Signature in the Cell and Intelligent Design: An Introduction to Protracted Desperation

Guest Post by Fred Reed

A question that never ceases to fascinate is that of how life originated, and how and why it has progressed as it seems to have. The official story and de rigueur explanation is that that life came about through spontaneous generation from seawater. Believing  this is the mark of an Advanced Person, whether one has the slightest knowledge of the matter. In academia researchers have been fired and careers ruined for questioning  it. If you doubt that scientists can be ideological herd animals, as petty, intolerant, vindictive, and backstabbing as professors, read Heretic, by the PhD biotechnologist and biochemist Matti Leisola, who fell on the wrong side of the herd. The establishment’s continuing effort to stamp out heresy looks increasingly like a protracted desperation.

The other, more intuitive view of life is that of Intelligent Design. When one sees an immensely complicated system all of whose parts work together with effect and apparent purpose, such as an automobile or a cell, it is natural to think that someone or something designed it. There is much evidence for this, certainly enough to intrigue those of open mind and intelligence. Those of a philosophic bent may note that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are equally relics of Nineteenth Century determinism, and that Darwin wrote when almost nothing was known about much of biology. Note also that the sciences are tightly constrained and limited by their premises, unable to think outside of their chosen box.  Others, wiser, wonder whether there are not more thing in heaven and earth.

The theory of ID is seen by the official story as a form of biblical Creationism of the sort holding that the world was created in 4004 BC. This is either wantonly stupid or deliberately dishonest.  There is of course no necessary connection between ID and Buddhism, Islam, or the Cargo Cult. There are scientists who are not proponents of ID but simply see that much of official Darwinism does not make sense or comport with the evidence. Some IDers are Christians, which does not affect the validity, or lack of it, of what they say. To judge by my mail, many people have serious doubts about the official explanation without being zealots of anything in particular.

(For what it is worth, I am myself a complete agnostic. Faith and atheism both seem to me categorical beliefs in something one doesn’t know. ID certainly provides no support for the existence of a loving Sunday School god, given that in almost all places and all times most people have lived in misery and died in agony.)

To me, though, things look designed. By what, I don’t know.

Two difficulties affect the presentation of ID to the public.  First, most of us have been subjected to thousands of hours of vapid “science” programs and mass-market textbooks. These tell us  that doubters must be snake-handling forest Christian with three teeth. The second is that following the argument requires more technical grasp than most have. Trying to explain the question to a network-news audience is hopeless and makes those attempting it seem foolish.

Yet discussion has to be fairly technical to avoid degenerating into vague  generalities. Following many of the authors requires familiarity with, or the ability to pick up quickly, such things as the nature of  information, both in the Shannon sense of a reduction in uncertainty and of specified information as found in DNA and computer code. Some experience of programming helps as does a minor familiarity with organic chemistry and a nodding acquaintance with early paleontology.

And, alas, much of dispute turns on the mechanics of cell biology: DNA’s structure, codons and anticodons, polymerases and transcriptases, the functions of ribosomes, chirality of alpha amino acids, microRNA, protein folding,  ORFans, developmental gene regulatory networks, Ediacaran and Cambrian paleontology (so much for 4004 BC BC), and similar technoglop, It isn’t rocket science, but it takes a bit of study to pick up. Most of us have other things to do.

The less one knows about cellular biology the easier it is to believe in spontaneous generation. Darwin knew nothing. Since then knowledge of biochemistry and molecular biology has grown phenomenally. Yet, despite a great deal of effort, the case for the accidental appearance of life has remained one of fervent insistence untainted by either evidence of theoretical plausibility.

What are some of the problems with official Darwinism? First, the spontaneous generation of life has not been replicated. (Granted, repeating a process thought to have taken billions of  years might lack appeal as a doctoral project.) Nor has anyone assembled in the laboratory a chemical structure able to metabolize, reproduce, and thus to evolve. It has not been shown to be mathematically possible.

This is true despite endless theories about life arising in tidal pools, on moist clays, in geothermal vents, in shallows, in depths, or that life arrived on carbonaceous chondrites–i.e., meteors. It has even been suggested that life arrived from Mars, which is to say life came from a place where, as far was can be determined, there has never been any. Protracted desperation.

Sooner or later, a hypothesis must be either confirmed or abandoned. Which? When? Doesn’t science require evidence, reproducibility, demonstrated theoretical possibility? These do not exist. Does not the ferocious reaction to doubters of the official story suggest deep-seated doubt even among the believers?

Other serious problems with the official story: Missing intermediate fossils–”missing links”– stubbornly remain missing. “Punctuated equilibrium,” a theory of sudden rapid evolution invented to explain the lack of fossil evidence, seems unable to generate genetic information fast enough. Many proteins bear no resemblance to any others and therefore cannot have evolved from them. On and on.

Finally, the more complex an event, the less likely it is to  occur by chance. Over the years, cellular mechanisms have been found to be  ever more complex. Darwin thought that in a warm pond, bits of goo clumped together, a membrane formed, and life was off and running. Immediately after Watson and Crick in 1953, the chemical mechanics of cellular function still seemed comparatively simple, though nobody could say where the genetic information came from. Today thousands of proteins are known to take part in elaborate processes in which different parts of proteins are synthesized under control of different genes and then spliced and edited elaborately. Recently with the discovery of epigenetics, complexity has taken a great leap upward. (For anyone wanting to subject himself to such things, there is The Epigenetics Revolution. It is not light reading.)

Worth noting is that  that the mantra of evolutionists, that “in millions and millions and billions of years something must have evolved”–does not necessarily hold water. We have all heard of Sir James Jeans assertion that a monkey, typing randomly, would eventually produce all the books in the British Museum. (Actually he would not produce a single chapter in the accepted age of the universe, but never mind.) A strong case can be made that spontaneous generation is similarly of mathematically vanishing probability. If evolutionists could prove the contrary, they would immensely strengthen their case. They haven’t.

Improbabilities are multiplicative. The currents of exponentiation seem to be running ever more heavily against the monkey. If this is not true, evolutionists have not shown it not to be true.

Herewith a few recommendations for  those who may be interested. Whatever one might conclude after reading the various authors on ID, you will quickly see that they are not “pseudoscientists,” not lightweights, and have serious technical credentials. They try to explain their subjects  as they go along. Some succeed better than others.

The most accessible are Darwin’s Black Box, which I highly recommend, and The Edge of Evolution, both by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. He puts the heavy-duty tech in the end notes. The intelligent reader will have no problem with these.

Also clearly written and carefully explained, are Signature in the Cell (mentioned above) and Darwin’s Doubt, by Stephen Meyer (geophysicist, PhD in history and philosophy of science, Cambridge University.) The (again) intelligent reader will find these good but challenging. A third possibility in Undeniable, by Douglas Axe (Underrgad biochemistry, Berkeley, PhD. CalTech, chemical engineering) While very sharp, he uawa analogy so much to keep things simple that the science can be lost. Ann Gauger,  Science and Human Origins, has a degree in biology from MIT, a PhD in developmental and molecular biology from the university of Washington, and has done postdoc work at Harvard (on the drosophila kinesin light chain, which I don’t know what is.)

Anyway,  Meyer takes the reader clearly and comprehensively through the question of the origin of life from, briefly, ancient times through the research of Watson and Crick and then into the depths of the cell in detail. Of particular interest is his discussion of the  the probabilistic barriers to spontaneous generation. Right or wrong, it is, again,  assuredly not “pseudoscience,” and is extensively documented with references.

Should you order any of these books, ask Amazon to ship them in boxes labeled Kinky Sex Books or Applied Brestiality so nobody will know that you are reading ID.

Here, allow me a thought that the writers above do not mention: Maybe nature is more mysterious than even the ID people think: The insane complexity of life might suggest a far deeper level of non-understanding than even the ID folk suspect.

Suppose that you saw an actual monkey pecking at a keyboard and, on examining his output, saw that he was typing, page after page, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, with no errors.

You would suspect fraud, for instance that the typewriter was really a computer programmed with Tom. But no, on inspection you find that it is a genuine typewriter. Well then, you think, the monkey must be a robot, with Tom in RAM. But  this too turns out to be wrong: The monkey in fact is one. After exhaustive examination, you are forced to conclude that Bonzo really is typing at random.

Yet he is producing Tom Sawyer. This being impossible, you would have to conclude that something was going on that you did not understand.

Much of biology is similar. For a zygote, barely visible, to turn into a baby is astronomically improbable, a suicidal assault on Murphy’s Law. Reading embryology makes this apparent. (Texts are prohibitively expensive, but Life Unfolding serves.) Yet every step in the process is in accord with chemical principles.

This doesn’t make sense. Not, anyway, unless one concludes that something deeper is going on that we do not understand. This brings to mind several adages that might serve to ameliorate our considerable arrogance. As Haldane said, “The world is not only queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think.” Or Fred’s principle, “The smartest of a large number of hamsters is still a hamster.”

We may be too full of ourselves.

44
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Hollywood Rob

Hahahahaha.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus

Idiot…Fossil life has now been found that’s at least 3.7 billion years old, and may be older, when the Earth was too hot for such processes….https://www.wired.com/story/35-billion-year-old-fossils-challenge-ideas-about-earths-start/

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

It is likely there were many somewhat cool spots on the surface of the planet 3.7 billion years ago.

Hollywood Rob

Come on God dudes and dudettes. pyrrhus has thrown up the most cogent argument yet to help us all to understand that “Nobody Has The Answer.” The jury is still out. There is only one thing for sure in this debate…that is that there is no indication whatsoever that there is any intelligence in the design of life on earth. The only people who believe that are people who know nothing about life on earth.

Mike C
Mike C

“Finally, the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Over the years, cellular mechanisms have been found to be ever more complex. Darwin thought that in a warm pond, bits of goo clumped together, a membrane formed, and life was off and running. Immediately after Watson and Crick in 1953, the chemical mechanics of cellular function still seemed comparatively simple, though nobody could say where the genetic information came from. Today thousands of proteins are known to take part in elaborate processes in which different parts of proteins are synthesized under control of different genes and then spliced and edited elaborately.”

The complexity is even greater than described above. We have ~21,000 known protein-coding genes. But we also have an equal or greater number of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNA). We now know that these lncRNAs interact and influence gene expression in ways that are poorly understood.

Additionally, most genes are alternatively spliced. That is, one gene gives rise to several or even dozens of “isoforms” which have included or excluded various functional parts of the proteins in order to serve different functions in the cell. These isoforms are expressed at different levels in different tissues in the body.

Additionally to that, there are epigenetic regulatory mechanisms including DNA methylation that controls whether regions of DNA are “open” and accessible to the transcription machinery or closed and therefore not expressed.

There is also genetic variation that varies from person to person, each of us containing hundreds or thousands of unique variants. Some of these may have a functional impact on gene expression and translation.

There are also microRNAs which have been found to regulate gene expression. There are transcription factors which are proteins that bind DNA and promote or inhibit transcription. These interact with ligands on the surface of the cell, other proteins, and mRNA to decide when/where to promote/inhibit transcription.

Much of the gene expression is also regulated at the next level “up”, the so-called translation machinery. mRNA doesn’t stick around too long, and the degradation of mRNAs is under strict control in the cell through various mechanisms.

Finally, once a protein is made, it has to be localized to the right cellular compartment to do its job. This is accomplished through a system of targeting and export machinery. Some proteins much localize back to the nucleus, others to the cytosol to form protein enzymatic networks to accomplish complex biochemistry, and still others must localize to the cell membrane to become receptors and signalling molecules.

All of this is not to be for or against ID, but anyone who is interested should go watch some animations of cellular processes (they are getting better and more detailed all the time) and try not to be astonished at the carefully tuned precision and complexity of these molecular nanomachines.

messianicdruid

I found an excellent article several years ago on the internet about ID and printed off a copy. Now I can’t find it, anywhere. The crux was the amount of information contained in a given message is a good indicator of the intelligence of the sender.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Wonders/P.htm

BUCKHED
BUCKHED

I read that an Atheist wrote that even though he didn’t believe in God the chance of all of the mechanisms coming together to create life would be like a tornado touching down and in the aftermath a 747 was created .

grace country pastor

Fantastic book… “Tornado In A Junkyard”

Darrell Dullnig
Darrell Dullnig

That’s as good an explanation of our ignorance of the origins of life that I have read. Fred has always been a perceptive guy. And funny; I appreciate his humor above all. He might win the presidency of these states running as an independent, but the elites would kill him before he took office; they have no sense of humor.

diogenes
diogenes

I thought according to Fred, life and intelligence originated in Mexico?

BUCKHED
BUCKHED

Diogenes…life did begin in Mexico…in the swamp that has become their country

Hollywood Rob

Just because Fred doesn’t understand it, does not mean that it is complicated. Just because you don’t understand it does not mean that it is complicated. Just because no human understands it does not mean that it is complicated. The origins of life on this planet are almost certainly just like the origins of life on every other planet in the universe. We don’t know what the process is, but that does not mean that it is complicated. It isn’t like a tornado producing a 747. It isn’t like some god, maybe your god, but maybe not, reached out his hand and declared let there be light. And for sure it isn’t that he fashioned man from the clay of the earth. Earth wasn’t seeded by an alien race 60 million years ago. Man didn’t appear in the garden of eden. None of those things happened. No warm pool of goo, no hand of god. No intelligent design.

You don’t have the answer. I don’t have the answer. Fred doesn’t have the answer. The pope doesn’t have the answer. Nobody has the answer. But one thing is for sure, when somebody does finally show up with the actual answer, you all will stone him to death and go back to worshiping your idols.

Anonymous
Anonymous

” The origins of life on this planet are almost certainly just like the origins of life on every other planet in the universe.”

Now that’s downright interesting.

How many plants are known to have life on them and can you give me a list of their names?

Hollywood Rob

Mouse are you really that stupid or are you just trolling? Name one planet that doen’t have life on it.

Anonymous
Anonymous

As far as is known, all of them except earth.

But it you want only one, try Mercury.

Hollywood Rob

So you trust all of the people who have been to Mercury? They all tell you that there is no life there? Well that settles it doesn’t it. And all of those people who have been to Mars. They all say the same thing. And we can pretty sure that the people who have been to Uranus have found no life there either. Well, I for one am will to give you that one. Even I don’t think that there is any life in Ur anus.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus

You definitely don’t understand it…The magical appearance of life from a bunch of chemicals has never been achieved in a laboratory, and in any event, would have required staggering amounts of time to produce even a one celled animal…Nor could it have occurred under the conditions prevalent on earth 4 billion years ago….Whereas we know that the earth is constantly bombarded by meteorites and chunks of matter from other planets, including Mars, many of which contain carbon…Evolutionary theory also has problems with the sudden appearance of complex animals, like the long necked giraffe, that have no fossil predecessors…and Darwin was aware of that fact. Which is why Stephen J. Gould invented a new theory of evolution to try to explain such embarrassing facts.

Vodka
Vodka

Hollywood,

You are simply a nihilist. A nihilist who claims that none of us can truly “know”, but yet you claim to “know” that there was no Garden of Eden or Intelligent Design, etc. You give that a big think, pal.

Agnostics are the biggest cowards in the universe. Their strategy is to keep themselves safe from criticism and strife, for now, and then join the victors when they know who wins the argument in the end by claiming “I wasn’t against your ideas, I just didn’t “know”. Cowards.

Hollywood Rob

Vodka. I am not claiming that I can’t know. I am not a nihilist. I am claiming that you don’t know. I am claiming that because I know that you can’t know because you know less than those who claim to study this topic, and they certainly don’t know. Christians are the biggest cowards in the universe. Their strategy is to keep themselves safe from criticism and strife by claiming that god created the heavens and the earth and made man in his own image. Are you trying to suggest that you have some kind of plot armor because you picked a side in an argument where one side claims that they don’t know and the other side claims that an old man in a bath robe called life into existence after he called the universe into existence.

I am perfectly willing to wait for somebody to figure out how life started on earth as it has absolutely no importance for me. I don’t care if you think that you have it all scoped out. It’s not relevant to me in any way. Just know that you are wrong. No matter what you think, you are wrong.

Vodka
Vodka

Pure gibberish. You are obviously incapable of any kind of Big Think. I’m done with you.

Hollywood Rob

Harumph Harumph Harumph. I bow to your intellect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt3GBlVjUd0

Stucky

” ….. when somebody does finally show up with the actual answer, you all will stone him to death and go back to worshiping your idols.” ——— Hollywood Rob

Let me fix that sentence for you. I’ll put the fixed part in caps so it’s easier to find. Here ya go ….

“when somebody does finally show up with the actual answer, you all will CRUCIFY HIM (!!) and go back to worshiping your idols.”

Anonymous
Anonymous

For living things to have come out of non living matter by some random spontaneous happening, two things would be simultaneously necessary:

1 The life would have to appear.

2 That life would also have to become able to reproduce itself at the same time.

IMO, both are equally improbable by anything in the world of random chance. I see this as far less likely than some kind of directing force acting to deliberately produce it.

Hollywood Rob

As the great Luke Skywalker explained in that trash movie the last jedi; “Everything that you just said is wrong.” Neither 1 nor 2 has anything to do with this discussion. I take my previous comment back Mouse. You probably know quite a bit about some things, but on this topic you need to study.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Rob, Sophism is not your strong point.

You’re really not very good at it.

Hollywood Rob

And soapism is not yours. Everything I have said here is correct. Fred does not know anything about how life started here on earth. Neither do you or I. Nobody does except for the select few who still believe that it was created by a guy in a bathrobe. This one alternative I do reject out of hand.

By the way, I am not a sophist either because this gig does not pay at all and nobody is learning much of anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

Martin brundlefly.. we need common sense liberal and negro control laws
Martin brundlefly.. we need common sense liberal and negro control laws

How about a butterfly? Four segment life cycle. A breeding population would need to have evolved without mistakes to make four seperate creatures. No mistakes. A failure at any point is a failure of the species. Impossible. Can not evolve like that. A perfect breeding population all at once. No way.

As for intelligent design, i am always struck by the ‘why?’. What purpose malarial mosquitoes? Why so many things that can kill man basically with a misstep? Unless this is the garden. The repository for all creation. Like a zoo.

Snowman
Snowman

The problem with ID is that it simply moves the question of life arising from one setting to another. Life is here and it started somewhere. I know this because I am here. I think some Greek somewhere said this 2000 years ago. We have devolved since then.

Stucky

“When one sees an immensely complicated system all of whose parts work together with effect and apparent purpose, such as an automobile or a cell, it is natural to think that someone or something designed it.” ———– Fred

Why would an Intelligent Designer create so much junk DNA? Hmmmm?

Don’t know what junk DNA is? Will you look it up? Probably not. Life is too busy. So, here is a quick blurb;

“You’re far from a perfect product. The code that makes us is at least 75 per cent rubbish, according to a study that suggests most of our DNA really is junk after all. After 20 years of biologists arguing that most of the human genome must have some kind of function, the study calculated that in fact the vast majority of our DNA has to be useless. It came to this conclusion by calculating that, because of the way evolution works, we’d each have to have a million children, and almost all of them would need to die, if most of our DNA had a purpose.”

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140926-at-least-75-per-cent-of-our-dna-really-is-useless-junk-after-all/

So, why would an Intelligent Designer create so much junk DNA? Hmmmm?

pyrrhus
pyrrhus

A lot of “junk” DNA, a term coined by scientists who couldn’t explain it, is turning out to be likely useful…And if it were really “junk”, evolution would have gotten rid of it in the course of many millions of years. Your argument refutes itself, Stuck…

Stucky

That’s not how or why the phrase was coined, and it is not “likely useful” … it really is junk. You don’t know what you are talking about.

So, let me give you an easier question.

Why would an Intelligent Designer put the Recreation Department (da pussy) right next to the Sewage Department (da asshole). HMMMM??????

Hollywood Rob

I was going to go there but decided against it. In retrospect, I now think it is the perfect point to make. Thank you.

Anonymous
Anonymous

Because they are both waste holes. They follow or share the same path. Would you prefer one of them be next to the ingest hole? Which one and why?

Snowman
Snowman

Why would a full one fifth of a whales DNA be comprised of useless aroma genes. These have been altered over time to become useless as a whale does not need to smell. The biggest problem for academics is they are too specialized, they cannot think outside their box. This is why many of the greatest achievements are found by non professionals, those that study many fields and can put pieces together that would be missed by a person too specialized. Why is man the only bipedal animal? Something happened. After reading a hundred theories the obvious answer is never mentioned. His hands became too specialized and he was forced to take to limping along. What is the defining characteristic of man? His hands. The answer is too simple. Mankind didn’t simply say “Hey maybe in a few million years I’ll be able to walk better.” He was forced to. Do not forget that it took 3.5 billion years to form a cell, but we went from annalids to humans in only 500 million.

Mike C.
Mike C.

Whether a majority of our genome is functional or not is a subject of debate and study currently. For example, as I mentioned above, we have tens of thousands of long non-coding RNAs that are expressed from DNA regions outside of commonly described “genes.”

There is no question that only a tiny fraction of the genome is transcribed and translated to proteins (~1%), and only a tiny fraction of the genome contains known deleterious mutations that cause disease. This is true.

Still, to call the rest of the DNA “junk” is a little presumptuous, no? Perhaps it is needed for cell replication and division, or to provide enough structure for the opening/closing of chromatin to work properly?

We really don’t know. The fact that most of the genome doesn’t code for anything or “do” anything that results in disease isn’t, in my opinion, an argument for or against ID or evolution.

You could probably remove 30% of the welds in your car, and it would still drive OK for awhile. Would you call those welds “junk welds?” Proof that the car just fell together over a period of millions of years?

Anonymous
Anonymous

As I have mentioned before: what did this life eat (and why would it)? The three choices are: #1 Itself. The first generation is the last. #2 Each other. Unless it learned how to get borned, eat, go poo and reproduce all by itself in one generation, this too would be the last. #3 Rock. Before there was life there could not be anything organic in the soil. Oops, there could not be any soil then. Why are we not still eating rock? Now multiply this times three. One for animal, one for plant and one for fungus or however they are broken up these days. Better add another for libs. They have got to be a different life form. This nearly statistically impossible event happened multiple times? Oh yeah, giving that amount of time anything can happen. Now I believe.

Snowman
Snowman

Sometimes it is impossible to believe there is such ignorance on this site. What does a plant eat?

Anonymous
Anonymous

You just proved my point. Plants are so different from animals (no mouth) but they must get nutrients too. Just maybe eat was the wrong word but I was making a comment not writing a book.

Hollywood Rob

Not helping mouse.

PlatoPlubius

You guys hear about the Bush family buying land in Paraguay along with German Chancellor Merkel?

Ever hear of “BLACK GOO?”
A few minutes into the video a gentleman begins to discuss the “creation of life” and a different lens to view it with

https://youtu.be/EiyCx-Roc_M

Some suggest it is an opposite form of “shelajit”

Then there is this guy’s presentation about chemtrails, morgellons, black GOO and so much more:

https://youtu.be/sPf-3Hx8Xzw

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

The simplest explanation is that one single highly intelligent species loaded up a bunch of comets with lifeform building blocks, including millions of genes designed to express at various points of evolution, and sent them to every star system they had charted. They perfectly timed the comets so that they would break up and bombard the planets at just the right moment to disperse the maximum amount of material at just the right time in each planetoid’s lifecycle. They coded the DNA to naturally evolve the lifeforms into animals smart enough to design computers and ultimately AI. Once the AI takes over, the resulting new lifeform will rapidly evolve into the exact same species that seeded life here so many billion years ago. Seems like all this should be obvious to everyone by now… all life on earth is simply the collective yolk of a giant egg. And its going to hatch in many of our lifetimes.

Iconoclast421
Iconoclast421

And here it is lol:

comment image

Clicks
Clicks

We are born between shit and piss – Norman Mailer

There’s your answer to where WE come from

ozum
ozum

What a joyous delight to read such frothy silliness juxtaposed in the same blog with such erudite thoughts and comments. The answer to all of this, where the universe came from, why it is, what life is was revealed to me two years ago, after most of a life time of seeking those answers. It is not ID, but close. It is not created by a conscious creator (bathrobe guy), but close. The truth is actually fabulous, awesome and satisfying . It also conforms to Occam’s Razor….absolutely necessary.
And most amazing of all, for our day to day life, it doesn’t even matter. If everyone knew, it wouldn’t change a fucking thing !!

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading