Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Writing Biosemiosis.org

Categories
Information
Intelligent Design
Origin Of Life
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 

In September of 2009 I started a new document on my computer entitled “A System of Symbols”, where I was going to write about the part of design theory that interested me the most – that is, the representations that are required for self-replication (von Neumann, Pattee). My goal was to inventory all the physical conditions necessary for one thing to represent another thing in a material universe. I wrote and rewrote that essay for more than four years — reading, learning, and sharing along the way. As it turns out, writing that essay was my way of coming to understand the issues, and I spent a great deal of that time trying to articulate things I had come to understand conceptually, but could not yet put into words. Eventually I came into contact with the types of scientists and researchers who had substantial experience with these issues, up to and including those who had spent their entire careers on the subject. It was a humbling experience to share my thoughts with people of that caliber, and have them respond by sending me papers of their own that reflected the same concepts.

Then In 2014, I retired that essay and began writing Biosemiosis.org in its place. Since that work is available to any reader, I won’t recapitulate it here, but there are a couple of concepts I’d like to highlight – particularly the discontinuity found in the translation of recorded information. Read More

[I’d like to thank Barry and Uncommon Descent for allowing me to publish this introduction to my two projects]

Comments
Zachriel: OK, if state B is production of proteins by RNA, and not DNA, the same argument remains true. For RNA to produce proteins you need the genetic code and the translation apparatus. Including the 20 proteins which implement the genetic code. And the information which produced rybozymes has to be found again, if the functions has to be assumed by proteins, for the reasons I have already stated. The point remains, the information (in nucleotide sequence) to effect a function by RNA has nothing to do with the information (in nucleotide sequence) to effect the same function by a protein, coded by the genetic code. The simple truth is that cell functions, for all we know, are effected by proteins, from LUCA on. The ribosome is an exception. It was an exception in the beginning, and it is an exception today. You say: " Crick made the prediction that “the primitive ribosome could have been made entirely of RNA."" And then you add: "A generation later Cech and Altman showed that “the ribosome is a ribozyme” — RNA makes proteins. As such, the ribosome is a primordial structure predicted by RNA World." You seem to suggest that the second statement is the confirmation of the "prediction" made by Crick. But that is not the case. I am not aware of any evidence that “the primitive ribosome was made entirely of RNA". If you have any, please let me know. The fact that the main active sites in the ribosome are implemented by the RNA molecule is no such evidence. It has always been known that the ribosome is mainly an RNA structure, with many proteins playing some role. That is true now, and can very well have been true in the beginning. And, in the end, I am not denying that RNA can effect some functions. It does now, It did in the beginning. That is no evidence for the RNA world.gpuccio
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Z, you need to be building us cells capable of metabolism joined to self replication and with encapsulation with smart gating. Then showing us evidence of this at OOL and of the transition to the observed cell based life. Absent this you are building a pyramid of evo mat ideological speculation on a pinhead of fact that does not really support what is needed. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
gpuccio: Let’s accept for a moment that life originated as RNA world. (I don’t believe it, but it’s for the sake of discussion). RNA World is posited to have preceded DNA World, but may not have been the first replicator. gpuccio: OK. Let’s call this state B. State B would be RNA production of peptides (or may have even been part of state A). gpuccio: So, is that functional information “carried on” from A to B? In the 1960s, Crick and Orgel hypothesized RNA World, a time in the history of life wherein RNA would act both to store genetic information and to catalyze chemical reactions. Crick made the prediction that “the primitive ribosome could have been made entirely of RNA”. A generation later Cech and Altman showed that "the ribosome is a ribozyme" — RNA makes proteins. As such, the ribosome is a primordial structure predicted by RNA World. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1989/cech-article.htmlZachriel
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: More complex relationships” isn’t the physical requirement, translation is. Translation is posited to have evolved from simpler associations. Upright BiPed: And as we have come to agree, no one has demonstrated an engineered RNA “template-replicator” resulting in translation. That is correct. Upright BiPed: The diagram at the top of this page (which you have referred to) does not make any claims about “what could not plausible occur”. Instead, it shows what *does occur* during the translation of functional effects from an informational medium. That's fine. Translation, including the "necessary discontinuity", is posited to have evolved from simpler associations. Upright BiPed: An RNA “template-replicator” encapsulated inside a dissociated lipid membrane still does not achieve translation, and thus, is not capable of organizing the heterogeneous living cell. Not sure what you are claiming. Posited RNA replicators within a lipid membrane are an organized heterogeneous cell capable of making other organized heterogeneous cells. Andre: I’m just stating the obvious here, you are assuming without any evidence that simple things can become more complex given enough time, and chance. It's not an assumption, but a scientific finding. Indeed, nature is full of complexity resulting from simple interactions. EugeneS: Zachriel in 152 conveniently ignores the colossal distinction between self-replication of homogeneous (like crystals) and heterogeneous structures (like the cell). DNA is a template replicator.Zachriel
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Zachriel: I would like to ask you something. Let's accept for a moment that life originated as RNA world. (I don't believe it, but it's for the sake of discussion). So, at some point we have living beings who use RNA both as an effector molecule (instead of proteins) and as an information recording molecule (instead of DNA). At this point, we are supposed to have already a lot of functional information (OOL has already taken place). Let's accept it, without asking how that functional information was generated. The point is: a) Where is that information stored? Answer: in RNA sequences. b) What does that information code? Answer: functional RNA sequences. OK. Let's call this state A. Now, at some point, we pass to a system where the effector molecules are proteins. And the information for those effector molecules is stored in DNA, through a symbolic code, and is then transcribed through RNA and translated through RNA and proteins. a) Where is that information stored? Answer: in symbolic DNA sequences. b) What does that information code? Answer: functional protein sequences. OK. Let's call this state B. Now comes my point. The functional information in A, precious and, as far as we know, unexplained, is a treasure trove of functional sequences which implement a lot of functions. Many of them still necessary in B. So, is that functional information "carried on" from A to B? And the answer is: no. Why? Because the nucleotide sequence information for an effector RNA molecule which acts, say, as a polymerase in A has really nothing to do with the symbolic nucleotide sequence information which codes, according to the genetic code, for a protein which acts, similarly, as a polymerase in B. The two nucleotide sequences are completely different, and there is no relationship at all between them. Why? For two very good reasons: 1) The functional working of a protein and its 3D structure are completely different form the functional working and 3d structure of an RNA molecule. 2) Even more relevant, the nucleotide sequence in a DNA coding gene is symbolic (UB's point), and has nothing to do with biochemical laws, either of RNA or of protein molecules. It just obeys the rules of the code. It is a pure vector of aminoacid sequence information through a symbolic code. So, it is obvious that, if in some way a treasure trove of information about functional RNA molecules has been in some way generated during OOL in the form of an RNA world, when we pass to the re-origin of life in the form of a DNA-RNA-protein world, a completely different treasure trove of functional sequence information, for the same functions, has to be found again. Double luck. And, obviously, the whole new information about the genetic code itself and the whole apparatus implied in transcription and translation has to come into existence from scratch. What a theory. OK, I am really happy that I have no reason to believe it! :)gpuccio
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Zachriel in 152 conveniently ignores the colossal distinction between self-replication of homogeneous (like crystals) and heterogeneous structures (like the cell). As if he has not been told.EugeneS
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
Z, the evidence of the coded tape in the living cell points to vNkSR (something that is acknowledged) . . . and here I obviously point to the DNA, mRNA, Ribosome and tRNA system with the tRNA acting as a part transfer "taxi" and position-arm device with tool tip, incorporating a CCA universal coupler . . . which assembles the vital protein component . . . which inter alia is a bridge to the cellular metabolic network. In this context of course the unzipping of DNA to template it into mRNA, then the whole synthesis process is strongly dependent on the products of the protein synthesis process. Chicken-egg loop involved in all the processes. Likewise, DNA duplication for replication is in the same chicken-egg, FSCO/I dense loop. Also, the ATP assembly process is a key energy supply support process that is integral to the system, another bridge to metabolism and an illustration of the complex integration of the cell involving vNkSR replication, metabolic process and encapsulation with smart gating. If you have another "easier" architecture you need to show empirical observational evidence of its presence in the cell, its effectiveness in the wild, and of how it bridges to the cells as we know. Where, RNA world needs adequate empirical grounding, as one case in point. Otherwise it is empty, comforting ideological speculation dressed up in a seemingly authoritative lab coat. Observations of RNA world: ______________ Unambiguous, non question-begging observed traces today of same: _____________ Observed adequate cause that origin of a viable DNA based cellular architecture involving RNA world roots is possible: __________ Observations that required FSCO/I can come about by blind watchmaker chance and mechanical necessity: _______________ This includes traces from the past of OOL that show the relevance and factual, empirical groundedness. As well as meeting the vera causa, observed adequate cause criterion for scientific inference to best explanation of what we cannot observe directly but must deal with traces and/or signs of. Viruses don't work, they basically hijack the cellular mechanisms. The dismissal so far sounds like a squid-ink cloud not a substantial response. And remember, OOL is the root of the tree of life. The FSCO/I in it has to be accounted for prior to reproduction, taking "evolution" off the table. The only thing there in that warm pond or volcano vent or comet core etc etc, is physics, chemistry and thermodynamics informed by the underlying statistical issues. Your attempt to put "Evolution" back on the table when it is the reproduction subsystem relevant to differential reproductive success that here needs to be accounted for is a cart before horse fallacy. It is also a fallacy of appeal to the prejudice that "Evolution" provides a magic answer to the needle in haystack, FSCO/I blind search challenge. The objection you made, fails. But it does show the evolutionary materialist a prioris at work. So, it is proper to highlight also that the very fact that you imply responsible, rational freedom to argue, know and discuss fatally undermines such evo mat, as it is fatally and inescapably self-referentially incoherent. Let me cite Haldane as a simple summary on the point:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Zachriel Some homework for you.... http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/proteinsynthesis/translation/steps.htmlAndre
November 4, 2015
November
11
Nov
4
04
2015
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
UB @140 Thank you for that but I was hoping Zachriel would do some research, on it himself.Andre
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Zachriel
Andre: Because it has a simpler structure and is only a single strand it must be a precursor? No one knows at this point. What we can say is that it can’t be ruled out as yet, certainly not by arguing irreducible complexity, in so many words.
Who is saying irreducible complexity? Not me? I'm just stating the obvious here, you are assuming without any evidence that simple things can become more complex given enough time, and chance. I'd love to see actual proof for such an assumption. Which really is a contradiction in terms because an assumption is a belief without any proof. So lets rather ask for testable and verifiable evidence.Andre
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Pop a strand of RNA inside a soap bubble and voila, a self-reproducing cell.Mung
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
UB: The conception of “replication” you are referring to does not achieve translation. Zach: It’s posited that translation evolved from simpler associations. UB: It certainly is. And it remains a physical fact that one process does not result in the other. Zach: That is not known UB: What is absolutely known is that the physical processes at work in the experimental effort to improve template “replication” (R18, tC19Z, B6.61, etc) do not result in translation. Zach: That’s right.
You are correct, it does not result in translation. As already stated, they are two entirely different processes.
Zach: So no one knows if simple RNA replicators could evolve more complex relationships with peptides or not.
“More complex relationships” isn’t the physical requirement, translation is. And as we have come to agree, no one has demonstrated an engineered RNA "template-replicator" resulting in translation. Even then, translation itself is only the beginning of what is necessary.
Zach: the claim in the original post is that such an evolutionary sequence could not plausibly occur, but simply showing that the result is irreducible doesn’t mean it couldn’t have evolved.
The diagram at the top of this page (which you have referred to) does not make any claims about “what could not plausible occur”. Instead, it shows what *does occur* during the translation of functional effects from an informational medium.
UB: In order to organize the first heterogeneous living cell, it is necessary to create utility through the mechanism of representation. Zach: Again, that is not necessarily the case. A replicator in a lipid membrane could be a plausible ancestral heterogeneous cell.
An RNA "template-replicator" encapsulated inside a dissociated lipid membrane still does not achieve translation, and thus, is not capable of organizing the heterogeneous living cell. Your desire to make something be something other than what it is has now reached the level of incoherence. Again, no one can take away your faith Zach. And no one can falsify any conception you wish to propose from that faith.Upright BiPed
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: appealing to evolution on something that must be in place antecedent to the existence of von Neumann kinematic self replication (thus reproduction) is a reductio. Self-replication does not require von Neumann architecture.Zachriel
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Z, appealing to evolution on something that must be in place antecedent to the existence of von Neumann kinematic self replication (thus reproduction) is a reductio. Recall, coded storage for self assembly -- cf here DNA -- is part and parcel of the required entity. Blind faith in the magical powers of evolution . . . I am tempted to say, reification . . . is undermining our generation's ability to think straight. KFkairosfocus
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
So no one knows if simple RNA replicators could evolve more complex relationships with peptides or not. It’s an open question.
Even Zachriel can't avoid the requirement for a relational model, even simple relationships.Mung
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution, per se. Directed evolution has creative powers as exemplified by genetic and evolutionary algorithms. How do we model drift and natural selection producing the genetic code? What predictions are borne from that?Virgil Cain
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: What is absolutely known is that the physical processes at work in the experimental effort to improve template “replication” (R18, tC19Z, B6.61, etc) do not result in translation. That's right. So no one knows if simple RNA replicators could evolve more complex relationships with peptides or not. It's an open question. However, the claim in the original post is that such an evolutionary sequence could not plausibly occur, but simply showing that the result is irreducible doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. Upright BiPed: In order to organize the first heterogeneous living cell, it is necessary to create utility through the mechanism of representation. Again, that is not necessarily the case. A replicator in a lipid membrane could be a plausible ancestral heterogeneous cell. Andre: Because it has a simpler structure and is only a single strand it must be a precursor? No one knows at this point. What we can say is that it can't be ruled out as yet, certainly not by arguing irreducible complexity, in so many words.Zachriel
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
There is no evidence to suggest that life was “obviously designed” by any hands-on method.
It's called science and knowledge of cause and effect relationships.Virgil Cain
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
but there is some evidence indicating that DNA World was preceded by RNA World.
Wrong again. There is a need for a RNA world but there isn't any evidence for one.Virgil Cain
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
It provides a precursor replicator
Wrong- designed RNAs can replicate but only with the assistance of other RNAs
that can evolve complex protein synthesis at a later time.
Spiegelman's monster demonstrates otherwise.Virgil Cain
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
Your claim is that we, living creatures, can’t create the first living creatures, but other living creatures (aliens), can create living creatures.
Wake up- this is my claim: 1- Experiences and observations say that all codes come from intelligent agencies 2- No one even knows how to model physicochemical processes producing a code. Such a thing flies in the face of our experiences and observations 3- And because of that it is safe to infer that an intelligent agency designed the code even though we did not observe it happening, as is the case with the genetic code. Science 101. And yes that inference, as with all scientific inferences, can be refuted by demonstrating that physicochemical processes can produce the genetic code. Again, science 101 Our opponents whine about that because they know they could never demonstrate such a thing. The only thing assumed is that our knowledge, based on our experiences and observations, is correct.Virgil Cain
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Carpathian: I am afraid there is no hope. If I understand well (you seem very reticent to say things clearly) you believe: That darwinian principles can explain all evolution of life after OOL. That "No one has any idea how life started." Except you, apparently. Because you say that: "There is no evidence to suggest that life was “obviously designed” by any hands-on method." So, it seems that you don't think it was designed. But then, how did it come into existence? You clarify: "UB’s “semiotic codes” could be the result of just such a system designed by the ID designer." OK, what system? Where is it? Mapou's system can be observed, tested. What is the system you speak of? You say nature. But nature works according to the laws of physics, as far as we can understand. If the designer designed something at the beginning of the universe, that something is the laws of the universe itself. So, if you propose that the universe includes a "system" which can generate codes, please show where that system is and how it works. That's all, and for me we can stop here.gpuccio
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Carpathian, You are comparing apples and oranges. My neural network never creates new information. It simply creates representations for sensory data. The data is dictated by environmental events. To do what you are suggesting, a designer would have to have all possible body plans (from single cell organisms to dung beetles, caribous and whales) incorporated in the first self-replicating cell a billion years ago. This is nonsense, of course. Darwinists take the cake by claiming that RM+NS creates new information (new body plans and functionality) out of thin air. The voodoo science is strong with the dark side of the force.Mapou
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Because it has a simpler structure and is only a single strand it must be a precursor? Is that your assumption? Simple to complex is true cause Darwin said so? Funny guy...... That RNA serves a different purpose never crossed your mind? Simple to complex is just true..Andre
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
>>> What is the absolute minimum requirements for any translation? In the spirit of that question.... from Biosemiosis.org
A living cell is a heterogeneous system. It requires discrete parts in order to function, and reproduces itself by means of prescriptive synthesis. This process requires the translation of an informational medium. The minimum requirements for the origin of the system are therefore established by what is physically necessary to record and translate the amount of information that the system needs to successfully describe itself into memory.
Also...
No Organizing Principles In order to organize the first heterogeneous living cell, it is necessary to create utility through the mechanism of representation. It is necessary that those representations be spatially-oriented patterns; independent of the dynamic properties of their medium. It is necessary that many such patterns come together at the same time and place to collectively record prescriptive memory. It is necessary that the rules of a reading-frame code make that memory possible. And it is necessary that this memory successfully contain the construction details of the entire system itself. Yet, none of these things is brought into being by the forces of physical law. What then remains of the reductionist assumption is the real need for sheer chance to accomplish what physical forces and principles do not do. This situation is then superimposed against the backdrop of brilliant research scientists using intelligent design in the laboratory in an attempt to demonstrate that chance is indeed up to the task. At the same time, other prominent researchers write peer-reviewed papers and books describing the intellectual need for an infinite number of universes – specifically in order to give chance an endless number of opportunities to do what must be done. In short, origins research reflects the simple fact that no organizing forces or principles have ever been found for the material conditions required at the origin of life. Yet (through observation, theory, and experiment) we have come to know what those conditions are; they are described in an enormous body of knowledge. We also know that those specific conditions are exclusively associated with only one phenomenon – intelligence – which happens to be the only theory on the origin of life that is summarily rejected upfront by the institutions of science. Thus, the landscape surrounding the semiotic origin of life is not being defined by the ideals of scientific investigation -- but by personal and institutional bias. And in every venue of discourse between the institutions of science and the general public, the greatest mystery of all time is presented with an absolute certainty that intelligence had no role in it. This conclusion comes from anything other than the evidence. There is a formidable line at the origin of life, where a representational organization necessarily comes into being. This line has been repeatedly described in the scientific literature. Pattee refers to it in terms of an “epistemic cut” between rate-independent genetic symbols and the rate-dependent dynamics they control. Johnson refers to it in terms of the necessary contingency instantiated in a physical medium. Barbieri states that any description of the living world requires objective observables that are otherwise not measurable. Yockey speaks of the symbolic nature and immateriality of the biological message recorded in monomers. Abel refers to it in terms of the primacy of formalism over function. Crick required it in the adapter hypothesis. Nirenberg demonstrated it in the ribosome. And the late British-Hungarian polymath John von Neumann wrote of it in terms of non-dynamic "quiescent descriptions" required in the logic of self-replication. Yet, despite the depth of observations, the general public’s awareness of genuine representations and rules at the origin of life is virtually zero. To a modern person in a modern society, who everyday uses any number of devices that require information processing (representations and rules) in order to function, the term “genetic code” seems to be understood only for its obvious necessity (in making things happen a certain way), but the term itself has been emptied of its nature. Its unique physical workings, to any large number of people, are simply unknown. That part of the science has been left out of the public discourse about origins. This is the challenge that Biosemiosis.org has set for itself.
Upright BiPed
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
#134 What is absolutely known is that the physical processes at work in the experimental effort to improve template "replication" (R18, tC19Z, B6.61, etc) do not result in translation. But like I said, no one can take away your faith, nor can anyone falsify any event you wish to propose from it.Upright BiPed
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Andre: And how does RNA solve your problem? It provides a precursor replicator that can evolve complex protein synthesis at a later time.Zachriel
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
Carpathian Except there is evidence for a designer.Andre
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Zachriel And how does RNA solve your problem?Andre
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
gpuccio:
That’s not what darwinism says. Darwinism says that the laws of nature, as they are implemented in the physical universe, can generate life, and therefore also the genetic code, without any design intervention. That is simply false.
"Darwinism" doesn't say that at all. "Darwinism" addresses the changes over time" in lifeforms. No one has any idea how life started.
a) The origin of the information which is implicit in the genetic code and in the translation system. That was obviously designed, and cannot be explained with the laws of nature, even if those laws of nature are themselves designed at the beginning of the universe (which I do believe).
There is no evidence to suggest that life was "obviously designed" by any hands-on method. Mapou has created a system that generates codes without further intervention from the designer. Why couldn't the "designer" of the universe do the same? UB's "semiotic codes" could be the result of just such a system designed by the ID designer. The observations of such a system in action would result in something that looks exactly like "Darwinism". Whether there is an ID designer or not, there would be no evidence of such an entity if he created a system that worked like Mapou's.Carpathian
November 3, 2015
November
11
Nov
3
03
2015
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 16

Leave a Reply