On “Specified Complexity,” Orgel and Dembski

_{Barry Arrington

November 24, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Bill Dembski often uses the term “specified complexity” to denote a characteristic of patterns that are best explained by the act of an intelligent designer. He defines the term as follows:

What is specified complexity? An object, event, or structure exhibits specified complexity if it is both complex (i.e., one of many live possibilities) and specified (i.e., displays an independently given pattern). A long sequence of randomly strewn Scrabble pieces is complex without being specified. A short sequence spelling the word “the” is specified without being complex. A sequence corresponding to a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

William A. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), xiii.

Dembski does not claim to have originated the concept of specified complexity:

The term specified complexity is about thirty years old. To my knowledge origin-of-life researcher Leslie Orgel was the first to use it. In his 1973 book The Origins of Life he wrote: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity” (189). More recently, Paul Davies (1999, 112) identified specified complexity as the key to resolving the problem of life’s origin: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.”

The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design

Is there a relationship between Leslie Orgel’s use of the term and Dembski’s. Yes, Dembski explains the relationship as follows:

Neither Orgel nor Davies, however, provided a precise analytic account of specified complexity. I provide such an account in The Design Inference (1998b) and its sequel No Free Lunch (2002). In this section I want briefly to outline my work on specified complexity. Orgel and Davies used specified complexity loosely. I’ve formalized it as a statistical criterion for identifying the effects of intelligence.

Id.

In summary, Orgel and Davies used the concept of specified complexity loosely. Dembski takes the concept they used loosely and formalizes it. One must be willfully obtuse, however, to fail to see the connection between the way Dembski uses the term and the way Orgel uses the term.

Dembski:

A long sequence of randomly strewn Scrabble pieces is complex without being specified.
A short sequence spelling the word “the” is specified without being complex.
A sequence corresponding to a Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

Orgel:

Mixtures of random polymers are complex without being specified.
Crystals such as granite are specified without being complex.
Living organisms are both complex and specified.

Yes, Orgel used the term more loosely than Dembski, but they are talking about the same concept. That is why Dembski repeatedly connects the term with Orgel and Davies in No Free Lunch.

When intelligent agents act, they leave behind a characteristic trademark or signature-what I define as specified complexity. [FN13] The complexity-specification criterion detects design by identifying this trademark of designed objects.
No Free Lunch, 6
[FN13]: The term “specified complexity” goes back at least to 1973, when Leslie Orgel used it in connection with origins-of-life research: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” See Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ), 189. The challenge of specified complexity to nonteleological accounts of life’s origin continues to loom large. Thus according to Paul Davies, “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.” See Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 112.

And

The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information. Paul Davies emphasized this point in his recent book The Fifth Miracle where he summarizes the current state of origin-of-life research: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.” The problem of specified complexity has dogged origin-of-life research now for decades. Leslie Orgel recognized the problem in the early 1970s: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” [FN33]
No Free Lunch, 149
[FN33]: Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973), 189.

And

In The Fifth Miracle Davies goes so far as to suggest that any laws capable of explaining the origin of life must be radically different from any scientific laws known to date.3 The problem, as he sees it, with currently known scientific laws, like the laws of chemistry and physics, is that they cannot explain the key feature of life that needs to be explained. That feature is specified complexity. As Davies puts it: “Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity.” [FN 5]
No Free Lunch, 180
[FN5] Davies, Fifth Miracle, 112. Consider also the following claim by Leslie Orgel: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” In Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), 189.

And

The term “specified complexity” has been in use for about thirty years. The first reference to it with which I am familiar is from Leslie Orgel’s 1973 book The Origins of Life, where specified complexity is treated as a feature of biological systems distinct from inorganic systems. [FN35]
No Free Lunch, 328-29.
[FN 35] Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ), 189.

UPDATE (HT to Mung):

Orgel on Specified Complexity

Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well specified structures…Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified.

p. 189

Wait for it …

These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all.

– p. 190

A final nail:

Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes.

– p. 196

Comments

kairosfocus said: "Did n=you notice that to date AFAIK none of the more stringent objectors of recent weeks has actually admitted that FSCO/I exists as a real characteristic of anything?" Why should anyone admit that? FSCO/I is a label you made up for some imaginary thing that you can't verify, especially in life forms. You're the only one who uses the term "FSCO/I". Not even your fellow IDers use it. "That, when confronted with something as simple and direct as an Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel to date they have studiously avoided it apart from one objector who had the bright idea to say well it has gears in it and we know of only one case of gears in the world of life. Actually, just one case of seriously properly meshed gears should be in itself a wake up call." Wake up call for what? Fishing reels are already known to be designed, and just because something in a life form can be described by some humans as 'gears' doesn't mean that they are gears that are deliberately designed, created, machined, and assembled along with other parts by a supernatural god. A spine from a fish hook cactus looks similar in shape to a man made metal fish hook but that doesn't mean that fish hook cactuses are designed by man made metal fish hook designers or by a supernatural god. "But the wider manifestations of FSCO/I are all around us — think, wiring diagram style node arc linkages and organisation that depends on specific configuration to achieve function — literally (think PC screen and the wider PC not to mention the data strings, programs, keyboards, track pads etc etc) staring us in the face." PC screens, PCs, PC data strings, PC programs, keyboards, track pads, etc., etc., are already known to be designed, and your reference to "wiring diagram style node arc linkages and organisation that depends on specific configuration to achieve function" is apparently in regard to computers and/or computer networks, which are also already known to be designed. Everything is a machine to you, isn't it? And 'the designer' is a machinist, mechanic, foundry worker, electrician, computer assembler/programmer, plumber, and construction worker, right? How does 'the designer' find the time to save souls?Pachyaena_{December 1, 2014
December
12
Dec
1
01
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST}

Joe blurted: "Tamara, We love your bald assertions, false accusation s and innuendos. Do you really think they help you? And don’t you get sick of doing that and then getting proven wrong? Or are you so pathological that it doesn’t bother you?" Dang, it's going to cost a lot of money to replace all of the shattered irony meters throughout the multiverse.Pachyaena_{November 30, 2014
November
11
Nov
30
30
2014
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PST}

Tamara, We love your bald assertions, false accusation s and innuendos. Do you really think they help you? And don't you get sick of doing that and then getting proven wrong? Or are you so pathological that it doesn't bother you? In "Signature in the Cell" and all other ID writings, it is clear that we use information in the standard and accepted way: b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects Notice how that also captures Crick's definition of biological information which we use when discussing biology.Joe_{November 28, 2014
November
11
Nov
28
28
2014
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: What’s your definition? We're more than happy to discuss any clearly defined term, such as Shannon Information. As for specified complexity, the problem is the changeable nature of its calculation. Here is Dembski's formula: chi = – log2 [ 10 ^ –120 * phi_S(T) * P(T|H) ] If we take P(T|H) to refer to a standard probability distribution, then it seemingly leads to false positives. If not, then P(T|H) may be intractable, and if it also lacks independence from phi_S, it can result in circularity.Zachriel_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PST}

Z 110
Which is why you have to use a consistent definition of information.
What's your definition?Silver Asiatic_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST}

We do have a consistent definition of information.
Don't do yourself down Joe, tell it like it is. You have many consistent definitions of information, lots of subtle and not so subtle variations to make "information" a word with which to win any argument.Tamara Knight_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST}

We do have a consistent definition of information.Joe_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: Again, there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that clouds generate sequential data which is received, translated and operationalized by rain, but I’m open to that possibility. Which is why you have to use a consistent definition of information. In one place you define it as requiring a sender and receiver; in another has in relation to a function. On top of that, it's used differently by different IDers, even on the same thread. Meanwhile, we still haven't been able to get a clear formula for specified complexity.Zachriel_{November 27, 2014
November
11
Nov
27
27
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST}

I don 't know, Silver Asiatic- just plan an outdoor event- washing and polishing the car is a good one- and the clouds and rain seem to coordinate to disrupt your plans. ;)Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PST}

Joe: Basically Shannon only told us about information carrying capacity. Tamara Knight: But I’ve never claimed anything else And yet we have you saying: Tamara Knight: Shannon is all about communication not meaning. Can you please explain how it is that you think your second claim isn't any different from what Joe said?
I’m glad we’ve cleared that up now and agree on at least one key issue. Let’s hope with your help Mung can see the light too.
Just what is it, precisely, that you think I need to "see the light" on? Tamara Knight:
And how would that being true affect the conclusion of the previous discussions? Shannon’s long gone, and his definition of the term can’t be undone. Would renaming it “Mung’s nemesis” make it more or less like CSI?
You're the one who thrives on making up terms. You want to call it "Mung's Nemesis" no one here can stop you. You want to call it "Dembski Information " no one here can stop you.Mung_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PST}

R0bb. I guess you missed my response @78 to your question.
These statements have no references attached.
So?Mung_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PST}

Mung @ 24 shares an interesting quote from the Wikipedia entry on "Complexity":
In physical systems, complexity is a measure of the probability of the state vector of the system.
There is also a similar sentence in the entry on "Physical System":
The complexity of a physical system is equal to the probability of it being in a particular state vector.
These statements have no references attached. The former was written by an anonymous contributor in 2004, and the latter was merged in from a now-nonexistent article so it can't be tracked. I've never heard of a field called "physical systems". Has anyone seen the term "complexity" used this way in thermodynamics or statistical mechanics? Any examples would be appreciated. Edit: Added spaces in "Mung @ 24" so it wouldn't be treated as an email address.R0bb_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST}

It’s not a sender and receiver of information as you stated above. If it is a functional relationship, then there is a functional relationship between clouds and rain.
Again, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that clouds generate sequential data which is received, translated and operationalized by rain, but I'm open to that possibility.Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: There is a relationship between the generation of information and the function. It's not a sender and receiver of information as you stated above. If it is a functional relationship, then there is a functional relationship between clouds and rain. Silver Asiatic: Did the quoted text in post 95 help? We responded in 98.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PST}

Joe,
What if no one knew what “intuition” meant? Would we still use it [intuition]? :) How would we know? How could we convey that to others if there wasn’t any meaning in our communications?
LOL. I wonder why we don't have numerous posts questioning what is meant by intuition? [No, I don't really wonder - I know why. :-)]Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST}

Zachriel
nothing to do with transmitting information between a sender and receiver. Notably, the measure is in reference to a particular function
There is a relationship between the generation of information and the function.
We don’t need a definition of information. There was never a need for “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”. We can just use intuition.
Did the quoted text in post 95 help?Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PST}

Joe
Clouds provide the data that we use to turn into information.
Exactly. We can extract data from any observable thing and then create information out of it. That is different from something that generates and communicates information to a receiver as in biological functions.Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST}

What if no one knew what "intuition" meant? Would we still use it [intuition]? :) How would we know? How could we convey that to others if there wasn't any meaning in our communications?Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PST}

Clouds provide the data that we use to turn into information.Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PST}

Zachriel: If we see clouds and infer rain, does that means the clouds contain information about rain? Silver Asiatic: There is sender, code, medium, receiver, translation and operation – among other things in an informational relationship. So you're saying clouds don't give us information about rain? Silver Asiatic: Durston did some nice peer-reviewed work on the nature of information. You might be interested in this: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 They *define* a measure of information which has nothing to do with transmitting information between a sender and receiver. Notably, the measure is in reference to a particular function, and more important, to a degree of function. Change the degree of function, and the measure changes. Nor can they reasonably calculate how many sequences have the function, so they have a problem on that side of the equation too. Silver Asiatic: I don’t know why it’s a problem. Definition disorder? We don't need a definition of information. There was never a need for "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". We can just use intuition.Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PST}

Joe
And most people, including children, know what the word means. Why are you having such difficulty? Perhaps you should try a dictionary…
I don't know why it's a problem. Definition disorder? There's a Wiki site about information which includes the paragraph I quoted from one SCIENTIST who argues that information requires a relationship. Still looking for the evolutionary origins of information networks. Random symbols that have no meaning for sender are sent for no reason to nobody. They are received randomly by receivers who don't know or care about what the signal means - since it means nothing. But accidentally, the signal and receiver randomly arrive at the same meaning of the randomly generated signal. Add billions of years - and we have the internet.Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PST}

Joe @ 94
Only to people with knowledge of such things. When I see tracks in the snow those tracks contain information. And today that information led me to where my dog had wandered to.
Right. You extracted information from raw data. But you could also infer that there was some intelligence and that the tracks may have been communicating something. There are specified patterns (the image matching dog prints, the direction of the steps, the even spacing). But there's very limited complexity and no apparent coding or communication network or function observable. The paw-prints communicate enough information on their own that some kind of probability study could be done to determine if they were caused randomly or by natural forces.Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST}

If we see clouds and infer rain, does that means the clouds contain information about rain?
Information is communicative. There is sender, code, medium, receiver, translation and operation - among other things in an informational relationship. There's no evidence that clouds communicate something to rain and that rain receives, processes and acts on that information, but I'm open to the possibility that it does work that way. As mentioned above, there's a large area of scientific research and analysis on information. This area of study is not limited to ID research. Durston did some nice peer-reviewed work on the nature of information. You might be interested in this: http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47 From the text:
We have extended Shannon uncertainty by incorporating the data variable with a functionality variable.
This goes beyond Shannon's ideas.
Abel and Trevors have delineated three qualitative aspects of linear digital sequence complexity [2,3], Random Sequence Complexity (RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC) and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC). RSC corresponds to stochastic ensembles with minimal physicochemical bias and little or no tendency toward functional free-energy binding. OSC is usually patterned either by the natural regularities described by physical laws or by statistically weighted means. For example, a physico-chemical self-ordering tendency creates redundant patterns such as highly-patterned polysaccharides and the polyadenosines adsorbed onto montmorillonite [4]. Repeating motifs, with or without biofunction, result in observed OSC in nucleic acid sequences. The redundancy in OSC can, in principle, be compressed by an algorithm shorter than the sequence itself. As Abel and Trevors have pointed out, neither RSC nor OSC, or any combination of the two, is sufficient to describe the functional complexity observed in living organisms, for neither includes the additional dimension of functionality, which is essential for life [5]. FSC includes the dimension of functionality [2,3]. Szostak [6] argued that neither Shannon's original measure of uncertainty [7] nor the measure of algorithmic complexity [8] are sufficient. Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that 'different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent'. For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information–functional information–is required [6]. Chiu, Wong, and Cheung also discussed the insufficiency of Shannon uncertainty [9,10] when applied to measuring outcomes of variables. The differences between RSC, OSC and FSC in living organisms are necessary and useful in describing biosequences of living organisms.
Note: Abel and Trevors delineate three kinds of information sequencing - Random, Ordered and Functional. Note: Shannon uncertainty is insufficient in describing the functional information in biology. Szostak proposed different measures. The bolded text just affirms what Joe has been arguing elsewhere in this thread. Discussion of Shannon uncertainty (it's not information) as if that's the only or most significant measure we can use is irrelevant and incorrect.Silver Asiatic_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PST}

You keep using that word, information.
And most people, including children, know what the word means. Why are you having such difficulty? Perhaps you should try a dictionary...
If we see clouds and infer rain, does that means the clouds contain information about rain?
Only to people with knowledge of such things. When I see tracks in the snow those tracks contain information. And today that information led me to where my dog had wandered to.Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PST}

Tamara, I use the words in the standard and well accepted ways. I have no idea what definitions you are using in order to spew the accusations that you spew.
You are clearly far more interested in playing word games than in establishing the veracity of any underlying scientific hypotheses.
Nice projection. Look you ate it on natural selection and fitness and you want to try to blame me. The posts are there for all to read so go ahead and cry.
You constantly claim science is being held back by the refusal of the mainsteam to embrace ID.
Mainstream hasn't given us any insight as to what makes an organism what it is. Mainstream would benefit from "The Privileged Planet" when it comes to trying to find other intelligent beings.
Sure, KNOWING what a designer did and WHEN and HOW it did it would be an immense boost to science, but you claim ID has not the slightest interest in determinig that.
You are confused, as usual. ID isn't about that but ID doesn't prevent anyone from trying to find answers to those. However that is like asking that newly found Amazon tribe to tell us how computers are made. But anyway we are still waiting for the demonstration of communicating without meaning. Any time you are ready...Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PST}

ME: Together we can probably manage to correct Mung’s misunderstanding about the equivalence of CSI and Shannon information. Joe: Shannon information is a misnomer.
And how would that being true affect the conclusion of the previous discussions? Shannon's long gone, and his definition of the term can't be undone. Would renaming it "Mung's nemesis" make it more or less like CSI?
But I still want to hear about this communication without meaning. If you can demonstrate that I will be very impressed.
Whoa! Clever boy! If I had seen that coming I would have posted something suggesting that “meaning” is relevant only in the sense that the receiver receives exactly what the sender sent, nothing more. Why didn't I do that? Oh, wait a minute.... So yes Joe, it is pefectly possible to define meaning and communication in such a way that you can trivially but truthfully post "You cannot have communication without meaning." as whatever the blog equivalent of a sound bite is. It is equally possible to define them so as to be able to say "You can have communication without meaning.", Which is why scientific progress depends on agreed definitions. You are clearly far more interested in playing word games than in establishing the veracity of any underlying scientific hypotheses. You constantly claim science is being held back by the refusal of the mainsteam to embrace ID. But what I regard as a coffee-break challenge, you must regard as your daily grind. You must have spent thousands of hours here playing word games, but can you link me to a single post where you discuss how ID acceptance would affect the course of scientific discovery? Say, for example, Genetic Engineering to improve crops. Sure, KNOWING what a designer did and WHEN and HOW it did it would be an immense boost to science, but you claim ID has not the slightest interest in determinig that. What would be your career advice if I were a newly graduated eager young biologist and ID advocate looking for discoveries to feed the world? "Luv, you've got to just pray to the designer, because trust me, it's all too complex for a pretty little girl like you to ever understand" perhaps?Tamara Knight_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic: We know that informational relationships can be build by design. You keep using that word, information. If we see clouds and infer rain, does that means the clouds contain information about rain?Zachriel_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PST}

You cannot have communication without meaning.Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PST}

Tamara Knight:
Together we can probably manage to correct Mung’s misunderstanding about the equivalence of CSI and Shannon information.
Shannon information is a misnomer. But I still want to hear about this communication without meaning. If you can demonstrate that I will be very impressed.Joe_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PST}

Mung, remember this? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-user-feature-at-ud/#comment-532110 When you posted "Why is it only for new users?" in response to a post titled "New User Feature at UD", I thought it was a rather feeble attempt at a joke. But extracting the meaning from communication seems to be an area where you have problems. I now see that you must have genuinely parsed that title as "new-user feature" rather than the obvious "new user-feature". Please explain how you think Joe's (undisputed) statement "Shannon only told us about information carrying capacity." is even at odds with mine claiming “Shannon is all about communication not meaning”, let alone proving a lie. As Joe correctly explained, Shannon's work defined the information carrying capacity of a communication channel. If the concept of "meaning" occurs anywhere in his work, it is only in the sense that the receiver gets exactly what the sender intended, nothing more. Regardless of whether or not anything else you are saying has merit, you can't load your extended definition of information on Shannon's concepts and expect his metric to still be relevant Joe gets it. Perhaps he can explain it to you using concepts you are more familiar with.Tamara Knight_{November 26, 2014
November
11
Nov
26
26
2014
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PST}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply