Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution and complexity
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 91 of 113 (408757)
07-04-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by dwise1
07-04-2007 4:48 PM


Re: I don't think so !
dwise1 writes:
But what I see as happening in a population is that the population itself will tend to throw itself out of equilibrium -- it is in dynamic equilibrium. With each generation, the population mean will drift away out of equilibrium. Selective pressure is needed to hold it at that equilibrium point.
Right. I covered that. That's the part where I described the coffee cup as still exchanging heat back and forth with the environment (you can imagine this at the molecular level if you prefer, with molecules from the coffee exchanging momentum with molecules from the environment through collisions), but since the coffee is at the same temperature as the environment the net result of these dynamic exchanges is zero.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2007 4:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Simonsays
Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 29
From: Ca., U.S.A.
Joined: 05-01-2007


Message 92 of 113 (408761)
07-04-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by jar
06-26-2007 3:45 PM


Re: I don't think so !
quote:
Does anyone here (besides me) know what a warrant is in a logical argument?
Yes, Jar, I corrected the Know-no typo. Don't worry, I left the original quote unedited so that your response still makes (sense?).
I also changed my qualifying terms into italics.You seem to have ignored my qualifiers.(Try adding them to a google search for an accurate definition of warrant,in regards to my usage).I presume you are familiar with boolean logic, and that should be no problem for you.
Btw a warrant as used in a "warrant-preservation" model is not the same as a warrant as used in a logical argument.
quote:
Some of us even know that you are just shovelin' shit and are clueless of the topic.
If by topic you are refering to the term warrant as it applies to a logical argument then no I am by no means clueless of the topic!
If by topic you are refering to all the various usages of the term warrant,then again I'm not clueless.I may not know all of them, but I have no difficulty deriving a meaning, if sufficient context is provided.(In your vernacular, I would say) "Shit man I'm no SimpleSimon". My interests include; reading(including A-Word A- Day), chess, and solving cyphers (Cyberquotes-in the Sac.Bee newspaper)(I also do the scrabblegrams,crosswords,scrabble,boggle,etc.).
quote:
A few of us even followed the Intutionists over the years which is also totally irrelevant to anything in this topic.
Intutionist ? Pretty arcane term there. And one that I agree is totally irrevelant in this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 06-26-2007 3:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 07-04-2007 6:34 PM Simonsays has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 113 (408762)
07-04-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Simonsays
07-04-2007 5:55 PM


Re: I don't think so !
Well so far, you have been unable to present a general principle that explains why your use of the word "warrant" is relevant to this thread.
Perhaps if you have something of relevance either on why you think the term warrant is relevant or on the subject of the thread, now might be a good time to present your evidence and to explain the general principle that explains why your evidence is even relevant.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Simonsays, posted 07-04-2007 5:55 PM Simonsays has not replied

  
Simonsays
Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 29
From: Ca., U.S.A.
Joined: 05-01-2007


Message 94 of 113 (408766)
07-04-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
06-26-2007 4:30 PM


Re: I don't think so !
Simonsays writes:
I think Percy thinks he has a warrant...
quote:
You're using the word "warrant" in a way no one here is familiar with. Here's the definition of warrant from Answers.com:
war·rant n.
1. Authorization or certification; sanction, as given by a superior.
2. Justification for an action or a belief; grounds: “He almost gives his failings as a warrant for his greatness” (Garry Wills).
3. Something that provides assurance or confirmation; a guarantee or proof: a warrant of authenticity; a warrant for success.
4. An order that serves as authorization, especially:
a. A voucher authorizing payment or receipt of money.
b. Law. A judicial writ authorizing an officer to make a search, seizure, or arrest or to execute a judgment.
5. a. A warrant officer.
b. A certificate of appointment given to a warrant officer.
{QUOTEWhich of these definitions are you using?[/QUOTE]
None. Although #2 and/or #3 come close. (ie, Justification for a belief, and something that provides assurance or confirmation.
You can find a more accurate definition (what definition I'm using) by including in your search terms the qualifiers (logical, and argument) that I used.(as I suggested to Jar)(ie, warrant + logical + argument)
quote:
The thermal equilibrium example of a cup of coffee and its surroundings was intended as an explanatory analogy (not a "warrant") to evolutionary stasis, where a population is in equilibrium with its environment. If you don't find the analogy helpful then we'll continue seeking an explanation that works for you.
Percy, I'd settle for an explanation that works. I don't need more examples of Stasis and negative-feedback systems.I understand those, and can list off a bunch of examples myself, as I suppose most of you can. For example, in physics, a standing wave is an example of stasis(with phase and frequency being the controlling inputs).
What I would like is a mechanism and a justification that it can be applied in the specified (general) case. Barring that I would except dwise1 adding the qualifier (may or can)lead to stasis to his assertion, since he admitted he can't identify his generalized negative -feedback system.
Edited by Simonsays, : . Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 06-26-2007 4:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2007 7:44 PM Simonsays has not replied
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 07-04-2007 9:36 PM Simonsays has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 95 of 113 (408769)
07-04-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Simonsays
07-04-2007 7:16 PM


Re: I don't think so !
What I would like is a mechanism and a justification that it can be applied in the specified (general) case. Barring that I would except dwise1 adding the qualifier (may or can)lead to stasis to his assertion, since he admitted he can't identify his generalized negative -feedback system.
I have described it to you repeatedly. Could you please explain what problem you're still having with it? In plain English with as little obfuscational vocabulary as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Simonsays, posted 07-04-2007 7:16 PM Simonsays has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 96 of 113 (408780)
07-04-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Simonsays
07-04-2007 7:16 PM


Re: I don't think so !
Simonsays writes:
Percy writes:
You're using the word "warrant" in a way no one here is familiar with. Here's the definition of warrant from Answers.com:
...
Which of these definitions are you using?
None. Although #2 and/or #3 come close. (ie, Justification for a belief, and something that provides assurance or confirmation.
You can find a more accurate definition (what definition I'm using) by including in your search terms the qualifiers (logical, and argument) that I used.(as I suggested to Jar)(ie, warrant + logical + argument)
Perhaps your use of "warrant" is standard terminology with people you usually talk with, but no one here is familiar with it. If you want to be understood then you'll want to use words in ways your audience understands. Otherwise we'll end up wasting lots of time trying to figure out what you're saying instead of discussing the topic. Just like now.
Percy, I'd settle for an explanation that works...What I would like is a mechanism and a justification that it can be applied in the specified (general) case. Barring that I would except dwise1 adding the qualifier (may or can)lead to stasis to his assertion, since he admitted he can't identify his generalized negative -feedback system.
I'll second Dwise1 on this. There have been many attempts at explanations in this thread, and while we can tell you have problems with them, it isn't at all clear what those problems are.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Simonsays, posted 07-04-2007 7:16 PM Simonsays has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 07-04-2007 10:05 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 100 by Simonsays, posted 07-09-2007 9:58 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 113 (408785)
07-04-2007 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
07-04-2007 9:36 PM


Re: I don't think so !
Percy, he is using "warrant" to mean the General Principle, inferences and assumptions explaining why evidence is relevant to some claim.
It's pretty much irrelevant in this thread and has been pretty well covered in the posts.
It was, though, a major scoring point during Middle School debates.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 07-04-2007 9:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
Simonsays
Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 29
From: Ca., U.S.A.
Joined: 05-01-2007


Message 98 of 113 (409491)
07-09-2007 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by NosyNed
06-26-2007 4:52 PM


Re: An example of stasis
An example of stasis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If an animal is prey to a fast predator then any change that reduces the prey's speed is under intense selective pressure and those changes can not spread in the population.
can not ? I don't think so. If the reduced speed is compensated by some other survival trait/tactic I don't see any reason why those changes couldn't spread.
quote:
If the prey animal lives in a warmer climate that is starting to cool then increased body fat would be another answer to the new selective pressure of the new environment. However, this would slow the prey down and the predator selective pressure will maintain the body form of the prey.
And the predator would also be subject to this new selective pressure, now wouldn't it ? Granted there are other ways to cope with cooler temperatures; fur(hair+air) and feathers come readily to mind.
So the form could change as long as the selective pressures balanced out.
Edited by Simonsays, : Deleted "it".Added quotes.

Unquestioned TRUTH is not truth at all... It's DOGMA. Seek and ye shall find !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by NosyNed, posted 06-26-2007 4:52 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Simonsays
Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 29
From: Ca., U.S.A.
Joined: 05-01-2007


Message 99 of 113 (409493)
07-09-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by pesto
06-27-2007 3:53 PM


Re: I don't think so !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I can't see how increased selection pressure could ever lead to stasis (equilibrium). To me this is an example of a supposed effect without a cause. As the saying goes,"sho' me the money
I'm sorry Pesto, I forgot to qualify this statement.(I was/am a bit frustrated with the type of replies I was/am seeing here). I was again refering to the general case dwise1 was using...not the limited case(one selective pressure)you are using.
quote:
Let me give you a hypothetical situation to try and explain this.
We have a population of common brown skroats. Common brown skroats spend most of their time hanging out on tree trunks. There is a fairly common mutation among skroats that will turn the offspring of a brown skroat day-glo orange. The general population, being brown, is rather hard to see when sitting on the brown bark of a tree, but one of the mutated day-glo orange skroats can be seen from quite a distance. As such, the day-glo orange mutants are seen and devoured very quickly, leaving behind their brown siblings to reproduce and make more brown skroats. So long as the color of the bark of the tree does not change, the selective pressure will act to keep skroats the brown color that most of them are.
Sounds a little like the moth camo example i've seen many times(and believe in). Ok., lets say your'e skroats are a type of moth . The bright dayglow orange wouldn't neccessarily occur all over the mutated skroat's body. If orange spots occured, they wouldn't always lead to the mutant being eaten. Mimicry is another survival trait. Some moths have spots that look like giant eyes.
Some other traits would also allow the new(mutated) moth to survive. If it tasted/smelled bad, was toxic or poisonous for example. A lot of brightly colored animals are dangerous or just not good meals.
Again I'm not saying there are no negative feedback systems in nature. I'm arguing against a general case. I think most extreme Stasis is due to isolation . Take Tribolites, Coalanths, and Catholic Scientist's crocodiles as examples. Water is a good radiation shield(less radiation induced mutations).Coalanths are very sensitive to light and hang out in deep caverns (I read). Tribolites and crocs also had/have the armor thing going for them.
Edited by Simonsays, : Toxic typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by pesto, posted 06-27-2007 3:53 PM pesto has not replied

  
Simonsays
Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 29
From: Ca., U.S.A.
Joined: 05-01-2007


Message 100 of 113 (409503)
07-09-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
07-04-2007 9:36 PM


Re: I don't think so !
quote:
Perhaps your use of "warrant" is standard terminology with people you usually talk with ...
No, it's not standard terminology with people I usually talk with. This jargon as you guys called it is in books for middle school level and above; "WHAT'S DARWIN HAVE TO DO WITH IT, a friendly conversation about evolution".(pg.70)uses warrant in exactly the manner I did. (I'm in no way endorsing this book though. It contains many fallacious arguments).... And if you looked up the definition of warrant with my added qualifying terms,I don't see how there could be any confusion on your parts, at least about my use of warrant.
quote:
I'll second Dwise1 on this. There have been many attempts at explanations in this thread, and while we can tell you have problems with them, it isn't at all clear what those problems are.
O.k., here are some of my problems with it.
1.) Ideal genomes don't exist in nature. Dwise one seemed to understand that when he qualified it in one or two of his postings... Then he went back to an ideal genome with one set point. I believe for any given enviroment there are so many workable gene and trait conbinations that the use of ideal genome is meaningless/inapplicable.
2.) Negative feedback mechanisms are specific/limited. I don't think Dwise1 or anyone else has shown/identified a general negative feedback mechanism.
3.) I think most evolutionists equate Evolution withchange That's how it is refered to in every dictionary I looked at...and in the thesauruses too (Evolution is not synomynous with adaption). Nowhere is it equated with adaptation. Adaptation is listed as an aspect of evolution, but that's it...Development and progressive change were common terms used there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 07-04-2007 9:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:59 AM Simonsays has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 101 of 113 (409577)
07-10-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Simonsays
07-09-2007 9:58 PM


Re: I don't think so !
Simonsays writes:
No, it's not standard terminology with people I usually talk with. This jargon as you guys called it is in books for middle school level and above; "WHAT'S DARWIN HAVE TO DO WITH IT, a friendly conversation about evolution".(pg.70)uses warrant in exactly the manner I did. (I'm in no way endorsing this book though. It contains many fallacious arguments).... And if you looked up the definition of warrant with my added qualifying terms,I don't see how there could be any confusion on your parts, at least about my use of warrant.
You're saying that a book for middle school is using warrant in an obscure and non-standard way? Could you provide the text on p. 70?
By the way, the title is What's Darwin Got to Do With It: A Friendly Conversation About Evolution.
1.) Ideal genomes don't exist in nature. Dwise one seemed to understand that when he qualified it in one or two of his postings... Then he went back to an ideal genome with one set point. I believe for any given environment there are so many workable gene and trait combinations that the use of ideal genome is meaningless/inapplicable.
Dwise is not claiming ideal genomes exist in nature. You're taking his simplifications made for the sake of exposition and somehow concluding that he's claiming that's what exists in nature. He's not.
2.) Negative feedback mechanisms are specific/limited. I don't think Dwise1 or anyone else has shown/identified a general negative feedback mechanism.
Negative feedback mechanisms abound everywhere. They are the primary type of feedback mechanism for producing useful results by keeping systems within reasonable operational limits. Positive feedback mechanisms spiral out of control, like microphone feedback.
3.) I think most evolutionists equate Evolution withchange That's how it is refered to in every dictionary I looked at...and in the thesauruses too (Evolution is not synomynous with adaption). Nowhere is it equated with adaptation. Adaptation is listed as an aspect of evolution, but that's it...Development and progressive change were common terms used there.
If you're looking for a one-word synonym for evolution, you're not going to find it. Change over time, adaptation over time, descent with modification, natural selection, these are all part of the definition of evolution. How much each is emphasized depends upon how much detail you're seeking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Simonsays, posted 07-09-2007 9:58 PM Simonsays has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 07-10-2007 10:34 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 103 by Simonsays, posted 07-10-2007 7:49 PM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 102 of 113 (409583)
07-10-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
07-10-2007 9:59 AM


Re: I don't think so !
You're saying that a book for middle school is using warrant in an obscure and non-standard way? Could you provide the text on p. 70?
By the way, the title is What's Darwin Got to Do With It: A Friendly Conversation About Evolution.
OK, that helps to explain why SimonSays has been using unrecognizable language. That's an ID book. ID uses language and invokes concepts that sound really impressive to the general public, while at the same time the IDist is saying nothing. ID Jive.
Like the airline stewardess, we don't speak Jive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:59 AM Percy has not replied

  
Simonsays
Junior Member (Idle past 6105 days)
Posts: 29
From: Ca., U.S.A.
Joined: 05-01-2007


Message 103 of 113 (409679)
07-10-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
07-10-2007 9:59 AM


Re: I don't think so !
Simonsays writes:
No, it's not standard terminology with people I usually talk with. This jargon as you guys called it is in books for middle school level and above; "WHAT'S DARWIN HAVE TO DO WITH IT, a friendly conversation about evolution".(pg.70)uses warrant in exactly the manner I did. (I'm in no way endorsing this book though. It contains many fallacious arguments).... And if you looked up the definition of warrant with my added qualifying terms,I don't see how there could be any confusion on your parts, at least about my use of warrant.
quote:
You're saying that a book for middle school is using warrant in an obscure and non-standard way? ...
No. You are saying that. I said no such thing!
I said middle school and above. Standard terminology with people I usually talk with, was another attempt by you to paint my usage as uncommon or even arcane. I never said the book's usage was standard terminology, that's your phrasing. I don't think the everyday man or woman on the street even knows many logic terms.
quote:
... Could you provide the text on pg.70?
Yes I can. I happen to be at the library, and it is in.
quote:
THINKING ABOUT THE STORY
We've already talked about two important parts of an argument: the premise and the conclusion. Hear's another way to approach the study of logical arguments. Some people who study logic will tell you that It's helpful to be more specific about what a premise does. these logicians (as they are called) would say that one type of premise provides evidence, while another type of premise shows why the evidence is important.
In other words, evidence is a type of premise that gives information that specifically supports the conclusion. The other type of premise (called a warrant) shows how the evidence connects to the conclusion. Have you ever heard someone talking about an "unwarranted" conclusion? That means a conclusion that is not supported by evidence or connected to the evidence.
The conclusion, evidence, and warrant can occur in any order. Think about our earlier example:
All men are mortal (this is the evidence)
Socrates was a man (this is the warrant. It is saying that Socrates is an example of a group we call "men.")
Therefore, Socrates was mortal (This is the conclusion.)
Sometimes the best way to try to identify a fallacy is to break the argument into these three pieces. Then ask yourself if it really makes sense. ...
I'm not sure if I can get more library computer time, so I'll send what I've got before it shuts down on me.
Edited by Simonsays, : Ebt coding error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2007 8:30 PM Simonsays has not replied
 Message 106 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 9:44 PM Simonsays has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 113 (409681)
07-10-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Simonsays
07-10-2007 7:49 PM


Re: I don't think so !
I just want to point out, again, that "warrant" was part of no logic class I ever took, nor was it ever covered in any discrete math class I took pursuant to the CS degree I was working on (where Boolean algebra was covered), so again, "warrants" just aren't a part of developing logical syllogisms as logic is currently taught, at least in my experience.
But, again - we talk about science in this forum; and while it wouldn't be accurate to say that scientific reason shouldn't be "logical" (that is, in an informal sense, meaning "reasonable"), it's certainly not the case that science proves things with logic.
Rather, scientific arguments are supported by evidence. Nit-picky criticisms about logical forms simply don't have a place in science.
All men are mortal (this is the evidence)
Socrates was a man (this is the warrant. It is saying that Socrates is an example of a group we call "men.")
Therefore, Socrates was mortal (This is the conclusion.)
See, this isn't even right. Syllogisms are comprised of three parts, the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. "All men are mortal" can't be evidence, because it's not possible to have made an observation that proves that all men, every single one who ever lived and ever will live, are mortal. Obviously at any one time there are more than 3 billion men right now whose mortality has yet to be established, because they're not dead, yet.
"All men are mortal" is the major premise as it has the widest scope.
"Socrates is a man" is the minor premise, being of narrower scope.
"Socrates is mortal" is a simple application of categorical logic.
None of this has anything to do with science - a process where observation leads to hypothesis, which leads to testing (via experiments or further observation), which leads to refinement of theory, which ultimately leads to communication and verification of results, the most important step. At no point does anything like a logical syllogism occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Simonsays, posted 07-10-2007 7:49 PM Simonsays has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 07-10-2007 9:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 105 of 113 (409692)
07-10-2007 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
07-10-2007 8:30 PM


Re: I don't think so !
Describing science as working differently than it actually does seems to be all to common in ID.
My first exposure to ID founder/co-founder lawyer Phillip Johnson was on a 1981 Nova -- as I recall after he had written "Darwin on Trial" -- where he was insisting that science had to follow courtroom rules of evidence. My immediate and enduring reaction was "What an idiot! Science isn't a courtroom proceeding in which a case is being made and argued, but rather an on-going police investigation in which clues are sought and found and from which hypotheses are formed and tested -- tested in large part by trying to figure out what other clues there should be and where to find those clues." Johnson was trying to force science to be something very different from what it is and to force it to operate by a foreign set of rules and standards. Pretty much what ID is continuing to do as it tries to force science to employ supernaturalistic explanations.
According to amazon.com, one of the authors of SimonSays' book has an advanced degree in theology. Theology does indeed rely almost exclusively on formal logic, since it has no real evidence to work with -- the only evidence theology has are what the religion's founders and leading theologians had said and written, hence only argument by authority. I suspect that that author had written the passage in question. Now, SimonSays, in the book did that author go on to insist that these rules of formal logic must be applied to science? That only those findings of science that can be expressed in terms of rigorously devised syllogisms may be deemed acceptable? In other words, was that book's author also insisting that a foreign set of rules and standards must be applied to science?
BTW, I did come across that book in a bookstore some years ago. I browsed through it and recognized it as yet another load of anti-evolution taurine coproforms, little different from standard creationist fare except that it left out young-earth claims and was more adept at shovelling taurine coproforms than most creationist hacks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2007 8:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2007 2:24 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024