Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human evolution: Oldest hand-crafted flute so far is 35,000 years old

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The pieces of the ancient flute

comprise a 22-centimetre instrument with five holes and a notched end. Conard said the flute is 35,000 years old.

“It’s unambiguously the oldest instrument in the world,” said Conard. His findings were published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Other archeologists agreed with Conard’s assessment.

Well, that’s reassuring.

The Hohle Fels flute is more complete and appears slightly older than bone and ivory fragments from seven other flutes recovered in southern German caves and documented by Conard and his colleagues in recent years.

Now, here’s the interesting part:

Roebroeks said it’s difficult to say how cognitively and socially advanced these people were. But the physical trappings of their lives — including musical instruments, personal decorations and figurative art — match the objects we associate with modern human behaviour, he said.

“It shows that from the moment that modern humans enter Europe … it is as modern in terms of material culture as it can get,” Roebroeks said.

That’s the thing about the evolution of human culture. It never actually seems to happen. Someone just makes a flute and starts playing it, and soon every tribe has a flute.

A bit like the history of mathematics, I suppose. Someone just invents an idea like the Pythagorean theorem or zero, and everyone just picks up from there.

Comments
vjtorley:
We now have something which is close to a comprehensive account of nature, even if we haven’t tied it all together yet. We can basically enumerate the natural causes at work in the world. We know that there are four forces in nature, and we know how strong they are. We also know the approximate size and age of the cosmos. Unless the multiverse turns out to exist, there are no big surprises out there.
I would have to disagree. Even if we had a fairly exhaustive knowledge of the fundamental interactions of physics, which I don't know that we have, that knowledge wouldn't give us a grasp of the many phenomena that supervene on those fundamentals. I used the Mandelbrot Set as an example in a previous thread. The definition of the set is trivial, but its high-level properties can be studied for years, and still yield surprises. Likewise, a lot of simple computer programs yield surprising results. Artifical life apps, cellular automata, and other systems at the edge of chaos show behaviors that nobody could have tractably predicted.R0b
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
I even used a smiley! Oh well. Nonetheless, no testing to date has determined what natural mechanisms, if any, could be responsible for life - its smallest components or most complex arrangements of them. Science has bestowed the prestige of certainty upon Darwinism without waiting for the facts. The rhetoric really needs to go down a few notches until some natural causes are established, which realistically may never happen.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
and if alternatives are being ridiculed it is either because they are not being tested or are not capable of being tested.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Scott, sarcasm isn't useful. a hypothesis is tested over and over again. even if all the available evidence supports it, it continues to be tested in the form of related hypotheses, or hypotheses that are built off of it. in other words, testing is a good thing and a mark of good science.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
THey are constantly being tested.
Then it was all just a bad dream. I dreamed that science had drawn its conclusions before the testing and evaluation. It was horrible! They were making proclamation of facts and ridiculing alternatives, even though they were only just testing their hypotheses. Teachers weren't even allowed to tell students that there were unanswered questions. Tonight I'll sleep with the lights on.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Yes, someone should start evaluating them, given that they constitute the foundation of all biology.
THey are constantly being tested. pick up any issue of Evolution, American Naturalist, even tabloids like Nature and Science and you'll see that.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Second, one of the reasons why this is so is that you can not simply eliminate all natural mechanisms with one fell swoop. each one has to be evaluated individually.
Yes, someone should start evaluating them, given that they constitute the foundation of all biology. :)
and even if every single natural hypothesis you test is falsified, that still does not make design any more likely to be true than a natural mechanism that you overlooked. they both have zero evidence in favor of them.
I think that's reasonable, even if I don't agree. Part of what fuels this debate is ideological dogmatism that requires explicit evidence on the one side and none on the other.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Scott et al., First, ya'll are talking as if Dembski's math has ever been shown to have any relevance to biology. it hasn't. as far as I can tell, it is mathematically sound but completely irrelevant to biology. Second, one of the reasons why this is so is that you can not simply eliminate all natural mechanisms with one fell swoop. each one has to be evaluated individually. and even if every single natural hypothesis you test is falsified, that still does not make design any more likely to be true than a natural mechanism that you overlooked. they both have zero evidence in favor of them. if you want to test for design, you have to provide a discrete testable hypothesis and actually test it.Khan
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Mark Frank @61: No. What drew me to the discussion was the magic hand-waving that makes evidence and logic vanish, leaving us to accept speculative science fiction as the only explanation of our existence (see #32.) Somehow folks think that by splitting hairs they can claim that the impossible happened without having to provide an explanation.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
R0b, That's what I find astonishing. When natural causes are demonstrated to be improbable, they are nonetheless accepted as inevitable. The only logical alternative, having no such contrary evidence, is dismissed. I get your point about the rocks on Mars. But we're not talking about rocks - we're talking about complex codes and machines. If we observed such things on Mars, no one would give natural causes a second thought, unless they appeared to be alive. That is the arbitrary line.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Diffaxial I'm glad we agree that there are significant disanalogies between ideas and genes. You then wrote:
What “evolves” in cultural evolution are practices, techniques, and behavioral, expressive and symbolic traditions (and so forth), “forms of life” that are indeed amenable to change.
I think that culture develops in a different way from science and technology. Cultural practices may indeed evolve, after a fashion, as you suggest. However, I don't think mathematics evolves, or even agriculture. In these fields, progress is made by someone having a brainwave, telling everyone about their new idea and persuading people that it is indeed a better way of doing things, in some absolute sense of the word. In biology, the very idea of "better" or "progress" is utterly meaningless; all a gene can be is "fitness-promoting here and now." In human culture, too, it is hard to see what "progress" would mean. Only in the fields of science, technology and ethics can we unambiguously use that term.vjtorley
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews, as Mark pointed out, the CSI measure does not indicate the merit of a design hypothesis. Rather, it measures the lack of merit in a natural hypothesis. That's fundamental to Dembski's approach -- recall that the subtitle of The Design Inference is Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. In that book and elsewhere, Dembski gives reasons for not evaluating the merits of design hypotheses. As one would expect, this approach can yield some strange results. For instance, consider two cases: (1) I discover a circular ring of rocks in the desert near my home. (2) We discover a circular ring of rocks in the Martian desert. In Dembski's method, the known existence of humans near my home, and the lack of known intelligent life on Mars are irrelevant to the design inference. The ring of rocks yields an equally strong design inference in both cases, since we don't know of a natural process that would yield such a pattern. Are those the same conclusions you would draw if you didn't use Dembski's approach?R0b
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Mark Frank #46
ID deduces intelligence from the presence of CSI and IC. However, if you look at the definition of these two you will see that they are defined in terms of “no natural cause”. So in the end ID deduces intelligence from the lack of known natural cause.
This objection is certainly not true for irreducible complexity (IC). Behe defines an IC system as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, New York: Touchstone, p. 39). Nothing here about "no natural cause." CSI is more difficult to pin down, as the definitions have varied in the literature. For the sake of brevity, I shall confine my comments to Dr. Dembski's his earlier papers, where he defined complex specified information (CSI) as being present in a specified event whose probability did not exceed 1 in 10^150. Only then did he proceed to argue that laws of nature and/or chance, operating in the absence of intelligence, could not plausibly be said to generate such information. On the other hand, we do know that some intelligent beings are capable of readily generating CSI. After that, Dr. Dembski inferred that CSI was a hallmark of intelligence. No circularity here; "no natural cause" is a conclusion, not part of the definition. #36
The ID logic is - known natural cause cannot explain it, therefore a designer. To do the reverse - no known designer, therefore natural - would equally be a fallacy.
There is an asymmetry here. We now have something which is close to a comprehensive account of nature, even if we haven't tied it all together yet. We can basically enumerate the natural causes at work in the world. We know that there are four forces in nature, and we know how strong they are. We also know the approximate size and age of the cosmos. Unless the multiverse turns out to exist, there are no big surprises out there. Hence "No plausible natural cause, therefore a supernatural cause," may well be a legitimate inference. However, we currently have no way of even beginning to enumerate the intelligent agents at work in the world. We don't even know the size of the range over which they can vary. We don't have a theory of intelligent agency which would permit us to even make an estimate. Hence, "no known designer, therefore a natural cause" is an illegitimate inference. An unknown designer is also a possibility. #49
We have to sit down and look at specific hypotheses. We cannot just look at the outcome and say “designed” or “natural”... We need to propose hypotheses - examine the prior probability of each hypothesis and the comparative likelihood of the observed data based on the rival hypotheses and be prepared to admit that we just don’t understand.
So you admit that the probability of intelligent design as an explanation for CSI is greater than zero? I'm glad we can agree on that. #52
Obviously you can go on elaborating hypothetical cases ruling out all alternatives until the only one left is “some intelligence of unknown power and intention did it”. But you can’t do it except by adding context. You can’t establish it just by looking at the properties of the outcome.
Your reply gets straight to the heart of the matter here. Thinking about my "Dig 300 meters" example (#50) in the light of your criticisms, I will concede that it doesn't lend support to standard ID arguments, precisely because it is context-dependent. Let's go back to my examples in #48. I think the problem here was that they were not stipulated in advance. Instead, they were observed first, and design was then inferred. Had I begun by looking for a particular pattern coming from the center of the Sun (e.g. Anna Karenina in digital code), and then actually found one (much to my shock and amazement), then I would be justified in inferring intelligence, if the probability of the pattern were sufficiently low. The relevance of this for ID is that it needs to "do a Babe Ruth": point which way the ball will go before hitting it out of the park. One general prediction I'd make is that for any technological problem human beings have, which threatens our survival and/or flourishing as a species, we should find some organism in the natural world, which has already solved the problem. Biomimetics is a booming field which seems to be bearing out the truth of this claim. So if someone cares to nominate an intractable technological problem, and scientists later find a complex system in nature which has solved the problem already, I for one would call that a non-circular instance of CSI - and a possible sign of intelligence at work in the biosphere.vjtorley
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews BTW are you going to address my argument in #56?Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
#59 To say that ID is a mathematical restatement of “no natural cause” is quite different from saying that ID is the mathematical elimination of natural causes. The first says that ID is just a mathematical way of saying there is no natural cause. This is true. The second says that ID proves there is no natural cause. This is false.Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Mark Frank @58
I have not cast ID at the “mathematical elimination” of natural causes. I don’t know where you got that from.
Odd, because in the very first sentence of the very same post you say otherwise.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
#57 ScottAndrews I have explained in some detail why I think that ID, more specifically CSI, is merely a mathematical restatement of "no natural cause". Your only response has been to refer me to the glossary. Are you actually going to respond to the argument? What’s mind-boggling is that you seem determined to re-cast ID as a mere mathematical elimination of natural causes, and to you, that doesn’t affect the plausibility of those natural causes. I have not cast ID at the "mathematical elimination" of natural causes. I don't know where you got that from.Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
I searched for “natural” in the glossary and got 5 or 6 hits - none of which seemed relevant.
That was the point. What's mind-boggling is that you seem determined to re-cast ID as a mere mathematical elimination of natural causes, and to you, that doesn't affect the plausibility of those natural causes.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
#55 ScottAndrews I searched for "natural" in the glossary and got 5 or 6 hits - none of which seemed relevant. Maybe you can reproduce the relevant quote? I then looked up CSI - a concept with which I am familiar. In the glossary it is defined by this equation: ? = – log2[10^120 ·?S(T)·P(T|H)] (this is slightly simplified from the equation on page 21 of Dembski's 2005 paper - but it will do). The point isthat P(T|H) is the probability of the outcome given a chance (i.e. natural) hypothesis. So the amount of CSI increases as the likelihood of the outcome given a natural hypothesis decreases and vice versa. CSI turns out to be a mathematical transformation of the probability of the outcome given a chance hypothesis. As CSI is the prime evidence for design it follows that the prime evidence for design is low probability of a chance hypothesis. A parallel argument can be made for IC.Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
Scott - this comment is strange. I never wrote: A) We have never observed the type of design in question.
To an extent I'm referencing earlier discussions. At #32 you rejected the comparison of ID in biology vs. a flute on the basis that "People are observed to make objects such as flutes." IOW, the design inference only applies to flutes because we already know people make them. If the implication wasn't that we could otherwise reject or doubt design, then what was the point?
This positive evidence is traditionally CSI and IC (maybe you have something different?) and both of these are defined in terms of “no natural causes”.
Again, read the glossary. Search for "natural." Apparently your objections are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts. Design is not a natural cause, but it is much more than the absence of a natural cause.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
#53 Scott - this comment is strange. I never wrote: A) We have never observed the type of design in question. So I can hardly be accused of using to circumvent anything. I did write something similar to: B) “Design” just means “no natural causes. But you don't attempt to address my arguments. You just reiterate that there is positive evidence for ID. This positive evidence is traditionally CSI and IC (maybe you have something different?) and both of these are defined in terms of "no natural causes".Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
Mark Frank:
However, if you look at the definition of these two you will see that they are defined in terms of “no natural cause”. So in the end ID deduces intelligence from the lack of known natural cause.
The design inference is logically sound. You are attempting to circumvent it be reasoning that A) We have never observed the type of design in question. That's why it's an inference. If we exclude inferences except when we already know what is inferred by other means, what would be the point of an inference, ever? B) "Design" just means "no natural causes." A positive case is made for design. Design is not a natural cause. A positive case for design is not the same as a negative case against natural causes. The design inference is solid. It leads to a reasonable, logical conclusion. The alternative is an argument from incredulity. The "explanation" offers no causes and speculative mechanisms. It's based on faith that some day evidence will be found to support one or more of its competing hypotheses. If that's science, then we should give up and stick to our ideologies.ScottAndrews
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
#50 Obviously you can go on elaborating hypothetical cases ruling out all alternatives until the only one left is "some intelligence of unknown power and intention did it". But you can't do it except by adding context. You can't establish it just by looking at the properties of the outcome. For example, the key difference between the signal in #50 and the signal in #45 is that in #50 it turns out to be true. If the text had been false then it would have just been another bit of English text that might have been written at any time for any reason - a novel perhaps - and while it is utterly mysterious that it should have been reproduced in a signal emerging from the Sun it is no different from #45. To give two more examples of the importance of context. Suppose this had been just one of thousands of such instructions and this was the only one that was true? This might incline us away from an intelligent cause. Suppose the signal was found to be first transmitted to the Sun from a mysterious complex of buildings in deepest Siberia. This would heavily influence us towards an intelligent cause. Once we have established the importance of the context then that is really my point. Yes hypotheses involving intelligence are options. You need to evaluate against other hypotheses that may not involve intelligence and see which fits the bill better. To do this you need to take into account the context and how and why the intelligent agent acted. Looking at your specific example. First reaction is utter bemusement - how on earth could this have happened. Moving on .... If there were thousands of such messages, and this was the only one that was true, then maybe it was just a coincidence - after all fossils are quite common - and we are left with a comment #45 situation. If it were the only message then it seems almost certain that the fossil had some connection with the message. A front runner is that some intelligence (quite possibly human) knew about the fossil in a manner we cannot fathom and created the message in a manner we cannot fathom - intentionally or unintentionally. But let us not dismiss some other options: * Could the fossil and message have a common natural cause? * Could the fossil have caused the message in a natural way? I can't think of a way right now. But then I can't think how an intelligence could know about the fossil and create the message. The very presence of the true message tells us the universe is even more extraordinary than we thought.Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
VJ @ 42:
Diffaxial and hdx seem to suggest that ideas evolve in a way which is not fundamentally different from the evolution of genes in organisms, because they are capable of being modified and improved over time.
I've made no statements whatsoever regarding mechanisms, nor regarding analogies between mechanisms. As you point out the analogies are quite loose and imperfect, sometimes helpful and sometimes not, and there are many features of cultural change that are absent from biological evolution. One needn't postulate indivisible ideas riding immaterial substrates to perceive those differences. IMHO your focus upon "ideas" and their supposed indivisibility and immateriality is misleading and unhelpful. What "evolves" in cultural evolution are practices, techniques, and behavioral, expressive and symbolic traditions (and so forth), "forms of life" that are indeed amenable to change. Among the many substrates and mechanisms of cultural transmission and change (as well as cultural conservatism) include individual learning and behavior, imitation, deliberate teaching and the transmission of technique, joint attention and group action, cultural contagion, and (relatively recently) organizational and institutional inventions such as craft guilds, apprenticeships, schools and conservatories, political parties, universities, and so forth. Most of these substrates are themselves culminations of cultural invention and the accumulation and retention of specific practices, all creating and enhancing what Tomasello has called the "ratchet effect," by means of which human cultural change is retained and becomes cumulative. The communication between change and substrates is far more fluid, malleable and bidirectional than observed in biological evolution, enabling rapid and sometimes (particularly recently) explosive change. So there are indeed many disanalogies. The history of the evolution of the flute I plagiarized above reflects many of these vectors of cultural change. But to suggest that cultural evolution doesn't occur at all is ridiculous in the extreme.Diffaxial
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Mark Frank: Thank you for your thoughtful response. OK. How about this one? The message from the center of the Sun also contains a prediction. It says: "Go to latitude XYZ and longitude ABC in Greenland. Dig 300 meters below the surface, and you'll find some fossils of the earliest life forms to appear on Earth. Your geologists will date them to 4.4 billion years ago." You do what the message says, and you find the fossils. There's absolutely no question that the rocks have been undisturbed. Isn't sending a specific message - especially one with new information that no-one on Earth could possibly know - a sure sign of intelligence?vjtorley
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
#45 What if you picked up a Morse code signal from the center of the Sun, consisting of the first 100 prime numbers, followed by Hamlet’s soliloquy, “To be or not to be”? Quick question - long answer I am afraid and not enough time to articulate it as precisely as I would like. This observation would be absolutely extraordinary. We must be prepared for an extraordinary cause to explain such extraordinary data. We need to propose hypotheses - examine the prior probability of each hypothesis and the comparative likelihood of the observed data based on the rival hypotheses and be prepared to admit that we just don't understand. The signal appears to have some relation to conventions created by humans (numbers, morse code, "to be or not to be"). Any hypothesis that does not somehow incorporate these conventions is going to have such a low likelihood compared to hypotheses that do incorporate these conventions we can dismiss it. However, this does not entail that the cause is intelligent. For example, maybe in some extraordinary way electromagnetic signals on earth are being amplified by some natural process in the Sun and being beamed back. You might argue that the intelligence is there because the morse code etc were created by intelligent life forms (us) on earth. But this is beside the point. We have non-controversial reasons for knowing that Morse code and Hamlet were created by people. It would be equally extraordinary if the signal was an analogue representation of the coast of Norway accurate to the nearest metre. We have to sit down a look a specific hypotheses. We cannot just look at the outcome and say "designed" or "natural".Mark Frank
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Mark Frank You wrote (#40):
For example, a strong simple signal with no known natural cause coming from a planet of similar characteristics to ours would cause us to examine the possibility of a life form similar to ours. The same signal coming from the centre of the Sun would incline us to look for unknown natural causes.
Just a quick question. What if you picked up a Morse code signal from the center of the Sun, consisting of the first 100 prime numbers, followed by Hamlet's soliloquy, "To be or not to be"?vjtorley
July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Davem
If the flute is really that old, then it’s reasonable to assume that we had language at that time. I wonder why it took us so long after that to start writing?
Davem, you think writing is an obvious idea because you're so used to it, but it's really not. It's not something that comes at all naturally to us, even after thousands of years. You also seem to assume it's fairly easy to do once you do get the idea. But coming up with a usable set of symbols to represent the sounds of a particular language is no trivial task that can be worked on in the evenings around the communal fire. Then you have the fact that no one had gotten around to inventing paper (mostly because its invention was motivated by the existence of writing). Your alternatives back then would have been clay tablets and stone, which aren't exactly convenient or portable (and the former is an invention in its own right); or animal hide, for which, as a nomadic hunter-gatherer, you'd have had any number of much better uses. Then there's the matter of having to come up with writing implements, inks, etc., etc., etc. More importantly, though, is that writing is just really not all that useful to hunter-gatherers, and so the idea isn't too likely to occur to them, and that is especially so when every other human on the planet is also a hunter-gatherer who lacks writing. I.e., not only was there no writing to be seen and possibly emulated, but you couldn't even have heard about it second-hand. More important still is that, even if the idea occurred way back when, no one could have afforded to pursue it. They were far too busy hunting, gathering, and not getting themselves killed. Oh, and more often that not, dying pretty young. That alone goes a long way in explaining why art of any kind took so long to develop. A flute is, by contrast, portable, can be made out of the materials nomadic hunter-gatherers are well-acquainted with and have relative ease of access to, wouldn't take someone who is proficient with bone or wood carving that long to make, and provides a more or less immediate benefit to the maker.dbthomas
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Re #34 I have been through this many times as well. ID deduces intelligence from the presence of CSI and IC. However, if you look at the definition of these two you will see that they are defined in terms of "no natural cause". So in the end ID deduces intelligence from the lack of known natural cause. When the EF was first introduced this was quite explicit but since then it has been obscured by a lot of terminology.Mark Frank
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
#37 Peter dbthomas has already responded very well but I would like to add a few points: A subspecies is a member of the same species. These are examples of homo sapiens. This was just one example - look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominid_fossils for a list.Mark Frank
July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply