Scrub jays too weird for Wired mag?

_{News
March 13, 2015

Darwinism, Evolution, News

3}_{Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
News}

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

That’s, like, weird. From Wired:

As she gathered more and more data on different populations of the birds around the island, Langin had a revelation: The birds, members of one single species, had split into two varieties in different habitats. Island scrub jays living in oak forests have shorter bills, good for cracking acorns. Their counterparts in pine forests have longer bills, which seem better adapted to prying open pine cones. That may not appear to be something you’d consider a “revelation,” but it really is—if you believe in evolution. Ever since Darwin and his famous finches, biologists have thought that in order for a species to diverge into two new species, the two populations had to be physically isolated. Those finches, for instance, each live on a different Galapagos island, where their special circumstances have resulted in specialized bill shapes. Yet the two varieties of island scrub jay (they haven’t technically speciated—yet) live on the same tiny island. If they wanted to meet each other for a brunch of acorns and/or pine nuts and perhaps later some mating, they could just fly right over.

This is very, very weird. It’s an affront to a sacred tenet of evolution you probably learned in school: Isolation drives speciation. Well, speciation can also come about in a broadly distributed population, with individuals at one end evolving differently than individuals at the other, but nothing kicks evolution into overdrive quite like separation. Without it, two varieties should regularly breed and homogenize, canceling out something like different bill shapes (though rarely the two types of island scrub jay will in fact interbreed). And the island scrub jay isn’t alone in its evolutionary bizarreness. In the past decade, scientists have found more and more species that have diverged without isolation. Langin’s discovery with island scrub jays, published last week in the journal Evolution, is perhaps the most dramatic illustration of this yet. More.

Okay, first, knock out the bong pipe. Shower and put on some shoes. Have a look at the job board.

Darwin was wrong about everything except the fact that you could make a living somewhere, high in California. Turns out you can. About the rest, we dunno.

The birds had to be smarter than you. Not so hard.

By the way, all that Darwin’s finches stuff is nonsense too.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

But Piotr, I’m unwilling to be attacked by a third party
Does joining the discussion and asking a question deserve to be called an attack?
unless that party demonstrates intellectual fairness first. Do you agree that Curly made a blunder when he equated the occurrence of errors such as antennapedia with the generation of new body plans? Do you agree with me that when evolutionary biologists talk about the development of new body plans, they don’t mean freaks like that?
No, I don't think Curly made a blunder. You have already admitted that body plans are not sharply distinct but form a hierarchy (from "general" to "local"). We have a pretty complete chain of intermediate "body plans" between early artiodactyls and modern cetaceans, or prom sarcopterygian "fish" and terrestrial tetrapods. The common ancestor of dogs and starfish was some sort of primitive deuterostome whose body plan you would probably regard as "worm-like". Early Cambrian echinoderms and chordates were still relatively unspecialised and not all that different from the common ancestor. Now, half a billion years later, the differences are of course enormous, and half a billion years of evolution leading to "really new" body plans would be hard to replay in a lab. Curly gave a good and valid example of how major modifications (e.g. the number and location of legs -- arguably part of the definition of a body plan) can be caused by small genetic changes.Piotr_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PST}

Timaeus, we have direct evidence that small changes to DNA can result in changes to body plan. I gave you a couple examples. It is not under debate. Just because Timaeus says the anatomical changes aren't significant enough to call it a change in body plan doesn't make it so.Curly Howard_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PST}

Piotr: Vertebrate body plans vary in detail, so we have to distinguish between very large and general features of layout, and smaller or more "local" features. The very large and general layout is close in a dog and a human, but different in a starfish. That is obvious. Still, there are significant "local" body plan differences between a dog and a human, differences which it would be foolish to ignore; and there are significant differences between the arrangements of a whale and of a primitive wolf-like creature such as Mesonyx or between a whale and a primitive hypothetical hippo-like animal. (And of course, in speaking only of anatomical differences related to body plan, we are abstracting and oversimplifying, because there are many important physiological differences to be taken into account as well.) So the question arises whether the classical neo-Darwinian mechanism (random mutation plus natural selection) is sufficient to bridge such gaps. Whether one answers yes or no to that question, the evidence that needs to be debated is, so to speak, on the same epistemological plane, and there is no reason, as two people here are suggesting, to say that one side only should be mentioned in ninth grade, whereas the other side should be deferred to a later (always unspecified) grade. (The grade is always unspecified because what Zachriel and Curly *really mean* is that the views of Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, etc. should not be discussed in high school *at all*. And if Zachriel and Curly had their way, those views would be driven out of the university as well, by not giving tenure to people who publish such ideas.) But Piotr, I'm unwilling to be attacked by a third party unless that party demonstrates intellectual fairness first. Do you agree that Curly made a blunder when he equated the occurrence of errors such as antennapedia with the generation of new body plans? Do you agree with me that when evolutionary biologists talk about the development of new body plans, they don't mean freaks like that? That was the point I was making to Curly regarding body plans. He said that I had made an error regarding new body plans, and then gave an example of a phenomenon which is not actually an example of developing a new body plan, and is never cited by evolutionary biologists as such. Would you agree that his reference to antennapedia in this context was erroneous?Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PST}

Definition Deficit Disorder
Definition Deficit Disorder (“DDD”), also known as the “me no speaka the English distraction” and “definition derby” is a form of sophistry by obfuscation that demands that one’s opponent fulfil unreasonable or even impossible definitional criteria, not to advance the debate but to avoid the debate by claiming one’s opponent cannot adequately define their terms.
Box_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PST}

Curly, you endorse this proposition: (taken from your own words) "small changes in the genome can lead to differences in body plan." That is the assertion of classic neo-Darwinism (in its post-Crick/Watson form). That is exactly what is disputed by many leading evolutionary biologists today, biologists whose work you appear, based on your comments, not to have read, and whose names, based on your comments, appear to be entirely unfamiliar to you. Yet, not having read these biologists or even recognizing their names, you are sure that their ideas have no place in an introductory biology course -- while remaining equally sure that the view that *you* endorse remains part of that course, by state law and court decision. Put in terms of formal logic, you think that proposition X is "established science" which should be taught on the curriculum, whereas proposition "not-X" is speculative science for which there is no time on the curriculum. But X and not-X are on the same logical and epistemological plane, and appeal to the same body of empirical evidence, and therefore belong on the same curriculum. To insist that X be made a mandatory part of the curriculum, but to ban not-X because "there isn't enough time to fit it in," is epistemologically entirely unjustified. Presumably in the 1800s you would have opposed allowing the claim "there is no luminiferous ether" into the school physics program, and would have given monopoly status to "there is a luminiferous ether." And perhaps in another era you would have insisted that the schools teach only phlogiston theory because there "wasn't time" to teach all this newfangled stuff of Priestley et al. about combustion having something to do with oxygen gas. Indeed, in early 1860, just a few months after Darwin's *Origin* came out, presumably you would have opposed his notions of evolution being mentioned for five minutes by zoology teachers, on the grounds that there "wasn't time in an introductory course" to introduce new ideas when there was so much "settled science" (settled science like the direct divine creation of new species) that had to be covered in a limited time. If you cannot see the intellectual bias in your approach to school curriculum and classroom teaching, then you are not the sort of person with whom one can have a profitable intellectual conversation. As for your self-estimation of how much biology you know, you are entitled to your own opinion. But the only "Curly Howard" I ever knew didn't know much biology, and the words you've added here don't augment his knowledge by much. Perhaps you would like to take off your mask and tell us which department of evolutionary biology you currently teach in? Or which government lab you serve in as lead geneticist?Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PST}

#234 Timaeus, What about a dog and a human, or a sparrow and a snake, or an elephant and a goldfish? Do all vertebrates have a common "major body plan"?Piotr_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PST}

Zachriel: "You forgot to define body plan." And you "forgot" to respond to 90% of my answers to you in my last few posts. Why should I keep humoring you with answers, when you don't reciprocate? Are you going to respond to my question whether a high school physics teacher in an introductory physics class would be wrong to spend some class time discussing the moon landings? And that's just an example of many points I've made that you've not responded to. I gave you a clear example of a "major body plan" difference -- between starfish and dog, for example. Do you need a formal definition to get the big picture?Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PST}

Timaeus: And it remains true that Curly is mixed up about the term “body plan.” You forgot to define body plan.Zachriel_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

Yes that is exactly what someone who knows nothing about biology would think, Joe.Curly Howard_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PST}

Curly, Shut up, your desperation is showing. The experiment shows that changes in regulatory sequences have nasty consequences. There isn't anything with that experiment that helps your position.Joe_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PST}

Is that what I claimed, Timaeus? No, it's not. It was an experiment that shows how small changes in the genome can lead to differences in body plan. And no, I am not confused about what "body plan" means, you just like to use your own definitions to suit your own needs. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.Curly Howard_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PST}

Zachriel (225): Even if your statement is true, my statement was precisely worded and, as worded, also remains true. There is no evolutionary theorist who would make the statement I gave. And it remains true that Curly is mixed up about the term "body plan." I didn't see "we" in your answer, and I want to congratulate you for temporarily adopting adult social behavior.Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST}

AS
I think Michael Denton has distanced himself from the ID movement.
I purchased this film from the DI recently - (along with an excellent film, it's a good way to give some financial support).
Privileged Species is a 33-minute documentary by Discovery Institute that explores growing evidence from physics, chemistry, biology, and related fields that our universe was designed for large multi-cellular beings like ourselves. Featuring geneticist and author Michael Denton
Michael Denton is impressive, as always. I wouldn't say he distanced himself from ID. His "Evolution, A Theory in Crisis" was a tremendous work - which actually inspired Michael Behe to take a harder look at his own evolutionary assumptions (which he didn't really question that deeply at the time).Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PST}

Aurelio Smith: You asked me for a definition of ID, and I provided it. You are free to criticize ID for not having done enough to defend its position. I didn't undertake to prove to you that ID was a true account of the origin of things. I was responding to your challenge that ID is inadequately defined. I don't know how you think there is "no useful distinction" between ID and creationism when I just laid out several major distinctions! Which of those distinctions did you not understand? Have you tried reading something by Ken Ham and something by Behe, side by side? Do you not think there are "useful" distinctions between Behe and Ham? (Ham certainly thinks so; indeed, on his website he has attacked Behe and other ID proponents.) "Creationism" in the discourse of creation/evolution/design debates does not mean "belief that the world was created by God." If that were the case, then Darwinians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins would be "creationists." Indeed, by that definition all believing Jews, Christians and Muslims are "creationists." But the actual definition of creationism in these US culture-war debates is narrower. It refers to a particular way of employing the Bible in origins debates, to restrict the conclusions that natural science is allowed to come to. ID per se makes no such use of the Bible; nor do I. Your statement about Michael Denton shows that you rely on very old news. Denton some years ago distanced himself, not from the idea of design in nature, but only from the Discovery Institute. However, he has been back again as a Discovery Fellow for quite some time, and publishes articles in ID venues such as BioComplexity. At no point did he ever go back on his arguments for design in nature. He merely refrains from getting involved in culture-war quarrels over Christianity versus atheism, debates over the relationship between Nazi science and Darwinism, etc. He sticks to the scientific data pertinent to the question of origins. Behe is not the only ID supporter to accept common descent. Vincent Torley here on UD seems to accept it, as also Denyse O'Leary. Former UD moderator Dave Scot accepted it as well. I think that StephenB accepts common descent, last I heard. And of course if ID were intrinsically anti-common-descent, there is no way that Discovery would have Behe and Denton as Fellows or promote their books. The issue for ID is not common descent versus non-common descent. ID proponents fall on both sides of that divide. The issue for ID is design versus chance. All ID proponents, whatever they may think about common descent, agree that chance alone, or chance plus natural laws alone, cannot explain what we observer in nature. They think that design has to brought in as a cause. They differ over how, where, or when design comes into play, as is evident in the writings of Denton, Meyer, etc. But they all think that design is involved. In sum, if "creationist" means "anti-evolutionist" then ID itself is not creationist, though individual ID proponents might incidentally, as a matter of personal biography, also be creationists. ID is a "big tent" organized around a different principle than "evolution versus creation," and therefore it is not surprising that it includes both "evolutionists" and "creationists" (in the narrow sense) in its embrace. Nor is it surprising that it includes Jews and Muslims and Hindus and agnostics and Deists in its embrace. That's in the very nature of its claims, that it doesn't recognize those differences as important for its purposes. So I stand here arguing alongside YECs, OECs, and evolutionists. I don't agree with the YECs and OECs on a number of religious points, and a number of scientific points, but that doesn't matter, because I'm not here to debate theology, or the age of the earth, or the Big Bang. I'm here to discuss Darwinism versus design. On other sites, where the subject is the age of the earth, or the proper way of reading the Bible, I might well (and have) criticized certain creationist positions. But this is an ID site, and so my differences with creationism aren't of any concern.Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PST}

Actually, the conventional view in evolutionary biology is that insect legs and antennae are each specializations of body segmentation.
And that is true unless some intelligent agency messes with the developmental process.Joe_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PST}

Timaeus: No evolutionary biologist in the world thinks that important new insect classes evolved because an ancient insect’s antenna once appeared where its leg was supposed to be, or vice versa. Actually, the conventional view in evolutionary biology is that insect legs and antennae are each specializations of body segmentation.Zachriel_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST}

You might want to define what you mean by body plan, because number of limbs is generally considered part of a bauplan.
Only a fool would think what happened to the fruit flies is an example of producing new body plans. Enter Zachriel and curly...Joe_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST}

I am still unconvinced there is any useful distinction to be made between ID and Evangelical Christian worldviews.
That is due to your willful ignorance and inability to assess the evidence. The simple fact is there isn't any evolutionary theory. Unguided evolution doesn't posit any entailments, predictions nor testable hypotheses.Joe_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PST}

Curly: You're an ignoramus. No evolutionary biologist in the world thinks that important new insect classes evolved because an ancient insect's antenna once appeared where its leg was supposed to be, or vice versa. The origin of new basic body plans is an ongoing area of research in evolutionary biology. It's clear you don't know much about the debates in that area.Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PST}

Zachriel: To take an extreme difference, there is the difference between the basic body plan of a starfish and that of a dog. There are less extreme differences as well. But I would not say that, e.g., (hypothetical example) a millipede species with 36 pairs of legs has a different *basic* body plan from one with 32 pairs of legs -- if that is the *only* difference between the two species. However, as I think you well know, errors such as antennapedia are considered just that -- errors, freaks, etc. -- not systematic alterations in body plan such as we see between different phyla, and sometimes in different classes or orders. Curly's "correction" of my "error" was itself based on a misunderstanding of the usage of the term. Regarding curriculum, it would not be necessary to eliminate *any* of the units you have specified in order for a creative, knowledgeable teacher to slip in a brief discussion or mention, lasting from as little as one minute to as long as half an hour, depending on time available "between the cracks" of the units, concerning recent disputes over evolutionary mechanism. By your reasoning, and Curly's, if the Large Hadron Collider discovered evidence of a parallel universe tomorrow, a physics teacher would not be allowed to mention it in introductory physics class because "there isn't time in an introductory course without sacrificing some important element of the curriculum"; but that is just stupid. Do you think that no introductory physics teacher in America took any time at all to discuss the NASA space program in 1969 in the lead-up to the moon landing, on the grounds that it wasn't officially in the introductory physics curriculum? If you were a parent, would you have been angry at the physics teacher for spending 15 minutes talking about the space program at that time? You and Curly are being ridiculous. You know perfectly well, as I've said umpteen times, that I'm talking about something very small -- maybe only a sentence in the textbook in a footnote, maybe only a ten-minute discussion of "current unknowns" at the very end of the unit on evolutionary theory. You and Curly don't want to allow even that, and despite your phony arguments, your motivation *is not* that "there isn't enough time in the curriculum." There certainly is enough time for what I've indicated. The fact is, you and Curly don't want the dissenting views even *mentioned*; everything else you have said is just smokescreen to cover up that political aim. I have to laugh at your continued rhetorical appeal against "modern speculation"; the entire neo-Darwinian theory, as articulated by Mayr, Dobzhansky, Gaylord Simpson and Huxley, was a "modern speculation" (e.g., Dobzhansky specifically admitted that the continuity of mechanism between micro- and macroevolution had to be assumed and was not something he or anyone could demonstrate) and yet this speculation was taught in introductory biology class from about the time of Sputnik onward. The speculations you personally happen to agree with, you want taught in the curriculum; the speculations you don't like, you want kept out of the curriculum. If I'm wrong about your motivation, then why, during this entire discussion, have you not said even once that while you wouldn't mention Shapiro, Newman, Wagner, etc. or their ideas in ninth-grade biology, you think they *should* be mentioned in the next grade of biology? You could easily have said at the beginning. But of course, your remarks against Shapiro (whose book I am not convinced you've done more than skim for 5 minutes) indicated that it has nothing to do with instructional time, or with beginning versus advanced concepts; you just don't like Shapiro and don't want his ideas presented in high school. And you refuse to even discuss the ideas of Newman, Wagner, etc. I guess you aren't familiar with them. But I suppose if you were, you'd be against them, too. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative. Darwinian evolutionary theory is highly speculative.Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST}

Timaeus: First, your condescending attitude toward an earlier generation of evolutionary biologists is noted. The fact is, had you lived then, you would have been just as sure of yourself about the evidence as you are now. The issue wasn't whether there were open questions in evolutionary biology — there certainly are! —, but what should be taught to children in introductory biology. Here's a typical curriculum:
characteristics of cells and cell structure, classification, tissues and organs, mitosis and meiosis, biochemistry, genes to proteins, photosynthesis and respiration, Mendelian genetics, common descent, history of life, natural selection, ecology, studies of specific taxa: bacteria, viruses, humans, lab work.
One doesn't generally teach modern speculations in introductory science classes. But if you did, what would you replace? Cell structure? The history of life? Timaeus: Someone who doesn’t even know what is meant by a “body plan” is in no position to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about! You might want to define what you mean by body plan, because number of limbs is generally considered part of a bauplan.Zachriel_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

Are you trying to say that the examples of homeotic mutations that I gave, don’t represent changes in body plan?
They don't represent changes in body plans. You are a deluded and desperate moron.Joe_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

I can tell how much you know about biology just by how you talk about it, Timaeus. Are you trying to say that the examples of homeotic mutations that I gave, don't represent changes in body plan? I hope not, because both examples I gave are mutations that lead to large differences in body plan. But hey, if you want to ignore those examples, then be my guest. It doesn't matter to me. I'm just a "Darwin groupie."Curly Howard_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PST}

what marbles?Mung_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PST}

Curly: How can you guarantee that you know more about biology than I do, when you know NOTHING about my educational and personal background? Second, even if you knew more about "biology in general" than I did, it would not follow that you knew more about *evolutionary theory specifically* than I do. Lots of people with even Ph.D.s in one area or another of biology know very little about evolutionary theory, and the typical B.S. grad in biology knows nothing about evolutionary theory, beyond one compulsory sophomore course in "genetics and evolution" or the like. An intelligent general reader can easily catch up to and surpass a typical biology grad in knowledge of evolutionary theory, just by general diligence and rigorous thought. In any case, who knows more in the abstract isn't important here. The point is that many in the readership here are evolution-followers, and they all *know* what is meant by "development of new body plans" in evolutionary theory. You obviously don't, since you think that a *mechanical error* which puts an eye where a leg should be is the design of a "new body plan." This shows your complete ignorance of the basic terminology of evolutionary discussion. If you don't understand "body plan," how can we trust that you understand "selection" or "microevolution" or any of the other terms that you throw around? So I couldn't care less what you think, even if you have a degree in biology (which is very unlikely); you're a clod when it comes to evolutionary theory. I know it, and Joe spotted it, and everyone else here who knows anything will have spotted it from that stupid foot-in-mouth of yours. Give it up, Curly. You're out of your depth here. Nobody will believe you after that blunder (which is ironical, because you made the blunder believing you had caught me in a blunder); everyone has marked you as another typical internet Darwin groupie, and there is now nothing you can say or do to escape that label. I'd suggest you pick up your marbles and go home.Timaeus_{March 28, 2015
March
03
Mar
28
28
2015
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PST}

reading and writing is two different things. remember, you heard it here first.Mung_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PST}

Timaeus,how many times do I have to say it, reading the material and understanding the material is two entirely different things. You can claim to have read tens of thousands of pages all you want, but the fact remains that you have not demonstrated an understanding. Like I said, legs arising from tissue that normally would produce antenna isn't an example of a change in body plan? Get real. I can guarantee that I know much more about biology than you. The fact that you can't even realize this is quite telling.Curly Howard_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PST}

Curly: I've read literally tens of thousands of pages of evolutionary theory, general biology, ID, TE and related material over the past 10 years. I know this material. You don't. You don't know what is meant by "new body plan" in the literature. And your science background is clearly zilch. At least Zachriel has some science knowledge -- much less than he thinks he has, but some. You have none. You're just another "Darwin groupie" chiming in on what you imagine will be the winning side. Learn some basic evolutionary biology before you talk here again. At the moment, your contributions are not useful.Timaeus_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PST}

No Curly, the fruit flies are not an example of a new body plan. It's an example of what mutations to regulatory sequences do, ie cause hopeless deformities, like you.Joe_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST}

Oh right Timaeus, new body plans has nothing to do with mutations that cause legs to arise where antenna usually are or wings arise where there usually aren't wings. I deal with people who say they "read the book" all the time and yet they still manage to fail exams. There's a difference between reading the material and actually understanding it. It's funny because you strike me as the person who "reads science blogs" and probably plenty of non-science blogs, and then offers uninformed ideas.Curly Howard_{March 27, 2015
March
03
Mar
27
27
2015
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply