ID Found in DNA

_{David Coppedge

September 17, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Researchers at Brigham Young University shaped DNA strands into the letters BYU, reported Live Science. Let’s have a little fun with this clever achievement (an indisputable case of intelligent design) with some thought experiments that make use of ID reasoning.

Suppose instead of forming the DNA into letter shapes, they used a code with the existing bases arranged in triplets: AAA = A, AAC = B, AAG = C, AAT = D, and so forth. Cracking the code would reveal the letters BYU.
Suppose they spelled out “Brigham Young University” in full using this code and signed their names with it. Now they’re not only approaching the Universal Probability Bound, they are tightening the independently verifiable specification.
Suppose instead they made a gene that used the existing DNA transcription and translation systems to produce a string of amino acids that, after exiting the ribosome, folded spontaneously into the shapes of the letters BYU.
Now they get serious and try to do something useful. They engineer a gene that has a function. It codes for an enzyme that produces a cancer-fighting substance.

In all these cases, ID was the indisputably the cause. Would an observer need to know the identity of the designers to detect the design? How much more would ID be the correct inference when a designer can engineer a whole system of genes that can grow a cell into an organism that can interact with its fellow organisms to engineer the letters BYU out of the building blocks of which they themselves are composed?

Some interesting philosophical questions can ensue from this discussion. Did the researchers intervene in nature? Did they use miracles? Would an observer conclude a miracle had occurred? If one grants that ID caused the BYU case, would it be logical to assume the designers (the BYU researchers) were themselves products of chance and necessity? Is human ID an emergent property of matter in motion? How would matter in motion know that?

Comments

KF,
"Design is inferred on tested, empirically reliable signs of intelligence. (the 206 Ogham character challenge above is based on a simple version of such.)"
I'm still waiting for support for you claim. More failed analogies does not make you claim any more correct. You seem to be doing the same as Joseph. I ask for supporting evidence for you claims, you try to turn the burden of disproof on me, as evidence. Why can't you just show me the evidence instead of churning out these complicated assertions and analogies based on assumptions. Your claims still are no more than subjective. You can't compare computer code to genetics and expect me to take that seriously. comparing unlike things works well to help those who have difficulty in understanding particular concepts, but it does not make these comparison correct in anyway. Weather patterns and many other natural processes can easily be compared to an algorithm. There are programs that model many natural processes very well. This in no way means the weather or any other natural process has been created by an intelligent agent. As for my example of locals who claim scratches are Oghams, at least in their assertions they are comparing things two very like things, Actual Oghams scratched onto stone in Europe to scratches on stones in NE. The finding of the text require less imagination. Your claims on the other hand are of two completely different areas, applied completely differently, with no previous like eample to actaul measure it by. You claim requires many assumptions and stretches the imagination beyond its limits. KF, You can compare fine details of two things you seem to see likenesses in, but your conclusion also requires ignoring of all the things that make them completely different. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I had said that it appeared you applied the silly idea that if someone cannot account for something, your claim must be correct, and stated thats not how science is done. You claimed,
" I never said, implied nor thought that.
Well let see what you said following that comment.
"Ya see the design inference is based on TWO things (at least)- one being that undirected processes cannot account...
Earlier on this thread, when I mention that you have produced no evidence outside of your claim to show that it is not pure subjective, what you shared with me as evidence is,
"As for meaningful info being in my mind (IDists minds) well again all you have to do is demonstrate that fact." When I ask how you claimed hypothesis on you blog is testable, you reply,
"Show that meaningful information can arise without agency involvement"
This one is extra special since you not only try use the burden of disproof (?!?) on me to validate your claim, though you still have not demonstrated the claim you made about the information you speak is not subjective. You need to provide objective evidence to support your claim first. Just because you made an observation that appears obvious to you, does not mean that you observation or analogy is correct.
"The design inference comes from observation and experience.
Basing a conclusion solely on observations compared to previous experiences, no matter how obvious it may appear to you, is completely subjective. You need to show supporting evidence for this claim. The fact that you are comparing things that are biological to things that are man made, reveals that you inference is based on assumptions not known facts. ~GIMI
GIMI_{September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

PS: have alphabet glyph-bearing butterflies been seen flying or resting in known natural formation spelling out a meaningful, 143+ character message?kairosfocus_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Gimi: I await your Ogham script example. You seem to think this is a case where functionally specific, meaningful digital text strings of relevant length occurred by chance + necessity without intentional design. Okay, show us your 206+ member, 29-state per digit string, with the message that it is said to provide. Then, show us how it credibly originated by chance + necessity only. As for the Giant's Causeway and the like, these antedate the modern design theory, and are cases where for want of knowledge of natural regularities and of the crucial distinction between order and complex functional organisation, regularity -- i.e. order -- was attributed to design. Modern design theory -- building on the insights of Orgel, Yockey Wickens, Polanyi et al from the 1960's and 1970's on [cf discussion in Thaxton et al, in ch 8 of TMLO, the very first design theory technical work, of 1984] -- correctly and sharply distinguishes order from complex, information-rich specifically constrained organisation. Indeed, the first step of the per-aspect design filter is to mark out low vs high contingency situations: under generally similar initial conditions, do or do we not have a high diversity of outcomes. Then, high contingency is to be traced to one of two sources: {a} credibly undirected, stochastic contingency [chance] or [b] intelligently directed contingency [design]. Design is inferred on tested, empirically reliable signs of intelligence. (the 206 Ogham character challenge above is based on a simple version of such.) In the case of the Giant's Causeway [and similar features around the world, including here in Montserrat -- now buried under dozens of feet of ash], columnar jointed basalt crystals reflect order and complexity [cf snowflakes], but not functionally specific complex, information based organisation, especially in an algorithmic or linguistic context -- the particular contexts at the crux of the issue for both your claimed Ogham text and DNA. (I suggest you read the 101 level discussion here, and onward the Abel and Trevors paper -- duly peer reviewed -- here on three types of sequence complexity: order, randomness, algorithmic functionality-based. Pay particular attention to Figure 4 here in the T & A paper, and the associated discussion.) Having done so, you will be in a much better position to discuss on a basis of more accurate information and clearer conceptualisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

For EXAMPLE- people used to think that the "giant's causeway" was made by giants. They did so because it had this recognizeable pattern. Then science came along and demonstrated that agency involvement was not required.Joseph_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

I understand the context. What I am saying is that just because one or more people "think" they have something does not make it so. As for meaningful info being in my mind (IDists minds) well again all you have to do is demonstrate that fact. Show us nature, operating freely doing the things we say it cannot. Show us that biological function can arise without meaningful information or that the meaningful info that allowed for biological function can arise without agency involvement. As for people already explaining things to me- so far all I have read are bald assertions.
‘If you cannot account for this, then by default my claim is right’ is not how science is done.
I never said, implied nor thought that. Ya see the design inference is based on TWO things (at least)- one being that undirected processes cannot account for it and the other is a specified criteria that has to be met. The design inference comes from observation and experience. It can be tested. Now if you want to show how my thinking is flawed perhaps you could provide some examples from the anti-ID position. For without that all you have is whining.Joseph_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

AH!!! I messed up the Blockquote again. I need to do this stuff after work. It seems that my need to rush is becoming an issue. Anyway, everything after
"Ya see in order to refute what I said all one has to do is demonstrate that undirected processes can account for it."
is my words. Thanks! ~GIMIGIMI_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I think you are missing the context I am speaking of. I am referring to the view of the person making the unsupported claim. I think we agree that in the end, yes it does matter if it real or imaginary, but that does not change the fact that the person suffering from his own assumptions and misunderstandings may never be aware of this. That is my point. When you view the world with an expected result and refuse to produce more evidence to support your claims, your claim will not be considered valid. My point being that all I see is the same here. There is a claim of meaningful data that in your mind has a similarity to something that seems familiar, so it is assume that it must be of the same origins. The problem is that this very general comparison does not take into account that the things being compared do not operate in the same manor at all. It ignores everything that makes them extremely different. This is why more support is needed.
” You don’t seem to understand that and I doubt you understood what I posted on my blog.”
I understand you post. In time I will explain why it fails. You should know this by now since I am not the first to point this out to you. I really shouldn’t have to repeat what has already been explained to you, but maybe it wishful thinking on my part that my explanation will sink in.
” Ya see in order to refute what I said all one has to do is demonstrate that undirected processes can account for it.
Joseph, you’re sounding like you’re applying presuppositional Apologetics. ‘If you cannot account for this, then by default my claim is right’ is not how science is done. You need to make a valid argument in support of your claim. Why is it that all I seem to get from you is ‘You can’t explain this so ID is correct’? All I’m asking for is more evidence that an assumption based on an observation that is purely subjective. Anyway, All I need to do is show that what you claim is a valid hypothesis and how it is falsifiable is flawed, which will be done I good time Joseph. No whining here. I’m just still waiting for the evidence to validate your claims. I’ve been watching this blog and the general ID community for many years and have seen little to nothing changed in the argument and lack of evidence to support it. I’m not saying that you should not do the research or that the ID claims are defiantly wrong, I’m just voicing my concerns that some are still stuck on claims that are flawed and have been long refuted. ~GIMI
GIMI_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

KF:
If you were to look at strings of digits, you could not tell which come from deep inside pi and which from a random number generator.
If they came from within pie then they may have some filling left on them. ;) Or maybe even some crust. But anyway I understand what you are saying however it does not mean that Pi is a random string of numbers.Joseph_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

PS: As touching Ogham, we have 29 characters according to the unicode scheme. 1,000 bits corresponds to some 206 Ogham characters. Gimi claims a case of Ogham text with a meaning, disputed by some to be produced by plough scratches. Let's hear the text, let's see if it is in suitably old Irish, and let's hear of the translation. Then, let's hear the evidence that -- NB Ogham headstones date down to 1802 -- it was produced by chance and necessity (e.g. accidental plough scratches) beyond reasonable doubt, rather than by an Irish person or the like familiar with Ogham.kairosfocus_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

GIMI: Kindly provide a credible case of 143+ ASCII characters making up a contextually responsive, linguistically functional communication [including of course a program] that originated by chance + undirected mechanical necessity. THAT is the specific challenge. And, it has been clear enough for long enough that your resort to vague statements strongly suggests you are unable to meet it but do not wish to acknowledge its force. Now, therefore, kindly provide the evidence and the grounds for claiming it a valid case in point, or else you have conceded by default. Thanks GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

GIMI:
How does it matter if its real information or not to those perceiving it as real?
The same way it matters if the voices in their heads are real or not. Imaginary information is, well imaginary.
I did mention that though there is no true evidence to support this delusion and a lot to refute it, the proponents of the Ogham text still assert they have support of the claim and deny the wealth of evidence against it.
Assertions are meaningless. Unless they can demonstrate the meaning they don;t have anything but a biased inference- that is if what you say is true.
So, You agree that some people can find meaningful information where it is not.
No they THINK they found it. Huge difference between that and actual meaningful info.
You seem to have narrowed it down to the point if the meaningful information is testable, and you claim my example is not.
Meaningful info is testable. Imagined info is not. People can make claims GIMI. The question is whether or not they can substantiate those claims. You don't seem to understand that and I doubt you understood what I posted on my blog. Ya see in order to refute what I said all one has to do is demonstrate that undirected processes can account for it. Whining won't do it and neither will bald assertions.Joseph_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Sorry, "solely on recognized similarities or pareidolia, since they are a purely subjective. should say "solely on recognized similarities or pareidolia. Since they are a purely subjective more supporting evidence is required. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, I got the point but that does not make it valid.
”A: Can you show us a case where 143 or more ASCII characters worth of contextually responsive English text originated by strict chance, or of a functional program?”
1) This is a non sequitur.
” B: can you show me cases of same that were created by intelligent designers? ”
2) This question is moot. (see answer #1)
”C: how can you tell the designed cases with reasonable reliability when you make a ruling? ”
3) That depends on what I am examining. I’d need more detail as to what the examples are. Keep in mind though, the examples would need to be more than things you are assuming are just like each other. With that said, I have demonstrated that people do find what they conclude is actual strings of text and words with meaningful content, from many different random natural sources. Their reasoning is the same I see here. It has meaning to them and they believe any other explanation is not correct, so it must be from an intelligent origin. The length of the individual examples may not contain 143 characters, but the quantity of examples just in New England is amazing. This illustrates very well how the human ability to find recognizable patterns can happen easily and often from many different stimulus, to the extent that it creates a complex belief form some people based solely on recognized similarities or pareidolia, since they are a purely subjective. So, this is why the point of, “it just like this so it must be…” means nothing. You need other evidence to support it. That’s some of the points I was getting at. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 24, 2009
September
09
Sep
24
24
2009
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

SuckerSpawn,
"Did our failure to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics mean they did not contain functional information"
Sorry, your comparing two completely different things. We had many forms of evidence to confirm that hieroglyphics was a form of written language long before we could read it. Molecular machines have no supporting evidence of being constructed from a "code or language" from and intelligent origin. The same applies to the other languages you mentioned and the music you linked. For all of them we have a previous knowledge and outside supporting evidence to show us they are all a form of written communication. Biological structures no matter how big or small have no cues. If you still do not understand why you examples fail to support your flawed point, then I can understand why you find it hard to grasp the flaws in reasoning I've already pointed out. Your flagellum comment falls too. Thats no better than saying an individual component in a 'Junk yard War' creation proves that they did not cobble the contraption out of available junk they could pervert for their needs. You need to look at an organism in the same context a point is made about it. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

GIMI Did our failure to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics mean they did not contain functional information and are not the product of intelligence. Did the Egyptians follow our rules of grammar? Do the Chinese? Are you able to identify this as the product of intelligent design? http://richhorner.com/writings/8thquartet/Tchaik-6.jpg If you can look at the flagellum and compare it a Junk Yard Wars contraption you are only seeing what you want to see.suckerspawn_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

”Anyone can look at a bowl of alphabet soup and imagine acronyms to go with the letters.”
What I’m speaking of is not actual text, its random scratched made mechanically and naturally that are interpreted as actual Ogham text forming a readable message. You example does not apply.
”If, on the other hand, those letters spell out specific, functional information such as the designs of a machine superior to anything conceived by man, no rational person would say, “Wow, that was a fortuitous random event!” “
Unfortunately what ID speaks of does not spell out a detailed design in a know language following grammatical rules we are familiar with. Also since it involves a living organism, it does not even fall into the same category as a man made machine. As for being like a machine, its components would better be described as machines cobbled together on “Junk Yard Wars” where parts are adapted to do functions they were no originally constructed to do, and lots of unnecessary useless items. Not the work of an intelligent designer, more like the work of someone operating by trial and error with available items, or a natural unguided process involving an erroneous, self-replicating string of proteins. Speaking of genetics or molecular machines as letters, words or a language is a human construct so that we can understand it better and communicate ideas about it.
”Unless, that is, he has philosophical blinders that require him to ignore the obvious.”
You assume that if it appears obvious to you, it should to everyone. That is a horrible mistake I see made all too often. Also, just because you feel it looks obvious, does not mean it is correct. Its obvious is not a valid scientific claim. There are many things we’ve seen that are counter intuitive.
”Why bother searching for knowledge if we’re only going to accept the answer we like? Why go through the motions?
I search for what evidence is available. If it goes against my current understanding of the subject, I might be resistant and ask for more evidence to support it, but I do no eliminate the option. I just require the person making a claim to better support it with evidence. No matter how ridiculous I think a claim is, I support anyone who is willing to investigate it. Al I ask is that they follow the practices that any respectable scientist would. That is all I am doing here. If you truly believe ID is correct, feel free to invest as much money and time as you feel necessary to do the research and publish the results. Continue doing this and though it might be a rough ride, if you are correct, the truth will eventually be seen by all. Unfortunately all I’ve seen so far from the ID community is asking for a free pass and not be made to do the require work all other scientist have done. I encourage and look forward to any research done concerning ID. Like any other claim though, you need to show the support and research for the claim before it will get the respect and attention you seem to think it deserves. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Oops, sorry, I messed up on my blockquotes! everything after your comment,
”As I said the premise meaningful information is testable.”
Is my response. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
”Of course it matters if it real meaningful information or not.” ”
How does it matter if its real information or not to those perceiving it as real? I did mention that though there is no true evidence to support this delusion and a lot to refute it, the proponents of the Ogham text still assert they have support of the claim and deny the wealth of evidence against it. The issue is often that those involved are not properly educated in the subject matter and matter.
”As I said the premise meaningful information is testable.”
So, You agree that some people can find meaningful information where it is not. Also, I get the impression that you do not doubt that some may still come to the same conclusion even in the event that it is all in their minds. You seem to have narrowed it down to the point if the meaningful information is testable, and you claim my example is not. Well you are incorrect, and this demonstrates you lack of understanding of subject. The claim of the Ogham text is testable and has been. This is why I know of no archeologist who takes these claims seriously. Each of these claims has been examined and refute long ago by a qualified expert. There are many lines of testing that can be done. There are many predictions based on these claims that can be made and tested. On the other hand, the amateur archeologists who make the claims believe they have ways of testing their own claims. Their tests are based on a flawed logic, assumptions and ignorance of the subject. With that being said Joseph, what I saw on your blog that you claim support ID and demonstrates the same flaws reasoning as with the Ogham proponents. ~GIMI
GIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Gimi: A: Can you show us a case where 143 or more ASCII characters worth of contextually responsive English text originated by strict chance, or of a functional program? B: can you show me cases of same that were created by intelligent designers? C: how can you tell the designed cases with reasonable reliability when you make a ruling? [Cf here and here as well as here.] That is the point being got at. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Joseph: the sequence of digits in pi will be similar to the patterns of appearance of a flat random generator's o/p. If you were to look at strings of digits, you could not tell which come from deep inside pi and which from a random number generator: Sequence A: 03530185296899577362259941389124972177528347913151 Sequence B: 42523081770367515906735023507283540567040386743513 Sequence C: 41692405819305048734346524157704631491843929581776 Sequence D: 72675079812554709589045563579212210333466974992356 Sequence E: 99719360367427453901346430615789500575149397742403 Sequence F: 66660784434754570736654197748970831732371497023129 (ANS: A, B, D are pi, C, E, F are from a random table.] Trust that helps GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

GIMI:
I forgot to mention that when i have a chance, I will give you a more detailed response as to why what you presented on your blog does not support your assertion that ID is a valid scientific claim that can be falsified. I will explain why what you offered is actually based on assumptions and wishful thinking and unsupported assertions.
Good luck with that. I am sure I will show your "refutations" to be nonsense. So there. :)Joseph_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

GIMI:
I have shown many examples where people find what they believe are meaningful information (supporting an intelligence origin) in random data from natural and mechanical processes. It does not matter if the information is actually meaningful or not.
Of course it matters if it real meaningful information or not. As I said the premise meaningful information is testable.Joseph_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

GIMI: My position is that what some people perceive as meaningful information that suggest an intelligent origin, is not that at all. Instead, it is a delusion caused by misunderstanding, miseducation, ignorance, wishful thinking, assumptions and many other possibilities I have not mentioned. Anyone can look at a bowl of alphabet soup and imagine acronyms to go with the letters. If, on the other hand, those letters spell out specific, functional information such as the designs of a machine superior to anything conceived by man, no rational person would say, "Wow, that was a fortuitous random event!" Unless, that is, he has philosophical blinders that require him to ignore the obvious. Why bother searching for knowledge if we're only going to accept the answer we like? Why go through the motions?ScottAndrews_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Outside of what?suckerspawn_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

I'm sorry Suckerspawn, I misunderstood your question. I like how instead of actually offering an answer, you just turn it around to try to make it my responsibility. I'll throw in my 2 cents to help you better answer my question. I can come up with many reasons but they still would fall short. What we are dealing with here is not the same as those examples I offered, nor those offered by ID. Text on a blog is closer to the Mount Rushmore example ID supporter try to use. On the other hand the examples used buy ID supporters is more like my examples or the Old Man of the Mountain in the granite state. By that I mean very vague and open to many interpretations based on personal biases. Crudely etched Ogham text claimed to be found stones in New England is in no way the same as text posted on a blog. The Ogham text requires much more supporting evidence to be accepted. The same is for the like claims of Id proponents. Meaningful information claimed to be in cells and molecular machines, would require far, far more evidence to support it. You can't use apple Jolly Ranchers as an example when you're talking about oranges. Please show me outside evidence that supports the claim that the meaningful information you see in biology is by Intelligent cause. GIMIGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

suckerspawn, I never claimed there is actual evidence that these people offer. The claims of the people in New England I'm speak of and the evidence they use to support it has been long refuted. This does not stop them from continuing to make their baseless assertions with the greatest of confidence that it is a fact. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Joseph, I forgot to mention that when i have a chance, I will give you a more detailed response as to why what you presented on your blog does not support your assertion that ID is a valid scientific claim that can be falsified. I will explain why what you offered is actually based on assumptions and wishful thinking and unsupported assertions. ~GimiGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

What evidence do we have that the information in #56 is from an intelligent origin?suckerspawn_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Joseph, To satisfy your need, I will repeat myself. My position is that what some people perceive as meaningful information that suggest an intelligent origin, is not that at all. Instead, it is a delusion caused by misunderstanding, miseducation, ignorance, wishful thinking, assumptions and many other possibilities I have not mentioned. Since claiming the information seen is meaningful in the sense of supporting an intelligent origin is subjective, other evidence is needed to support the assertion. ~GIMIGIMI_{September 23, 2009
September
09
Sep
23
23
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply