Mud-to-Mozart Atheology (Or, Who are the real skeptics?)

_{GilDodgen
October 22, 2011

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

I find the “skeptic” claim on the part of Darwinian materialists very interesting and equally illuminating. Darwinists exhibit no skepticism whatsoever about the thesis that physical stuff turned into Mozart by chance. (Don’t try to deny this, Darwinists, that is the essence of your claim. You can try to obfuscate with legion “peer-reviewed scientific papers,” but you’re not going to fool me and many others about what you are actually promoting and advocating.)

I choose Mozart not just because I am a classical concert pianist, but because his existence epitomizes everything that Darwinian theory is totally powerless to explain.

Darwinists, claiming to be skeptics, actually exhibit the antithesis of skepticism — making transparently ludicrous claims and providing a never-ending stream of unsupported extrapolations, based only on wildly imaginative speculation with no empirical support.

How is it that Darwinian atheists are the only ones who get to declare themselves legitimate skeptics? Is mud-to-Mozart-by-chance philosophy the only worldview immune to skeptical inquiry?

Comments

GinoB: You may also see how many bold statements about evolution grossly conflate neodarwinain evolution and common descent. Luckily, that is irrelevant to this discussion about my integrity. Indeed, both neodarwinism and common descent (and, obviously, ID) are certainly theories, and not facts.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PST}

I'm going to slightly disagree, GinoB :) Let's drop the word facts, and substitute "data" - literally "what we are given". All data are observations, and all observations are, at some level, models. An average, for example, is a model; a measurement, even, at some level is a model. And what are data at one level can be models at a level below. I'm very aware of it in my field because my data are quite highly derived. In fMRI the "image intensity" data I analyse are actually outputs from a more basic model in which something quite different is the input and "image intensities" are the models that best fits the data. But that's just a "fact" of life :) All of our observations are approximations, "best guesses" if you will, even if the "best guess" is very close indeed. But I do agree that no-one labels a "theory" - or any other model - as a "fact". We certainly make predictions based on the assumption that certain well-supported theories are true, but assuming something is true is not the same as regarding it as a fact. There are no "facts" in science, there are simply models and data, and data at one level are models at another. What tells us our models are likely to be accurate is how well each model fits the data it models at every level. Another thing that tells us our models are likely to be accurate is consilience between inferences derived from very different models of independent data. That's how we can be so sure that YEC is wrong, for instance.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

GinoB: (always form Wikipedia): R. C. Lewontin wrote, "It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory."[25] Douglas Futuyma writes in his Evolutionary Biology book, "The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."[12] Richard Dawkins says, "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."[26] Neil Campbell wrote in his 1990 biology textbook, "Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."[4]gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST}

GinoB: From Wikipedia: 2Fact is often used by scientists to refer to experimental or empirical data or objective verifiable observations.[13][14][15][16] "Fact" is also used in a wider sense to mean any theory for which there is overwhelming evidence. A fact is a hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. —Douglas Futuyma[17] Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently, evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[17][18] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point. There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[3] The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point: Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[19]"gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PST}

gpuccio
You seem to forget that it is darwinists who like to label theories as facts.
No one in the scientific community labels theories as facts. It's exactly that kind of dishonest comment on your part that makes your integrity so suspect.GinoB_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PST}

Petrushka: You know well, but your job seems to be to ask again and again. Thew appearance of 4000 independent functional protein domains in the course of natural history, without any trace of precursors, certainly requires explanation. Except for you, it seems. You are free to decide if my case is palusible or not. Anyway, I have presented it. Your repeated asking is obviously mere propaganda. You have asked. I have answered. You are not satisfied. OK. All that is fine. Now, please, don't ask again the same things. You will not get a different answer. Maybe you will not get any answer.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

Nick Matzke:
Larry Moran is talking about the genomes of humans and other large genomes and how much of the sequence change is under selection vs. neutral. Most of it is thought to be neutral. Amongst other things, this is strong evidence that a lot of these large genomes is junk (another position which Moran argues for).
Bad news, Nick. This is just in from PhysOrg:
The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic "gaps" in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are "turned on" and "turned off." . . . "These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences," said McDonald. "Transposable elements were once considered 'junk DNA' with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees."
Another day; another bad day for Darwinism! ;)PaV_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PST}

“if living organisms were designed then it is a safe bet they were designed to evolve evolved by design”
See why this sounds like theistic evolution to me?
No- it doesn't have anything to with TE- apparently you don't understand TE.
You take a process which is mechanically understood, demonstrably random with respect to need, and best described as evolution.
LoL- it is only ignorance that sez random with respect to need and ID is not anti-evolution.
You assert that is “design by evolution.” Without adding anything else.
I have added plenty- it is called diected/ intelligent design/ front-loaded evolution and is exemplified by numerous targeted searches.Joseph_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PST}

GinoB:
The ‘random’ part of the term ‘random mutation’ by definition means random with respect to its effect on reproductive fitness – either beneficial, deleterious, or neutral. Such changes by definition are completely uncorrelated with ‘need’.
Except for the fact that variation enables fitness- random wrt biology means without planning nor purposeJoseph_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PST}

Natural selection is DEFINED as the differential reproduction due to heritable random variation...Joseph_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PST}

GinoB, Natural selection INCLUDES random variation and there isn't any evidence that NS can create biological complexity. You can splain it all you want but you LACK evidentiary support.Joseph_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PST}

I propose it as the best explanation.
Propose what as an explanation for what? You haven't ever said what it is that happened that requires explanation. Do you know the history of the origin of protein domains? You have the before and after snapshot? You assert as a matter of fact that naturalistic explanations are inadequate, but you haven't said what happened that requires intervention. You haven't even presented a plausible case that there is a discontinuity.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PST}

Appearance: the presumed level in natural history where a new basic protein domain is observed.
That's gobbledygook. Give me an example of the observation of a new protein domain. What does "observed" mean? What assumptions are you making about the history of the sequence? What is you evidence for your preferred history? What would the before and after snapshot look like?Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PST}

The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function.
Three of 17 in the study were gain of function, and of course the study covers a microscopic slice of time.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PST}

Petrushka: I’ve read and thought about your observations I know. My note, indeed, was to kellyhomes. Having found a gap that is difficult or impossible to fill with detailed history Let's say at least 4000 independent gaps... you insert your own theory as fact No. Never. I propose it as the best explanation. You seem to forget that it is darwinists who like to label theories as facts. It is really true that one often sees his own sins projected in others... I am fond of my epistemology. Many times here I have raised the point that theories are always theories, and facts are always facts, and that a "theory becoming a fact" is not a social promotion, but simply an epistemological horror. I know you like to attribute to me many things I have never said, but please, at least don't do that with the things I have always explicitly fought.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PST}

I've read and thought about your observations. Mostly you search out the gaps in knowledge that result from the erasure of detailed history. Such as the origin of protein domains. Having found a gap that is difficult or impossible to fill with detailed history, you insert your own theory as fact: namely that the origin of protein domains required them to be poofed into existence by and unspecified designer. You haven't presented us with a before and after scenario, but I have to assume you know the detailed history of protein domains, and are just teasing us.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PST}

Petrushka: Appearance: the presumed level in natural history where a new basic protein domain is observed. I know for a fact that mobody has ever shown those precursors. One can always believe they exist. One can believe what one likes. I stick with known facts. Feel free not to buy what you call "the gaps argument". We are not in a commercial deal, here. I certainly don't care for the "poof" pseudo-argument. Not even as a free offer.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PST}

Not sure how you are doing the math, but that would be one in 10^5 out of all neutral or nearly neutral mutations being fixed in the population.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PST}

Define "appearance." Demonstrate to me that you know for a fact that protein domains have not precursors. I'm not buying the gaps argument, that because we don't know the exact history, that protein domains were poofed into existence fully formed. Stick with facts.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PST}

Petrushka: You already know my answer. The appearance of any new protein domain.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PST}

The problem is, the steps that can expand by NS must not be so distant that the transition be completely out of the range of the proibabilistic resources of a realistic biological model.
Fine. Give us a documented historical example of a single step transition that is too distant to be traversed except by design.Petrushka_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PST}

kellyhomes: Have you ever thought about reading my observations, maybe even thinking a bit about them (I know, I am asking much), and in the end writing down a few wrods here in response? Or just decide for yourself of they hold or not? (This is a call to individual thinking and judgement, usually considered one of the privileges of human condition, in opposition to the call to conformism and external authority, which seems to be the last resort of my "kind" interlocutors when they have nothing else to say).gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PST}

GinoB: Are you saying that one mutation in 10^5 was the right one, and that explains the evolution of humans? Truly amazing. I bow to your deep understanding of science.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PST}

GinoB: Well, you certainly make a fine arrogant and dogmatic darwinist. My compliments, and have a good life.gpuccio_{October 26, 2011
October
10
Oct
26
26
2011
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PST}

William J Murray
And that’s all I’m asking for: not proof that RM & NS did in fact make the trip; only that they are theoretically (categorically) capable of making the trip.
What sort of metric could science possibly give you that would meet your expectations? Something like Behe's ludicrous demand that science provide a detailed list of every last mutation in the 100 million year history of a lineage? OK, here's some **rough** calculations. I'll even use 'worst case' numbers. Humans and chimps have very similar DNA, between 98% and 99% similarity depending of which areas you count. Let's assume 2% difference. Still, with a size of 2.9 billion base pairs that means lots of changes - let's say 60 million base pair differences. Let's further assume that we only get one base pair change per mutation, which is certainly unrealistically low. Humans and chimps last shared a common ancestor between 4-8 million years ago. Let's say 4 million. That means the species had to diverge at an average rate of 15 mutations per year, or 7.5 per year per species. Now consider that on average humans have between 150-200 mutations per individual per generation. Let's assume the low value of 150. If we assume a very small stable population, say 100,000, and a generation time of 20 years we still get an average of 750,000 new mutations per year across the entire population. So we need 7.5 per year, but theoretically we can get 750,000 per year. Will that get the elephant over the mountain?GinoB_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PST}

Let me try the gpuccio form of scientific analysis: 1. All biological life forms contain SNARGL. It's obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by conformism. 2. Too bad if you don't understand what SNARGL is or how to measure it. It's not my job to provide such pathetic levels of detail. 3. Intelligent Designers have never been seen to create objects containing SNARGL. 4. Therefore we can infer that biological life was not created by an Intelligent Designer. How'd I do? I bet I'd make a fine ID scientist in the grand tradition of the ID researchers who post their pet ideas here.GinoB_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PST}

Elizabeth: I am afraid there is little hope to understand your position on these points. Indeed, it seems completely specious to me. So, just a few clarifications: The problem with neutral or near neutral variations is that they do not change the global probabilities of a random walk. Let's make an example, to understand better. We have a duplicated gene of, say, 150 AAs. The gene is no more active, and so, according to classical darwnist theory, nature can play with it to "explore" new possibilities. (The agency language is only a joke). Now, if a gene is not transcribed and translated, mutations become necessarily neutral: nothing can be selected, either positively or negatively. Now, let's say that we assume that thjorugh random mutations that duplicated gene generates, in some evolutionary time, a new protein domain, completely unrelated to the original one. Well, that's macroevolution, isn't it? Now, if the two sequences (let's call A the original, and B the final one) are unrelated at sequence level (let's say they share no more than 5% AAs, a random correspondence), than the transitionform A to B is a random walk. It is realized through neutral mutations. But the point is, of all the 20^150 possible sequences, if we exclude those "near" A (let's say with more than 30% homology, which are anyway only a tiny fraction of the total), all the others, the "unrelated states", have approximately eqal proibabilities to be reached. No kind of random variation can change this scenario. Even if for some random reason some mutations can randomly expand, the probabilities do not change, because all mutations have the same probabilities to expand, or be lost. Is that clear? Now, let's go to this statement of mine: "Yes. That, in standard terminology, is positive natural selection: the expansion of naturally selectable traits, whose effect is to potentiate (higly, I would say) the probabilistic resources that a naturally selectable trait may be a step to further evolution." You say it is overcomplex. But it isn't. I believe you have not understood my point. My point os exactly in the words: "to potentiate (higly, I would say) the probabilistic resources that a naturally selectable trait may be a step to further evolution". Let's go again to my example. The problem, with neutral evolution, is that the variation does not expand, or if it expands it expands randomly. Therefore, the necessary variation must accumulate in a single clone (genetic drift does change that, but again the problem id that it can expand anything, be it useful, neutral or deleterious to the final result). So, let's leave alone drift for the moment. Let's say that the gene, being lucky, accumulates three "right" mutations for B. Let's call this state A1. Now, if A1 is not selectable, we are still in the general scenario: a random walk, and very limited probabilistic resources (all the changes must accumulate in the same clone). But, if A1 gives a sufficient reproductive advantage, in a short time all the population will bring the A1 gene, and no more the A. So, if the population is, say, 10^12 bacteria, we have increased the probabilistic resources of 10^12. That is something. That is the role of positive selection. At the same time, negative selection will "protect" those three "correct" aminoacids, and avoid that they are changed again in further variation. That is the essence of the algorithm. But the problem is, those three changes that give a reproductive advantage, and are threfore selectable, must also be a step towards B, IOWs, they must be "right" for B. And than there must be another selectable step, say, with four more chnges that, added to the first three, give again a selectable protein, and still are a further step to B. And so on, until we get B, 150 AAs aftfer. That's what I mean when I say that the algorithm can work only if all the complex functional proteins are deconstructable into simpler steps. each of them selectable. That's the most I can do to epxlain what I mean. Let's say I have tried.gpuccio_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PST}

No, of course not. It's like that silly precambrian rabbit example. Clearly, if we really did find something that looked like a centaur fossil, then palaentologists would be trying very hard to try to figure out what its antecedents were, and how it could possibly have evolved a what looks like a synapsid skull with a mammalian jaw yet belong to a completely different lineage. Ditto with the rabbit. The much more important point is that there are no precambrian rabbit fossils and there are no centaur fossils. None. Not a single chimera. It is the total absence such potentially viable creatures that makes the case so strong for common descent (not Darwinian evolution; common descent). We do not see crossed lineages, except relatively shortly after speciation events, and in the case of horizontal gene transfer. Neither of these could possibly explain a centaur. And before someone leaps in with "convergent evolution" - we are not talking about "convergent" features here, like flippers, or dorsal fins, which have comparable form and similar function but are anatomically completely non-homologous. I am talking an actual centaur, with a man's torso and a horse's body. It's probably a perfectly viable creature (unlike the pegasus), but given that men's torsos and horse's bodies have their own branches of the tetrapod lineages, you aren't going to see them duplicated in some hexapod lineage without the Darwinians having a lot of 'splainin' to do. Which of course they don't have to do, because there aren't any centaurs!Elizabeth Liddle_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST}

GinoB: That’s not what the papers showed. They showed the effects on fitness of variations and showed the effects to be independent of ‘need’. OK. You quoted two papers showing trivial examples of simple random variation, and their effects on fitness, obviously independent of need. I still wonder why. You have also demonstrated that you still don’t understand it. Well, this is a good argument, indeed! No one says it does, especially since your ‘dFSCI’ metric is a worthless made-up buzzterm not recognized by or used in the actual scientific community. Or, if simple aggression does not work, a call to conformistic thought certainly will... Your Point b) strawman is definitely not true, because there’s no requirement in evolution for every mutation to be positively selectable at every step. It is well documented that neutral mutations can and do accumulate in a population through drift, then combine with other later mutations to provide a reproductive benefit. Maybe you should go back to aggression and conformism. With ideas, you don't seem to do well. "there’s no requirement in evolution for every mutation to be positively selectable at every step" Obviosuly. Whoever said that? Please read again what I said: "RV + NS in principle could, but only if the pathway to the complex information could be deconstructed into steps of low enough functional complexity, each of them naturally selectable" Is "steps of low enough functional complexity" the same as "every step" in the darwinist mind? If so, there is really no hope. The problem is, the steps that can expand by NS must not be so distant that the transition be completely out of the range of the proibabilistic resources of a realistic biological model. That's what determines the choice of an appropriate throshold of complexity when computing dFSCI in a specific context (Ah, I apologize. I didn't mean to discuss worthless made-up buzzterms with you; I will not do that again). It is well documented that neutral mutations can and do accumulate in a population through drift, then combine with other later mutations to provide a reproductive benefit. And it is well obvious, even if the dumb logic of darwinists will never recognize it, that neutral mutations in no way chanhe the probabilities of a random walk, and neither does genetic drift, because it is a purely random event, and therefore does not change enything. The term "RV" includes all forms of possible random variations, including neutral mutations and genetic drift. And all RV is accounted for and evaluated in the ID model. You are attacking a worthless strawman version of the actual scientific theory, which is a major reason no one in the scientific community takes these claims seriously. It’s as simple as that. Conformism again, plus a bit of aggression. And the strawman detail, which always gives some glamour...gpuccio_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PST}

I agree, but I don’t see the misleading potential. Of course I agree that the word “selection” is not a good one, but it is the one currently used (and not certainly created by us IDists). In practice most variants are near-neutral in effect on reproductive success, and so the chances of any new variant propagating through the population is heavily dependent on luck. Yes indeed, but that doesn't that quite a lot won't propagate and many do. That's why I keep saying that the gene pool is constantly being drip-fed by near-neutral variants. This means that when any environmental change comes along, the population is excellently placed to adapt, as we see in what you would call "micro-evolution". But there is no reason why that process can't continue in one direction, rather than oscillate around a mean, as long as the drip-feed of new variants is fast enough to keep up with the environmental pressures.
In the standard terminology, neutral or near neutral variation is not cisible to selection. It can propagate or be lost, or just stay in some indivisuals. All that is random variation again.
Well, be careful of that word "random". But yes, drift is a stochastic process, that is biased in favour of traits that work, at which point we call it "selection" (misleadingly IMO).
Yes. That, in stanbdard terminology, is positive natural selection: the expansion of naturally selectable traits, whose effect is to potentiate (higly, I would say) the probabilistic resources that a naturally selectable trait may be a step to further evolution.
Well, I think that is a very overcomplex way of putting it. Why not just say that where a trait tends to enhance the probability of reproductive success it will become more prevalent in the population? That's all that's going on. You don't need to talk about "potentiating probabilistic resources", and my concern is that that kind of terminology (like "natural selection") produces more heat than light. Or more smoke than light!
Yes. That, in stanbdard terminology, is negative natural selection: the elimination of heavily non functional variation, whose effect is to fix existing functional information.
Yes, but it isn't "two kinds of selection": it's all differential reproduction relative to the average, and what is better than average in one generation may be worse than average in the next. So splitting it up into two "kinds" of process is potentially very misleading.
That’s why it is called the “necessity part” of the algorithm.
Well, if that's the only reason you are calling it that, then fair enough. But I think it isn't. You seem to be putting all the stochastic stuff on the variance creation side (even though some of that is highly "necessary") and all the necessary stuff on the selection side, even though selection is highly stochastic.
That is, positive NS and negative NS. And so?
And so it's a useless concept! There is differential reproduction. Period. If a trait confers greater than average reproductive success in one generation, but less than average in the next, which do we call it? There may be some, very limited, contexts in which it's a useful concept, I guess, but it certainly needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, because the underlying reality it describes is very much simpler: heritable traits confer differential reproductive success in any given environment. That's it. And both the generation of variants and differential reproductive success are process with probability distributions in which some events (near-neutral variants; successful reproduction associated with normally beneficial traits) are very much more likely than others (disastrously deleterious or miraculously beneficial variants, unsuccessful reproduction with normally beneficial traits or successful reproduction with normally deleterious traits). In other words trying to split "Chance" from "Necessity" is pretty well nonsense, pace Monod (whose book is nonetheless excellent in a heavily French way).Elizabeth Liddle_{October 25, 2011
October
10
Oct
25
25
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 14 Next