Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A process sequence chart view of the ribosome in action — a guest post by EP

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For some months now, I have been having a behind the scenes correspondence with a regular viewer of UD, whom we shall call EP. He works with industrial robots, and has been fascinated by the way the ribosome works as a nano-scale automated machine cell. Accordingly, a process sequence diagram (‘map”) has been developed, based on accessible descriptions of the ribosome in action. The result is a fascinating look at the ribosome as industrial robot work-cell. (The tRNA’s are molecular scale position-arm devices with a universal CCA coupler — yup, the AA bond is universal, it is the loading enzyme that sets up which tRNA gets what AA — to load and click AAs to a protein chain.)

So, enough introduction, let’s get the show on the road (apologising in advance for the thumbnail, and noting that English is not first language . . . ):

_____________________

EP: >> To fully understand an automated system, several representations of that system are necessary. Normally, technical drawings or blueprints are used for this purpose.  Blueprints could be considered maps to simplify the concept because they contain a layout of components with all the measurements and data related to the system represented.

For understanding modern automated systems several maps are usually necessary: mechanical, hydraulic and air equipment layout, electrical power distribution and control layout, data acquisition and other communication networking, safety circuit etc. These are maps of physical aspects of the machine, which are super imposable to represent or describe the whole automated system.

Components of an integrated automated system are physically interrelated in a specific way which enables them to interact in an organized and logical manner.

Figs 1 - 2: The concept of a process sequence chart

The chart breaks a sequential task down into steps, transitions and actions. These are presented graphically to describe a sequence of interactions as shown in Fig 2. above. Convention requires that flow through the chart is from top to bottom unless indicated by an arrow. The sequence is broken down into steps (or states) where actions are carried out. Each step can include one or more actions. Transitions define logical conditions that cause the process to move from the existing step to the next step.

Molecular machine, for example, a ribosome(Fig.3)  is a chemical, nano sized integrated system, organized into interrelated subsystems or components. It possesses a set of interacting discrete chemical units with relationships among them enforced by chemical forces. The state of each unit is constrained by or dependent on the state of other units.

Some of  ribosome’s  recognizable features are: physical proximity of its chemical units; specialization of its units; cooperative nature of interactions of its units; and distinct patterning of its chemical units.

Fig. 3: A layout view of a Ribosome in action, with mRNA tape and three successive tRNA's, showing as well a protein being assembled; note how the ferried-in amino acids are on the opposite end to the anticodons that match the codons in the mRNA tape

Let’s add Vuk Nikolic’s astonishing video of the process, so we can see what is going on . . .

[vimeo 31830891]

To fully understand this system a map of physical components in not enough. Another map, one showing steps of process flow is necessary. To produce this kind of map, repetitive interactions between ribosome subunits and subunit components should be studied and recognized and presented in the form of a process flow chart.

Fig. 4: The EP ribosome process sequence chart, reduced to the size of this page. Pardon, to see the full sized chart, please click here, then click on the image to go to the PNG in your browser window, then click to magnify. It may be useful to simply save and print the image on a sheet of paper. (Alternate site.)

Sequences of interactions, energy and material usage and error control are all easily recognizable on the flow chart type of representation. The advantage of visualizing the process is an instant general overview and easy understanding of process organization.

The process flow is enforced by chemical interactions of ribosome’s  components. Interactions in turn are achieved by special arrangements of ribosomal proteins and RNA. Some sections of ribosomal proteins and RNA are coupled to proper influx of energy and material.

During ribosome’s main mode of operation  matching amynoacyl tRNA (material deliverer) are accurately attracted from the crowded conditions around ribosome’s A site.  Error control is capable of rejecting accidentally attracted non-matching amynoacyl tRNA so that should be the secondary mode of operation.  A high error rate would slow protein production.

Footnotes

1. Basic principles of mapping interactions are the same regardless of the domain being mechanical, electro-mechanical or biochemical and regardless of sizes. Interactions of interest are sequential, logical in relation with each other and repetitive. Interactions may proceed in series, in parallel or the combination of two, depending on the components arrangement.

2. Diagram describing ribosome process is Sequential Function Chart (SFC) standard IEC 61131, one of the automation programming languages. Most of the main steps of ribosome’s process were included but some corrections are needed. It is possible to go further and include details down to the last molecule involved.  Unfortunately, high detail would make the chart enormous. That was not the purpose of this exercise. Instead, the purpose was meeting a challenge of  combining  two different fields, biology and automation.

3. Monitoring of third codon-anticodon  position is not included in the chart. Scientists explain in the reference article0  “third position is monitored less stringently “.

4. (Musings). It is mindboggling how ribosome manages to accurately attract matching tRNA from crowded conditions in front of A site. All 20 different tRNAs must be available for ribosome’s operation otherwise it will have to pause often. Fortunately, pausing is not costly in terms of energy usage as the elongation factor9 EF Tu delays hydrolyzing  of GTP.

Physicist Vlatko Vedral and his team investigated quantum entanglement effects which influence the shape of DNA. I can speculate there is a possibility of the same effects in high accuracy of complementary tRNA attraction. Another possibility is there is a form of amplification of mRNA template codon’s chemical forces via ribosome sub units. >>

______________________

The process sequence map, of course, is a nodes and arcs map, and itself reveals an astonishing functionally specific complex organisation, with implied information.

The ribosome is not merely analogous to a process unit, it is a process unit, only, with a degree of miniaturisation we can only dream of accomplishing. Just for fun, let us compare the innards of a Spinning reel (which is far less complex):

Fig 5: A top quality rear-drag adjusting front drag manual bail surf spinning reel, showing the innards to achieve that (HT: Free Patents, fair use; and why not let the hard-working clever boys over at Van Staal have a free mention in exchange for fair use of an image . . . ?)

For even more fun, let us look at an exploded view — which is of course a nodes and arcs diagram — of a classic Abu Cardinal:

 

Fig 6: An exploded view of a classic ABU Cardinal [Fair use, sadly, these babies are no longer made so far as I know . . .], showing how functionality arises from a highly specific, tightly constrained complex arrangement of matched parts according to a Wicken “wiring diagram.” Such wiring diagrams are objective (the FSCO/I on display here that we may become consciously aware of when we see the reel work or fail, is certainly not “question-begging,” as some — astonishingly — are trying to suggest!), and if one is to build or fix such a reel successfully, s/he had better pay close heed. Taking one of these apart and shaking it in a shoe-box is guaranteed not to work to get the reel back together again. As for tornadoes in a junkyard over in Sweden assembling one of these classic babies, not a chance.  (That is, even the assembly of such a complex entity is functionally specific and prescriptive information-rich. FSCO/I is objectively real, get over it.)”]

So, now let us ask ourselves, soberly: on our experience of (i) searching for needles in haystacks, and (ii) the routinely observed source of such FSCO/I, what best explains the cell’s protein factory — BTW, the observed source of bio-functional proteins?

Then also, let us ask ourselves a few pointed questions:

1 –> If proteins are reasonably likely to spontaneously form, why would we end up with such an almost Rube Goldbergian apparatus for making proteins in the cell, in a controlled fashion?

2 –> And, given the mRNA code tape that drives the whole process, stored in DNA, then transcribed, snipped up and stitched together [in eukaryotes], then passed to the ribosome, then going through such a complex assembly process, how can we best explain the origin of codes, algorithms, data structures and algorithms implied in that code tape?

3 –>What is all of  this trying to tell us about he best explanation for the origin of the metabolising, self-replicating C-chemistry aqueous medium living cell? (Given, that this is the protein-making factory used in the cell hijacked by viri when they want to replicate themselves.)

Then, let us reflect on what our answers tell us about our worldviews and how open we are to reflect on what empirical evidence is revealing to us. END

Comments
Thanks Kairos hopefully,too.Eugen
January 27, 2012
January
01
Jan
27
27
2012
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Wecome EP Hope things are sorting out. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2012
January
01
Jan
27
27
2012
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: DNA in living systems is past 100 k bits [oops], and is functionally specific and code based. The von Neumann kinematic self replicator in the cell has a core set of necessary and sufficient elements, making it irreducibly complex. It is this property that is a good part of why it is o hard to come up with non-design OOL scenarios. The need for coded info just caps that off. KFkairosfocus
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
You, too, Lizzy.Bruce David
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Not "of course" at all, kf. That is the very point at issue.Elizabeth Liddle
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
And there we can agree :) Bless you, Bruce.Elizabeth Liddle
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Well, what does it mean? Nobody knows yet. Mathematically, it doesn't work, and we (yet)don't have laws of physics that cover it. There is no "empirical evidence" for "t=0" AFAIK. There are various mathematical models, from which testable hypotheses can potentially be derived, and tested in various ways (including experimentally, in the LHC). The Hawking-Hartle model, doesn't have a "t-0" point, as I understand it - space-time is "bell shaped" as it were, rather than conical. At any rate, if you have "empirical evidence" for "t=0" please link to it :) There may be a Nobel in it for you.Elizabeth Liddle
January 25, 2012
January
01
Jan
25
25
2012
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT
I should add that the phrase "open arms" is intended to be metaphorical. The only arms She has are ours.Bruce David
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Lizzy, I'm glad you're smiling; I like smiles. :) I think it's really interesting that we two could, from basically the same data, draw such different conclusions. I was a materialist, not for 50 years but maybe 25, believing that activity in the brain could account for human thought, emotion, impulses, etc. Then I had an epiphany: there is no way to get experience (qualia) from inanimate matter. It made no sense to me to say that well, if the neural interconnections are just numerous enough and complex enough, conscious will just "emerge" or "arise", like magic. This was followed by another one: there is no compelling reason to believe that there is actually any material world "out there" that corresponds to our perceptions of it. Another way to say this is to observe that there is no way that I can prove, even to myself, that I am not dreaming right now. Put these two together, and the only philosophical stance that satisfactorily explains "everything" is a version of Bishop Berkeley's---we are spirit, and the physical universe is a kind of virtual reality in which God runs the show. An interesting aspect of this is that some physicists and philosophers of science are coming to the same conclusion because quantum physics simply does not make sense in the context of a physical universe that exists independently of our minds. A belief in the existence of God, however, does not imply that all of Christian belief is valid, nor, for that matter, any other religious dogma. So the remainder of my life has been a search for the truth of how things really are. Based on what I have seen so far, Lizzy, I am convinced that you will meet Her again, after your next transition if not before, and that you will have nothing to fear from Her. She will love you unconditionally, as She does now, and She will welcome you back with open arms.Bruce David
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Golly, sorry about the manic smileys! I tend to type them whenever I smile, so wysiwyg. :)Elizabeth Liddle
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Thanks for your gracious post (again!) Bruce :) You asked me three good questions:
Regarding methodological naturalism, how do you respond to Stephen Meyer’s carefully reasoned argument that the scientific method used in the historical sciences (archaeology, cosmology, paleontology, etc.) seeks the best explanation for the phenomena they study, based on causes that are known from experience to be acting in the present. Therefore, in the case of the origin of life, since the only known cause of complex specified functional information (which is found in abundance in even the simplest cell) is the action of an intelligent agent, that must be the best explanation. In other words design is a conclusion that is reached via the scientific method which is used in the historical sciences.
I actually dispute Meyer's distinction between "historical" sciences and other sciences. Or, at least, I don't think the methodologies are fundamentally different: both involve deriving hypotheses from explanatory theories and testing those hypotheses against new data, even if that data is from events that occurred billions years ago. So his argument that scientists in these fields "seek... the best explanation for the phenomena they study, based on causes that are known from experience to be acting in the present" is no more (or less) true for any science than it is for what he calls "historical" science. Now it's true that when studying the remote past we may have to hypotheses factors that existed then and do not exist now, but that is true for any hypothesis (it's why the word "hypothetical" is derived from "hypothesis"). But what is not true is that we are justified in extrapolating from factors that exist now (human designers) to factors that we have no reason to think existed then (human or otherwise) to explain phenomena that occurred then. Under any kind of science, "historical" or otherwise. So I think Meyer is just plain wrong on this. As for "...in the case of the origin of life, since the only known cause of complex specified functional information (which is found in abundance in even the simplest cell) is the action of an intelligent agent, that must be the best explanation", I'd disagree that an intelligent agent (if by that we mean an external, intentional designer/artisan) is the only known cause of complex specified functional information. So I'd reject that anyway.
Or am I wrong about that? Do you accept that design is the best explanation, but hold that the designers were somehow physical beings subject to physical law?
My position is that life is created by an intrinsically "intelligent" system - not one with foresight, but with what Petrushka the other day called a "tactile" searching facility - in other words the basic Darwinian algorithm. I don't know how the first Darwinian-capable self-replicators came into existence, but I think they were probably simple enough to have emerged spontaneously in early earth. That is just hunch though, but a sufficiently strong one that I am not inclined to put a "insert miracle here" in that spot :)
Here’s another question that just occurred to me: Given that you are something of a theist, why do you insist that you and I are totally physical beings? Why don’t you allow for the possibility that at least some aspects of our nature cannot be fit into a materialist paradigm?
Oh, I allowed for it for fifty odd years :) I thought it was self evident that there was something else going on (Exhibit One: our own awareness of being here). Then I had something of an epiphany and realised that while there is indeed "something going on" and a very interesting something, there's a perfectly good (if non-intuitive) explanation for it :) So I'm still open to the idea in principle, but see no need for it - no mystery that it would explain. But, I have to say, not much more open to it than I am to the possibility that there are ley lines or psi. Possible, but not compelling. Anyway, lovely to have such a productive conversation, and good to hear about yourself :) I do miss my old God. But she didn't actually go far :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
I started with darwin, read on and all I have read are vague speculations. The "theory" of evolution can be summed up as - "Once living organisms appeared some things happened some time in the past, other things kept happening which led to diverging branchs of descent with modification, and here we are because we traversed the fitness landscape thus diversifying into the emerging diversity of variability." Hey if you don't believe me just go the The Smithsonian Nat Museum of Natural History in DC- right at the beginning they have this show with a talking amoeba who gives you basically that. We do know that genes control traits. Beyond that it's anybody's guess.Joe
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Self replicating systems of the sort in the cell -- vNSRs -- are of course FSCO/I and IC. They give every evidence of design, KFkairosfocus
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
lastyearon:
It may be simply obvious to you, but if it can’t be tested empirically it’s not science.
Well, you have just invalidated all the historical sciences (origins biology, paleontology, archaeology, etc.) None of the hypotheses or conclusions of these sciences can be tested empirically for the simple reason that we can't go back into the past and run the experiments. You can't even test the assertion that the origin of all species is the result of Darwinian processes. Thus, by your definition, Darwinian evolution isn't science either. And anyway, I never said that the conclusion I drew is science. It is a conclusion I draw from knowledge of the structure and function of living things. It's obviously true. It doesn't have to be science.Bruce David
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
hat’s a joke, right? It takes more than just the presence of hydrogen and oxygen to get water.
I didn't say it didn't.
Where is this alleged “excellent” theory, then?
Oh, I dunno, start with Darwin, and then read on :)
Elizabeth Liddle
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
"Just comparing" is a lot. It is the essence of intelligence. In the case of ants, collective intelligence. No means is known to exist apart from intelligence to coerce nature to spontaneously begin to choose between two or more options in order to optimise a function.Eugene S
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Ah, Lizzy, you never cease to amaze! I accused you of being a materialist because that is how you characterized yourself in an earlier post. I retract the accusation. My spiritual journey has been the complement of yours. I started out life as an atheistic materialist, having been raised by an agnostic father and a mother who believed in God because "there must be something to give life to newborn babies". It was the evidence that didn't fit the paradigm, much of which I have recounted in other threads, that caused me to re-evaluate that position. The particulars of my spiritual beliefs have been in a continual process of evolution ever since. I do not, however, consider myself religious. Regarding methodological naturalism, how do you respond to Stephen Meyer's carefully reasoned argument that the scientific method used in the historical sciences (archaeology, cosmology, paleontology, etc.) seeks the best explanation for the phenomena they study, based on causes that are known from experience to be acting in the present. Therefore, in the case of the origin of life, since the only known cause of complex specified functional information (which is found in abundance in even the simplest cell) is the action of an intelligent agent, that must be the best explanation. In other words design is a conclusion that is reached via the scientific method which is used in the historical sciences. In still other words, it is entirely within the province of science as it is practiced to draw the conclusion that design is the best (indeed the only reasonable) explanation for the existence of some phenomenon. Note that this does not preclude additional data at some later date overturning that conclusion. No conclusion is science is ever irrevocable. And by the way, I am aware that my argument (it really isn't an argument anyway) regarding the obviousness of the design of living systems cuts both ways. However, I'll stick to those guns. To me (and to an awful lot of other very bright people) it is obvious. And frankly, Lizzy, I'm still puzzled by the fact that you can't see it. Or am I wrong about that? Do you accept that design is the best explanation, but hold that the designers were somehow physical beings subject to physical law? Here's another question that just occurred to me: Given that you are something of a theist, why do you insist that you and I are totally physical beings? Why don't you allow for the possibility that at least some aspects of our nature cannot be fit into a materialist paradigm?Bruce David
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Elizabeth:
Water is “reasonably likely to form” in the presence of hydrogen and oxygen.
That's a joke, right? It takes more than just the presence of hydrogen and oxygen to get water. That said there isn't any evidence that proteins can form without a ribosome, which needs proteins to form.
The reason is much more likely to be (and is in my own case): the world makes a huge amount of sense, and appears to follow discernable laws; why would we expect this norm to be departed from in the case of life?
Umm that is exactly why we infer design wrt living organisms.
Especially when we have an excellent theory that accounts for so much biological data?
Where is this alleged "excellent" theory, then?Joe
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Liz: “Beginning of time” is a phrase without a referent in any other context than Big Bang, and we cannot therefore extrapolate our every day understanding of time to our understanding of what the phrase “Beginning of time” might mean." This is why people get accused of worldview corrupting science. You liz, the empiricist, the clear authority on scientific methodology, is now pivoting from the empirical evidence for t=0 into a philosophical treatment. Into a ...what... does it...can it... all mean...stoner rant.junkdnaforlife
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
I agree, and I would add, ban any speech that is viewed as heretical or "ungodly", ban the right of anyone to have relationships with members of their own sex if that is their wont, ban opening business on the Sabbath, and I'm sure I could think of some more if I devoted more time to it. I view myself as spiritual but not religious. One of the tenets of my "faith" is that God grants us perfect freedom, not just free will, but freedom itself. In other words, no punishment, no matter what we choose to say or do. The granting of freedom to each human being by the society in which he or she lives is as important to me as it is to you.Bruce David
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
This may seem like a nitpick but I think it's important: you don't "test" a conclusion, you test a hypothesis. And you can certainly test the hypothesis that the world had a beginning. Or at least that the duration of the world so far appears to have a finite value. And, if supported, you can provisionally conclude that it did. (Although the bigger problem here is expressing both hypothesis and conclusion in language designed (heh) to describe human-scale time and space. "Beginning of time" is a phrase without a referent in any other context than Big Bang, and we cannot therefore extrapolate our every day understanding of time to our understanding of what the phrase "Beginning of time" might mean. Still that's a topic for a different thread I think.)Elizabeth Liddle
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Mrs Liddle (Am I correct ?) You stated the following: "Naturalism does not imply atheism." First the definition of naturalism (in philosophy) Philosophy . a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value. To argue that this does not imply atheism is fraudulent as I believe should be clear to you from reading the posted definitions. Unless, of course, you were using naturalism in another sense apart from that which has been defined above. This is something I doubt.Uyi Iredia
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Thanks Upright Biped I love your semiotic argument. Dawkins said: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986) To rephrase Dawkins now: ...latest science made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.Eugen
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
You didn't answer the question. It doesn't appear that you even attempted to Are you suggesting numbers are required? Answer the question as to what is required to fulfill you statement:
a means of comparing the length of two or more routes
Upright BiPed
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
LYO,
It may be simply obvious to you, but if it can’t be tested empirically it’s not science.
Just as a point of consistency; any conclusion that the universe had a beginning (Big Bang Theory) isn't science because we cannot test that conclusion, even though it is based upon what we can and do see and test. Correct?Upright BiPed
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
The relevant fact about the travelling salesman problem is that a simple incremental traversal is the only known way of solving it with finite resources. Even intelligent designers have to use evolution when the numbers get big. Of course there are spaces that can't be traversed incrementally, such as encrypted data. If sequence space turns out to resemble a cryptogram, then evolution is impossible. If it's not a cryptogram, then intervention by a designer is unnecessary.Petrushka
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
a means of comparing the length of two or more routes
Yeah? Just taking you at face value for argument's sake, exactly what would that physically entail??Upright BiPed
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
So, are we to be invited to think that mechatronic systems of the complexity, sophistication and miniaturisation we are seeing, arose by blind chance and mechanical necessity?
Not exactly. At any rate, I think that is a very poor description of the proposed mechanism. Think rather of "a continuous optimisation process of a self-reproducing system, in which any slight variant of the current system that makes reproduction more likely is retained, and anything that makes it less likely is rejected".Elizabeth Liddle
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
It may be simply obvious to you, but if it can't be tested empirically it's not science. I think that the following statement: "that work [empirically testing ID] really isn’t even necessary" says it all. There are many, many things that are simply obvious to many people. Put together, all of those obvious things that people personally know about the world amount to zero knowledge, unless they can be empirically tested. Of explanations with high degrees of empirical support, we can say "we know that ______". As in "we know that the earth revolves around the sun", or "we know that life evolved from a common ancestor." Of things that don't have empirical support, we can only say "we know that some people believe _______" As in "we know that some people believe that the positions of the stars when they were born affect their lives" or, "we know that some people believe in ghosts."lastyearon
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
EP via KF, I really enjoyed this post.Upright BiPed
January 24, 2012
January
01
Jan
24
24
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply