Monday, August 29, 2005

ID Falsifiability ala Behe

Posted in: Science

"ID says that intelligence is needed to make complex functional structures. So ID predicts that random mutation and natural seelction won't be able to do so. If a Darwinist showed that mutation/selection could make impressive, complex, functional systems, ID would be falsified."

--Mike Behe

[For more on the falsifiability of ID, see the article by my friend Casey Luskin at ]


Blogger Doctor Logic said...


Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation. Read this example in electronic circuit design, and you'll see that random mutation and a selection process can "design" things that even we ourselves have difficulty understanding. GA can do design without a designer, so it removes the supposed "scientific" motivation for ID (not that there was one). It also removes the common-sense card from ID's hand.

Individual claims (e.g., that human eyes were designed) are quite falsifiable. However, the overall program of creationism isn't falsifiable. The claim of the program isn't merely a laundry list of things that are claimed to be designed, like body parts, or proteins, or mitochondria. The claim of the overall program is that God is responsible for everything not yet explained by science. Until we explain everything, there will always be room for a designer (cough!God) in the gaps. That's why it's not falsifiable.

ID doctrine is not even supported by its own assumptions. Take this from Luskin's article:

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.

Wrong! This should read:

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and IN ADVANCE OF its precursors.

In other words, fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian is what ID predicts.

Of course, fossil record only preserves creatures trapped under extraordinary circumstances, isolated from geological upheaval. So gaps are expected no matter what theory you are trying to prove. Seeing advanced creatures appear before their supposed descendants would be a sign that evolution had a problem. Guess what? That has never been observed.

(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.

Why should a designer of such great sophistication re-use all of the parts? No triple helices? No Silicon-based life forms? No creatures with totally incompatible biochemistry? That's what I would have expected if ID were true.

Besides, we knew that many genes were shared across species before these clowns came up with their "prediction."

(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Not much? How big are the error bars on "not much?" Again, we already know that gene expression (regulated partly by junk) is as important as the genes themselves. These guys should predict something new for a change.

10:06 PM  
Blogger Kold_Kadavr_flatliner said...

God's not responsible for our FREE-WILL, America. Thus, we sinful mortals can condemn ourselves at any time. God's sad, certainly, but our FREE-WILL says to God, "Don't interfere". And God Almighty respects that - Your choice. Your demise.

4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doctor Logic said...

"GA can do design without a designer... "

Cool! And to top it all, this program is a case of spontaneous generation, showing up out of nowhere, completely on its own.

6:52 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

I just want to stick with the Behe statement for now. I think that what he is saying makes sense.

A relevent thought comes to mind--As soon as experimental evolutionists can strip a flagellium down to a more simple needle nosed pump, then ID would be flasified.


7:25 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:37 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Oh yeah, BTW. Thanks for your challenges Dr. Logic. You give me a lot to think about while I groom my near perfect mullet and watch NASCAR.

As for genetic algorithems: ID scholars have been positing such things for days. GAs in no way contradict ID theory, but they and computational biology are a big part of the research (see Dembski, Design Revolution chap. 43) When Evos use such ideas as "self correcting programs" as arguments against ID, I can never understand how they can not see the obvious. Self correcting programs are PROGRAMED BY A PROGRAMER! Such analogies actually support ID theory.

I am truly curious, have you ever been to an ID conference or taken in a lecture by one of the scholars? Not being a smart alec here, I am just wondering if you have had such exposure.

your freind, the spicy mullet

7:39 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...

But GA proves a very important point. The GA techniques illustrate that, had God simply created the first DNA-based life forms, all other species could have evolved without intervention or explicit design by the creator. In other words, GA shows that extremely complex species can evolve from very simple rules (e.g., laws of physics). This disproves the classic ID creationist claim that evolution can only explain variation within species, but cannot explain speciation.

GA can't falsify all of ID (of course, ID is not falsifiable), but it does falsify their claims about the need for divine intervention in the evolutionary process.

GA does not explain abiogenesis as far as I know, but that takes a huge bite out of the emotional need for God. If all God had to do was set the universe in motion, you end up at a sort of deism. Just one more step, and you've reached atheism.

Asking if I have been to any ID conferences is a bit like my asking you if you have been to any Flat-Earth conferences. "I have seen pictures of the Earth from space!" say you. "Fakes!" say I, explaining that the spherical Earth model is counter-intuitive. "You should hear out the Flat-Earthers," I say, with the inference that you might be won over by their presentations.

You need to understand that in the scientific community, ID has zero credibility. They don't publish, they don't do real research, and the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. ID is a paranoid delusion, like denying well-documented historical events such as the Apollo moon landings.

9:22 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Basically, Dr. Logic, you're not really riding on a horse. You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' them together.

My latest parusal of Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis only codifies this fact.

Run Away!!

9:37 AM  
Anonymous leibniz said...

MM, you seem to think that 'codify' means something like 'confirm'. It doesn't. One codifies something when one reduces it to a code or arranges it into a systematic collection.

4:19 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Thanks L,

I stand corrected. But my mullet is still in tact.


8:42 PM  
Blogger mynym said...

"But GA proves a very important point. The GA techniques illustrate that, had God simply created the first DNA-based life forms...."

GA might show that if we changed the fitness criteria in your neural nets from Darwinism to another explanatory filter then a totally different explanation might emerge and be gradually perfected in a trial and error process. If it was your will to change the explanatory filter being used to define the fitness of the explanation, that is. And then perhaps you would marvel at how overwhelmed you are by the only information that you were willing to have processed and you might come here to write of your amazement at it all. Yet others who did not willfully choose the same thing might wonder at how your will had been done through the evolution of your thoughts. It might seem to them that if you only allowed some information to be processed all along then you can't make any claims about all of it.

The article:
"The next important development in the field came in 1966, when L.J. Fogel, A.J. Owens and M.J. Walsh introduced in America a technique they called evolutionary programming."

It could easily be called trial and error programming, a basic aspect of all learning. Yet to try it one has to program in what is being tried for in some way. So if the analogy is true, what do you think is being tried for and processed in the system of Nature?

5:41 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

I don't see what all the hubbub is about the GAs and the programming analogies.

Like I said, I was at the ID and the Future of Sceice conference last year and ID scholars were throwing GAs scenarios around like fisbees. I was not in agreement with alot that was been tossed out, though. Some of these "front loeaded at the time of the Big Bang GA schemes" were too minimal for my taste. I think some of the IDers are more Deist than Theist (which I'm) so I just check them out as interesting.

In one of my earliest dialogues with a critic of ID, he sent me to Allan Orr's criticism of Behe's thesis at the Boston Review. As I was weeding through Orr's computer programing analogy, I couldn't help but hunch that this was an analogy to a Designer, seeing as every computer program known to man recieves its design from a designer (or the previous program that was programed to design it was designed etc.).

Bottom line, GAs play a roll to a certain extent in ID theory (see Dembski, Design Revolution) and by no means refute ID. Even a Deist could posit the front loaded deal, thus removing continual devine intervention, and the postulate still be under the tent of ID.

Oh well, only time will tell. I am looking forward to the day where robust ID research programs are available to the public in some way.


9:00 AM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


I don't quite follow your first point, but I think that you're saying:

1) Yes, GA's show that by creating a selection function, and a mechanism for breeding generations of solution with random variations, complex solutions are self-assembling, but...

2) In its present technological application, the programmer of the GA has to establish the selection criteria in such a way as to measure the distance between a bred solution and the ideal solution.

I agree with this.

Your second comment asks what nature is trying to program.

However, this is not specifically relevant to my claim vis-a-vis ID. GA validates macroevolution. That's my claim. One still has to account for abiogenesis and the physical contants, but once accounted for, macro-evolution builds everything else.

This brings us back at least as far as Deism by refuting ID's claims against macroevolution.

But to indulge...

Suppose we argue for deism by stating that the structure of the universe is such that evolution was probably going to lead to intelligent life somewhere. This is similar to the simulation argument.

However, this deism is only a scientific theory (and is only meaningful) if God lives in some exo-universe in which the concept of constructing something or of programming a GA is well-defined. What does it mean 'to have intent', 'to program', 'to construct' and so on? These verbs only have meaning within a physical universe. It may not be our universe, but it has to be a physical universe. This most definitely isn't what classical religion is all about. God isn't a physical alien, or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. He's supposed to be more than that. Alas, that's where the whole ship of deism (and theism) runs aground (or should I say adrift?). One cannot define creation of the universe outside of some enclosing physical universe. It may sound intuitive to say God programmed the universe, but its actually meaningless because it stretches the meaning of 'to program' past its linguistic breaking point.

So I claim to be an atheist for two reasons. The first is that the classical definition of God is literally meaningless (i.e., it is nonsensical).

The second reason is that, if a super-alien did exist (creator of the universe or not), that being's might does not make it right. What is the difference between a creature of superior power and technology and a God? It seems to me that power, divinity and morality are three entirely independent variables. Divinity and morality are totally in the eye of the beholder. My wife is a goddess, but she is not all-powerful, and not the absolute moral authority (there's no such thing). Being all-powerful doesn't make you moral, and doesn't automatically bestow divinity.

We also know that a list of allowed or prohibited physical actions is no substitute for good ethics. If it were, we could not know when to make the good exception to the rule of law. Thus, even if a super-alien created the universe and inspired the Bible, that alien would not be moral or divine, only powerful.

Interesting side question for religionists here: If I create a simulation, and intelligent life evolves in that simulation, would the simulants be God's children, too? If the simulants pray to me, aren't they just confused?

1:03 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Oh yeah. I think that one of Dr. Logic's earlier statements reflects the closed mindedness of most naturalists.

Even though I think that DL's example of "flat earthers" is rather irrelavent. Lets say for a moment that it is.

Basically, DL's getting at that we shouldn't analyze anything that has to do with flat earth theory.

Well, people in the history of science, who were good scientists in their day, held to a flat earth.

Does this mean that I should never read or try to learn where a flat earther was coming from in his/her day?

If I throw out that era of science, where should I stop?

Should I never read Thales or the Pre-Socratics because the posited water and fire as universals?

Obviously, I am not advocating a flat earth here. But, if there was a local meeting of some neo-flat earthers, I would certainly check it out (at least once) just to see where they were at (or, at least for some amusement).

I am just open minded like that.


3:25 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


ID is a religious and political phenomenon. If the ID "researchers" want to make a scientific point, they should publish in some scientific journals. Then, they would have bona fide conferences, and not just ID rallies.

If science was on the wrong track, it would rapidly correct itself. There would be huge rewards waiting for any scientist who published a true, predictive theory that could supercede evolution. We're talking Nobel Prizes, here. Even given this motivation, ID has been unable to win over the science community, and is still not producing anything that can get past peer review.

This isn't a scientific debate with political overtones. It is politics and religious fervor on one side, and science on the other.

2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dipping into buzzbox the again logic?

7:34 PM  
Blogger Joshua said...

dr logic- your arrogance is unwarranted. one side has science and the other side has nothing but religious fervor?

you sound as close-minded as they come. you say that ID theorists arent real scientists and theyre not practicing real science, you claim none of them have published any peer reviewed articles (which is completely false, because many of them HAVE, indeed, done so).

you call them ID "researchers" (as if theyre lower life forms and not truly researchers at all.

if science was on the wrong track, it would rapidly correct itself? wait- how long between netwonian physics and einstein?

does this also mean that "science" (notice that dr logic stipulates that only non-ID theorists are truly part of "science") is never wrong?

you seem to have disdain for ID and those who support the ideas involved with it. your close minded and rude. we can just as easily imply that youre a fool for being such a naturalist and youre not truly a real scientist, nor is anyone who believes the same things you do about the evidence involved in the world.

in the end, these religious fools who dont have science on their side- well, youre talking about the most famous scientists in history. shall i run down a list of creationist scientists through the many hundreds of yrs? shall i mention that science was founded by creationists and only flourished in nations full of creationists? since youre so much smarter than the rest of us, and were just fools with nothing but religion can you explain how youre smarter than, say newton? kepler? galileo?

id sure love to see the work of the mighty dr logic and compare it to the religious fools i just mentioned!

2:26 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


I'm sure that ID looks just like science, when you don't actually know what science is.

Wearing a lab coat and having a doctorate aren't enough. Neither does it matter if ID advocates have a day job in a science department at a college. Plenty of scientists have gone off the rails, not just in ID but in cosmology and anthropology.

What matters is following the scientific method, and publishing in peer-reviewed journals to keep you honest. Since ID advocates don't publish in journals (except, perhaps, self-published ones), they are either not willing or not able to present acceptable science. They can't pull the wool over the eyes of the scientific community, so they go to the public at large, hoping the public can't tell the difference.

if science was on the wrong track, it would rapidly correct itself? wait- how long between netwonian physics and einstein?

Newtonian physics is still used today. It isn't wrong! It hasn't been falsified, except at extremes of relativistic speeds to which Newton had no experimental access. We still use Newtonian physics to build cars and bridges. Once a theory has been verified in a domain, it remains valid. Theories are superceded by new theories that have more precision, more range/applicability, or which unify several theories into one. Previously validated theories are still valid to their original precisions and in their applicable domains.

since youre so much smarter than the rest of us, and were just fools with nothing but religion can you explain how youre smarter than, say newton? kepler? galileo?

I'm not "so much smarter than the rest of us". I've studied science and logic. Apparently, you haven't.

Newton, Kepler and Galileo were NOT creationists.

First, they didn't have a lot of choice in the matter of professed faith because the religion of the day would have locked them up (or worse), and, in Galileo's case, did.

Second, there was no scientific theory of evolution at the time. Yes, Newton was long dead before Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species. For that matter, there was no significant fossil record for them to have formed a theory around.

Third, it seems likely to me that a scientific theory of speciation was beyond their imagination. Believing in God to explain things that science could not explain in their era is forgivable.

Defying scientific evidence and ignoring validated scientific theories in favor of Iron Age fables, that's creationism. Newton, Kepler and Galileo are in no way guilty of this.

Let's face it. The only way you can reconcile the failure of ID to publish is by claiming that there's a vast conspiracy in which 99% of researchers in the field are suppressing ID. Just like the way they've suppressed the Roswell Incident and Bigfoot.

4:16 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...


There is no such thing as a single "scientific method"!!

There are many methods of science that one can apply, but not just one that sets a line of demarkation that deems everything that meets its criteria as being science, and everything that falls short of its criteria as being non-science.

Regardless, the majority that has been discussed thus far is philosophical in nature. This is where Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution all meet on level playing ground. One can have a level of theistic presuppositions in thier methodology, or purely naturalistic ones--and adherants to all of the aforementioned camps can go forth and conduct science! (and they all have over the course of thousands of years of scientific inquiry)

You may say that Intelligent Design theory is inferior science to evolutionary theory--then we would be able to talk shop. But, to say that it ID is non-science is just some form of psycological denial.

The other points you make about politics and so forth are certainly relavent, but they just go to show how philosophy influences science, which in turn influences politics, which in turn influences culture, etc. (or, however you want to stack the order).

Your constant positing of a criteria for ID to be published in peer reviewed journals to be credible is not fair. The Rick Sternberg situation brings this fact to light. E. Scott constantly honks the "peer review" horn at ID, but then when Sternberg okays a review of an ID article, he is subsequently crucified for doing so. Then, regardless of this stonewalling, the anti-ID'rs continue to play this dirty card. No Bueno!

1:58 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


If the universe is ordered and consistent then we can determine the laws of the universe using the scientific method, i.e., making observations, creating a predictive hypothesis that explains those observations, and then testing the predictions. I don't know what other scientific method you are thinking of.

Evolution is a highly successful and predictive theory that has been validated by experiment. ID is neither.

Consider ID's so-called predictions. Among other things, they claim to predict that the fossil record will be incomplete, and that we will see a progression of species that looks like common ancestry. Such claims are either incompetent or fraudulent, for these are the very predictions of evolution, not ID. Fossils only form in very rare circumstances, so it will always be incomplete in any naturalistic theory. Yet, ID doesn't predict a natural progression of speciation with common ancestry. It predicts that species would appear in the fossil record out of order! In other words, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian. Clearly, the persons making the predictions are working backwards from the data.

Like most pseudosciences, ID misrepresents the accepted scientific research, and portrays the scientific community as being in the last throes of desperation. I recently attended an ID presentation, and here's the modus operandi:

1) Quote lots of accepted numeric scientific results, many of which are irrelevant. This confuses the audience, but makes them think you know what you're talking about.

2) Quote statistical odds of extremely rare events (e.g., DNA molecules coallescing out of atomic gases! I'm not kidding!) which may be correct, but which are irrelevant because no scientist claims that these events are necessary for evolution.

3) Portray life science missions to Mars and the outer planets as last ditch efforts of astro-biologists to explain life appearing quickly on Earth by saying life evolved elsewhere.

4) Lament the evils of secularism that prevent ID science from getting into journals.

5) Appeal to the "common sense" views of the audience who don't understand evolution and who have a deep emotional stake in the outcome of the debate.

ID is pseudoscience, not science. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

One can have a level of theistic presuppositions in thier methodology, or purely naturalistic ones--and adherants to all of the aforementioned camps can go forth and conduct science!

Some ID advocates are trained to practice science (e.g., microbiology or astronomy). In their day-to-day activities, they don't need to use evolutionary theory. They can happily plot some variable star intensities or detect extrasolar planets with the best of them. That doesn't make them authorities on evolutionary biology.

The fundamental goal of ID is to prove either 1) God or 2) that we're living in a simulation. Yet, no matter how much we succeed in our scientific explanations of Nature, the ID guys will always come back, point to something as yet unexplained, and say, "Ah, but you haven't explained this!" After we explain that, they'll pick on something else. Their scheme is always as large as the unexplained, and it never gets falsified until science can explain everything which might be never.

If ID wants to be a science, it's going to have to name the designer in some scientifically verifiable way. Just the way we do anthropological research on early homonids. We have to find the tools the designer used, physical evidence of the designer's intent, evidence of the designer's goofs or byproducts and so on. You don't need me to tell you why they won't do this.

3:53 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Dr. Logic,

Actually, I am glad that you finally attended an ID conference. This shows me that you are more open minded than I had originally figured you to be. Thanks for taking the time to check out the neo-"flat earthers" as you would perhaps deem my ID friends.

You bring up a lot of points that I would love to go through with you about science etc.

But, I would like to stick to one specific, related subject for the time being.

Throughout the many science related threads on this site, you continually bring up publishing in "peer reviewed" science journals as some criteria for validating ID as science.

I had brougt up the Rick Sternberg situation to you before, and I would like to stay on that for a moment.

In brief, Sternberg, who is not an ID theorist, and who holds 2 Ph.Ds in evolutionary biology, let an article by Stephen Meyer get in the Smithsonian peer reviewed journal and was subsequently crucified for doing so.

He was nailed to the wall by those at the Smithsonian, the NIH, and the NCSE. The NCSE's involvment is the most interesting to me because E. Scott from the NCSE is the one going around and bagging on ID theorists for not having any articles in peer reviewed journals. Yet when an ID theorist does get published in a peer reviewed journal, she and her organization pull a buch of rabid political BS against the poor guy who lets the article in the journal.

This is basically like taking all of the aces out of a deck of cards and saying that no one is in the game until they have at least one ace in their hand. Totally unfair!

BTW, here is the link to Sternbergs website where he details what happened to him after the Meyer incident

So, I am just curious, Dr. Logic . . . with this situation in mind, do you still think that it is fair to place peer reviewed publication as a criteria for the validity of ID theory as science?

I don't think it is even close to being fair to do set such a criteria in light of the Sternberg incident.

2:35 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


The peer-review process has been perfectly functional in the face of radical ideas for more than a century. Einstein's ideas were very radical, yet he had no difficulty publishing his work.

So, let's look at this specific case. First let me say that I am not a biologist, and I have not read the paper in question. However, the OSC letter describes the paper this way:

The article summarizes multiple sources from scientists around the world and concludes that conventional theory does not adequately explain the change in cellular systems and body plans during the "Cambrian Explosion," and therefore science should consider the possibility of "intelligent design" (ID).

From this we can clearly say that the paper wasn't purely a criticism of a prevailing evolutionary model of life, it was advocating ID explicitly. Yet, the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists regard ID as a pseudo-scientific scheme on a par with astrology.

Given the scientific community's overwhelming rejection of ID as a scientific discipline, how did the paper get through?

Your claim that Sternberg isn't an ID advocate is misleading. Sternberg is an advocate of "process structuralism" (PS), a non-evolutionary approach to biology, as fringe as ID itself. A victory for ID would be a victory for PS. Why? Because in discrediting common descent, Sternberg would be as likely to claim the benefit of scientific doubt as ID (perhaps, more so). Indeed, Sternberg signed on to the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism".

Here we have a case where an ID ally coordinates the acceptance to review, the review process and subsequent the publication of an article on ID.

Now, I think ID is total BS. But let's suppose it weren't. We don't teach theories in school on the basis of their not being total BS. They have to be explanatory and competitive in the scientific community. ID isn't. Let's further suppose that it has the potential to be competitive. Eventually, ID would convince scientists of its merits. In turn, ID advocates would eventually find it possible to publish in journals. Until that happens, ID doesn't deserve to be called a science, and it most certainly doesn't deserve the generous treatment it's getting in the press.

One more point. Science only permits naturalistic theories, right? The ID claim must then be that aliens visited Earth on a regular basis over the last four billion years, tending to evolution, but leaving no trace.

This is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why? Because extraordinary claims have to overcome the noise. People want to believe in aliens, Big Foot, their own special place in the universe, unlimited rice pudding, etc., etc. These claims would be made independent of convincing scientific evidence.

Ask yourself, at what stage does Big Foot need to be put into zoological text books? When do aviation traing manuals need to talk about procedure for flying formation with alien space ships? When do biblical historians have to begin accounting for von Däniken's ancient astronauts?

8:50 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...


So, you are saying that you fully support the tactics that were waged against Dr. Sternberg in this situation?

5:57 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


I have only read Sternberg's account summarized on his home page, so I don't know all the details. However, for the most part, I do think he should be removed from any position of scientific responsibility/authority.

Let's put it this way. What do you think would be appropriate measures to take against someone who rigged the publication of an astrology article in an astrophysics journal, given that there were a religio-political conspiracy to put astrology into the public schools?

This guy wasn't publishing science, but pseudo-science. Immediate termination of employment would seem perfectly appropriate to me.

4:05 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:07 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Dr. Logic.

Based on your open mindedness, you have now earned, in my book, the official title of the "Pat Robertson" of scientific inquiry.


2:59 PM  
Blogger AmericanPascal said...

Regarding the “proven science of evolution” that I often hear, we should be cognizant of what exactly has been proven within the field of evolution. Some aspects of evolution such as the origins of DNA have only been “conjectured” at best. The evolutionary theory of the origins of DNA is by no means a scientific theory. Often biologists cross over freely and with ease from the realm of science into the realm of philosophy and back without realizing what they did.

When a biologist teaches that the origins of life came along by chance, then at that point the “scientist” is no longer on scientific soil, but has crossed over into the realm of unsubstantiated philosophy. How can this be accepted? Well, this is actually (horrors) a “belief” that we came into existence by “chance.” This is not science, and anyone who claims it to be science is doing an injustice to the scientific profession.

10:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home