Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A Darwinian Enigma: Defending The Preposterous After Having Been Informed

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Behe and I had the same reaction after reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Our reaction was, “Why haven’t we heard any of this stuff before?”

The answer is simple. All criticisms of Darwinian orthodoxy were successfully branded by Darwinists as the mindless fantasies of religious fanatics whose purpose was to destroy “science.”

But let us ask, Who are those who have engaged in mindless fantasies concerning origins?

In the information age, the notion that random errors can produce highly sophisticated biological information, information-processing machinery, and the associated error-detection-and-repair mechanisms and algorithms, is so preposterous that I conclude that Darwinists have either lost their minds, are pathetically uninformed, or have chosen to deny evidence, rationality, and the discoveries of modern science in order pursue a thoroughly irrational commitment to materialistic philosophy.

In an attempt to defend the clearly preposterous, Darwinists have become the preeminent enemies of science concerning origins.

Comments
I'm not so sure about that, Neil. Darwinism seems to have secured its place in the curriculum without any compelling research results at all.APM
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Except that, instead of the cute 1st grade teacher crying with big doe eyes, "WHY DO HATE CHRISTMAS!!!???" we get Richard Dawkins screaming "WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE!!!??? To which I respond, "Why do you hate God, who gave you the science you hold so dear?"APM
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
WOW a strawman of a strawman, nice move Neil. Can you do that trick while standing on one foot and rubbing your head???bornagain77
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
As best I can tell, what has been falsified is the strawman that the ID folk have been erecting.Neil Rickert
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
I think Hitler once said that it is easier to persuade the people with a big lie than with a small one.Mytheos
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
forgetting all the "ghosts" etc. is "creator" as preposterous, given all the "apparent": design, free will; is it *more* preposterous than all the apparent design having come about by chemical reactions (not to mention the inability to explain the origin of matter and energy)? thankses58
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Neil: I would definitely say that the falsification of the current absurd paradigm for the generation of biological information is a compelling research result.gpuccio
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
And the reaction to ID has always been to make everything possible to keep it out of the scientific world.
Personally, I would welcome ID into the science world, once it has developed some significant scientific progress. Here's how to go about it. Start with a research program that produces results so compelling that other scientists have to take notice. Once that happens, you will see scientists wanting to introduce it as a special topic class in graduate school. And, if progress continues, there will be a move to make it a regular graduate class. With further progress, it might eventually filter down to the undergraduate level, and perhaps even to the high school level. That's the way new science enters the curriculum. But you do have to start with the compelling research results.Neil Rickert
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Actually Petrushka, finding, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information within functional proteins eliminated even that severely stretched, and consistently unsubstantiated, possibility from the materialistic neo-Darwinian framework:
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
But hey Petrushka, its only science! :) To keep your delusional, nihilistic, atheistic fantasies alive, all you have to do is refute Alain Aspect's, and company, falsification of local realism. Perhaps you can kick the experiments and paper out before lunch??? :)bornagain77
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
Fortunately that is an empirical question and one actively being investigated.
Just don't print that in a biology book or propose saying it in a classroom or else the NCSE will rain hell on you. I think we're supposed to keep it a secret. Sort of like telling 1st graders that there's no Santa Claus.ScottAndrews2
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
You will be right if it turns out there is no incremental way of traversing the functional landscape. It all hangs on that. Fortunately that is an empirical question and one actively being investigated.Petrushka
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
Moreover, as if the preceding wasn't enough to refute neo-Darwinism, getting proteins to actually work together, so as to actually do something useful, is also exceeding difficult and exacerbates the 'impossibility' of finding functional proteins once over again:
"The likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability of developing one: a double CCC (chloroquine complexity cluster), 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the entire world in the past 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety (just 2 binding sites being generated by accident) in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." Michael J. Behe PhD. (from page 146 of his book "Edge of Evolution")
And when intelligent design, 'mere' human intelligence design that is, was used, here is the extreme difficultly the researchers encountered to arrive at JUST ONE protein-protein binding site;
Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design Sick! (as in cool) - Fazale Rana - June 2011 Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required: " ...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2" If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely? In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs requires intelligent agency to arise. Sick! http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-cool
further notes:
"Monkeys Typing Shakespeare" Simulation Illustrates Combinatorial Inflation Problem - October 2011 Excerpt: In other words, Darwinian evolution isn't going to be able to produce fundamentally new protein folds. In fact, it probably wouldn't even be able to produce a single 9-character string of nucleotides in DNA, if that string would not be retained by selection until all 9 nucleotides were in place. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/monkeys_typing_shakespeare_sim051561.html Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe - Oct 2009 Excerpt: Nature has recently published an interesting paper which places severe limits on Darwinian evolution.,,, A time-symmetric Dollo’s law turns the notion of “pre-adaptation” on its head. The law instead predicts something like “pre-sequestration”, where proteins that are currently being used for one complex purpose are very unlikely to be available for either reversion to past functions or future alternative uses. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/dollos_law_the_symmetry_of_tim.html Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009 Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975 Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.html
Moreover,
Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Here's another measure for quantum information in protein structures:
Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective: Excerpt: “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.” http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/
The preceding is solid confirmation that far more complex information resides in proteins than meets the eye, for the calculus equations used for ‘cruise control’, that must somehow reside within the quantum information that is ‘constraining’ the entire protein structure to its ‘normal’ state, is anything but ‘simple classical information’. For a sample of the equations that must be dealt with, to ‘engineer’ even a simple process control loop like cruise control along a entire protein structure, please see this following site:
PID controller Excerpt: A proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control loop feedback mechanism (controller) widely used in industrial control systems. A PID controller attempts to correct the error between a measured process variable and a desired setpoint by calculating and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust the process accordingly and rapidly, to keep the error minimal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
Music and Verse:
Newsboys - Shine http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5991456411818895007 1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"--
bornagain77
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Petrushka states:
Well having mastered checkers using a comprehensive database of moves, Gil is no doubt aware of the resources needed to build a comprehensive database of protein coding sequences.
Now Petrushka, seeing that you are a dogmatic, rabid, neo-Darwinist, at least as far as I can tell, I'm sure this is a very sarcastic remark on your part. But hidden within this sarcasm of yours is your belief that 'someone', though you don't specify exactly who, knows how to build a 'comprehensive database of protein coding sequences.' Yet, despite your hidden assumption, the plain fact is that NOBODY, (at least no human that is), knows how to build a 'comprehensive database of protein coding sequences.'
Francis Collins on Making Life Excerpt: 'We are so woefully ignorant about how biology really works. We still don't understand how a particular DNA sequence—when we just stare at it—codes for a protein that has a particular function. We can't even figure out how that protein would fold—into what kind of three-dimensional shape. And I would defy anybody who is going to tell me that they could, from first principles, predict not only the shape of the protein but also what it does.' - Francis Collins - Former Director of the Human Genome Project http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/collins-genome.html
Man's attempt to 'evolve' functional proteins from scratch has been a dismal failure:
A Man-Made ATP-Binding Protein Evolved Independent of Nature Causes Abnormal Growth in Bacterial Cells Excerpt: "Recent advances in de novo protein evolution have made it possible to create synthetic proteins from unbiased libraries that fold into stable tertiary structures with predefined functions. However, it is not known whether such proteins will be functional when expressed inside living cells or how a host organism would respond to an encounter with a non-biological protein. Here, we examine the physiology and morphology of Escherichia coli cells engineered to express a synthetic ATP-binding protein evolved entirely from non-biological origins. We show that this man-made protein disrupts the normal energetic balance of the cell by altering the levels of intracellular ATP. This disruption cascades into a series of events that ultimately limit reproductive competency by inhibiting cell division." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007385
Here is a critique of the failed attempt to 'evolve' a fit protein to replace a protein in a virus which had a gene knocked out:
New Genes: Putting the Theory Before the Evidence - January 2011 Excerpt: What they discovered was that the evolutionary process could produce only tiny improvements to the virus’ ability to infect a host. Their evolved sequences showed no similarity to the native sequence which is supposed to have evolved. And the best virus they could produce, even with the vast majority of the virus already intact, was several orders of magnitude weaker than nature’s virus. The reason their evolutionary process failed was that the search for better amino acid sequences, that would improve the virus’ ability to infect the host, became too difficult. A possible evolutionary explanation for these disappointing results is that in such a limited laboratory study, the evolutionists were simply unable to reproduce what the vast resources of nature could produce. Perhaps in the course of time evolution could evolve what the evolutionists could not do in the laboratory. But the results refuted even this fall back explanation. In fact, the evolutionists would not merely need an expanded study with more time in the laboratory, they would need more time than evolution ever had—many times over. The number of experiments they would need to conduct in order to have any hope of evolving a virus that rivals nature’s version is difficult to compute. But it is at least 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros). http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-genes-putting-theory-before.html Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html
Moreover when human 'intelligence' was thrown in on top of 'directed evolution', researchers still failed to match the 'optimal' proteins found in nature;
Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator - Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801072093
Moreover, just yesterday a paper came out that illustrated a team, of 'experts', using supercomputers, directed evolution, and all their combined knowledge of protein structures and functions, 'Intelligently designing' a metalloprotein (a protein that contains a metal cofactor) that mimics the enzyme carbonic anhydrase and could conceivably lead to a means for removing some of the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere (that many now believe is contributing to global warming). After all that concerted effort, especially including 'directed evolution', by leading experts on proteins in the field, this is their meager result:
Research group develops more efficient artificial enzyme – November 2011 Excerpt: Though the artificial enzyme is still many orders of magnitude less efficient than nature’s way of doing things, it is far more efficient than any other artificial process to date, a milestone that gives researchers hope that they will one day equal nature’s abilities. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-group-efficient-artificial-enzyme.html
The reason why they failed is that, as has been pointed out ad naseum by ID proponents, functional sequences for proteins are exceedingly rare in 'sequence space';
The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence "lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability". For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10exp140 and 1 in 10exp164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/11/10/minimal_complexity_relegates_life_origin When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/
bornagain77
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Well having mastered checkers using a comprehensive database of moves, Gil is no doubt aware of the resources needed to build a comprehensive database of protein coding sequences.Petrushka
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Neil: We learned about evolution. I never felt any pressure to believe the theory to be true. That's probably the point. The theory is simply given as true. There is no nedd to use pressure, because the consensus in the scientific world is almost universal. Except for ID. And the reaction to ID has always been to make everything possible to keep it out of the scientific world. My personal experience is completely different from yours. Being a MD, I have been taught the neo darwinian theory in what I would call "a generic form". I accepted it, with some reservations, because nobody seemed to have any doubts about it. But I really did not understand how it worked, in detail. For years, I thought that my lack of understanding was mainly due to lack of detailed knowledge. My posisition was more or less: it seems stupid, but as everybody accepts it, the problem must be that I don't really know all the evidence and the details. At that time, I was not really interested to deepen my understanding of the issue, so I just waited. ID has been, for me, a sudden revelation: what if, after all, my spontaneous reservations were not due to personal misunderstanding, but to real flaws in the theory? So, I started thinking seriously and reading seriously. And now I have no more doubts. I am really convinced, scientifically convinced and cognitively as sure as it is possible to be: it was not my fualt, it was not lack of understanding: the theory is wrong. Utterly, absolutely wrong. But that really does not describe my personal feeling. The only way I can really express it, and believe me, I don't want to offend anyone saying that, is that the theory is stupid. That so many intelligent people still believe in it is, for me, one of the most amazing enigmas in contemporary culture. So, I fully understand Gil's position. He is right. He is deeply, sincerely, absolutely right. And by the way, as you certainly know, free will, even in its most libertarian forms (like mine), certainly does not imply that we are not subject to very strong influences. The influence of the universal cognitive hypnosis that has been going on for decades is certainly very strong.gpuccio
November 29, 2011
November
11
Nov
29
29
2011
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
Neil, Indeed, that is preposterous. But evolutionists are not suggesting that. Get real, and be honest. That is precisely what they are suggesting, always with the argument that natural selection is not random, which of course it is not, but it produces nothing new. The essence of Darwinian philosophy is that random errors can produce the exact opposite of randomness. This is superbly illogical. I'm thoroughly familiar with Monte Carlo methods. Trial and error can be a useful tool in an intelligently designed computer program, given a limited search space, sufficient computational resources, and a goal in mind. None of this has anything to do with extrapolating Monte Carlo methods in computation to the origin of information in biological systems. Unsupported extrapolations such as this are the hallmark of Darwinian speculation, which is the antithesis of rigorous scientific investigation.GilDodgen
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT
Oft in error, never in doubt.Robert Sheldon
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
The answer is simple. All criticisms of Darwinian orthodoxy were successfully branded by Darwinists as the mindless fantasies of religious fanatics whose purpose was to destroy “science.”
I find this hard to understand. I took a biology class as an undergraduate, though that was not my major. We learned about evolution. I never felt any pressure to believe the theory to be true. I took it as an interesting theory, something to try to understand, but not anything that I was required to believe. For that matter, I approach all science in the same way. That is, I start with skepticism, but attempt to understand the theory. Only later, when I have enough related knowledge, will I make up my mind. In the case of evolution, I did not finally accept it until after I had read the Crick and Watson book. And even then, I still retained some skepticism over the neo-Darwinian account. So here's what I am wondering. One of the other topics that often comes up at this site, is free will. So, Gil, why would you not have exercised your free will to withhold a decision on evolution, instead of feeling indoctrinated and obliged to accept it?
In the information age, the notion that random errors can produce highly sophisticated biological information, information-processing machinery, and the associated error-detection-and-repair mechanisms and algorithms, is so preposterous that ...
Indeed, that is preposterous. But evolutionists are not suggesting that. You claim that you work in information processing. You have surely heard of Monte Carlo methods which use randomness in algorithms. It isn't randomness magically creating something wonderful. It is the use of randomness as a technique for exploring possibilities.Neil Rickert
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
But I have numerous documentaries that say that life did arise on its own and then turned into people. And the news is always telling me that it happened that way. And in school I was taught that it happened that way. And on all my favorite movies they say it happened that way. And the blokes at work say it happened that way too. How can Sheldon be wrong?Mytheos
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Just so it doesnt become a mutual back-slapping event, the godless regard the existence of ghosts and demons and angels etc, as pretty preposterous as well. Im afraid I find it hard to entertain the possibility of an invisible sky-daddy for more than a few seconds myself.Graham
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Sometimes the truth is so obvious that one must perform a self-lobotomy in order not to see it. Fortunately, I was rescued that ignominious fate.GilDodgen
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
This point has been made before in this blog, I believe by you, Gil, but it does bear repeating. Looked at from a paradigm neutral position (no preconceived bias) it truly IS preposterous. It's a monumentally stupid idea. It's unbelievable that intelligent, educated people could entertain it for more than a nanosecond. Yet they do. I guess it's testimony to the power that one's paradigms can hold over one. The Darwinists seem to be enslaved to their worldview. Of course, this is a universal human characteristic. ANY worldview can enslave a person. The take-away? We would be wise to examine carefully anything we take as true without question.Bruce David
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Excerpt: In the information age, the notion that random errors can produce highly sophisticated biological information, information-processing machinery, and the associated error-detection-and-repair mechanisms and algorithms, is so preposterous that I conclude that Darwinists have either lost their minds, are pathetically uninformed, or have chosen to deny evidence, rationality, and the discoveries of modern science in order pursue a thoroughly irrational commitment to materialistic philosophy.
Don't be bashful Gil, what are you really trying to say? :) Nail, Head, Hammered!!!,,,bornagain77
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply