Vox offers three “unexplainable” mysteries of life on Earth

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 9, 2023

Biology, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In three podcasts at Vox:

How did life start on Earth? What was the series of events that led to birds, bugs, amoebas, you, and me?
That’s the subject of Origins, a three-episode series from Unexplainable — Vox’s podcast that explores big mysteries, unanswered questions, and all the things we learn by diving into the unknown. – Brian Resnick (March 1, 2023)

The three mysteries they offer are:

Where did Earth’s water come from?
How did life start in that water?
What is life anyway?

About that last: Science writer Carl Zimmer offers “The problem is, for each definition of life, scientists can think of a confounding exception. Take, for instance, NASA’s definition of life: “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.” But that definition would exclude viruses, which are not “self-sustaining” and can only survive and replicate by infiltrating a host.”

Comments

Seversky at 184, You have now entered the Useless Comment Zone. Information can be created. It does come from a person, a Creator. But it cannot be destroyed.relatd_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

JVL @
Ori: How does the elimination of variety (in this example green beetles) assist evolution in finding biological information?
JVL: It’s a ridiculous question.
Perhaps, but I ask you to answer the question regardless of its quality.Origenes_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

As such, probability in the way it is used by IDists is erroneous.
This is nonsense. The theory of Evolution does not say there is a specific goal but does say the stumbling through the combinations of possible combinations has led to the immense functional complexity we see. It is functional complexity that is subject of the probability argument. There isn't enough time to find these functional complexities given the processes proposed. So probability is absolutely a naturalized Evolution killer and appropriately used.
Ponder that the next time the antibiotic you are prescribed does not eradicate your infection
Haven't a clue why this was brought up. This is just basic genetics and ID recognizes genetics as definitely happening.jerry_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

I entirely agree with FP @ 179 and would also add that this concern with the creation or destruction of genetic information appears to be at odds with the conservation law of information proposed by William Dembski which implies that information can be neither created or destroyed.Seversky_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Origenes: How does the elimination of variety (in this example green beetles) assist evolution in finding biological information? It's a ridiculous question. Biological 'success' is not measured in bits of information. That is not the commodity at play. You ask it because you have the wrong base approach to the whole topic. Also, you seem to think that 'information' once 'destroyed' can never be recreated. It's a ludicrous assertion! AND, as I've already noted, the fact that after years and years and years you still have trouble grasping the real concepts is just astonishing.JVL_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: After over a decade, surely you know that the pivotal question in regards to functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is blind needle in haystack search challenge posed by the available search resources relative to the configuration space. Please, you know I have heard you say that over and over and over and over and over again. That's not what I was talking about with Bornagain77 was it? So, trying to debate details of probability calculation is besides the main point. If someone who present probability arguments cannot actually demonstrate that they actually understand the mathematics involved then they clearly are just blindly accepting what someone else says. So, if I criticise the argument, point out where mathematical mistakes were made, I will be dismissed NOT because I made a bad argument but because the person I am presenting my argument to doesn't grasp the necessary concepts. So, it's perfectly reasonable to see if my debating opposite will even understand my point before I bother going into it. kindly explain to us why you seem to infer that something fairly close to Bernoulli- Laplace indifference as a baseline across configs is not a useful first approximation for much of probability work? Please be more specific and state when I did that and how my reasoning was incorrect IN THIS THREAD.JVL_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: I guess JVL real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines, i.e. hundreds and thousands of papers, has gone the way of the Loch Ness monster. I asked you to specify, narrow down your query to a smaller stage or step. Instead of doing that you indicated that you've already made up your mind and would not consider anything presented to you. So, why should I bother? disingenuously keeps trying to change the subject from his lack of real-time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine to my proficiency in math. Ha ha ha ha ha!! I did ask you my question first as is blatantly obvious. It's you who is trying to deflect attention, not me. And although I referenced several people with proficiency in probability calculations, (and can reference several more), JVL keeps saying that I am personally in no position to judge whether their probability calculations accurately. (which begs the question, if I can’t judge basic probability accurately, then why should I trust JVLs understanding of probability over their understanding?) You don't have to trust me but clearly, without the ability to judge, you have decided to trust some others. And why would that be? How can you pick who to trust if you don't understand the math? I hold that I, and all other humans, do have a good instinctual, even God given, grasp on the basics of probability You have yet to exhibit such. For instance, from my interactions with JVL thus far, I can accurately surmise that the probability of JVL ever being honest and admitting that he has no real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines is virtually nil. I will ask you AGAIN: please narrow down your query to some part or step and we'll see what I can find since you can't be bothered to look since you've already made up your mind. AND you still haven't admitted you can't solve my elementary probability questions. Ones that are at a high school level.JVL_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus writes:
We know on trillions of observations, that the only observed source for such FSCO/I is intelligently directed configuration
Another misuse of probability. But, if you want to misuse probability, I am willing to play that game. There are trillions of examples of FSCO/I arising without intelligent intervention. Ponder that the next time the antibiotic you are prescribed does not irradicate your infection.Ford Prefect_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus@174 and 176, I cringe every time I hear an IDist try to use probability or terms like “search”. It just demonstrates their complete ignorance of probability and how evolution work. Evolution has no goal or end in sight. As such, probability in the way it is used by IDists is erroneous. For example. The probability that you exist is 1. And the probability that your parents would have kids would also be fairly high. But from the starting point of a few generations ago, what is the probability that “you” would exist? It is very close to zero. There are over 70 trillion different human genome possibilities. But given that our phenotype is affected by more than the genome, the probability of you existing through natural processes is far less that one in 70 trillion. Using ID logic, the most likely explanation is that you, as an individual, were specifically designed.Ford Prefect_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus Of course, one may invite that physics and chemistry is heavily biased towards life
:) The bias towards life of physics and chemistry is an undeniable fact . Nobody can deny that . They are the bricks of life but bricks themselves can't build a room (as Alan Fox thinks)they need informational input delivered into a close and restrictive environment (room ,cell , body ) with functional instructions to adapt to a (limited)number of environmental good conditions or stressors.Sandy_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

JVL @150
Ori: How does the elimination of species A, B, and D assist evolution in finding biological information?
JVL: Once again, you clearly, after years and years and years of having things explained to you, still don’t understand what unguided evolutionary theory is saying. Amazing. I mean, that takes real effort.
From the website of Berkeley:
Darwin’s grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To see how it works, imagine a population of beetles: Two large green beetles and one brown beetle.There is variation in traits. For example, some beetles are green and some are brown. A bird sitting on a tree branch eats one of two green beetles that were sitting on the tree's bark. Four brown beetles blend into the brown bark of the tree.There is differential reproduction. Since the environment can’t support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do. Family tree of brown beetles, showing two parents and four offspring.There is heredity. The surviving beetles (more of which are brown) have offspring of the same color because this trait has a genetic basis. A population of 10 brown beetles.End result:The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown. If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.
"Simple" indeed, but it does not answer my specific question, so here it is again: How does the elimination of variety (in this example green beetles) assist evolution in finding biological information? In my understanding, elimination obviously does not help, instead "natural selection" hampers evolution to find biological information. Natural selection is in the business of destroying biological information.Origenes_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

JVL, kindly explain to us why you seem to infer that something fairly close to Bernoulli- Laplace indifference as a baseline across configs is not a useful first approximation for much of probability work? Indeed, my observation of expert elicitation [used here for volcano estimation . . . we are playing a grand, multi turn game with nature here], is based on modifying Bernoulli and in effect using Bayesian reasoning on conditionals. Starting with a darwin warm pond or the like, tell us why standard thermodynamic approaches are problematic, given that opening up a system adds energy to distribute thus multiplies states, i.e. typically increases entropy. It is coupled, directed, controlled energy inputs to guided work that constructs specific, highly contingent structures such as text strings, fishing reels and proteins. Now, explain to us that inviting the heavy front loading of physics and chem towards origin of cells, is not a strong design argument. And more. KF PS try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference Notice, once we have good reason, we can shift weights across the span of possibilities, but that simply shows where we started from.kairosfocus_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

JVL, disingenuously keeps trying to change the subject from his lack of real-time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine to my proficiency in math. And although I referenced several people with proficiency in probability calculations, (and can reference several more), JVL keeps saying that I am personally in no position to judge whether their probability calculations accurately. (which begs the question, if I can't judge basic probability accurately, then why should I trust JVLs understanding of probability over their understanding?) Anyways I disagree with JVL. I hold that I, and all other humans, do have a good instinctual, even God given, grasp on the basics of probability. For instance, from my interactions with JVL thus far, I can accurately surmise that the probability of JVL ever being honest and admitting that he has no real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines is virtually nil. :)bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

JVL, 156:
Can you answer my basic probability questions? Or are you just another poser? Someone who thinks they know science but, actually, hasn’t got the ability to figure out what is correct and what isn’t?
Strawman alert. After over a decade, surely you know that the pivotal question in regards to functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is blind needle in haystack search challenge posed by the available search resources relative to the configuration space. For the sol system, 500 bits is a good threshold, given 3.27*10^150 possibilities from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1 vs say 10^57 atoms, 10^17 s and a rate of plausible chemical level action of 10^13/s. This rounds down to negligible search, settled before one enters debates over probability calculations. For the observed cosmos -- the only actually observed cosmos, go to 10^80 atoms and a threshold of 1,000 bits, i.e. 1.07*10^301 configurations. We know on trillions of observations, that the only observed source for such FSCO/I is intelligently directed configuration. Your objections are cases in point. Yes, FSCO/I is readily observable and is seen to come from intelligent design in every observed case. Precisely what the search challenge points to. Of course, one may invite that physics and chemistry is heavily biased towards life so we have a loaded search. In that case, all that would be displaced, would be the stage at which design was inserted, cosmological fine tuning. However, this is a hypothetical: no one has observed that physics and chemistry -- though they enable such -- have cell based aqueous medium, terrestrial planet life written into them. So, trying to debate details of probability calculation is besides the main point. Especially, if that is going to be used to pretend that search challenge is not a pivotal issue. Not that such errors of reasoning have given pause to too many objectors to the design inference. KFkairosfocus_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

I guess JVL real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines, i.e. hundreds and thousands of papers, has gone the way of the Loch Ness monster. i.e. Although there are allegedly hundreds and thousands of sightings of this supposed real-time evidence, apparently this real-time evidence simply doesn't exist in the real world but only exists in the imagination of Darwinists.bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: out of supposedly hundreds and thousands of studies demonstrating the real-time origin of molecular machines, still provides no real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine. Oh, so your asking for evidence is just you being disingenuous since you've already made up your mind and are, therefore, closed to any new data or research. I get it now. But we can keep seeing if you will have the guts to admit you can't do my basic probability exercises. Probability is no friend of Darwinian evolution. How would you know? You can't even do basic, simple problems. Clearly you're just accepting what other people say without the ability to critically consider their arguments. That Darwinists don’t use realistic ‘estimations of a mathematically defined probability’ is made evident by the fact that Darwinists ignore, and/or rationalize away, any and all all real world probability estimates that go against their theory. Again, you, yourself are in no position to judge such things. You just follow around others and blindly accept what they tell you. Very scientific. Realistic probability estimates for the primordial earth generating a single functional protein, and for the origin of life itself, are even more prohibitive for Darwinists, Again, who are you to judge based on your lack of knowledge and ability? In fact, I hold that Stephen Meyer’s one in 10 to the 41,000th power estimate for the origin of a simple cell, as prohibitive as that is for Darwinists, to be far too generous. Uh huh. Even I can see the complete mathematical stupidity of the argument you posted just before this comment. I tell you what: you tell me whether or not you can do the simple probability problems I posed then we can talk some more.JVL_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

As the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment demonstrated, it is knowledge of a particle’s location and/or position that converts information into energy.
Maxwell’s demon demonstration turns information into energy – November 2010 Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html
And as the following 2010 article stated about the preceding experiment, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010 Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform
In short, it is immaterial information that is imparted by an Intelligence into a system that allows a system to be in a state that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, i.e. that allows life to be in a state of “lower entropy and higher energy” at the same time. As Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, stated, “Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it (the polymers of life) to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions,”
Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems – Andy C. McIntosh – 2013 Excerpt: ,,, information is in fact non-material and that the coded information systems (such as, but not restricted to the coding of DNA in all living systems) is not defined at all by the biochemistry or physics of the molecules used to store the data. Rather than matter and energy defining the information sitting on the polymers of life, this approach posits that the reverse is in fact the case. Information has its definition outside the matter and energy on which it sits, and furthermore constrains it to operate in a highly non-equilibrium thermodynamic environment. This proposal resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions, which despite the efforts from alternative paradigms has not given a satisfactory explanation of the way information in systems operates.,,, http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814508728_0008 Andrew McIntosh (also known as Andy McIntosh) is professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds.
Moreover, classical sequential information, (such as is encoded on DNA), is shown to be a subset of quantum, (i.e. positional), information by the following method. In the following 2011 paper, “researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011 Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm
As well, and as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,, Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/
These experiments go to the heart of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate and completely blow the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, (presuppositions about immaterial information being merely ’emergent’ from some material basis), out of the water. In other words, directly contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, immaterial information, particularly ‘positional quantum information’, is now experimentally shown to be its own distinct physical entity that is a product of an ‘observer who describes the system’. And although it can interact with matter and energy, (interact in a ‘top-down’ manner with matter and energy; see George Ellis ‘Recognizing Top Down Causation’), it is still shown to be its own independent entity that is separate from matter and energy and, moreover, this immaterial information has a quote unquote ‘thermodynamic content’ that can be physically measured. In short, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to an 'outside Intelligence' that is necessary to explain why life is so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium, has, for all intents and purposes, achieved experimental confirmation via these recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment. i.e. Where did the massive amount of 10^12 bits come from that are necessary to explain the Origin of Life? From the very best our science can tell us, an outside intelligence necessarily imparted that massive amount of information, i.e. 10^12 bits, into a system in order to 'thermodynamically' explain the Origin of Life. Naturalistic explanations, as far as thermodynamics itself is concerned, simply are a non-starter as to ever providing an adequate explanation for the Origin of Life.
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Romans 8:20-21 Creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice—it was the choice of the one who subjected it—but in the hope that the creation itself will be set free from slavery to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of God’s children.
bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

Realistic probability estimates for the primordial earth generating a single functional protein, and for the origin of life itself, are even more prohibitive for Darwinists,
Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful. http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - Book Review - Ken Peterson Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power. https://spectrummagazine.org/article/book-reviews/2009/10/06/signature-cell
In fact, I hold that Stephen Meyer's one in 10 to the 41,000th power estimate for the origin of a simple cell, as prohibitive as that is for Darwinists, is still far too generous to Darwinists. Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically when working from a thermodynamic perspective:
"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" - Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University http://books.google.com/books?id=tiFvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false Did Life Start By Chance? Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916. http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html Of note: Harold Joseph Morowitz (Yale) was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.
Also of interest is the information content that is found to be in a ‘simple’ cell when working from the thermodynamic perspective:
Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit
,,, Which is the equivalent of about 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.” - Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894
Darwinists try to claim that this tremendous thermodynamic hurdle presents no problem to their theory since the earth is a 'open system'. Yet, as Brian Miller pointed out, regardless of the fact that the earth is an open system, "No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”
“‘Professor Dave’ argues that the origin of life does not face thermodynamic hurdles. He states that natural systems often spontaneously increase in order, such as water freezing or soap molecules forming micelles (e.g., spheres or bilayers), He is making the very common mistake that he fails to recognize that the formation of the cell represents both a dramatic decrease in entropy and an equally dramatic increase in energy. In contrast, water freezing represents both a decrease in entropy but also a decrease in energy. More specifically, the process of freezing releases heat that increases the entropy of the surrounding environment by an amount greater than the entropy decrease of the water molecule forming the rigid structure. Likewise, soap molecules coalescing into micelles represents a net increase of entropy since the surrounding water molecules significantly increase in their number of degrees of freedom. No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.” – Brian Miller, Ph. D. – MIT – Episode 0/13: Reasons // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?t=1434
In short, it is only by intelligence imparting immaterial information into a system that it is thermodynamically possible to move a system towards life.bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Probability is no friend of Darwinian evolution. First off, Darwinists never had, and still have no, mathematical basis for their theory
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: "(The study of Mathematics) was repugnant to me,",, - Charles Darwin, 1876,,, ,, In the Oxford job description [1], under the heading Extracts from the grant application to the St John’s Research Centre, subheading Objectives: "1. To construct a mathematical framework, with appropriate theorems, to represent fully the core argument in Darwin’s Origin of Species, namely that the purely mechanical processes of inheritance and reproduction can give rise through natural selection to the appearance of design." Under the same heading, subheading Summary: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859." … https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310975799/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/ “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” - Murray Eden, - MIT - “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.?
As referenced previously, Wolfgang Pauli himself noted that “(Darwinists) Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233554311_Pauli%27s_Ideas_on_Mind_and_Matter_in_the_Context_of_Contemporary_Science
That Darwinists don't use realistic 'estimations of a mathematically defined probability' is made evident by the fact that Darwinists ignore, and/or rationalize away, any and all real world probability estimates that go against their theory.
An Open Letter to Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers - Michael Behe July 21, 2014 Dear Professors Miller and Myers, Talk is cheap. Let's see your numbers. In your recent post on and earlier reviews of my book The Edge of Evolution you toss out a lot of words, but no calculations. You downplay FRS Nicholas White's straightforward estimate that -- considering the number of cells per malaria patient (a trillion), times the number of ill people over the years (billions), divided by the number of independent events (fewer than ten) -- the development of chloroquine-resistance in malaria is an event of probability about 1 in 10^20 malaria-cell replications. Okay, if you don't like that, what's your estimate? Let's see your numbers.,,, ,,, If you folks think that direct, parsimonious, rather obvious route to 1 in 10^20 isn't reasonable, go ahead, calculate a different one, then tell us how much it matters, quantitatively. Posit whatever favorable or neutral mutations you want. Just make sure they're consistent with the evidence in the literature (especially the rarity of resistance, the total number of cells available, and the demonstration by Summers et al. that a minimum of two specific mutations in PfCRT is needed for chloroquine transport). Tell us about the effects of other genes, or population structures, if you think they matter much, or let us know if you disagree for some reason with a reported literature result. Or, Ken, tell us how that ARMD phenotype you like to mention affects the math. Just make sure it all works out to around 1 in 10^20, or let us know why not. Everyone is looking forward to seeing your calculations. Please keep the rhetoric to a minimum. With all best wishes (especially to Professor Myers for a speedy recovery), Mike Behe http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/show_me_the_num088041.html February 2022 - All the responses from Dr. Behe to his critics defending the 1 in 10^20 finding https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-evolution-news-how-much-can-evolution-really-accomplish/#comment-748038 Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme. Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start. This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic. Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/ "In light of Doug Axe's number, and other similar results,, (1 in 10^77), it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the mutation, random selection, mechanism will fail to produce even one gene or protein given the whole multi-billion year history of life on earth. There is not enough opportunities in the whole history of life on earth to search but a tiny fraction of the space of 10^77 possible combinations that correspond to every functional combination. Why? Well just one little number will help you put this in perspective. There have been only 10^40 organisms living in the entire history of life on earth. So if every organism, when it replicated, produced a new sequence of DNA to search that (1 in 10^77) space of possibilities, you would have only searched 10^40th of them. 10^40 over 10^77 is 1 in 10^37. Which is 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. In other words, If every organism in the history of life would have been searching for one those (functional) gene sequences we need, you would have searched 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillionth of the haystack. Which makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail. And if it is overwhelmingly more likely than not that the (Darwinian) mechanism will fail should we believe that is the way that life arose?" - Stephen Meyer - 46:19 minute mark - Darwin's Doubt - video https://youtu.be/Vg8bqXGrRa0?t=2778
bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT}

JVL, out of supposedly hundreds and thousands of studies demonstrating the real-time origin of molecular machines, still provides no real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine. I guess JVL's real-time empirical evidence must have be locked away in Capone's vault. :)
On this day 36 years ago: Al Capone's vault is blasted open, nothing of interest is found - April 2022 https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/on-this-day-36-years-ago-al-capones-vault-is-blasted-open-nothing-of-interest-is-found/
bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Darwinian processes creating molecular machines Please be more specific: what particular transition are you too lazy to attempt to look up yourself that you like to know about? Go on, pick a particular step. (Not forgetting that you still haven't even admitted you can't do the basic probability questions I put to you. What kind of person thinks that ignoring their own ignorance is a virtue?)JVL_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

BA77: “So AF holds that the ‘niche”, not AF himself, is responsible for the information that he himself is writing in his posts?” Alan Fox: “Yes, sort of, though I don’t know,,,,” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-for-darwinism-pregnancy-is-the-mother-of-all-chicken-and-egg-problems/#comment-771084
Game over.
(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD
bornagain77_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

I suggest that you explain how biological evolution works.
OK. I'll have a go. I'll write something but post it elsewhere so I retain a record. I don't have 100% confidence in this site. Of course, I can post a copy as a comment here.
You will be the first one ever to do so.
Charles Darwin wasn't the first to suspect common descent.
No links or references for this because we are just dealing with how. This would then require several examples that are well documented. You can use links for this. By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this. Both are rather nebulous words. Anything could be a niche and fitter could mean lots of things.
Challenge accepted. Why don't you have a go at an explanation of "Intelligent Design" as it pertains to what we observe of life on this planet? Are you up for that? I'll need a little time as real life commitments have precedence.Alan Fox_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

I suggest that you explain how biological evolution works.
OK, though it has been done before, many times. Where do you think I found out about the process?
You will be the first one ever to do so. No links or references for this because we are just dealing with how.
People have been This would then require several examples that are well documented. You can use links for this. By the way why don’t you define words like “niche” and “fitter” as part of this. Both are rather nebulous words. Anything could be a niche and fitter could mean lots of things.Alan Fox_{March 15, 2023
March
03
Mar
15
15
2023
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

JVL, you keep claiming that you got real time empirical evidence for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines. Where is it? For crying out loud, you say you got hundreds and thousands of studies proving that Darwinian processes can create molecule machines. Where are they? Nobody, save for die-hard Darwinists, seems to know where these hundreds and thousands of studies actually are.
“... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” – Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2 "Grand Darwinian claims (for Darwinian processes creating molecular machines) rest on undisciplined imagination" - Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe at the University of Toronto https://youtu.be/s6XAXjiyRfM?t=1759
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Can you present any real-time evidence or not? Yes or no? It has been presented to you over and over and over again. Additionally you can find it for yourself; you don't even have to spend any money to find it. But every time it has been presented to you you deny it. Every single time. So, again, can you answer my simple, basic, elementary probability questions? Yes or no?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

JVL, Can you present any real-time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine or not? Yes or no? (Clearly the answer is no, you cannot present any real-time evidence but I am trying to give you the chance to be honest and sincere. So far, you have chosen to be deceptive and insincere. I don’t know what that means for your personal integrity but I can’t imagine it is good.)bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Can you answer my elementary probability questions or not? Yes or no? (Clearly the answer is no, you cannot answer them but I am trying to give you the chance to be honest and sincere. So far, you have chosen to be deceptive and insincere. I don't know what that means in your theology but I can't imagine it is good.)JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

So JVL desperately tries once again to deflect from his sheer lack of real time empirical evidence and wants me to chase his tail around on basic probability questions. To paraphrase JVL, "Can you present any real time evidence for Darwinian processes creating a single molecular machine? Yes or no? Please don’t bother with another diatribe on basic mathematical probability, full of ad hominems, which attempt to deflect attention away from my questions about real-time empirical evidence. Just present the real time evidence. If you can. For once try and be honest." "A noisy gong, A clanging cymbal, thy name is JVL."
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Yet, that JVL would try to change the subject from real-time empirical evidence to questions about mathematical probability is an ironic and self-defeating thing for JVL to try to do. There's a clear point I'm making: if you cannot show basic competence in probability then it's clear you cannot possibly evaluate probabilistic arguments as correct or not. If you cannot accurately evaluate probabilistic arguments then many of the arguments you link to are actually beyond your ability to evaluate. Which means you are taking them on faith. Which means you are not making a scientific argument; you are making a faith argument. I don't have a problem with a faith-based argument, as long as it's acknowledged as such. As long as it's honest and clear. Moreover, besides Darwinists using “the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’” mathematics itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence and can not possibly be reduced to the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution. Thanks for making it even clearer: you cannot do basic mathematics. You haven't even got the sheer basic honest to admit you can't answer my questions. Who covers up their failings? Who tries to sidestep things they profess to know about but actually haven't got a clue? Who does something like that? An honest and sincere person? Someone who is humble and penitent? Or is that the sign of someone who is desperately trying to avoid admitting they haven't got a clue? Can you answer my very basic probability questions? Yes or no? Please don't bother with another copy-and-paste diatribe full of excerpts which attempt to deflect attention away from my questions. Just answer them. If you can. For once try and be honest. Clearly you agree with me that not knowing the answers to my basic probability queries casts aspersions on you interpretation of any and all probabilistic arguments or you wouldn't be desperately trying to sideline the conversation. But that doesn't explain why you are choosing not to be honest and straightforward. What does denying the truth get you? Who is going to give you a pat on the back for avoiding being honest? What reward are you hoping for that says: well done, you lied by omission? Is that the kind of example you want to be known for? Really? So, again, can you answer my basic probability questions, yes or no? In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace himself, co-discover of natural selection, held that our ability to do mathematics was proof, in and of itself, for the existence of the human soul. But you don't have the ability to do mathematics do you? Does that mean you haven't got a soul?JVL_{March 14, 2023
March
03
Mar
14
14
2023
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply