United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: 12 arguments evolutionists should avoid.
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get ... atures/arguments-evolutionists
Published: Jul 16, 2010
Author: answersingenesis.org
Post Date: 2010-07-16 18:49:15 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 120283
Comments: 153
For years, we’ve maintained a list of arguments creationists should avoid. There are enough good arguments for biblical accuracy and a young earth that dubious claims can safely be discarded. Now we want to address a similar topic: arguments evolutionists should avoid. These worn-out tropes have not only passed their expiration date, but they never should have been made to begin with. Argument1 Evolution is a fact When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof. Argument 2 Only the uneducated reject evolution Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one)—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position. Argument 3 Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview). Argument 4 Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot. Argument 5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs. Argument 6 It’s here, so it must have evolved A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be. Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview. Argument 8 Common design means common ancestry Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better. Argument 9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes. Argument 10 Mutations drive evolution Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost. Argument 11 The Scopes trial Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account. Argument 12 Science vs. religion News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-112) not displayed.
.
.
.
#113. To: A K A Stone (#112)
Chuckles...I could have never betrayed your pathology any better than you did with the above...
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
Once again, you are not actually reading and comprehending anything that I have written: Life was not formed by MAGIC I never said it was. In fact I never asserted any position on how life was formed. I merely asserted that evolution is a belief system and not a science because evolutionists claim that their unproven theories cannot be refuted. The earth is BILLIONS of years old. Until you grasp that REALITY you're going to be nowhere near reality when it comes to this topic. Where did I ever assert that the earth wasn't billions of years old? Where??? Show me. You can't. Once again, you aren't reading and comprehending. Instead, you are making things up. And until you drop that infantile nonsense Making up imaginary situations and responding to them is exactly what children do to play. That is what you are doing here.
I saw a great show on the Science Channel last week on the origin of the universe. One physicist was postulating that we are living in a computer simulation. There is evidence (quantum entanglement) that the universe may be a big hologram. At a fundamental level, the universe is made of particles (akin to a pixel on a computer screen). Humans are increasingly able to create simulations of environments (like SIM City and others). Computer price / performance is doubling every 13 months. How much longer until we can build a simulation like the "Matrix"??? About 80 years. Here are two facts; Astrophysicist have no idea how the universe got here. There is evidence of a big bang, but how did it start and what came before? They don't know. There are many theories, but in the end they admit they are just theories. Evolutionists have no evidence of one species evolving into a new species. They have a theory, but they refuse to admit that it's just a theory and they claim that evolution can never be dis-proven. A scientific theory is always open to being dis-proven by experimentation and observation. Claiming that your theory cannot be dis-proven makes evolution a belief system, not a science. That's THE problem I have with with this entire argument.
Current geological evidence points to melting glaciers at the end of the ice age which caused floods around the world.
There are some who believed that GRAVITY was a theory. There were some who believed that Galileo was a heretic and that the heavens and earth were fixed. Evolution IS a branch of biological science. It is INSANITY to claim that BIOLOGY is not science. Much of evolution HAS been proven. And to claim that evolutionary scientists do not tweak their theories is to confess ignorance. Do yourself a favor, subscribe to American Scientist for a year or so and then come back and tell me they don't tweak their theories. Where did I ever assert that the earth wasn't billions of years old? Okay...you have me there. I believed that you were agreeing with Stone who believes that the earth is ~6k years old. I apologize. But now that you agree that the earth IS billions of years old, how hard is it to comprehend that ALL life evolved from one form back in its genetic tree? I don't find it difficult at all.
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
And that's undoubtedly where the god-created flood myth came from. Rising waters from glacial melt would have flooded low lying areas, but the idea that miles of water covered the entire earth 10,000 years ago is completely wrong.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Evolutionists have no evidence of one species evolving into another. They have a theory, but they refuse to admit that it's just a theory and they claim that evolution can never be dis-proven. True. I've never seen anyone claim otherwise. Not true. Species don't "evolve into another", they evolve into something new. Evolution is a theory, just like Newtonian physics is a theory. The fact is the theory works pretty well, just like Newtonian physics did. Theories evolve to explain phenomena that can no longer be explained by older theories. I think it's safe to say that there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't love to propose a theory that disproves evolution. That's what scientists do; it's what they live for. I'll put my money on them instead of a thousands of year old collection of myths, many of which were lifted from even older myths.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
There are some who believed that GRAVITY was a theory Gravity WAS INDEED a theory postulated by Newton. Then it was proven to be a close approximation of observable reality. Then the notion of gravity was completely changed by Einstein (gravity is not an external force, but rather a consequence of the curvature of spacetime). This has been proven by every experiment and observation over the last several decades. Evolution has NOT been proven by experimentation and observation. To deny that it can be dis-proven makes it a belief system, not a science. It is INSANITY to claim that BIOLOGY is not science Where have I claimed that? Where??? Again, you are making things up that aren't true. how hard is it to comprehend that ALL life evolved from one form back in its genetic tree? Go out to http://secondlife.com/whatis/?lang=en-US and create a person. No evolution is necessary. In 80 to 100 years, we'll be able to create a simulation like the Matrix. Think about it. There are many possibilities on how the universe and life came into existence. Evolution is just one of the many possibilities, none of which have been proven through experimentation or observation. Evolution is absolutely NOT an undeniable fact.
Please read post #120 regarding Newton versus evolution.
Even that is now being reconsidered, since it doesn't explain why the universe is expanding at ever greater speeds. Now there's dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow to contend with.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Evolutionary theory does a damn good job of explaining what we see. That it doesn't explain everything is no more damning than cosmologists can't come up with a Theory of Everything to explain everything in the universe. We take small steps towards understanding. It's worked pretty well overall. Creationism, on the other hand, explains nothing.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
I don't agree. Sciences have their established orders too. The established order doesn't like to be challenged, let alone overturned. The difference between astrophysics and evolutionist is that we are developing new telescopes and super-computer capabilities that have observed and analyzed things that have validated some theories and invalidated others. Over the last 15 years, experimentation and observation have taught us that we don't know as much as we think we did in the 1960s and 1970s. With regards to evolution, there have not been any experiments that have validated or invalidated the theory. So, it's just a theory, not a fact. We haven't been able to create life from a "primordial soup" in spite of trying for 5 decades (there are three new well publicized attempts to do this today). We have never seen one species evolve into a new species. So, evolution is just a unproven theory, yet there is almost a religious fervor attached to it. ditto with man-made "global warming". I don't like religious fervors. I like facts. I am not a very religious person. There is more "proof" for the phrase: "and God said 'let their be light'" (it's called the big bang) than there is for the notion that humans evolved from pond scum.
Let's review the scientific method: 1.) Ask a Question 2.) Do Background Research 3.) Construct a Hypothesis 4.) Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment 5.) Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion 6.) Communicate Your Results With regards to evolution, where is #4 - the experiment that tested whether or not the hypothesis is true? In physics, there is theoretical particle called the Higgs-Boson, which explains why matter has mass. The theory "does a damn good job of explaining what we see". LOL. BUT, we have never detected the Higgs-Boson. We continue to build these huge particle accelerators in an attempt to find it. Physicists THINK the Higg-Boson exists but they are OPEN to the notion that it might not. If it doesn't exist, then the standard model of physics if probably fundamentally wrong. Some physicists are excited by the fact that the standard model might be wrong, because it would provide a huge new challenge. Show me ONE leading "evolutionist" who is willing to admit that the theory of evolution might be proven wrong by experimentation. Just one. I don't think you can because evolution is a religion, not a science. That's why it has NO credibility with me whatsoever.
Yes I posted about dark matter, energy and flow earlier in the thread. Thanks for helping me make my point -- even with observation, our best theories of how things work can still be wrong. Physicists know this. Evolutionists and "Climatologists" refuse to accept that their theories can be proven wrong. That's my problem with them and their unproven theories.
Curious. You said you never said the earth is billions of years old. But you never said the opposite either. Do you have a position on the age of the earth.
I merely asserted that evolution is a belief system and not a science... jwpegler posted on 2010-07-18 12:16:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Evolution is a Biological science.
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
Interesting experiment occurring deep underground in Minnesota. Scientists believe that they've developed a "screen" that will allow dark matter to be collected.
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
Let me share how I think about these things. The Bible said the universe was created in 7 days. It also said the Israelis wandered in the desert for 40 years. American fundamentalists take these numbers literally, but the bulk of Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc) view them as colloquialisms (common expressions of the time). American Indians used the phrase "many moons" to describe a long period of time. So, 7 days might mean a very short period of time and 40 years might mean a very long period of time. Of course, physics tell us that the experience of time is relative to the observer. Mainstream physicists have a theory called "inflation". They believe that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light after the big bang. Why do they believe this? Because it fits with their observations of how uniformly energy is dispersed in the universe. So, "God said 'let their be light'" -- THE BIG BANG. God create the universe in 7 days (meaning a very short period of time, relative to God's perspective) -- INFLATION. I'm not claiming that the Genesis account of creation is correct. What I am saying is that it is very compatible with how modern physicists view the creation of the universe.
They claim their theory can't be dis-proven, so by definition it is not a science. It's a belief system. Until the evolutionists start acting like scientists, I won't treat them as scientists. Geneticists are scientists. Bio-chemists are scientists. Evolutionists are not.
It is correct. Or there is no purpose for Jesus to come.
Days are days. Gods word is literal unless other parameters are give. Example parables. If it was long periods as you say (putting mans word over Gods) then there would have been eons of darkness and things would have froze and died.
Wha...huh? The whole of a theory does not have to be subject to falsification once that critical elements have been proven.
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
This thread is about the false belief system of evolution and I'd rather stick to that here.
You want us to believe that a guy who can ABRA CABRA things into existence is worried about things like temperature.
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
If Genesis is inaccurate then there is no reason for Jesus to come.
You've established no foundation for that statement.
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
Look sack of ****. You are the one claiming the spontaneous combustion of mud to life. Your opinion is shit.
These atheist kooks are attacking the foundation of the Bible. If you can't defend it from Genesis on then there was no reason for Christ to come to earth to redeem mankind.
NO critical elements have been proven with regards to one species evolving into a new one. We can measure how planets orbit stars. The measurements tell us that the theory of relativity is correct in its predictions of how gravity affects mass in the universe. YET, astrophysicists know that they might have to jettison the entire standard model of physics if they can't find the Higgs Boson or if placeholders called singularities, dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow turn cannot be proven. We have never seen one species evolve into another. There have been no experiments, measurements or observations for this. YET, evolutionists claim that their theories are absolute fact, which can never be dis-proven. It's a religion, not a science.
ABIOGENESIS That slow process by which living organisms were spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This scientific fact should not be confused with the old discredited myth of spontaneous generation by which it was once foolishly believed that living organisms arose from non-living matter.
That is the view of a tiny, small portion of Christianity. Specifically, it's the view of American fundamentalist protestants, who beliefs originated with the 19th century dispensationalist movement. You can believe what you want, but that specific belief is not held by the vast majority of Christians, including myself.
80 percent plus in America consider themselves to be christain. Matthew 7 13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. When you get away from Gods word and start using false teachings of man and try to make the Bible fit into them. You get on the wrong track. Then you say silly things like that. Gods word is reliable or it isn't. It doesn't need me or you saying no that part is wrong and it really means something else. On the nonsense of days being long periods of time. It is called the gap theory and it is pure BS.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Hmmm...sounds a lot like: "Hey Rocky...watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat..."
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
...he said ignoring the whole of transitional fossils...
There are some people who can receive a truth by no other way than to have their understanding shocked and insulted. -Carl Sandburg describing Creationists
There are none. That is why you didn't mention any. Also I don't like blasphemers. Especially arrogant ones.
That's right, but 75 percent of Americans don't believe what the fundamentalist / dispensationalists believe, that "7 days" means 7 literal days. About 25% of American are fundamentalists and believe, as you do, that "7 days" means 7 literal days. However, 25% of Americans are Catholic, about 24% are mainstream Protestant (Methodist, Lutheran, etc), and there are small number of Orthodox, Mormons, etc. which round out the 80% of Americans who are Christian. Only the fundamentalists believe that "7 days" means 7 literal days. That's fine that you hold that belief, but don't think that it's a universal Christian belief. It's not. It's held by a minority of Christians in the U.S. and a tiny minority of Christians world-wide.
I've been waiting for you to bring that up. The only thing fossils prove is that there were species on earth that no longer exist. There is no evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into another. This is nothing more than a hypothesis. An unproven hypothesis is NOT an irrefutable fact, as evolutionists claim. Anyone who thinks that their unproven theories are undeniable facts is running a religion, not a science.
Sure there is. It's found in certain elements of the fossil. IN early species you may see a bit of a change in how the mandibles work and then in a later one that same element with a change in the structure of the foot. Creationists obsfuscate exactly WHAT transitional fossils are - believing that they are some OVERALL intermediary species when, in fact, it could be something as simple as a change in jaw structure or the emergence or pre-emergence of digits...there are hundreds of millions of years between what everything is now versus what it was even 200MM years ago let alone the 2MM when homo hablis emerged.
These are called mutations that let a species better adapt to their environments. People who are native to equatorial regions tend to have more melanin in their skin and hair which helps protect them from the sun. Light skinned people and dark skinned people are still humans who can breed with each other. Same with wolves, dogs, and coyotes. There is no proven evidence of speciation -- one species evolving into another such that the new species can no longer breed with it's parent. It's just a theory. Other scientists (not Creationists) have theories, based on quantum mechanics, that we are living in a hologram and possibly something akin to a computer simulation. Also, what is DNA? It's information. Instead of two codes (binary), it's based on 4 codes. Scientists have just created the first synthetic, self-replicating life, with man-made DNA. Our genetic code is just software. If this is a computer simulation, the programmer could create whatever he wanted, no evolution necessary. Given what we know about quantum entanglement, DNA, our own abilities to create virtual worlds (like Second Life) and the fact that computer performance is doubling every 13 months, this is as plausible a theory as any other for how the universe came into being and how we got here. Of course, like evolution, it's not proven, but there is a growing body of evidence for it. The universe as a hologram / computer simulation fits with the notion of creationism, with God being kind of a computer programmer who created what we know as the universe.
The problem with the word "mutation" is that it has an associative pitfall to it. What I've beein reading for the last several years in terms of genetic changes is that it might not be an outright mutation but a series of subtle changes to how gene signals are transmitted. In other words, it's not ONE mutated gene happening at once that results in the adapatation but a slight change in signal that results in yet another change which brings another change. Our genetic code is just software. That observation is over a decade old...
And its true.
You would rather be the laughingstock of a normal persons board.
#114. To: war (#73)
(Edited)
#115. To: Skip Intro (#79)
(Edited)
You'd think that a god who was powerful enough to create everything could at the very least have left an original copy of "his" word, one that didn't rely on multiple translations to be understood.
#116. To: Skip Intro (#88)
(Edited)
Where did it come from?
#117. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone (#114)
I merely asserted that evolution is a belief system and not a science because evolutionists claim that their unproven theories cannot be refuted.
#118. To: jwpegler (#116)
Current geological evidence points to melting glaciers at the end of the ice age which caused floods around the world.
#119. To: jwpegler (#115)
Astrophysicist have no idea how the universe got here.
#120. To: war (#117)
(Edited)
#121. To: Skip Intro (#118)
Evolution is a theory, just like Newtonian physics is a theory
#122. To: jwpegler (#121)
(gravity is not an external force, but rather a consequence of the curvature of spacetime). This has been proven by every experiment and observation over the last several decades.
#123. To: jwpegler (#120)
Evolution has NOT been proven by experimentation and observation. To deny that it can be dis-proven makes it a belief system, not a science.
#124. To: Skip Intro (#119)
I think it's safe to say that there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't love to propose a theory that disproves evolution. That's what scientists do; it's what they live for.
#125. To: Skip Intro (#123)
(Edited)
Evolutionary theory does a damn good job of explaining what we see
#126. To: Skip Intro (#122)
Even that is now being reconsidered, since it doesn't explain why the universe is expanding at ever greater speeds. Now there's dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow to contend with.
#127. To: jwpegler (#126)
#128. To: jwpegler (#120)
Where have I claimed that? Where???
#129. To: jwpegler (#126)
Yes I posted about dark matter
#130. To: A K A Stone (#127)
(Edited)
Do you have a position on the age of the earth.
#131. To: war (#128)
Evolution is a Biological science.
#132. To: jwpegler (#130)
I'm not claiming that the Genesis account of creation is correct.
#133. To: jwpegler (#130)
#134. To: jwpegler (#131)
They claim their theory can't be dis-proven, so by definition it is not a science.
#135. To: A K A Stone (#132)
(Edited)
It is correct. Or there is no purpose for Jesus to come.
#136. To: A K A Stone (#133)
#137. To: jwpegler (#135)
#138. To: jwpegler (#135)
However, this thread is about the false believe [sic] system of evolution
#139. To: war (#136)
(Edited)
#140. To: jwpegler (#135)
#141. To: war (#134)
once that critical elements have been proven
#142. To: A K A Stone (#139)
#143. To: A K A Stone (#133)
(Edited)
Days are days. Gods word is literal unless other parameters are give.
#144. To: jwpegler (#143)
That is the view of a tiny, small portion of Christianity.
#145. To: A K A Stone (#139)
#146. To: jwpegler (#141)
NO critical elements have been proven with regards to one species evolving into a new one.
#147. To: war (#146)
..he said ignoring the whole of transitional fossils...
#148. To: A K A Stone (#144)
(Edited)
80 percent plus in America consider themselves to be christain.
#149. To: war (#146)
(Edited)
...he said ignoring the whole of transitional fossils...
#150. To: jwpegler (#149)
(Edited)
There is no evidence in the fossil record of one species evolving into another.
#151. To: war (#150)
(Edited)
IN early species yop may see a bit of a change in how the mandibles work and then in a latyer one that same element with a change in the structure of the foot.
#152. To: jwpegler (#151)
These are called mutations that let a species better adapt to their environments.
#153. To: war (#152)
That observation is over a decade old...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]