PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Lester: “Good” mutations
       Even they involve the loss or degradation of something

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:09 AM on January 24, 2010, from Logical Falacies in Evolution:
It seems that the traits must be magically always there ( – otherwise known as genetically encoded) since mutations don’t improve anything at the molecular level. Even “good” mutations involve the loss or degradation of something.
What "something"?

Is that "something" worthy of consideration?

Is that "something" vital?

Does the loss of that "something" alter the survival/reproduction rates?

When a “good” mutation happens in a duplicated gene it's pretty hard to call it a loss.

If a guy gets an airplane, he can now fly.

If you take the plane away from him while in midair, he will die.

He didn't have that problem before.

Is that the kind of "loss" you're talking about?

If so, then who cares?

Because that's exactly your objection to the evolution of domesticated animal and vegetable species. "Now they can't survive without men".

You can always (ALWAYS) twist words to accommodate to this silly notion, but whatever you call "loss" or "degradation" doesn't seem to be a problem for Evolution.

The original configuration was "lost" in a way...

Who_cares?

Mice whose junk DNA was removed didn't seem to care, even though scientists REMOVED stuff. So that must be specially true when you ADD stuff (like a new enzyme that doesn't hurt the organism, but lets it digest something new).

Yeah, you will call it "loss", but again, who cares?




By the way, what does "
mutations don’t improve anything at the molecular level" mean?

What would an improvement at the molecular level look like to you?

Do you know what you're talking about, or just talking nonsense as usual?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:40 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

Mice whose junk DNA was removed didn't seem to care, even though scientists REMOVED stuff. So that must be specially true when you ADD stuff (like a new enzyme that doesn't hurt the organism, but lets it digest something new).


Wisp - you mean something like the ability to continue producing lactase into adulthood in humans?  Some have it, some don't.

(Edited by orion 1/25/2010 at 01:27 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:58 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In that case you lost the ability to produce diarrhea and flatulence while having abdominal pain, so Lester will say it's a loss.

I think we need something clearer to show him, or he'll destroy us. He has no mercy, you know?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:07 PM on January 24, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What "something"?


A protein, a function, something like that.
Is that "something" vital?


Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes you can live without it without hardship, sometimes not. It depends on what mutated.

The genome is like an instruction manual for the body –the book of life. You can liken it to an instruction manual for the building of an airplane. Some minor errors in the instruction manual might make something small work less efficiently. Some errors you might never notice. Some however might take you right out of the air.

When a “good” mutation happens in a duplicated gene it's pretty hard to call it a loss.


“Good” mutation is a paradox, a contradiction in terms. Mutation is always loss.
Mutation producing life and all the living creatures that exist is a highly speculative theory.
Good mutations in duplicated genes is a story line –not the stuff of evidence.

Mutations are exceedingly rare, entirely random and would have to be in germ cells to pass on to the next generation.

Million of mutation experiments have produced hundreds of thousands of mutations for scientists to study and those scientists are still not offering themselves up to science in an effort to mutate themselves into a higher state of being. I wonder why that is?

Scientists explain to us in our textbooks how mutations have provided us with millions of beneficial features in every species in the world –all that is needed is time and lots of random mutational changes in the DNA code and soon myriads of outstanding life forms emerge…
They also say that these wondrous mutations help us to adapt to our changing environment.

So, mutations are RARE, they are RANDOM, they are never really beneficial, they are lethal and harmful. Does this sound like the correct recipe for the diversity of all life forms?

The gradual build up of genetic mutations in the genome is called the ‘genetic load’ –with good reason.

Mutations are ACCIDENTS. How often have you had a beneficial accident? The only benefit is that you learn what not to do; but is that truly beneficial?

“Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.”
AM Winchester, Genetics, 5th Ed. P356

It’s like rust in the genome, you can’t stop it and because of it, we are heading for extinction. Any imaginary story to the contrary is pure philosophical wishful thinking based on the BELIEF that natural processes are all there is and thus mutation must be responsible for everything we see around us.

Nice story, but not what the actual evidence suggests.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:40 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on January 27, 2010 :
“Good” mutation is a paradox, a contradiction in terms. Mutation is always loss.


How can mutations always be a loss of information? The nucleotide could change from A to C, if that is a loss of information, isn't it only logical that if that same nucleotide mutated back to A, it would be an increase in information?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:57 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 11:57 AM on January 27, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on January 27, 2010 :
“Good” mutation is a paradox, a contradiction in terms. Mutation is always loss.


How can mutations always be a loss of information? The nucleotide could change from A to C, if that is a loss of information, isn't it only logical that if that same nucleotide mutated back to A, it would be an increase in information?

No No Fencer. It's all very logical.
Mutations = Change
Change = Bad
Loss = bad
Therefore  
Mutations = Loss
See? Just open your eyes man!






-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 06:11 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How can mutations always be a loss of information? The nucleotide could change from A to C, if that is a loss of information, isn't it only logical that if that same nucleotide mutated back to A, it would be an increase in information?


If the nucleotide changes from A to C and now codes for the incorrect amino acid, that is a loss since the coding for a specific protein with a specific shape and a specific purpose is interrupted and it can no longer do its job as efficiently.
Proteins fit together morphologically as well as chemically with other complementary proteins that are also coded for to do a specific job along with their fellow proteins.
The change from A to C will not be a loss if the same amino acid is coded for or if it is not in a significant enough position to cause grief in the chain.

It is only the evolution mindset (that imagines that protein coding fell together by mutations, natural selection and time) that imagines that a change in a nucleotide is no problem and is in fact an increase in information purely by virtue of the change of one letter.

If the original coding was supposed to be an A not a C, then it would be an increase by changing back to an A;but how likely is it that random error is going to put something back the way it was meant to be?

Mutations cause loss of information because DNA nucleotides are a coded message that stand for something else (ie an amino acid). When that purposeful  message is changed, it is like spelling errors in a word –you might still get the point when a letter is changed, but on the other hand it might not make sense any more.    



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:05 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the nucleotide changes from A to C and now codes for the incorrect amino acid
Incorrect by what measurement? Surely "different" would be a better word here.
that is a loss since the coding for a specific protein with a specific shape and a specific purpose is interrupted and it can no longer do its job as efficiently.
what if it means that it is able to do its job more efficiently? or perform a different job to the benefit of the population?
The change from A to C will not be a loss if the same amino acid is coded for or if it is not in a significant enough position to cause grief in the chain.

seems that you are contradicting yourself here lester:
Good” mutation is a paradox, a contradiction in terms. Mutation is always loss.


If the original coding was supposed to be an A not a C, then it would be an increase by changing back to an A;but how likely is it that random error is going to put something back the way it was meant to be?
I have no idea, but it seems that no matter how unlikely, it would not be impossible (unless you are contending that it is impossible) and once again has you contradicting yourself Lester:

Good” mutation is a paradox, a contradiction in terms. Mutation is always loss.


Mutations cause loss of information because DNA nucleotides are a coded message that stand for something else (ie an amino acid). When that purposeful  message is changed, it is like spelling errors in a word –you might still get the point when a letter is changed, but on the other hand it might not make sense any more.
Or it might just mean something else., although I'm pretty sure that a qualified genetecist has already told you that you are vastly over simplifying the whole 'letters into words and sentences which hold meaning and therefore information' ... thing. Also, you have never successfully defined information - but of course there is a whole thread dedicated to that very topic (which I'm sure you will revisit when you get the time, no fresh starts eh lester?)



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 10:24 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Incorrect by what measurement? Surely "different" would be a better word here.


‘Different’ would be the word to use if philosophical naturalism were true. In other words if proteins were arranged according to random change in nucleotides, then the amino-acid produced would be different to the one previously produced.

If creation of the genetic code by an intelligence is true, then the word would be ‘correct’ –as in certain nucleotides code for specific amino-acids according to a plan that arranges for the production of a specific amino-acid in a specific functional protein that works together (morphologically and chemically) with other coded proteins for a purpose – eg. to break down polysaccharides.
In this case different nucleotide making different amino-acids might make the final protein less efficient or even non-functional (worst scenario).

Our choice of words betrays our bias - but the question is ‘which bias is it better to be biased with?’ Which one is indicative of what is really happening in the genome?

In my view, for example, you need your kidneys and your intestine and your liver and your nerves and your brain, your spinal cord, your lymphatic vessels, your blood vessels and so on. All work together for the optimum functioning of the organism. Take away the lung, you can survive. Take away both and replace them with an appendix and it just won’t do. Then it would be incorrect to say ‘different’ and you’d have to go with ‘incorrect’.  

The same is true at the protein level – you need certain proteins to do certain jobs and any old protein won’t do.

what if it means that it is able to do its job more efficiently? or perform a different job to the benefit of the population?


You mean, like in my previous example, if the change produces a better more efficient lung or if it is used for the production of urine instead of for gaseous exchange.
Once again we have the philosophical assumptions being brought to bear on the question. Is the genome encoded by intelligence or is it a haphazard arrangement of what appears to work for now? In your scenario, the new protein might be better for the job since everything is accidental. In mine, it wouldn’t be better. If you’re lucky, it might still work. If not, you might be dead.

The change from A to C will not be a loss if the same amino acid is coded for or if it is not in a significant enough position to cause grief in the chain.
seems that you are contradicting yourself here lester:


If the same amino acid is coded for, then there is functionally no loss. If a different one, chances are efficiency will be lost in the interaction between the proteins. Worst scenario, the protein won’t be able to do its job.

If the original coding was supposed to be an A not a C, then it would be an increase by changing back to an A;but how likely is it that random error is going to put something back the way it was meant to be?
I have no idea, but it seems that no matter how unlikely, it would not be impossible (unless you are contending that it is impossible)


Not impossible - but I suppose as unlikely as if a kidney is being coded for instead of a lung (by accident) and then, also by accident, a lung is encoded for again. If evolution really is a random mutation scenario, then it might change to code for a fin as easily as for a lung, So, not impossible, but prohibitably unlikely.

although I'm pretty sure that a qualified genetecist has already told you that you are vastly over simplifying the whole 'letters into words and sentences which hold meaning and therefore information'


Every analogy has its limits but if intelligence is responsible for the genetic code, then the analogy is useful. If not, then the analogy doesn’t work.
In practice, mutation does not appear to be a beneficial occurrence as evidenced by the increase in genetic mutational disease. In evolutionary theory, it is according to the story, a good thing. So to be fair, we should compare the two scenarios and decide which one is more in keeping with what is observed in real life ie. we should examine the evidence objectively.












-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:23 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

‘Different’ would be the word to use if philosophical naturalism were true. In other words if proteins were arranged according to random change in nucleotides, then the amino-acid produced would be different to the one previously produced.
Excellent! Then we'll agree to use the word different then, rather than incorrect. (Although we'll skip over your mis-use of the term "philosophical naturalism")

If creation of the genetic code by an intelligence is true, then the word would be ‘correct’
Are you sure? I think that you may have got that the wrong way around there.

as in certain nucleotides code for specific amino-acids according to a plan that arranges for the production of a specific amino-acid in a specific functional protein that works together (morphologically and chemically) with other coded proteins for a purpose – eg. to break down polysaccharides.
In this case different nucleotide making different amino-acids might make the final protein less efficient or even non-functional (worst scenario).
I ask again, what if the change actually improved efficiency. Your post implies that it is possible does it not?
Our choice of words betrays our bias - but the question is ‘which bias is it better to be biased with?’ Which one is indicative of what is really happening in the genome?
To be honest Lester, I'm going to go with the qualified genetecist (Derwood) on this one rather than someone with no genetics related qualifications (You)
In my view, for example, you need your kidneys and your intestine and your liver and your nerves and your brain, your spinal cord, your lymphatic vessels, your blood vessels and so on. All work together for the optimum functioning of the organism.
Are you sure? Do you not think that changes could be made to improve things? I'm an asthmatic, so my lungs don't work as efficiently as they could. (Neither parent has asthma, nor does my son)

Take away the lung, you can survive. Take away both and replace them with an appendix and it just won’t do. Then it would be incorrect to say ‘different’ and you’d have to go with ‘incorrect’.  
Seems to me that you are massively over simplifying the issue here. Replacing a lung with an appendix is a pretty dumb example. Replacing a lung with another lung that operates slighly better (or worse) in a given environment would be more realistic.
The same is true at the protein level – you need certain proteins to do certain jobs and any old protein won’t do
Are you saying that every single protien has a distinct task that it is capable of performing and no two proteins are capable of performing the same task?

You mean, like in my previous example, if the change produces a better more efficient lung or if it is used for the production of urine instead of for gaseous exchange.
Once again we have the philosophical assumptions being brought to bear on the question.
Not really, either it performs better or it doesn't. No call for philosophy at all here.
Is the genome encoded by intelligence or is it a haphazard arrangement of what appears to work for now?
Seems irrelevant. Either it performs better or it doesn't.

In your scenario, the new protein might be better for the job since everything is accidental. In mine, it wouldn’t be better.

It would seem then, that if evidence could be shown that a mutation could cause a protien to perform better, then your philosophy is pretty much blown out of the water. Would that be fair to say? Does any geneticist out there have such evidence? is this a red herring? Any explanations?


The change from A to C will not be a loss if the same amino acid is coded for or if it is not in a significant enough position to cause grief in the chain.



seems that you are contradicting yourself here lester:



If the same amino acid is coded for, then there is functionally no loss. If a different one, chances are efficiency will be lost in the interaction between the proteins. Worst scenario, the protein won’t be able to do its job.
so you're contradicticting yourself. i.e. That you stated initially that mutations always mean loss. Maybe you meant to say
mutations always mean loss except for when they don't
That should help you cover your bases.

Not impossible - but I suppose as unlikely as if a kidney is being coded for instead of a lung (by accident) and then, also by accident, a lung is encoded for again. If evolution really is a random mutation scenario, then it might change to code for a fin as easily as for a lung, So, not impossible, but prohibitably unlikely.
Once again, you seem to use a somewhat ridiculous example to try to illustrate the point that you are trying to make. A more realistic scenario would abe a lung 'coded' to be a less efficient lung, then being 'coded' to being back to be as efficient a lung as it was before the initial mutation that caused the less efficient lung. like say... Ohhh someone who has asthma, with a child who does not have asthma and two parents who do not have asthma... Hmmm now that sounds familiar to me somehow...

Every analogy has its limits but if intelligence is responsible for the genetic code, then the analogy is useful. If not, then the analogy doesn’t work.
i think that you only see this as true because of your very basic understanding of genetics. It is your lack of education on the matter (note I say on the matter and not your education in general) that makes you think that the analogy holds true, not the truth/untruth of your religion.

So to be fair, we should compare the two scenarios and decide which one is more in keeping with what is observed in real life ie. we should examine the evidence objectively.
OK, post some valid scientific evidence on the subject that supports your 'mutations always  mean loss' assertion. Let someone with an education in genetics post some scientific evidence that refutes it and we'll have a wee looksee. How does that sound?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:58 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:23 AM on January 28, 2010 :

The change from A to C will not be a loss if the same amino acid is coded for or if it is not in a significant enough position to cause grief in the chain.
seems that you are contradicting yourself here lester:


If the same amino acid is coded for, then there is functionally no loss. If a different one, chances are efficiency will be lost in the interaction between the proteins. Worst scenario, the protein won’t be able to do its job.

If the original coding was supposed to be an A not a C, then it would be an increase by changing back to an A;but how likely is it that random error is going to put something back the way it was meant to be?
I have no idea, but it seems that no matter how unlikely, it would not be impossible (unless you are contending that it is impossible)


Not impossible - but I suppose as unlikely as if a kidney is being coded for instead of a lung (by accident) and then, also by accident, a lung is encoded for again. If evolution really is a random mutation scenario, then it might change to code for a fin as easily as for a lung, So, not impossible, but prohibitably unlikely.


The ApoA-1 Milano mutation results in the substitution of one amino acid for another.  The lucky ones who have it will not get heart disease.


Discovered by accident, the mutation was found to be present in about 3.5% of the population of Limone sul Garda, a small village in northern Italy. It has been traced to a mutation in a single man who had lived in the village in the 1700s and passed it on to his offspring.[2]

It is characterized by the replacement of a single amino acid at R173C.[3]


ApoA-1 Milano

A clearly beneficial mutation random mutation.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:06 AM on January 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You lost the ability to get heart attacks, Apoapsis.

By the way, i saw you're a fanatic now. 1001 posts.

Teal colored stars are cute. ^_^



Lester
Our choice of words betrays our bias - but the question is ‘which bias is it better to be biased with?’
No.

'Incorrect' is also 'different'. So the word 'different' always applies.

And, if it always applies, then 'different' is the objectively unbiased word (which would work even if your crazy position was true).

In my view, for example, you need your kidneys and your intestine and your liver and your nerves and your brain, your spinal cord, your lymphatic vessels, your blood vessels and so on.
And in your head Dunning and Kruger were pompous evolutionist story-tellers.

Yes, we do need those. But we don't need them to be exactly as they are.

The variety we see in the animal kingdom is enough demonstration.

And if the job of one of them becomes obsolete it can become vestigial.

Take away the lung, you can survive. Take away both and replace them with an appendix and it just won’t do.
No need to respond to more moronic strawmen scenarios.

Then it would be incorrect to say ‘different’ and you’d have to go with ‘incorrect’.
Words is all you have, and you're still not good with them.

'Incorrect' is always 'different'. 'Different' is not always 'incorrect'.
So 'different' cannot be wrong.

'Correct' or 'incorrect' are fictions of human minds. Nature doesn't care.

Once again we have the philosophical assumptions being brought to bear on the question. Is the genome encoded by intelligence or is it a haphazard arrangement of what appears to work for now?
Or none, and you're being purposefully thik skulled, as always.

Haphazard... Geez...

Jim
so you're contradicticting yourself. i.e. That you stated initially that mutations always mean loss. Maybe you meant to say
mutations always mean loss except for when they don't
That should help you cover your bases.
It's like kinds.

Two animals belong to the same kind when they can produce viable offspring, except when they can't.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:04 PM on February 3, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jim
so you're contradicticting yourself. i.e. That you stated initially that mutations always mean loss. Maybe you meant to say
mutations always mean loss except for when they don't
That should help you cover your bases.

It's like kinds.

Two animals belong to the same kind when they can produce viable offspring, except when they can't.

Ahh, cheers Wisp. That's much clearer. Clear as primordial soup.



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 01:32 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.