Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Profile for Lloyd To > Reviews

Personal Profile

Content by Lloyd To
Top Reviewer Ranking: 1,758,069
Helpful Votes: 120

Learn more about Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Lloyd To (Surrey, UK)
(REAL NAME)   

Show:  
Page: 1
pixel
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
by John C. Sanford
Edition: Paperback

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars for the great majority of mutations, 27 Sept. 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Evolution or Devolution?

This is a very informative and cogently argued book, supported by ample documentation. There is much discussion of population genetics. However, the author's concern is not with the mathematical models but rather the assumptions underpinning them. As an accomplished experimental geneticist, John Sanford is well qualified to evaluate these assumptions.

The text is semi-technical, and readers with no background in genetics will find it heavy going, especially as some of the technical terms are omitted from the glossary.

The book's main thrust is the net long term degradation of the genome. The author likens random errors in DNA replication to typing errors in copying a document. Such random changes do not produce a more highly organised text, i.e. one that conveys the information more effectively or even adds additional meaningful information. Likewise, mutations due to copying error and environmental damage (radiation or toxins) degrade the DNA text.

Moreover, most DNA sequences are poly-functional. For example, most human coding sequences encode for two different RNAs that read in opposite directions. Some sequences encode for different proteins, depending on where translation is initiated. Some encode for different proteins based on alternate splicing. This poly-functional nature of DNA powerfully reinforces the above argument that random changes will result in degradation of the code.

The threat posed by mutations had been recognised long before "Genetic Entropy" was published. Tens of thousands of diseases caused by mutations have been catalogued, while it is hard to find any uncompromisingly beneficial mutations. The author acknowledges the existence of some beneficial mutations, but argues, both conceptually and from experimental data, including his own research in plant breeding, that they are extremely rare.

The vast majority of mutations are "near neutral", i.e. each has an imperceptible effect on the organism. They are therefore opaque to natural selection. The resulting accumulation of such mutations in the population (the genetic load) leads to cumulative degeneration of the genome.

The selection model is, for the great majority of mutations, plagued by the problem of "noise". For example, since selection occurs at the level of the organism, not the gene, factors such as linkage blocks (large blocks of genes that are selected together, not individually) mask the effect of individual genes. This problem is compounded by epistasis, i.e. the effect of an individual gene is influenced by many other genes. Moreover, since the vast majority of mutations have only a small effect on survival, the role of chance - selection of the luckiest - plays a large part, as does random genetic drift. Noise occurs at much higher levels than is normally acknowledged by population geneticists, and is only partially diminished in large populations. (For a more detailed treatment of the interference of chance on natural selection, see chapter 3 of the excellent book "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner, 1997.)

Sanford documents the relatively recent findings that overall mutation rates, specifically in humans, are very much higher than previously recognised. Yet uncompromisingly beneficial mutations are extremely rare. For natural selection to work requires a far higher ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations.

The book is open to minor criticisms. For example, the regression curve of the post-Flood decline of human life span (Fig 14, p155) includes Jesus Christ as its last data point. This is obviously invalid, since Christ died prematurely by execution. This is an unfortunate oversight. On the other hand, replacement of that single invalid point with a valid one (or removing it altogether) does not materially alter the curve, or weaken the argument it is used to support. I also feel that a more restrained style of presentation would be preferable, and would actually make the case more compelling.

There is far more to the book than can be covered in this brief review. The book deserves careful study. For this reason a far more comprehensive index is highly desirable. A set of Appendices elaborate on some of the points raised in the main text, and answers some major criticisms.


Darwin on Trial
Darwin on Trial
by Philip E. Johnson
Edition: Paperback
Price: £12.99

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars You be the judge., 10 April 2014
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Darwin on Trial (Paperback)
Molecular biologist Michael Denton considered this book "Unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have ever read". Professor of Biological Science Michael Behe calls it a "classic masterpiece". David Raup, Avery Distinguished Service Professor (emeritus) of Geophysical Sciences, Evolutionary Biology, and The Conceptual Foundations of Science at the University of Chicago, said in an interview with journalist Larry Witham, "Phil's done a superb Job. He's really done his homework. It's phenomenal the way he absorbed the field. Now, many people would say, 'He doesn't know anything. That's obvious from the first page.' That's often said without *reading* the first page." In a phone call to Thomas Woodward (Ass. Prof. of Communication, Science and Theology, Trinity College of Florida, Tampa) Raup said “Johnson’s work is very good scholarship, and of course, this is widely denied. He cannot be faulted; he did his homework, and he understands 99 percent of evolutionary biology.”

Raup is a committed evolutionist, yet is fair-minded enough to give full credit to an opponent, a rare quality in committed evolutionists. Far more common is the attitude of those who charge the author with ignorance while ignoring his arguments. Such critics are more interested in reinforcing their prejudices than in truth.

Reinforcing prejudices was exemplified by the editors of Scientific American. They published a scathing review by Stephen Gould of the book's first edition, that occupied four pages in their July 1992 issue, yet "refused to print my response or any letters from readers, although I know they received many." They obviously thought it was their business to shield their readers from the author's heresies. Such censorship was an insult to the intelligence of their readers, who should have been allowed to hear both sides of the argument and decide for themselves.

The book deals not only with the scientific aspect of evolution, but also the equally important philosophical and social aspects. The chapters entitled "Darwinist Education" and "Science and Pseudoscience" are especially informative.

The author carefully documents his sources in the Research Notes at the back of his book, so readers can check them out. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so read the book, chew over its arguments, and make up your own mind.


Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?
by Denis Alexander
Edition: Paperback
Price: £10.99

13 of 19 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not a balanced account, 30 July 2010
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
The author claims his book "is written as a discussion and a dialogue", yet he makes no serious attempt to understand the thinking of the other parties. The End Notes include just *one* creationist book (Morris, 1984). The main text mentions another book by Morris (1976), which is a commentary on Genesis. There is no mention of *any* of the major creationist journals, such as Creation Research Society Quarterly, Journal of Creation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism, etc. These are the major repositories of serious creationist thinking. Alexander does not interact with any of this technical literature, yet he claims to be "a great believer in reading carefully the writings of any movement to understand what claims are being made by its chief proponents". Fine words - a pity the reality fails to live up to the rhetoric.

Alexander is by no means alone in this. Criticisms about creationist ignorance are typically based on ignorance about creationism!

About ten ID publications are mentioned (this includes two volumes of debates between IDers & evolutionists). Four ID authors are mentioned in the index. John Lennox, author of "God's Undertaker", also gets a fleeting mention. Alexander does not engage with the many cogent arguments in Lennox's excellent book, choosing to disparage him by insinuating ignorance on his part (pp295, 334).

The function of a gene is influenced by the presence of other genes, so a gene in a segment that undergoes recombination will find itself in a new environment which may modify its function. According to the author, this generates new biological information. Actually, it merely reshuffles information that is already in the pack. Moreover, this reshuffling is constrained, since recombination in meiosis is not random, but occur at "hotspots" (whose locations incidentally are totally different between humans & chimps). It therefore makes better sense to view the system as having been intelligently designed to operate with flexibility but also within carefully prescribed boundaries.

DNA is recognised as a language. Language is specified information, as distinct from Shannon information. Although it is contextual (the meaning of a word or sentence is context dependent) this flexibility is highly constrained. Arbitrarily lifting a section of text from one book & inserting it into another will not add meaningful information.

"Genetic mutations that cause changes in the sequence of the amino acids in a protein can clearly be said to be the cause of new information." If the author is referring to *random* mutations, this would be like saying that accumulation of typos in a scientific paper that has undergone repeated copying can produce a revised edition. Many mutations are not random, but occur at hotspots. This suggests the process is controlled, and can be attributed to design that allows for flexibility within constraints.

On the whole question of whether mutations & natural selection are capable of producing evolution, geneticist John Sanford argues convincingly that they cannot ("Genetic Entropy", 2008).

Chromosome fusion & pseudogenes are used to argue (conclusively, in Alexander's opinion) for the common ancestry of apes and humans. These arguments are critically evaluated by Geoff Barnard in "Should Christians Embrace Evolution?" (2009). Anyone who compares Alexander's handling of the data with that of Barnard, will readily see that it is not the creationist who cherry-picks the data.

Chapter 6 is particularly disappointing. The sort of objections the author brushes aside so readily are either not at all the objections made by well-informed creationists, or are misrepresentations of the actual objections.

Alexander dismisses the bacterial flagellum argument used by IDers, arbitrarily giving the last word to critics like Kenneth Miller. This gives the impression that IDers have no answer to these critics. This is far from the truth (see e.g. Scott Minnich & Stephen Meyer "Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria", Dembski "Irreducible Complexity Revisited", Eric Anderson "Irreducible Complexity Reduced" - just Google the titles). Those who seek an accurate introduction to ID should consult Dembski & Wells "the Design of Life"(2008), as a starting point.

Alexander invites readers to view an animation of the "self-assembly" of the flagellum. The fact that a highly intelligent scientist has figured out a way to assemble this molecular machine does not mean the system could have assembled itself spontaneously by a blind stepwise process, & in the *correct* *sequence*.

Similarly, the description of vertebrate eye evolution & the diagram on p145 convey the *illusion* of simplicity. There is nothing simple about the very first stage, the light-sensitive spot, or any of the other stages. As Behe noted, such "explanations" start with an already complex system, and continue by adding "complex systems to complex systems", explaining nothing along the way. The evolutionary accounts of the flagellum & the eye are "simply" just-so stories.

Imaginative origin of life scenarios may sound plausible on the surface, but again the devil is in the detail. The author claims that new discoveries are progressively elucidating the details. On the contrary, these new discoveries have a habit of uncovering hitherto unknown deeper levels of complexity that actually exacerbate the problems. Read Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" (2009) for a comprehensive, lucid, & non-patronising account of these problems.

Along with leading evolutionists like Jerry Coyne ("Why Evolution Is True?" 2009) & Richard Dawkins ("Greatest Show on Earth" 2009), Alexander's promotion of the fish-tetrapod transition scenario, & the role of Tiktaalik, now sounds pretty hollow in the light of recent discoveries of tetrapod footprints that predate Tiktaalik & the other putative ancestors.

Creationists, IDers, & critics of evolution generally, are used to being misrepresented, and accept it as a fact of life. A more serious concern, however, is the author's cavalier dismissal of the issue of intolerance of the evolutionary establishment towards those who express doubts about evolution. His claim that "exactly the opposite is the case" is astonishingly naive. Let him *read* the *carefully* *documented* accounts in Caroline Crocker's "Free To Think" (2010) and Jerry Bergman's "Slaughter of the Dissidents" (2008) to find out what is going on in the *real* *world*!
Comment Comments (7) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Mar 10, 2011 11:20 PM GMT


Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
by Stephen C. Meyer
Edition: Hardcover

18 of 35 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars chance & necessity not up to the job, 14 April 2010
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
The author (following Darwin) describes his book as "one long argument". And it is long - the main body of the text occupies over 500 pages - but the chapters are well sewn together to maintain continuity of the argument.

After an interesting and informative preamble of many pages, the main argument focuses on the discovery of the double helix as the repository of biological information, and the highly complex but tightly coordinated system involved in mapping each nucleotide triplet in a gene to an amino acid in the corresponding protein. This is the "Signature" of the title.

The author describes the many theoretical models that have been devised to explain the origin of this, based variously on chance, necessity, or a combination of both. He exposes fatal weaknesses in all of them. Attention is drawn to an important principle that is ignored by those who propose models based on necessity: information production is stifled by law-governed processes. Logically, contigency is a prerequisite for producing information-rich systems.

Some blithely assert that since highly improbable events occur all the time, life could have arisen by chance. But probability arguments need to be evaluated in the context of `probabilistic resources'. Meyer's colleague William Dembski had calculated the total number of events that could have occurred in the life of the universe to be 10exp(139). This is based on the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe, its assumed age, and the Planck time (the shortest interval that can contain an event). Compared with this, the probability of producing a specific 150 amino acid protein is 10exp(164). For such a relatively short protein to have a 50% chance of forming requires half that number of trials - a number that greatly exceeds the probabilistic resources of the whole universe.

"... origin of life theories that sound plausible when stated in a few sentences often conceal a host of practical problems." Meyer highlights the problem of the origin of information. "I discovered that every attempt to explain the origin of biological information either failed or transferred the problem elsewhere - either by presupposing some other unexplained sources of information or by overlooking the indispensable role of an intelligence in the generation of the information". He also mentions the relevance of the "No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization" developed by two computer scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center. The important difference between specified, functional information on the one hand, and Shannon information, which is effectively a measure of information storage capacity, is clearly explained.

Common experience shows that while natural processes are capable of generating low levels of specified information, e.g. convection cells, they nevertheless have a universal tendency to degrade high levels of information, e.g. biopolymers. This is why self-organization theories prove inadequate. All origin of life models require information input from an intelligent source (unless the information is already hidden in the system). No other adequate causal agent of complex specified information has been discovered, despite a prolonged and intensive search. It is therefore eminently reasonable to propose ID as the causal agent of living systems. This is an inference from what is universally observed, and therefore scientifically compelling.

After demonstrating the inadequacies of naturalistic theories, Meyer introduces the reader to the method of design detection that Dembski had formalised. He explains how Dembski's criteria apply to DNA and the associated information processing machinery. "we recognize design patterns in the cell's information-processing system that match ones we know ... from our own information technology."

The last few chapters address "but is it science?" and similar objections. Many who acknowledge the absence of natural causes known to produce biological information, nevertheless reject ID on the grounds that it is based on present ignorance - future discovery may solve the enigma. The author contends that scientific knowledge is squarely based on what is known at present, and proscribes certain outcomes on that basis. E.g., the 1st Law of Thermodynamics asserts that energy cannot be created or destroyed. "Those who claim that such "proscriptive laws" do not constitute knowledge because they are based on past but not future experience will not get far if they try to use their skepticism to justify funding for research on, say, perpetual motion machines." and "Those who raise this kind of objection are objecting not only to the design inference, but to scientific reasoning itself."

Many of the same criteria that are applied to disqualify ID as a scientific theory equally disqualify other scientific theories, including evolutionary theories.

The exposition is generally lucid, and can be followed by the interested lay reader who has acquired some basic knowledge of the subject matter. Readers with no knowledge of the basic chemistry will find some chapters demanding, but the effort will be amply rewarded. The book doesn't short-change its readers.

I cannot end without taking issue with the author's propagation of the common charge that creationists misuse thermodynamics (p256). Instead of relying on comments by his students, he should consult the writings of qualified creation scientists. E.g. "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" by Duane Gish was published 16 years before "Signature". One whole chapter plus two appendices (a total of 109 pp) deal exclusively with thermodynamics. The author (Ph.D. biochemistry, Berkeley) introduces the discussion with the statement: "... we will be most concerned with statistical and informational thermodynamics because the origin of ... life, and the evolution of a single-celled organism into man would have required an enormous increase of complexity, organization, and information content ..." There is no excuse for Meyer's ill-informed generalisation of creationists, the majority of whom understand the point about open systems as well as he does.
Comment Comments (3) | Permalink | Most recent comment: May 22, 2010 12:07 PM BST


Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
by Norman C Nevin (Ed)
Edition: Paperback
Price: £11.99

39 of 45 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars book reviews should review books!, 25 Jan. 2010
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
When Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson published a controversial book in 1991 called Darwin on Trial, it hit a raw nerve, and was severely criticised by many evolutionists. A notable exception was David Raup, former dean of science at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, and a committed evolutionist. His verdict on Johnson was: "He's really done his homework. It's phenomenal the way he absorbed the field. Now, many people would say, `He doesn't know anything. That's obvious from the first page.' That's often said without *reading* the first page."

`Reviews' that slate a book and/or its author(s), without discussing any of the book's contents, tell us nothing about the book, but quite a lot about the `reviewers'. They also call into question the meaning of the term "book review"!

"Should Christians Embrace Evolution?" is a book of two equal halves. The first half deals with principles of exegesis of the biblical text, as applied to the early chapters of Genesis. A correct interpretation depends on the correct historical & literary context. This theme is developed in a chapter entitled "The Language of Genesis".

Forcing an evolutionary interpretation upon the Genesis creation account necessarily creates serious conflicts for many other biblical doctrines. Much of the remainder of the first half of the book is an elaboration of this argument.

The evolutionary mode of `creation' does not do justice to the nature & character of God. Any attempt to harmonise the bible's account of the creation of Adam & Eve with human evolution involves unnatural mental contortions. Such ideas also conflict with a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Fall & original sin, as well as its punishment in suffering & death - death is evolution's friend, but according to the Bible, mankind's "last enemy". The doctrine of redemption is consequently distorted. The authority of Christ is also called into question.

The second half of the book includes a selection of relevant scientific topics. Chapter 9 is entitled "Interpretation of scientific evidence", & is a composite of four parts, including homology, the fossil record, chromosomal fusion as evidence for common ancestry, & information & thermodynamics. These topics are given somewhat brief treatment. They deserve to be allotted separate chapters. I find it puzzling that these four topics should be grouped under the heading "Interpretation of scientific evidence", separately from chapter ten (on the relevance to common ancestry of pseudogenes & other non-coding regions of DNA) & chapter eleven (on the origin of life). These two chapters are just as much about interpretation of scientific evidence as chapter nine is!

Space does not afford detailed mention of the scientific arguments in the book. I shall restrict myself to just a couple of examples.

(1) A major finding of the ENCODE project is that about 93% of the human genome is transcribed into DNA. This surprising discovery strongly implies that the bulk of the non-coding segments are in fact functional. The evolutionary concept of `junk DNA' is seriously threatened with extinction.

(2) A fairly substantial chapter assesses some of the well known origin of life theories: polypeptide origin, polynucleotide origin, RNA world, etc, in each case pointing out fatal flaws that are well recognised. A major problem is the origin of complexity & self-organization. Certain fascinating phenomena, such as the Rayleigh-Benard convection (self-generation of vortex cells in fluids), and the Belousov-Zhabotinski reaction (chemical mixtures that generate cyclic colour changes), have been claimed as examples of self-organization that have relevance to biological evolution. This is rather like a child who has just cleared a 3-foot high jump imagining that with practice he/she will eventually be able to jump to the Moon. The failure to find realistic support for evolution from the real world of biology has led some to turn to the virtual world of computing. The irony of resorting to the combination of intelligently designed hardware & intelligently designed software to bolster belief in a non-intelligent origin of life has not eluded many observers. But even here, the level of organization & complexity is minuscule compared to that of living organisms - shades of the juvenile high-jumper.

More in-depth treatment of much of the material can be found elsewhere in the creationist & ID literature.

Chapter 8 is of special interest because it's contributor has no commitment to biblical Christianity. Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at Warwick University, but was trained in the history & philosophy of science, in which he obtained an M.Phil. (Cambridge) & a Ph.D. (Pittsburg). Much of his published work is in that area. Fuller likens the authoritarianism of the modern scientific establishment to that of the Vatican in Galileo's day, and expresses surprise that Protestants like Denis Alexander & Francis Collins so readily confer Vatican-like authority on it. Evolutionary theory lacks a precise, unified, inter-disciplinary definition, but expressions of divergence are confined to the technical literature and hidden from the general public. Fuller suggests how this divergence could be exploited by IDists in their conflict with Darwinists.

The book concludes that "No coherent, cohesive theology has yet been offered that would allow Christians to embrace evolution with integrity." On the other hand, "Science has uncovered a great deal of empirical evidence that is challenging the Darwinian paradigm." To the question posed by the book's title, the authors' answer is "an unequivocal `no'".

The inclusion of an index would be highly desirable. A book without an index is like a town without a map.
Comment Comments (9) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Sep 18, 2010 11:17 PM BST


God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
by John Lennox
Edition: Paperback

13 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Long may the debate continue!, 21 Feb. 2009
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This book provides a very satisfying read. It is very cogently argued and very informative.

The author begins by showing that the debate is not one of science vs religion, but is instead a clash of worldviews, a confrontation between two belief systems. He explains the limitations of science and the inadequacy of reductionism, before proceeding to discuss the evidence for design in the universe, and in biology in particular. He exposes the fallacious reasoning of those materialists who level the "god of the gaps" charge at proponents of intelligent design. The empirical data of science, and the logical inferences drawn from it, seriously undermine any naturalistic explanation of origins, and points instead to the necessity of an external intelligence. In particular, naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are shown to be woefully inadequate in the light of information theory. This is especially so when applied to the language of DNA. Efforts at elucidating the origin of life and the origin of the genetic code have persistently met with failure, and those efforts have been prodigious. Under such circumstances, the sensible thing would be to at least consider the possibility that life did not, in fact, arise naturalistically. But ideological antagonism to the notion of intelligent design (with the unpalatable corollary of a creator) is such that the origin of life community insist on pursuing a fool's errand. This persistence in a fruitless search is likened to that of those who persist in the search for perpetual motion machines, in spite of the well-established law of energy conservation. Darwinists do not understand how novel structures arise, how life originated, or how the language of DNA came into being. We just don't know how these things happened - isn't natural selection wonderful! This is the real "god of the gaps".

The second half of the book provides a careful evaluation of Darwinian evolution. Darwinists like to perpetrate the notion that sceptics of their theory are ignorant, stupid or worse. This tarnishes the reputation of dissenters (sling enough mud and some of it is bound to stick), and intimidates potential critics from coming out into the open. You have to admire the author's courage. These days, it takes a brave academic to openly criticise Darwinian evolution. The Darwinist establishment is not known for its tolerance of dissent, although the situation in the UK is not (yet) as bad as in the USA (see "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman - available at amazon com). But the author is prepared for his intellectual demise, and has even composed his own epitaph!

Here lies the body of John Lennox.
You ask me why he's in the box?
He died of something worse than pox,
On Darwinism - heterodox.

Critical reviewers of this book are welcome to analyse its arguments and data carefully, and demonstrate with reasoned argument what they think are flaws in them. This is the proper way to conduct scientific debate. Dismissing it with rhetoric instead of reasoning will not do.


In Six Days: Why Leading Scientists Believe in Creation and Not Evolution
In Six Days: Why Leading Scientists Believe in Creation and Not Evolution
by John F. Ashton
Edition: Paperback

34 of 46 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Do all scientists accept evolution?, 6 Nov. 1999
All 50 contributors have earned doctorates in science from major universities, and all of them believe in the historicity of the Genesis creation account.
The authors include practioners in many different scientific disciplines. Evolution is claimed to embrace all of reality, so it is not surprising that all 50 contributions provide valuable insights into the creation-evolution controversy. Some contributions are only two or three pages in length, and some are much longer. The contributors describe their individual encounters with the theory of evolution during their education and training and subsequently in their scientific careers, and explain the reasons for their eventual rejection of the theory. My initial suspicion that there would be a great deal of repetition, making the volume somewhat boring, proved to be unjustified. The amount of overlap is inconsiderable, and the diversity of approaches makes the book more exciting and enhances its value.
The authors of this volume are but a tiny sample of professional scientists who are creationists, and amply refute the evolutionists' frequent charge that no serious scientist rejects evolution.
Comment Comments (4) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jan 7, 2015 2:05 PM GMT


Page: 1