Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On The Calculation Of CSI

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

My thanks to Jonathan M. for passing my suggestion for a CSI thread on and a very special thanks to Denyse O’Leary for inviting me to offer a guest post.

[This post has been advanced to enable a continued discussion on a vital issue. Other newer stories are posted below. – O’Leary ]

In the abstract of Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence, William Demski asks “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” Many ID proponents answer this question emphatically in the affirmative, claiming that Complex Specified Information is a metric that clearly indicates intelligent agency.

As someone with a strong interest in computational biology, evolutionary algorithms, and genetic programming, this strikes me as the most readily testable claim made by ID proponents. For some time I’ve been trying to learn enough about CSI to be able to measure it objectively and to determine whether or not known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of generating it. Unfortunately, what I’ve found is quite a bit of confusion about the details of CSI, even among its strongest advocates.

My first detailed discussion was with UD regular gpuccio, in a series of four threads hosted by Mark Frank. While we didn’t come to any resolution, we did cover a number of details that might be of interest to others following the topic.

CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:

  1. A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”
  2. Tom Schneider’s ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of “A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome.” The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneider’s PhD work with real biological organisms.)
  3. Tom Ray’s Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is “Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation.” The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.
  4. The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is “Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.”

vjtorley very kindly and forthrightly addressed the first scenario in detail. His conclusion is:

I therefore conclude that CSI is not a useful way to compare the complexity of a genome containing a duplicated gene to the original genome, because the extra bases are added in a single copying event, which is governed by a process (duplication) which takes place in an orderly fashion, when it occurs.

In that same thread, at least one other ID proponent agrees that known evolutionary mechanisms can generate CSI. At least two others disagree.

I hope we can resolve the issues in this thread. My goal is still to understand CSI in sufficient detail to be able to objectively measure it in both biological systems and digital models of those systems. To that end, I hope some ID proponents will be willing to answer some questions and provide some information:

  1. Do you agree with vjtorley’s calculation of CSI?
  2. Do you agree with his conclusion that CSI can be generated by known evolutionary mechanisms (gene duplication, in this case)?
  3. If you disagree with either, please show an equally detailed calculation so that I can understand how you compute CSI in that scenario.
  4. If your definition of CSI is different from that used by vjtorley, please provide a mathematically rigorous definition of your version of CSI.
  5. In addition to the gene duplication example, please show how to calculate CSI using your definition for the other three scenarios I’ve described.

Discussion of the general topic of CSI is, of course, interesting, but calculations at least as detailed as those provided by vjtorley are essential to eliminating ambiguity. Please show your work supporting any claims.

Thank you in advance for helping me understand CSI. Let’s do some math!

Comments
I'm not a mathematician and I don't understand Dembski's math. However I have never really bought the UPB as a probability bound that ought to be used for application to biology. I think Behe's number of 10^-40 is a better probability bound to use. This is the estimated number of total cells in the history of life on earth. Just about everything except HIV mutates at a rate much less than one mutation per cell. The fastest rate for E. coli is around 10^-5 per gene. Therefore 10^-40 is probably a generous estimate of the Biological Probability Bound (BPB). In Behe's new paper, he defines a Functional Coded elemenT (FCT) as:
a discrete but not necessarily contiguous region of a gene that, by means of its nucleotide sequence, influences the production, processing, or biological activity of a particular nucleic acid or protein, or its specific binding to another molecule.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf In other words, these FCTs are the defined regions of the genome that should be used to calculate CSI. The calculation would be fairly simple theoretically. n = length of FCT sequence in nucleotides f = total number of sequences able to perform the same function as the template FCT When: f/4^n < 10^-40 Then you have biological CSI (bCSI).tragic mishap
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
UB #91
I did not realize you had addressed a comment to me in the previous thread; I stopped going there because the page was taking too long to load.
You couldn’t have responded anyhow because comments were closed shortly after I posed the question.
In any case, I think I have been consistent in my views. As I have said before, I am not one that thinks a carbon atom contains information. I make a distinction between an object, the information that can be created from an object, and an object arranged in order to contain information. I know this puts me at odds with some, but as of yet, I haven’t been convinced otherwise. I don’t dwell on it because the opponents of design generally become animated when they find two ID supporters who (gasp) disagree.
I think it is significant when ID supporters disagree over how to detect design.  But the point of my question in this case was not to show up disagreement between yourself and other ID proponents.  It was to explore your idea that symbols are the distinguishing criterion of information and therefore design (if I have paraphrased you correctly). You answered my first question thanks.  I am still interested in the answer to the second:
I assume the symbols in a string of DNA are the bases. What do they symbolise?
 markf
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
The only way to say a gene duplication is a blind watchmaker process is to demonstrate that blind watchmaker-type processes can account for the origin of living organisms from non-living matter and energy. Anything short of that and there isn't any justification for the blind watchmaker having a hand in anything but point mutations. To get a protein from a duplicated gene requires that duplicated gene to have the proper binding sites. And even then all you are going to have is an extra protein that you could have gotten from mutating the regulatory sequence- but a new protein that doesn't have a home and is free to get in the way of already existing and functioning systems. Like my car will run better if I add more spark plugs. Perhaps two radios would allow me to listen to the game and music at the same time. If I add spark plugs do I increase the CSI of my car?Joseph
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
---markf: "Mathgrrl points out Dembski writes in his paper (which he says supersedes all other definitions of CSI) (Dembski) "By contrast, to employ specified complexity to infer design is to take the view that objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, can exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause" --markf: "i.e. we should be able to look at an object and assess its CSI without knowing anything about its origins." Dembski is speaking about the how of the origin not the fact of the origin. In other words, we can assess its CSI without knowing anything about the process or the mechanism that produced it. He is not saying that CSI could be about something other than origins. As I say so often, Darwinists typically read into documents that which they wish was there rather than read out of them that which the author intended. Then they want to hold the poor author accountable for their own confusion. [Hence this thread].StephenB
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
markf:
You write several times above that CSI refers to origins.
And I have supported that claim. I can't force anyone to read my posts but don't just read that parts that you want to. markf:
By contrast, to employ specified complexity to infer design is to take the view that objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, can exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause.
And archaeologists do that all the time. His point is chance and necessity cannot generate specified complexity- that means from scratch. Stop quote-mining. markf:
i.e. we should be able to look at an object and assess its CSI without knowing anything about its origins.
You sound like you are fishing. But anyway, if you are given a set of instructions for building something- that is specified information- a computer program also qualifies. And yes we can assess the if CSI is present in each of those examples.Joseph
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Collin, whoops -- I thought you were responding to me, and that I wasn't clear. Sorry.QuiteID
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
But if several changes (possibly including duplication) over occur a number of generations in a population, and those changes lead to something other than 2X of Protein Y (maybe more protein Y expressed in where it's not been before, or a variation -- Protein Ya -- that plays a different role), and that "something other" is a new function that adds to fitness, *then* has CSI increased?QuiteID
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
QuietID, I think it would. But I probably shouldn't be taken as an authority because I haven't even read Dembski's work. I wish that he would comment on this thread.Collin
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
This goes back to my discussion of tightness of fit between code and function. Here's why, if you change a command from "Build X amount of Protein Y" to "Build 2X amount of Protein Y" you have not increased the CSI you have CHANGED the CSI. And if that change in CSI deteriorates the fit between code and function, then you have decreased the CSI not increased it. So here is your calculation: when the command (build X amount of protein Y) results in X amount of protein Y, then you have a perfect fit between code and function. 100%. But if you get a gene duplication that says "Build 2X amount of Protein Y" and you only get 1.9X amount of protein Y, then you have less than 100% fit between code and function and therefore you have a decrease in CSI. But if you get 2X amount of Protein Y, you do not have an INCREASE in CSI, you have a CHANGE in CSI.Collin
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
Collin, I agree. My question is, would an increase in the length of the genome plus a novel specification constitute an increase in CSI?QuiteID
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Mathgrrl said, "According to my understanding of CSI, this increase in the length of the genome constitutes an increase in CSI." I highly doubt that Dembski was saying that. If so, then CSI would be meaningless. Let me ask you a question about your first scenario. You state that the specification is "Produce at least X amount of protein Y." Would the gene duplication essentially say "Produce at least 2x of protein Y?" (because it is saying produce at least X of protein Y twice).Collin
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Mathgrrl, I had made the decision to stop asking you to acknowledge the point. It had become obvious that you have no intention of doing so. I see now that this judgment has been confirmed yet again.Upright BiPed
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Mark, I did not realize you had addressed a comment to me in the previous thread; I stopped going there because the page was taking too long to load. In any case, I think I have been consistent in my views. As I have said before, I am not one that thinks a carbon atom contains information. I make a distinction between an object, the information that can be created from an object, and an object arranged in order to contain information. I know this puts me at odds with some, but as of yet, I haven’t been convinced otherwise. I don’t dwell on it because the opponents of design generally become animated when they find two ID supporters who (gasp) disagree. It becomes quite a spectacle. For instance, we have on this thread an ID critic who all but demands that proponent A speak to her in the terms of proponent B, then uses any differences as a hedge against the validity of ID. Yet, on another thread we have a Darwinian biologist highlighting the difference of opinions among his peers.Upright BiPed
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
SCheesman, you and Joseph seem to disagree. To clarify: I agree that a single non-teleological change (a gene duplication, for example) will not generate new CSI, even if the old gene did contain new CSI. But if such a duplication combined with other changes over time to create a new specification out of that (modified) duplication, wouldn't that be considered new CSI? I think it would, but I don't know if that's possible. Do you think that would? As far as I can tell, Joseph seems to think it would not. I think Joseph would argue that such a change could well be teleological, but I don't know if that could be supported by evidence. (Of course, I may be misunderstanding either you or Joseph.)QuiteID
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Joseph (Mathgrrl has explained this very well - but I thought I would try to get it across as well.) You write several times above that CSI refers to origins. Yet as Mathgrrl points out Dembski writes in his paper (which he says supersedes all other definitions of CSI) By contrast, to employ specified complexity to infer design is to take the view that objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, can exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause i.e. we should be able to look at an object and assess its CSI without knowing anything about its origins.markf
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
QuiteID:
I’m confused. I thought CSI could refer to new CSI in a system already containing CSI. Some here seem to be suggesting that any generation of new CSI in such a system doesn’t count. But that would mean that no evolutionary change in a biological system would count as “new CSI.” I’m sorry, but that seems like an impossibly high bar, and shifting the goalposts to boot.
You misunderstand what it means to "generate new CSI". Each change is the result of a selection from a range of possibilites, with its attendent probability. A single such change is not (generally) CSI... it is the combination of many such changes required to produce a given affect that constitutes CSI. "CSI" is really a threshhold established which separates what combination of changes has a reasonable chance of occuring given random processes (e.g. monkeys at typewriters) and what requires intelligent input. So organisms can and do change. But it is the ID contention, that under natural (non-teleological) processes, those changes will not combine or occur in a manner which crosses the threshhold of CSI.SCheesman
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
MathGrrl
Dembski asks the question “Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?” and answers yes
I could try to respond to all your comments, but instead would like to return to your original example #1:
1.A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is “Produces at least X amount of protein Y.”
First, what is the "object" in your example? Is it the act of duplication? Is it the existence of the protein that is being duplicated? Is it the specific action of the protein? Is it the degree of efficacy of that production? Is it the composition or complexity of the item being produced? You really must break it up into parts, and the CSI of each can be considered on its own merits, even by Bill Dembski's original definition. So duplication, on its own is not CSI. The precise control of the amount of duplication for a purpose may be - you'd have to examine the possible ranges and what it takes to constrain it to a particular amount. The original gene, on its own, is an example of CSI, because it is a specific, complex arrangement to produce a specific function - e.g produce Y. So it is still possible to infer CSI without looking at the original "code", but you need to understand better the range of possible outcomes and how the particular scenario you envision is a selection from the outcomes, as opposed to a "necessary" one in order to impute CSI.SCheesman
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
QuietID- CSI pertains to origins, just as William Dembski wrote. I can't help it if you and MathGrrl refuse to understand that. Also "evolutionary change" is meaningless, but I have been over and over that before too.Joseph
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
I'm confused. I thought CSI could refer to new CSI in a system already containing CSI. Some here seem to be suggesting that any generation of new CSI in such a system doesn't count. But that would mean that no evolutionary change in a biological system would count as "new CSI." I'm sorry, but that seems like an impossibly high bar, and shifting the goalposts to boot.QuiteID
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
MathGrrl:
Please provide a mathematically rigorous method for creating a specification...
I don't know if I should laugh or cry- that is just so stupidly sad. When engineers design something do you think they use an equation for formulating their design specifications? Do you have any idea how engineers go about designing? How about artists? Do you have any idea what CSI is?Joseph
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
MathGrrl:
Please provide example calculations of CSI for the four scenarios I described in my original post.
Your four scenaios are bogus as not one deals with ORIGINS and CSI is all about ORIGINS: William Dembski wrote:
The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of infrmation but the origin of complex specified inforaion. – page 149 of “No Free Lunch” (bold added)
Algorithms and natural laws are in principle incapable of explaining the origin of CSI. (further down on the same page)
So what's up MathGrrl? Why the strawmn and why the continued equivocation? And still no evidence that gene duplications are blind watchmaker processes, go figure...Joseph
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
MathGrrl:
I skimmed it and determined that it does not deal with Dembski’s CSI, which is the topic of this thread.
As I pointed out Dembski's CSI pertains to ORIGINS. You refuse to understand that. To me that means you have issues you need to take care of before coming here and asking about CSI. Also as I posted CSI refers to biological function. And that is what the paper I linkdto deas with. MathGrrl:
The issue for this thread is whether or not Dembski’s definition of CSI leads to the conclusion that gene duplication (and other known evolutionary mechanisms) can generate CSI.
That doesn't have anything to do with Dembski's CSI. Also you seem o be stuck with equivocations which tells me you don't know what ID claims even though I told you. "Evolutionary mechanisms" is meaningless. Starting with a CSI- ie a living organism- is cheating. The point being, MathGrrl, is you have erected a strawman and refuse to budge in the face of refuting evidence.Joseph
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
SCheesman,
I wish to propose a rigorous method to calculate the “increase in CSI” represented by the original four proposals. The principle is general and applies equally to all four. In each case you must identify the minimum set of instructional changes in the “source code” or “instruction set” necessary to move the solution from a state lacking the ability to produce the specification to the state containing that possibility. The CSI is the amount of change required, measured in bits of “atomic” changes in the code; for instance in the genetic code this would be any kind of mutation that can occur as a single-step operation, e.g. substitution, deletion, addition, maybe even duplication of section of code. The “bits” of change is the chance of the particular change required occuring out of all the possible atomic changes; equal to the negative log to the base two of the probability of that change out of all possible changes.
This is one of the variant CSI calculations that came up in a discussion with gpuccio on Mark Frank's blog. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense. Interestingly, this definition leads to the conclusion that the parasite organisms in Tierra have significant CSI. I'd be very interested in discussing this further, but I do want to stay focused on Dembski's version of CSI, and the claims made about it, in this thread. That version, as far as I can tell, does not take the history of an artifact into account. Dembski asks the question "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?" and answers yes.MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
UNLESS YOU CAN RECOGNISE AND ACCEPT THE EMPIRICAL REALITY OF FSCI AS OBSERVED, IDENTIFIED AND DESCRIBED IN THE ACADEMIC TECHNICAL LITERATURE BY ORGEL, WICKEN AND OTHERS 30+ YEARS AGO, YOU CANNOT CONSTRUCT OR UNDERSTAND VALID MATHEMATICAL MODELS THEREOF.
The topic of this thread is CSI as discussed by Dembski in Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. Not Orgel, not FSCI, but the actual metric that is claimed by ID proponents to indicate intelligent agency. Despite repeated requests, you have still not provided a mathematically rigorous definition of CSI nor have you shown how to calculate it for the four scenarios I described in the original post. Could you please do so?MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
JGuy,
Gene duplication may double the amount of some existing CSI. However, simple reason shows that nothing new & novel is produced.
On the contrary, as noted repeatedly in this thread, a gene duplication can result in increased production of a particular protein which can, in turn, have a significant effect on the biochemistry that takes place in a cell.
To produce CSI, it needs to be more than what you started…and not repeats.
Could you please provide a rigorous mathematical definition of CSI based on Dembski's discussion in Specification... that supports this statement and show how to calculate CSI, by your definition, for the four scenarios I described in my original post?MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
PaV,
Namely, and here I’m referencing Dembski’s paper on Specification, most critics of ID confuse a “prespecification” with a true, and precisely defined “specification”. . . . In the case of Tierra, e.g., what “specification”, i.e. ‘pattern’ are we dealing with? None.
Please provide a mathematically rigorous method for creating a specification and show how those that I included with the four scenarios in my original post do not meet your criteria. You seem to be simply dismissing them out of hand.
Here’s a link to a paper from 2003 that uses a variant of Shannon and Kolmogorov complexity to calculate the increase of complexity over increasing computer time used.
While I have an interest in Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, the topic of this thread is CSI as defined by Dembski. Please provide example calculations of CSI for the four scenarios I described in my original post.MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed,
It’s kinda like ‘piss on the truth’ isn’t Mathgrrl. As long as one remains satified with their ability to deny the observation, right?
Coarseness aside, I have yet to see you provide a rigorous definition of CSI nor any examples of how to calculate it for the four scenarios I described in my original post. There is nothing for me to deny. I look forward to you addressing that gap in your position.MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
SCheesman,
I don’t believe it is possible to come up with any mathematical description of the CSI in the 4 examples you give, but not because the concept of CSI is incoherent, but rather because the examples specified, though appearing to be framed in terms relevant to CSI, are in fact not what CSI measures in the first place, but rather contingent phenomena of more basic processes which more properly might be examined for changes in CSI.
This seems to contradict Dembski's claim in Specification.... He asks the question "Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?" and answers it in the affirmative, as do many ID proponents here.
Change the focus from duplication of a gene to yield some concentration of a particular protein to the changes necessary in the genetic code or epigenetic action required to accomplish it. It may well be that a single point mutation produces this outcome, in which case the change in CSI is precisely zero, as the before and after state contain the same amount of information.
In the scenario I described, the increase in protein concentration is due to a duplication event. According to my understanding of CSI, this increase in the length of the genome constitutes an increase in CSI. Based on Dembski's explanation of CSI, do you agree? If not, why not?
Any computational algorithm, be it ev or Tierra, produces a fixed outcome depending on the initial conditions. Given the same initial conditions, you get the same solution.
That's not correct. The GAs with which I'm familiar make use of random number generators. If you look into the Steiner solutions linked to in the original post of this thread, you'll find that different solutions are found in different runs. Now, you could argue that the initial seed of a pseudo-random number generator counts as part of the "initial conditions", but that's just an implementation detail. Using a physically random source such as diode noise, radioactive decay, or a lava lamp would result in different solutions as well.
In order to talk about CSI in a useful way, you need descend to the lowest instructional level, the kernel of information that drives the outcomes observed.
Again, this doesn't align with the claims made by Dembski and other ID proponents. You seem to be making an argument similar to that of CJYman in the previous thread, a cosmological ID view. Do you agree that, given the world we observe, known evolutionary mechanisms can generate CSI?MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
Polanyi,
I'm no mathematician, but I don’t think one needs to be one in order to see that gene duplication as an evolutionary mechanism for the origin of information is problematic.
The issue for this thread is whether or not Dembski's definition of CSI leads to the conclusion that gene duplication (and other known evolutionary mechanisms) can generate CSI. Thus far, only vjtorley has made the effort to actually calculate CSI based on his understanding of Dembski's paper.MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Joseph,
In comment 12 I linked to a paper discussing what you asked for. Did you read it?
I skimmed it and determined that it does not deal with Dembski's CSI, which is the topic of this thread. If you disagree, please show how their definition is analogous to Dembski's and provide example calculations for the four scenarios I described in the original post of this thread.MathGrrl
March 24, 2011
March
03
Mar
24
24
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13 14 15

Leave a Reply