Not Even Wrong

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 2, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli once criticized a scientific paper as so bad that it was “not even wrong.” It was so sloppy and ill conceived, thought Pauli, that to call it merely wrong would be to give it too much credit–it wasn’t even wrong. Today such a condemnation applies well to the theory of evolution which relies on religious convictions to prop up bad science. It seems that every argument for evolution wilts under scrutiny. Here is a classic example.

Continue reading here.

Comments

As I said there isn’t any reason to infer humans and chimps share a common ancestor except to want to. I say that because there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible. There isn’t any calculation nor measurement. All there is is a strong desire to be related. What part of that don’t you understand?Joseph_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Hoki:
Your argument requires you to assume something about how the designer would do something.
It does? Can you be specific? Common design doesn't say anything about "how". And again common design is based on observations and experience. Nothing religious. However Gould insisting that a designer wouldn't do something is just nonsensical. That isn't based on anything except wishful thinking. IOW you cannot understand simple points.
And I take it that you’re not going to explain the circularity required for common ancestry?!
I am still waiting for a way to objectively test the premise. If one doesn't start out with the assumption of common ancestry then one doesn't get there via the scientific data. The fossil record doesn't help. Genetics doen't help. So what do you have?Joseph_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Still no valid reasoning for why my inference is a religious assumption. Thanks I knew you couldn’t do it- that is provide a valid reason. I know I didn’t use any religious assumptions because I don’t care about religion.
Sigh. Your argument requires you to assume something about how the designer would do something. This is what Cornelius calls a religious assumption. You know how Cornelius was comlaining about saying that Gould stated that the designer would NOT make such a bad thumb for the panda? You are doing the same thing. But then I've already said this before...
As I said there isn’t any reason to infer humans and chimps share a common ancestor except to want to. I say that because there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible. There isn’t any calculation nor measurement. All there is is a strong desire to be related. What part of that don’t you understand?
What I don't understand is how you can't understand some simple points. The mechanisms responsible for common ancestry could include a designer adding the odd gene here and there between generations. If a designer couldn't even do that, we could hardly expect it to design things de novo. And I take it that you're not going to explain the circularity required for common ancestry?!Hoki_{July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee:
How can you say that magic IS necessary? What is the basis for that? I view that as an assertion that has absolutely no evidential support.
Eeeeh, I never did. YOU claimed that it was NOT necessary.Hoki_{July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Hoki, Me: "No, it is a logical assumption. If there is a designer, then he does not need to use magic to design. Could he use magic? Of course, but he doesn’t need to. Your view of a designer is more religious than mine." Hoki: "You have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans were/could be designed. How can you say that magic isn’t necessary. Oh, I know, you made a religious assumption." Correct, I have no idea how they were designed, but I have evidence that they were designed. That would seem to be a more powerful support than the how. I think you make too much of mechanisms. Darwinism has not yet shown how the mechanism of RM + NS works. It all appears as a guessing game, and part of that game is to confirm what you are trying to prove. How can you say that magic IS necessary? What is the basis for that? I view that as an assertion that has absolutely no evidential support. Since you don't know that magic is necessary for a designer to design, the only thing that you can really state is that magic is not needed. Besides that, what precisely do you mean by magic? I perceive magic from a naturalistic perspective as a slight of hand - a trick. I don't see magic from a "supernatural" perspective whatsoever - so that would actually be a moot point.CannuckianYankee_{July 13, 2009
July
07
Jul
13
13
2009
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT}

Hoki to CY:
You have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans were/could be designed. How can you say that magic isn’t necessary?
Because magic has never been demonstrated to do anything. In the same light you have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans could evolve from non-humans. So you rely on magical mystery mutations and father time. That is your religious assumption. That throw father time and magical mystery mutations together and "poof"...Joseph_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Hoki:
You don’t even understand that a hypothesis doesn’t need to offer an exclusive explanation for a set of observations.
Irrelevant as you didn't provide a testable hypothesis for your non-telic position. IOW your alleged hypothesis doesn't test anything. Which means you are OK with having common design and convergence taught in science classrooms as they explain the same data as UCD.
That’s a rather blatant non-sequitur.
How is that non-sequitor? Science classrooms should be allowed to discuss ALL relevant hypotheses. If they are not allowed to do so then they ain't teaching science they are indoctrinating dogma. Hoki:
Seems to me that you won’t provide any evidence because you can’t.
I provided an explanation and it isn't my problem that you can't understand it: As I said there isn’t any reason to infer humans and chimps share a common ancestor except to want to. I say that because there isn’t any scientific data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible. There isn’t any calculation nor measurement. All there is is a strong desire to be related. What part of that don't you understand?Joseph_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Hoki, Still no valid reasoning for why my inference is a religious assumption. Thanks I knew you couldn't do it- that is provide a valid reason. I know I didn't use any religious assumptions because I don't care about religion.Joseph_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
You’re taking the real world for granted. On the assumption of evolution, the real world didn’t have to be the way it is, and therefore, humans budding from the earlobes of chimps is no stranger than humans and chimps existing in the first place.
Lest you don't think I understand or am trying to avoid your argument, let me say this: Even using evolution as a condition in probability calculations, I realise that the probability of humans/chimps/budding ever coming to exist is minute, to say the least. (The same applies to ID as well, btw).
I’m going to fundamentals, of how things could be on the assumption of evolution, you should go there with me, and not argue from how things are now.
I will not go there with you, since those "fundamentals" are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There is no reason why I should limit myself to using evolution as my only assumption.Hoki_{July 12, 2009
July
07
Jul
12
12
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Melzer S, Lens F, Gennen J, Vanneste S, Rohde A, Beeckman T. 2008. Flowering-time genes modulate meristem determinacy and growth form in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature Genetics, published online: 9 November 2008- Art Hunt sez the following:
Melzer et al. constructed double mutants deficient in the expression of these two proteins, with the intent of understanding the physiological significance of interactions between these two proteins, associations discovered using the so-called yeast two-hybrid assay.
IOW nothing natural about the process.Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Oops- if common descent is such a good explanation then why can the same data it "explains" be explained by something other than common descent? IOW why is it that such a powerful explanation does not have any exclusive data? And why is universal common descent missing from the bulk of the fossil record?Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Actually common descent is simply the best available explanation by a long shot.
Actually there isn't any genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible. The whole theory of evolution is based on ignorance. IOW common desecnt is the best explanation for those who already accept it and for those who refuse to critically examine the premise.Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
I also claim that all evidence for UCD needs to first assume UCD.
Actually common descent is simply the best available explanation by a long shot.David Kellogg_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

Joseph: Joseph wrote:
However you can support your claim by providing the definition of a religious assumption.
Just after that, you quoted me as writing:
You are assuming that the designer would do a certain thing just as Gould assumed that a competent designer would not have designed the panda’s thumb the way it is made.
That about sums it up, right there.
As I said I base my inference on observations and experience.
And then you use a religious assumption to claim that THE desinger would have done something similiar. It's very simple, Joseph. Joseph:
In order to have a hypothesis support your position is has to include mechanisms.
Me:
Beyond a rather vague descent with modification, no it doesn’t.
Joseph:
Thank you for proving that you don’t know anything about forming a testable hypothesis.
That's rich, Joseph. You don't even understand that a hypothesis doesn't need to offer an exclusive explanation for a set of observations.
It Which means you are OK with having common design and convergence taught in science classrooms as they explain the same data as UCD.
That's a rather blatant non-sequitur. Joseph:
I also claim that all evidence for UCD needs to first assume UCD.
Me:
Without providing any evidence that this is so. Wonderful.
Jospeh:
One doesn’t need to provide evidence for the obvious.
Is this typical behaviour for an ID supporter? Come one, Joseph. Seems to me that you won't provide any evidence because you can't. Oh, and why do you think that ID has any problems with my dogs/cats-human/chimp scenario?Hoki_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
You’re taking the real world for granted. On the assumption of evolution, the real world didn’t have to be the way it is, and therefore, humans budding from the earlobes of chimps is no stranger than humans and chimps existing in the first place.
That is sort of what I wrote about in my previous post. When the real world didn't have to be the way it is, Pr(humans)=Pr(chimps)=Pr(humans budding of from chimps' ear lobes). Realistically, though, why would I possibly not take the world for granted and simply give Pr(humans) and Pr(chimps) a value of 1, given the fact that they do exist. For me, it looks like you are simply advocating a "post modernist all assumptions are equal" kind of argument.
I’m going to fundamentals, of how things could be on the assumption of evolution, you should go there with me, and not argue from how things are now.
I don't think you realise that the way things are now can be used as assumptions in conditional probability calculations. In real science, hypotheses do use assumptions.Hoki_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee:
No, it is a logical assumption. If there is a designer, then he does not need to use magic to design. Could he use magic? Of course, but he doesn’t need to. Your view of a designer is more religious than mine.
You have absolutely NO idea how things such as humans were/could be designed. How can you say that magic isn't necessary. Oh, I know, you made a religious assumption.Hoki_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

I said there wasn’t any EXCLUSIVE evidence for universal common descent. Hoki:
We’ve been through this numerous times already.
Which means you are OK with having common design and convergence taught in science classrooms as they explain the same data as UCD. IOW the only reason to exclude those are due to philosophical reasons. I also claim that all evidence for UCD needs to first assume UCD.
Without providing any evidence that this is so. Wonderful.
One doesn't need to provide evidence for the obvious. As I said there isn't any reason to infer humans and chimps share a common ancestor except to want to. I say that because there isn't any scientific data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible. There isn't any calculation nor measurement. All there is is a strong desire to be related.Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

Hoki:
Except that your assumption fits the the definition of a religious assumption.
No it doesn't and just because you say so doesn't make it so. However you can support your claim by providing the definition of a religious assumption.
You are assuming that the designer would do a certain thing just as Gould assumed that a competent designer would not have designed the panda’s thumb the way it is made.
Wrong again. As I said I base my inference on observations and experience. In order to have a hypothesis support your position is has to include mechanisms.
Beyond a rather vague descent with modification, no it doesn’t.
Thank you for proving that you don't know anything about forming a testable hypothesis. It is also clear that you don't understand science. OTOH your position relies on magical mystery mutations Anyone involved in a debate about evolution has come to realize that the theory of evolution and universal common descent rely heavily on magical mystery mutations. I say that because those mutations can change an invertebrate to a vertebrate and no one knows how or why. Those mutations can change a fish into a land animal and then a land animal into an aquatic one- again without anyone knowing how or why. These magical mystery mutations operate when/ where no one can observe them. They cannot be studied which means no testing and no verification. And BTW your position may be a-telic but you have failed to provide a hypothesis for that position. And that is what I have been asking for.Joseph_{July 11, 2009
July
07
Jul
11
11
2009
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Hoki, ------"In the real world, humans budding off chimps’ ear lobes IS an unusual event." You're taking the real world for granted. On the assumption of evolution, the real world didn't have to be the way it is, and therefore, humans budding from the earlobes of chimps is no stranger than humans and chimps existing in the first place. I'm going to fundamentals, of how things could be on the assumption of evolution, you should go there with me, and not argue from how things are now.Clive Hayden_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

me: "Such a designer does not need to invoke majic in order to design." "That is a religious assumption." No, it is a logical assumption. If there is a designer, then he does not need to use magic to design. Could he use magic? Of course, but he doesn't need to. Your view of a designer is more religious than mine.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
You take it for granted that there are such things as humans and chimps, but you have no reason to say that they are at all necessary or ordinary, you have only gotten used to them existing. They are just as fantastic as humans budding off the ears of chips.
Thank you for the philosophy you presented. Let me see if I can write in my own words what I think you are saying: The probability of humans existing [Pr(humans)] is equally small as Pr(chimps) which his equally small to Pr(humans budding of chimps' ear lobes), given no other assumptions. Is that about right? If we take a more realistic scenario and make some fairly well grounded assumptions, we find that Pr(humans budding of chimps' ear lobes | our knowledge about how humans and chimps usually enter this world) is vanishingly small. On the other hand Pr(humans) and Pr(chimps) both equal 1. In the real world, humans budding off chimps' ear lobes IS an unusual event. Clive:
Yeah let’s define things how we want, for our own purposes, like saying that when the Designer acts, it has to be magical
Why don't we look at what I actually said instead:
It could be a space alien, it could be an omnipotent god, it could be a spotty teenager’s science project or, why not, a magician.
And:
ID allows for pure magic. Pure magic from, for example, an omnipotent desiger sure could do it.(emphasis added)
Next bit:
I wrote: Out of curiosity: without using religious assumptions, how would you “go further in empirically looking into the ways and means by which the design took place”?”
Clive: Reverse engineering.
And what assumptions do you have to make to exclude the real possibility in ID that a designer took some clay and made a human? How do you compare Pr(God took some clay | human) and Pr (Lots of fancy splicing and computerish simulations etc | humans)? (anyone who is interested can keep on adding different scenarios for how humans were designed). How would reverse engineering tell you anything without adding religious premises? Note: I hope that we all understand the term "religious" assumption the same way. I'm NOT implying that the designer has to be "supernatural" but rather that the assumptions essentially boil down do "the designer would not do it that way" / "the designer would do it this way".Hoki_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Hoki, ------"Out of curiosity: without using religious assumptions, how would you “go further in empirically looking into the ways and means by which the design took place”?" Reverse engineering.Clive Hayden_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Hoki, ------"Yeah, let’s define magic so that it is not magic." Yeah let's define things how we want, for our own purposes, like saying that when the Designer acts, it has to be magical ;) Well done for discrediting the same tactic that you use.Clive Hayden_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Hoki, ------"If the design appears in the form of humans budding off, fully formed, from the ears of chimps, it does. If it’s walk is indistinguishable from a duck’s…" You take it for granted that there are such things as humans and chimps, but you have no reason to say that they are at all necessary or ordinary, you have only gotten used to them existing. They are just as fantastic as humans budding off the ears of chips. Indeed, you have no reason to say otherwise, your comparison is a false dilemma, a false comparison, based on something that you find ordinary (humans and chimps) which are really just as extraordinary. You have no real basis for comparison in the realm of "what might have been" and "what is now", as if "what exists now" was ever a strict necessity, it wasn't, under the assumption of evolution. Everything in biology is just as strange as humans budding off the earlobes of chimps. The fact that a birds fly and lay eggs is just as odd. You're argument is based as on a faulty assumption that humans and chimps are discernible in the same way as a real law, like 2+2=4, and that you could not imagine them in any other way, but they aren't necessities like you assume. Your arguments falls apart, for the shape of a human or chimpanzee is no more ordinary fundamentally that humans growing off the earlobes, for you don't understand the fundamentals, and indeed never can. For the fundamentals behind the natural laws are opaque to our reason about why they are the way they are. We can never get behind them, and assume that was can see their logical construction in the same way that we can see the laws of logic or reason. We cannot. You should remember this and stop taking incredible forms and comparing them to other incredible forms, as if one can be shown any more strange by comparison, as if two black riddles make a white answer. They don't.Clive Hayden_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

I said there wasn’t any EXCLUSIVE evidence for universal common descent.
We've been through this numerous times already.
I also claim that all evidence for UCD needs to first assume UCD.
Without providing any evidence that this is so. Wonderful.
Except that isn’t a religious assumption. And your say so doesn’t make it so. I base my INFERENCE on experience and observation- that is my vast experience with common designs and observations on how common designs work together.
Except that your assumption fits the the definition of a religious assumption. You are assuming that the designer would do a certain thing just as Gould assumed that a competent designer would not have designed the panda's thumb the way it is made.
No it doesn’t. DEsign has nothing to do with magic.
If the design appears in the form of humans budding off, fully formed, from the ears of chimps, it does. If it's walk is indistinguishable from a duck's...
Your position, however, relies on magical mystery mutations.
Do you also think that David Copperfield REALLY makes the girl disappear? Given that my position so far doesn't include any mechanisms, well... you know.
Also your position is non-telic ...
My position so far is completely a-telic.
In order to have a hypothesis support your position is has to include mechanisms.
Beyond a rather vague descent with modification, no it doesn't.Hoki_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

And Hoki, In order to have a hypothesis support your position is has to include mechanisms.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Hoki:
Like I already said, I proposed a hypothesis for showing common descent WITHOUT any mechanisms. We (you and me - or you actually) started claiming that there was no evidence for common descent.
I said there wasn't any EXCLUSIVE evidence for universal common descent. I also claim that all evidence for UCD needs to first assume UCD.
You are using the religious assumption that the designer would have done something a certain way.
Except that isn't a religious assumption. And your say so doesn't make it so. I base my INFERENCE on experience and observation- that is my vast experience with common designs and observations on how common designs work together.
ID allows for pure magic.
No it doesn't. DEsign has nothing to do with magic. Your position, however, relies on magical mystery mutations. Also your position is non-telic and your hypothesis has nothing to do with supporting that position.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

ID does not allow for pure magic. ID makes design inferences and makes no claim as to the nature of the designer in question.
Exactly. It makes NO claim. It could be a space alien, it could be an omnipotent god, it could be a spotty teenager's science project or, why not, a magician.
Such a designer does not need to invoke majic in order to design.
That is a religious assumption.
In fact, if we infer design, we are prepared to go further in empirically looking into the ways and means by which the design took place.
Out of curiosity: without using religious assumptions, how would you "go further in empirically looking into the ways and means by which the design took place"?
Furthermore, I think Dr. Hunter’s main point in all of this is that we all make “religious” (I prefer to use the term “metaphysical) assumptions about what we are looking at, and oftentimes those metaphysical assumptions do not give us an accurate understanding of what is really going on.
I don't think he means that at all. Originally (in the Sober thread) he explicitally meant for it to imply something about divine intent. He has used it in other senses, but I don't think there was anything metaphysical, although I certainly don't exclude the possibility.
If there is a designer, then such a designer is not magic. Such a designer is acting within the bounds of his attributes, so it would be perfectly natural. All ID simply does is to allow the boundaries between what we assume is “supernatural” and “natural” to be broadened.
Yeah, let's define magic so that it is not magic.Hoki_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PDT}

Hoki, "ID allows for pure magic. Pure magic from, for example, an omnipotent desiger sure could do it. So what is the problem?" I realize that the following is somewhat unrelated to the discussion you were haveing with Joseph, but I felt I had to address the above quote from you. ID does not allow for pure magic. ID makes design inferences and makes no claim as to the nature of the designer in question. Such a designer does not need to invoke majic in order to design. In fact, if we infer design, we are prepared to go further in empirically looking into the ways and means by which the design took place. I think the problem lies in the approach Darwinists have taken towards religion from Gould's NOMA to Forrest's "science only allows natural explanations, and cannot look into the 'supernatural.'" First of all, there is no clear distinction between the magistrates Gould refers to. Also, Forrest does not define what is meant by "supernatural." It is a term that needs to be done away with if we are going to understand each other better. Furthermore, I think Dr. Hunter's main point in all of this is that we all make "religious" (I prefer to use the term "metaphysical) assumptions about what we are looking at, and oftentimes those metaphysical assumptions do not give us an accurate understanding of what is really going on. If there is a designer, then such a designer is not magic. Such a designer is acting within the bounds of his attributes, so it would be perfectly natural. All ID simply does is to allow the boundaries between what we assume is "supernatural" and "natural" to be broadened. So we are not allowing magic to seep through those boundaries - everything can still be seen from an empirical standpoint such that esoteric methodologies such as astrology and what not are still left outside the empirical realm. ID essentially states that we need to refrain from infering artificial boundaries between assumed magistrates that we have no evidence exist. The true limits of science is not natural as Forrest assumes for the simple reason that not even she knows precisely what is natural and what is not. The very fact that she appeals to a term such as "supernatural" shows that she does not understand. Gould's NOMA is simply ridiculous. NOMA only works if there really is no God, and people simply believe for belief's sake - so obviously we would need to separate fiction from reality. But as Dr. Hunter pointed out, to say that there is no God because a god wouldn't have designed the world as it is, is in itself a religious view. Forrest and Gould, as well as Dawkins and all others who rely on this assertion are just as religious as any creationist. Furthermore, I find nothing more magical than the notion of irreducible complexity and complex specified information arising out of purely natural processes via pure chance and necessity.CannuckianYankee_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Your “hypothesis” has nothing to do with non-telic processes. IOW you don’t have a point.
Like I already said, I proposed a hypothesis for showing common descent WITHOUT any mechanisms. We (you and me - or you actually) started claiming that there was no evidence for common descent. OK?
Joseph quote:1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.
Me:How about that for a religious assumption?!
Joseph:And yet I am not a religious person. But anyway what is the religious assumption?
You are using the religious assumption that the designer would have done something a certain way. Remember what Cornelius was talking about? Calling it a religious assumption is Cornelius terminology. If you have a beef with it, take it up with him.
No mechanism that could allow for it.
ID allows for pure magic. Pure magic from, for example, an omnipotent desiger sure could do it. So what is the problem?
So to recap your alleged hypothesis has nothing to do with supporting your position and for unexplained reasons you think my design hypothesis has religious assumptions.
So, to recap, my hypothesis has everything to do with supporting my position - and yes, your "hypothesis" uses religious assumptions. Might I suggest that you read the threads that Cornelius started regarding this very topic.Hoki_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply