A Sermon by Jerry Coyne on Biogeography

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 14, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

It is remarkable that people pay evolutionist Jerry Coyne to indoctrinate their children according to his dogmatic religious beliefs. But they do, and he does. And the University of Chicago biology professor has now enshrined evolution’s theological convictions in his new book, Why Evolution is True, for all to see. Here is one example:

Continue here

Comments

Khan (113):
I have never read an evo bioarticle that states “the scenario we describe is much more likely than the ID scenario because of xx”
I addressed this here.Cornelius Hunter_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT}

Mr Byers, Marsupials are in fact some 97% the same as other creatures. The rest is minor details. The 98% industry will be beating a path to your door.Nakashima_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

A while back, William Dembski posted a list of ID predictions.(see "https://uncommondescent.com/adminstrative/what-happened-to-colson-praises-peta/#comment-172093"). I thought it would be interesting to examine these in the light of Cornelius' posts regarding religious assumptions. Here is a synopsis of Dembski's ID predictions: 1: "Thus most organs should not be vestigial, and most DNA should not be “junk DNA.”" 2: "ID predicts that the cell would have such engineering features" (re cellular "machines") 3: "ID has always predicted that there will be classes of biological systems for which Darwinian processes fail irremediably..." Points 1 & 2 can be written as: we expect Observation X given ID or Pr(O,ID). The problem is that ID says nothing about the designer, so we have no reason to expect one observation more than any other. I.e., all observations are equally likely. Unless, that is, one makes some religious assumptions regarding ID first. So, my blanket statement is that if a probability is (or can be) expressed as Pr(O,ID) one has to use religious assumptions. Predictions #3 above is a slightly different kettle of fish. The best way I can think of writing it formally is as Pr(NOT CSI,NOT ID). Leaving aside that it really isn't an ID prediction, wouldn't one have to make a religious assumption in order to say that a designer would NOT be involved in the creation of any given observation? Any thoughts about the above? NOTE: "religious" assumption does not mean that there has to be a god involved. It simply means that we assume that a designer would do X rather than ~X. This is, I think, what Cornelius means as well.Hoki_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

dbthomas No problem with your points. Monotremes are also minor adapted critters to certain areas. Laying eggs is not a big deal or should define kinds. Snakes deliver young live and by eggs. Yet no one denies they are snakes. The platypus is just some otter or rodent with some need to lay eggs. Its been a error to define creatures by these details. Marsupials are in fact some 97% the same as other creatures. The rest is minor details. The marsupial wolf which is not extinct but was seen on live and still pictures shows a very common looking dog. It should be the first conclusion that a dog looking creature is a dog and the detail of a pouch is a minor adaptation common to all the creatures in a certain area. Not that the reproductive style defines creatures and then a leap of faith that great sameness of physical form came from great selection pressures from certain niches. A dog is a dog regardless of a pouch. Biogeography being founded on evolution classification systems will frustrate creationism but will not if the presumptions of the classification system are replaced. I say a great replacement is in order and is in the mail. Stay tuned folks.Robert Byers_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

Herb. Thanks. Yes evos misinterpretat. Yet more so they can't use it against biblical creationism. Its works fine and better if one examines presumptions. Not religious influence but I do start from the biblical boundaries of animal migration post flood. so the Australian anomaly mist be explained. Whats there and whats not. I explain it from observation and fossil evidence. I see the marsupial change as instant adaption and so over and done within a few centuries at most after the flood and before a rise in water levels bringing an end to more migration over that Wallace line close to Australia. The theme of same shaped creatures is not well known by the public and only the marsupial cases are discussed. Yet in fact evolution makes claims of convergent evolution to explain, for example, four bear looking creatures that they say are unrelated. Just niche convergence brought about the same looks. Hogwash say I. These are all the same bear with minor details due to locality influence. Convergence evolution is wrong and distorted classification structures.Robert Byers_{July 18, 2009
July
07
Jul
18
18
2009
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

Robert Byers
I wrote an essay on this some time back calledd “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by Robert Byers. just google.
Interesting stuff. Still, I would appreciate if you would add a section about the identity of Homo sapiens and Homo vespertilio.sparc_{July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Hey Robert: what about the monotremes? Are they just egg-laying "minor" modifications of the placentals too? Oh, and don't forget the lack of nipples, and bones no other mammal has, and, well a plethora of other differences. But let's entertain the 'modified placental' notion for a moment longer: as a total guess, maybe you think the echidna is just a microevolved porcupine, but then where the hell did the platypus come from? Now-extinct duck-billed otters or something? Maybe they hybridized with beavers? And how would egg-laying be a result of them adapting to Australia and New Guinea? Why didn't all the marsupials start laying eggs too once they got there? Or should I just assume the monotremes were specially created and that's that? Oh, but wait: if that's the case, how come they're only in Australia and New Guinea? And what's with the distribution of monotreme fossils? Why have so many been found only in Australia? I'm getting the feeling that maybe biogeography isn't quite as friendly to YEC as you'd like to think.dbthomas_{July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Robert Byers, Nice to see you posting here. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that biogeography "works", but that the evos are interpreting the evidence incorrectly. Furthermore, some population(s) descended from the original dog kind microevolved marsupial features over the last 4500 years while migrating by land to Australia. I hadn't heard this particular hypothesis before, but it sounds plausible to me. Even more importantly in view of the topic of this thread, you haven't based your argument on any religious premises, which is where Coyne and the Darwinists go wrong.herb_{July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, you need to work on your blockquote skills. I was completely baffled until i went and re-read the original posts you were quoting. in any case, i don't think it's a stretch to say that there has been no, or very little, mention of god or creationism in the peer-reviewed evolution literature for the last 50 years. so where are the religious arguments? I have never read an evo bioarticle that states "the scenario we describe is much more likely than the ID scenario because of xx" you seem to be basing your arguments on blog posts and popular science books, not the actual science.Khan_{July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Hoki (106):
This is absolutely correct, and your change goes to show why religious assumptions should not be made. In an earlier thread you pointed out that the ratio of the likelihood of evolution/creationism was easy to make high by using religious assumptions (for creationism) that had low probabilities. I agree completely, but in saying that, the ratio given while doing so will always be lower than if one was to use ID as the denominator. The reason for this is that ID says nothing about the designer, ensuring that all ID scenarios are equally likely. Subsequently, the likelihood for ID will be zero and the evolution/ID ratio will be infinitely large. In other words, comparing the likelihood of evolution versus a hypothesis with religious assumptions gives evolution a SMALLER likelihood.
Interesting observation. KRiS_Censored (109):
Coyne did not mean for his views on what God would or would not do to be a test of evolution. It is meant to allow for an empirical comparison between the two competing theories, attempting to find the “best explanation” (or at least the better explanation).
No, evolutionists do not claim that evolution is merely a better explanation. They claim it is a fact as much as gravity is a fact.
Evolution’s prediction of what is likely to be seen is to be compared with Creationism’s prediction of what is likely to be seen, and the one with an outcome more like what is actually observed is considered the better explanation. The fact that one theory is more plausible than a competing theory doesn’t somehow count as extra evidence in favor of that theory.
It is taken as a compelling argument, proving evolution to be a fact.
the veracity of the ToE is not dependent in any way upon the assumptions being made about God.
The denialism in evolution is remarkable. They rely on religious arguments and literally turn right around and claim there is no religion here.Cornelius Hunter_{July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

I am YEC and I love and insist that biogeography is a friend to biblical Christianity. It all works and this coyne is just wrong. This creationist says marsupials are in fact just placentals with minor adaptions to areas they migrated too. A marsupial wolf, bear, lion, mole, tapir, mouse, are in fact the same creatures as their namesakes in other countries. The marsupial wolf looked like a dog, moved like a dog, hunted like some kinds of dogs, and howled at the moon like the others. The marsupial lion is clearly just a lion with a pouch. These creatures all came from the kinds off the ark. Marsupialism is just a minor change of the same creatures entering the farthest areas on earth from the ark. Likewise this law is repeated in the fossil record time and again . Same shaped creatures are said to be unrelated because of some details and classified as separate with no more justification then the marsupial/placental case. I wrote an essay on this some time back calledd "Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained" by Robert Byers. just google. Coyne and company must also remember YEC don't accept the rock strata as coming from eons but only from a single or few events. Please stop saying creatures swam from the ark. They walked . Just ask the armidillos.Robert Byers_{July 17, 2009
July
07
Jul
17
17
2009
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

I apologize if these points have already been covered. I don't get to be here as often as I'd like and I just posted without reading (m)any other comments first.KRiS_Censored_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

Coyne did not mean for his views on what God would or would not do to be a test of evolution. It is meant to allow for an empirical comparison between the two competing theories, attempting to find the "best explanation" (or at least the better explanation). Evolution's prediction of what is likely to be seen is to be compared with Creationism's prediction of what is likely to be seen, and the one with an outcome more like what is actually observed is considered the better explanation. The fact that one theory is more plausible than a competing theory doesn't somehow count as extra evidence in favor of that theory. This is not, and is not intended to be, evidence for evolution. In other words, the veracity of the ToE is not dependent in any way upon the assumptions being made about God (unless you count the null hypothesis that God wasn't necessary which is present in all scientific theories...more on that below). The problem is that Creationism's answer to everything is "God did it" which means that all possible outcomes are predicted. Coyne was attempting to limit this to something testable in what he hoped would be a logical way, i.e. he asked himself "If I were God, what would I do?" If the answer is just about anything other than "I'd make it look exactly like evolution took place" then the results would almost certainly look different than what we actually observe. In other words, any attempt to limit creationism to something testable leads to predictions that are at odds with what we observe, making evolution the better explanation. Again, this is not, and is not intended to be, evidence in favor of evolution. It is merely an empirical comparison of one theory to another to see which is the "better explanation". Of course, one could argue that making any assumption at all regarding God, even the null hypothesis that God wasn't necessary, makes it religious by definition (I think this is basically what Cornelius is arguing). If that is the case then every hypothesis ever proposed is equally religious. "Where are my car keys? Maybe I left them on the kitchen counter." That's a religious hypothesis about where my keys might be because I first assumed that God didn't take them and I can't actually know what God would or would not have done with my keys. If I find my car keys on the kitchen counter, I still would have to assume that God didn't put them there before I could conclude that I left them there myself. That means that even after gathering evidence which seems to support my original hypothesis it's still religious by definition.KRiS_Censored_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Mr Herb, Hi, I give you a lot of respect for saying that you see a problem in your own argument. It takes guts and honesty with yourself. Thank you.Nakashima_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter: "At that point folks can start seriously evaluating the scientific evidence, but until then I have found it to be a waste of time to try to engage the science with people who are in denial about their own religious convictions." But what is to stop YOU (and perhaps other DI members) evaluating the evidence NOW and at least coming up with an intial hypothesis? You don't need to engage with evolutionists to do this do you? (Also - what safeguards would you recommend to ensure that you and your colleagues are not influenced by your own particular religious premises and convictions?)JTaylor_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter: Cornelius changed Mark Frank's quote a bit:
With carefully chosen religious assumptions you can make the likelihood of any observed outcome [what we observe] as high [low] as you wish.
This is absolutely correct, and your change goes to show why religious assumptions should not be made. In an earlier thread you pointed out that the ratio of the likelihood of evolution/creationism was easy to make high by using religious assumptions (for creationism) that had low probabilities. I agree completely, but in saying that, the ratio given while doing so will always be lower than if one was to use ID as the denominator. The reason for this is that ID says nothing about the designer, ensuring that all ID scenarios are equally likely. Subsequently, the likelihood for ID will be zero and the evolution/ID ratio will be infinitely large. In other words, comparing the likelihood of evolution versus a hypothesis with religious assumptions gives evolution a SMALLER likelihood.Hoki_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

JTaylor (77):
I too am interested in what Dr. Hunter thinks about the Australian fossil record. If he does not accept the standard biogeographical explanations, what alternative hypotheses would he offer? Does ID theory shed any light on the matter? If the answer is ‘nothing’ or ‘no’ - what needs to be done to get to a place where a hypothesis could be formed?
What I think needs to be done is for folks to understand the nature of the scientific evidence, how badly evolution does on that evidence (even Mayr admitted that evolutionary explanations of biogeography are sometimes almost unbelievable), and how evolution is mandated by religious premises which sometimes are quite compelling. At that point folks can start seriously evaluating the scientific evidence, but until then I have found it to be a waste of time to try to engage the science with people who are in denial about their own religious convictions.Cornelius Hunter_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Billb and dbthomas, Crap!! OK, it looks like the example I chose doesn't hold up under scrutiny, unlike the case of Coyne's pronouncements about biogeography given in the OP.herb_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

herb @ 101:
The unscientific, religious premise he maintains is that God would never have created the patterns we observe in the (apparent) Flood Deposits.
Um, herb? You seem to have missed that he actually claims the exact opposite:
Before people claim that chance is incompatible with God's creation, remember that God is omnipotent and thus is able to control chance. Chance doesn't control God. Nor is God a snivelling coward when He is faced with chance.
That is certainly a religious claim, and is unsupported, but it has nothing to do with his opinion of Flood Geology and it basically says God could have created in any manner or order in which He pleased. It's also the only such statement on the page and if you excised it, it would make no difference to the argument in the least. Immediately thereafter, he makes a very clear statement of what he objects to: the idea of a global flood as an explanation the majority of observed geology and the fossil record, specifically the trend of increasing complexity over time in the latter. To wit:
Now, can the global flood paradigm explain this order in the fossil record? No! Assuming the onset of the flood was at the base of the Cambrian, it is clear that throughout the Cambrian period complexity in cell type increased. Yet the usual explanations for why animals appear as they do, mobility and ecological zonation, simply won't work here. Porifera, Cnidaria, Haemocoelic Bilaterian, Arthropoda, Echinodermata, and annelids are not significantly different in mobility. Thus the flood can not explain why complexity increases as we go up the geological column, but evolution can explain it.
I see no theology in that and any theory of geology based on a putative global flood would be vulnerable to the same argument, be it inspired by the Epic of Gilgamesh, the myth of Pyrrha and Deucalion, or the pages of the Old Testament or just thought up by some inventive and enthusiastic but geologically-ignorant atheist. Sure, you could derive theology from it, and I'm sure Morton has, but that's irrelevant because the argument doesn't rest on its theological implications.dbthomas_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

herb:
God would never have created the patterns we observe in the (apparent) Flood Deposits.
He doesn't make that claim as far as I can see. What he claims is that a global flood would not produce the pattern found in the geological column. The global flood as a cause of fossil remains is not his premise, it is one he is arguing against. He doesn't claim that God would not have created things this way, just that the mechanism of a global flood (which others are invoking) is insufficient to explain the evidence. This is a conclusion, not a premise.BillB_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

Billb and dbthomas, Thanks for the replies, but I think my point was completely missed by both of you. Of course he is arguing against YEC---that seems to be his life these days, along with honing his mad web design skillz and playing amateur climatologist. The unscientific, religious premise he maintains is that God would never have created the patterns we observe in the (apparent) Flood Deposits. He is of course making a sound argument, assuming this premise. But that's a religious claim, and he never supports it.herb_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

herb: Morton is arguing against Flood Geology, which makes very specific claims by virtue of insisting on a very literal reading the Biblical deluge account. Those claims flat out fail to match the evidence. He's not sneaking anything into the title: the title is telling you what he is specifically disputing. There's nothing unscientific about it. That's just the price YEC pays for making empirically falsifiable claims and refusing to abandon them once they are falsified. Also, just curious: are you aware that Morton was actually once a YEC, herb, and quite enamored of Flood Geology until getting repeatedly smacked in the face with the contradictory evidence?dbthomas_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

herb: LOL This is a self published opinion piece that cites a single peer reviewed paper as part of an argument about religion. the website says:
This website is concerned with the issues surrounding the Creation-Evolution debate, Young-Earth Creationism, and the historicity of the Bible.
The piece you link to comes under the section entitled 'Noah's Flood' so why is it a surprise that this is mentioned in the title, given that this is what he is discussing? In what way does this make any theories in geology religious? You seem to think that if anyone cites a scientific claim in the context of a religious argument it therefore means that the science is actually religion. Or did I misunderstand and your sarcasm is actually aimed at Paul Giem?BillB_{July 16, 2009
July
07
Jul
16
16
2009
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

The Darwnists that Cornelius’ is quoting are using subjective opinions about God to argue that God did not create life on earth.
Yes they are but contrary to what Cornelius seems to assert in his frequent postings their opinion does not form a part of the theory. Merely discussing creationism in comparison to science does not make the science religious.BillB_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Billb,
Many geologists would cite various theories in geology to contradict young earth creationist accounts of the age of the earth. Does this mean that the theories they cite suddenly become religious?
Yes, and here's an example: Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type? by Glenn Morton. Did you catch the way Morton subtly inserted his religious premise in the title of his article?? Of course God would not create patterns in the Deposits of the Great Flood, he assumes, therefore YEC is false. Real scientific. /sarcasmherb_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

RDK,
Rather amusing how ID proponents can spend all day making anaogies that link biological systems to well-oiled clocks and other nonsense, but when we point out obvious flaws in your god’s special creation that no idiot with half a brain would make, suddenly the modus operandi of the creator is off-limits.
You are completely wrong. ID proponents do not use subjective opinions about God as evidence for intelligent design. Darwinists, however, constantly use subjective opinions about God to argue against design, as you yourself just did in the above quote. BTW, I have slain the bad design argument so many times in debates with Darwinists that I have lost count. It is one of the poorest arguments that a Darwinist can raise. Not only is it based on a false premise, even when the premise is accepted it fails.Jehu_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

BillB,
Many geologists would cite various theories in geology to contradict young earth creationist accounts of the age of the earth. Does this mean that the theories they cite suddenly become religious?
No and you have apparently entirely missed the point of Cornelius' post. The difference is between objective evidence and subjective opinions about God. Argument using subjective opinions about God are religious, arguments using objective evidence are not. The Darwnists that Cornelius' is quoting are using subjective opinions about God to argue that God did not create life on earth.Jehu_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

The argument can be summarized as “God wouldn’t have done it that way.” That implies a specific view of religion, and therefore, is at base a religious argument.
I agree that they are making an argument about religion, this quite often is the case when arguing with people about religion, indeed its hard not to. The problem with the reasoning that Cornelius uses in most of his posts is the way he confuses the content of, and the evidential basis for, evolutionary theory with the way scientists sometimes express their opinions of specific religious ideas concerning creation. Dodson and Dodson are free to express their opinion but they are not expressing a component of the theory, just their opinion on how it compares to a particular religious perspective that they have fixated on. A priest proclaiming that 'God punishing people by making them ill' makes more sense than germ theory does not suddenly make his idea a scientific theory, just as a scientist proclaiming that Evolution is a better explanation than 'God made things look like that' does not automatically make Evolution a religion. Its just a bunch of people expressing opinions about theories. Many geologists would cite various theories in geology to contradict young earth creationist accounts of the age of the earth. Does this mean that the theories they cite suddenly become religious?BillB_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

RDK, it seems only fair that if well-made (in human terms) complex systems can provide evidence for design, then poorly-made (in human terms) kludgy systems can provide evidence against design.David Kellogg_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter has a hugely important point. Pronouncements turn up with regularity from (non-ID) evolutionists, both atheistic and (with less justification) theistic, stating that unassisted evolution is the better theory because its competition is incredible on a point. The argument can be summarized as "God wouldn't have done it that way." That implies a specific view of religion, and therefore, is at base a religious argument. The crazy part is that, although sometimes the opponent is a common conception, at other times the opponent is a straw man that virtually nobody on the opposing side really believes. Let me illustrate from Dr. Hunter's blog cited above:
According to the evolutionary textbook Evolution: Process and Product by Dodson and Dodson, if God had created the species then they should be distributed uniformly about the globe. The text states: “Had all species been created in the places where they now exist, then Amphibian and terrestrial mammals should be as frequent on oceanic islands as on comparable continental areas. Certainly, terrestrial mammals should have been created on these islands as frequently as were bats.”
And later:
Likewise Tim Berra explains that “if special creation were really how things came to be, there would be no reason for species on volcanic islands to resemble the inhabitants of the nearest land mass.”
This line of reasoning (Dodson and Dodson, and Berra) is just plain stupid. Let me explain. There are two main competitors to evolutionary theory in this particular case, assisted evolution, and young-life creation. For assisted evolution, it makes sense that in many cases organisms of various kinds developed on the mainland and then were transported to islands by misguided flying (bats, birds), rafting, or some other such mechanism. They would then be expected to diverge slightly from their mainland counterparts, just like in traditional unassisted evolution. The argument fails rather obviously. What is not appreciated by the supporters of the argument is that even for young-life creationism the argument fails. For young-life creationists hypothesize that after the Flood there was a dispersal event, whereby organisms got onto islands largely because of the same mechanisms of flight or drift, or in some cases across land bridges that were later flooded, and again one would expect islands to have similar species to the adjacent mainlands. So the argument still fails. The only time the argument would work is if one hypothesized that it was all creation and no evolution took place at all. No modern theory of which i am aware postulates this. Perhaps Paley does, but it seems a reach to still be fighting Paley. Are we living that far in the past? That does not mean that different theories do not have problems. Jerry Coyne's observation that
Where can we dig up fossil kangaroos that most closely resemble living kangaroos? In Australia.
and his further obsservations about armadillos, are a problem for young-life creationists (they are not a problem for assisted evolution). So sometimes at least one target is fairly hit (whether it is obliterated is a different question). But the Dodson and Dodson and Berra quotes are wildly off the mark. The other point is that our unassisted evolutionary advocates have seemed to be incapable of seeing this problem with the above argumentation, as one can see by perusing the above thread. (So did Dodson and Dodson and Berra, or they wouldn't have made it.) Why is it that some unassisted evolutionists consistently misrepresent the beliefs of their opponents?Paul Giem_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply