stalemate. There appears to be a supernatural reality as each of those 12 items reveals. In fact, your one sentence response entails immateriality and intelligence– something that can’t be explained by mere molecules in motion. We don’t just lack a natural explanation for your response but know that it provides positive evidence FOR an intelligent cause. Therefore, the atheistic worldview is false and we can at least be open to the supernatural.

    Blesssings,

    Frank

    Reply
  12. Toby R. says:

    That those twelve things need the supernatural to happen or exist is an assertion with no evidence.

    For instance my two sentence response being immaterial and intelligence being immaterial. What evidence do you have for these assertions? And how do you answer problems that your idea present?

    Why does immaterial thought only manifest in material humans, not animals?

    How does the immaterial mind or thought interact with the material mind?

    How does immaterial thought become disrupted by material stimuli? Strong magnetic fields above the temporal lobe, drugs, hormones, etc.

    Why does an immaterial mind falter and change with physical brain damage?

    How are immaterial minds confined to one skull and not shared among other physical bodies?

    Why must immaterial minds learn to think and develop along with physical brains?

    Why does complex thought and language only appear in humans that have grown up with other humans to learn from?

    The idea that minds and thoughts are immaterial presents more problems than it solves.

    Reply
  13. kpolo says:

    Toby,
    If your response is material and intelligence is material, would you kindly put them in a box and mail them to me? 🙂

    Reply
  14. Toby R. says:

    I could have someone remove my brain and send it to you. But at the current time you would have no way to access what is in it. This message in itself is material. Electrons flowing and photons emitted from your screen, the message from chemical reaction that’s allow my fingers to type and my brain to think.

    If you think so little of the mind being material, then address some of the questions I asked of Frank that he hasn’t gotten back to yet and prove that a mind is immaterial.

    Reply
  15. Charles says:

    Just an open shot here….

    Is it true that every cell in the human body is renewed on an average seven year turnaround? I don’t recall where I got this information which is one reason I am asking. The other reason I ask is because if so; we aren’t necessarily the same person physically due to aging, right? Now we are the same mentally as far as Identity and familiarity, barring amnesia or demensia; I guess, because of DNA coding being consistant.

    By now its probably obvious what I am getting at here; if we have such cell turnover our physical bodies are completely different throughout our aging cycles but we have the same memories, the same identification and the same familiarities, mannerisms, habits, etc. which, I think, indicate that a mind would be distinct from a brain.

    Reply
  16. Toby R says:

    “By now its probably obvious what I am getting at here; if we have such cell turnover our physical bodies are completely different throughout our aging cycles but we have the same memories, the same identification and the same familiarities, mannerisms, habits, etc. which, I think, indicate that a mind would be distinct from a brain.”

    Then we should expect peoples tattoos to disappear every 7 years?

    That seven year thing is largely a myth. Cell types all reproduce at different rates. Some in days, some over years. Cerebral cortex neurons never do. You have as many as you did at birth and if they die they’re gone for good.

    Reply
  17. Charles says:

    Like I said; it was just a shot… BTW, tattoos do fade; or do the evolve? Just kidding. All jokes aside, there is an example I’ve heard, I think by Dr. William Lane Craig, that goes something like:

    (Paraphrasing, of course) There is an alien fleet that lands on earth in, say, the year 3528 and a few of them find a building somewhat intact. As these “aliens” explore this dwelling they find an old tube television set and decide to try to figure out what it is.

    Now, for hypothetical reasons let’s assume there is some form of electricity available. These “aliens” notice that there is some form of transmission on the screen, I think the original example used an “I Love Lucy” episode. After disassembling the back of the set they see all kinds of wires, a tube, speakers and whatever else is inside all hooked up and looped around this and that. Seeing this they conclude that it is all the wiring and components using electricity to produce the picture. Well, in a way they are right, but they are obviously missing something.

    Well, we all know that this is wrong because there would need to be a television “station” to transmit the picture and sound, which isn’t obvious to beings that have never encountered such a thing.

    Science will continue to find the best possible explanation within limited human intelligence and reasoning. The thing is; as we are always dis-covering (or for Christians gaining revelation) wouldn’t it seem reasonable that there may exist phenomena that we haven’t been able to even conceptualize?

    A thought, even being a product of electrochemical reaction, is able to transcend one thinker to another and without physical interaction. For writers, thoughts have a tendancy to outlive them in the lives of their readers.

    Dr. Amit Goswami, professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of Oregon, claims to have witnessed studies that prove the existance of “non-local” conciousness and transcendant thoughts between completely separated subjects. These subjects were said to be separated by magnetically impervious “walls” while hooked up to EEG machines on either side. It was said that it proved simultaneous electrical patterns between two subjects. One being given a subject to meditate on and the other not given any criteria. ( from “Quantam Activist”).

    Reply
  18. Toby R. says:

    “A thought, even being a product of electrochemical reaction, is able to transcend one thinker to another and without physical interaction. For writers, thoughts have a tendancy to outlive them in the lives of their readers.”

    This is utterly false. Thoughts must be conveyed physically in order for them to be known. Speech, writing, body language, etc are all physical conveyances. If you’re talking about telepathy, then you’re outside the beliefs of your own religion.

    Mr Craig’s analogy is pretty bad and an obvious gap argument on his part.

    Reply
  19. Charles says:

    ** “Thoughts must be conveyed physically in order for them to be known. Speech, writing, body language, etc are all physical conveyances.”

    Certainly speech, writing, body language, etc need to be “conveyed” physically; so you’re saying that speech, for instance, is some sort of physical bridge for thought? If so, this is what is false. What I am saying is more on the wise that thoughts are not tangible. It’s plain common sense; maybe I don’t fully understand where you’re coming from. There obviously needs to be something physically present to formulate and then produce thoughts.

    I’m not trying to be sarcastic when I say that thoughts, in themselves, don’t have anything to do bosons or quarks, atoms or molecules, so how can a thought be anything other nonphysical transmissions.

    A look, my parents would give me when I was a kid would speak volumes as to severity of my impending punishment; not a word said, not even a grimace and often times just a blank stare (warning before destruction) ~ a nonphysical transmission from parent to child; where in the world was the thought between us?

    Reply
  20. Charles says:

    ** “Mr Craig’s analogy is pretty bad and an obvious gap argument on his part.”

    I don’t think I did Dr. Craig much justice so I wouldn’t blame him; this analogy is second hand of course. The point was simply the fact that there was a source of transmission producing the images and sounds and not the set itself. I think you gathered this much despite my bad rendition of that analogy.

    Reply
  21. Toby R. says:

    “Certainly speech, writing, body language, etc need to be “conveyed” physically; so you’re saying that speech, for instance, is some sort of physical bridge for thought?”

    “A look, my parents would give me when I was a kid would speak volumes as to severity of my impending punishment; not a word said, not even a grimace and often times just a blank stare (warning before destruction) ~ a nonphysical transmission from parent to child; where in the world was the thought between us?”

    Yes, all of those things are physical expressions of thought requiring energy and physics. Sound waves, muscle movement, and the biggest of all, neurons, neurotransmitters, and electrochemical processes in the brain. Your parents giving you a death look is completely body language. The slight twitch at the corner of their eyes, the barely perceptible narrowing of the eyelids, the change in their breathing. We see much more than we realize . . . and probably you knew what you were doing pist them off to begin with or they had warned you previously.

    “I’m not trying to be sarcastic when I say that thoughts, in themselves, don’t have anything to do bosons or quarks, atoms or molecules, so how can a thought be anything other nonphysical transmissions.”

    But thoughts are those things you say have nothing to do with thoughts! This idea of dualism, that the mind is immaterial, is some 1600’s philosophical tripe. Descartes would think very differently if he had the same amount of knowledge about the brain that we do now.

    Reply
  22. Frank Turek says:

    Hi Toby,

    Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

    With regard to your claim that I’ve made assertions for those 12 aspects of reality without provided evidence, granted. But I have done so elsewhere on this site, and certainly in my book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.”

    However, my only real point for our discussion here is that if just one of those 12 aspects of reality is true, then materialistic atheism, which I assume you hold, is false. If you deny that you will be affirming it because you’ll be using the laws of logic to do so which comprise one of the 12.

    Second, all of your “how” questions listed above are irrelevant to the point made. You are asking questions about epistemology (how do we know), when I’m talking about ontology (that something exists). We can argue all day about how our minds work, but the very fact that we have minds and laws of logic with which to argue proves that materialistic atheism is false. If you say that your mind is your brain, then you have no grounds to know that or anything else because you are just reacting, not really thinking.

    The fact that there is an immaterial reality does NOT prove Christianity is true– it is a necessary condition for Christianity but not a sufficient condition for Christianity. However, it DOES prove atheism is false.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  23. Toby R. says:

    “However, my only real point for our discussion here is that if just one of those 12 aspects of reality is true, then materialistic atheism, which I assume you hold, is false. If you deny that you will be affirming it because you’ll be using the laws of logic to do so which comprise one of the 12.”

    It’s certainly a nice paradox that someone imagined up, but it’s all built upon the supposition that laws of logic are immaterial. This is an unprovable assertion from theology and dualism. There is no reason to believe that these things are immaterial or transcendental. These laws are tightly bound to the material world. If there were no material universe then these laws would mean nothing and apply to nothing. These laws are descriptive laws. They are human concoctions to describe and make sense of material things in the material universe.

    If you’re talking ontology, then explain how something immaterial can “be”. You skirt the questions about how anything immaterial can interact with material because it can’t be done. There is no, and has never been, anything but bald assertion that minds are immaterial.

    “If you say that your mind is your brain, then you have no grounds to know that or anything else because you are just reacting, not really thinking.”

    Why not? What is the advantage of immaterial over material other than “I have a soul for the bible tells me so”? Why do you hold that there needs to be something immaterial to think? Something to do with free will I suppose.

    “The fact that there is an immaterial reality does NOT prove Christianity is true– ”

    Because this isn’t fact, it’s assertion. If I imagine a mauve elephant with rainbow striped polka dots it materially exists in my brain in the form of electrochemical reactions formed from combining stored memories of rainbows, polka dots, elephants and colors.

    Reply
  24. Frank Turek says:

    Toby,

    The laws of logic are either material or immaterial. You assert they are material. What is their chemical composition? Do they degrade like every other material entity?

    You say the laws of logic are human conventions that we invent. Is THAT statement a human convention we invent? If so, why should anyone believe it? Your position is self defeating. Moreover, before there were any human minds on earth would this statement be true: “There are no human minds on earth.”? Of course, so your position is false by example.

    If you refuse to admit the obvious– that there is an immaterial reality– then there is no reason (which is itself immaterial) to discuss anything any further.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  25. Frank Turek says:

    BTW, your charge that I am making mere assertions without evidence about the laws of logic shows your misunderstanding about what these laws actually are. The laws of logic are foundational, self-evident principles. You can’t get “behind” them. There are no arguments or evidence for them– they are the very principles you use to construct arguments and evaluate evidence.

    Reply
  26. Toby R. says:

    “The laws of logic are either material or immaterial. You assert they are material. What is their chemical composition? Do they degrade like every other material entity?”

    The chemical composition of ideas and concepts are neurotransmitters and electric impulses. In addition to this they are ink when in books and electric and photons and magnetic when in computer form. Do they degrade? Yes. The same way a language might die out. The same way a unique idea only in one brain will be lost with the on set of dementia. The deleting of a hard drive. The destruction of a copies of a book.

    “You say the laws of logic are human conventions that we invent. Is THAT statement a human convention we invent? If so, why should anyone believe it? Your position is self defeating.”

    Yes, it’s an invented convention. These laws are conventions because they are generally agreed upon that they make sense. They make sense because they are accurate descriptions of how things in this universe are. If they weren’t accurate, then they wouldn’t be conventions, they’d be dreck.

    “Moreover, before there were any human minds on earth would this statement be true: “There are no human minds on earth.”? Of course, so your position is false by example.”

    At a glance your statement has a ring of truth, but it’s temporally flawed. Prior to humans existing in this universe it would have no meaning at all (aside from language not existing obviously). Something must exist for that statement to make any sense at all. I could say, “There is no sluobartslime in my kitchen.” Looking at it we know that it’s a true statement right? No, it’s nonsense. It doesn’t make it a false statement, it makes it null. It’s like dividing by zero.

    “The laws of logic are foundational, self-evident principles. You can’t get “behind” them. There are no arguments or evidence for them– they are the very principles you use to construct arguments and evaluate evidence.”

    These laws are descriptions of the material universe. These laws are temporal, they are material. They are bound to matter and time. No matter, no time, these cease to exist. If we imagine these laws existing without the presence of matter or time (as you do thinking that they are immaterial) then they mean nothing as they have nothing to describe. If a universe never existed the sentence, “A star is a star and never not a star” isn’t true or false, it’s null and void nonsense.

    “If you refuse to admit the obvious– that there is an immaterial reality– then there is no reason (which is itself immaterial) to discuss anything any further.”

    It’s obvious to you, because you have much more riding on it, what with your beliefs and how much you’ve devoted to the ancients that began this mess of dualism and souls and things that are easy outs. Easy to dream up, impossible to verify one way or the other. Calling something immaterial doesn’t make it so.

    Reply
  27. Frank Turek says:

    Toby,

    You are assuming unchangeable, objective laws of logic— laws that are outside of our physical brains– in order to critique my ideas as wrong (i.e. as deviating form an objective standard). Your position is self-defeating. Moreover, if the laws were merely our own subjective internal inventions of our brains, we couldn’t even communicate with one another, nor would we have any warrant to know anything we thought was true.

    Enough said.

    Blessings,

    Frank

    Reply
  28. dan says:

    i laughed when this article try to say and i quote “they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side” . Its very apparent this guy hasn’t a clue about what he is talking about. All mammals move their spines up and down and not side to side. For a side to side motion he is thinking of fish. Whales arent fish. So a classic misunderstanding on part of the dumb creationist is laughable. Whales didn’t have to evolve any such thing.

    Mr frank in this chat thinks he is a leading expert, But i wonder if he can explain the mass amounts of Olfactory receptor genes in whales that are dead (used for smelling on land) and the fact that a humpback whale was recorded with an atavism of 2 long protruding legs . Balisaurs also shows legs that are way to small to be used on land. Modern whales still have remnants of legs deep inside their bodies. Recorded atavisim ———–>http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/4849//v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/nov/N0009.pdf?sequence=1

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *