Special Ops Paintball: So...Darwin was wrong after all... - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


  • (13 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

So...Darwin was wrong after all... Rate Topic: -----

#121 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 16 October 2009 - 06:50 PM

View Postevillepaintball, on Oct 16 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

Except it isn't claimed to be a law. Expecting consumers of research to prove a scientific theory as law is just silly.


You completely missed the point then.

The point was, unless you can prove it to be law, it is foolish to declare one who disagrees with you as an "idiot."
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#122 User is offline   Cyanidepoison 

  • SpecOps's Infamous.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,754
  • Joined: 10-April 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana...

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:00 PM

You don't prove scientific laws. Scientific laws are observable facts (hence the other name for scientific laws, scientific fact). Evolution and gravity both fall under this concept. Both are observable.

Yay, let's go back to 8th grade science class again and learn definitions. ;)

Anyway, let's move on to Creationism. "God did it! Let's find out how!" That's not FRAGing science, you morons. You observe and THEN postulate, not the other way around. But let's disregard that for a second. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to me that your God did anything, it isn't on ME to disprove your statement. I think we can all understand this concept that we've all probably learned in a debate class, philosophy class, etc. Until you can actually provide proof (which, guess what?!, you need to observe before you theorize! Observing the pages of your bible doesn't count, either :( ) of your outlandish statements, your statements have ZERO value. ZERO!

Look, I'm done with this. Arguing with people who can't even get poo like the definition of scientific law correct is a waste of my time.
The sun rises to a crisp blanket of snow...
0

#123 User is offline   lethalpanther 

  • OOO a lizard!
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 265
  • Joined: 13-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SF area, CA
  • Brigade Name:lethalpanther1

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:27 PM

Quote

Scientific laws are observable facts (hence the other name for scientific laws, scientific fact). Evolution and gravity both fall under this concept. Both are observable.


But somebody has to write them down and say "this is a law". People didn't go around doubting gravity before Newton wrote the laws of physics. They just didn't know what it was.

Additionally, my understanding of the last few pages is that people are DEBATING whether there IS any significant evidence of evolution, thereby rendering your "definition" of evolution as a scientific law null and void.


Quote

Look, I'm done with this. Arguing with people who can't even get poo like the definition of scientific law correct is a waste of my time.


But of course you have to stick your head in, argue a bit, call a few people idiots, and then diss Creationism ;) clever use of your oh so valuable time.


The thing about people trying to prove creationism is wrong using science is that they are USING SCIENCE. That's all fine and dandy in my (and most people's) books, but for the people who believe in it, Science can't prove them wrong. It's a debate on science's terms.
It's only a game, you don't need to be afaid of anyone, except for ONE person. Its not the teenager with a marker worth more than your car. Its not the SPPL player with about 35 BPS firing rate. Its the 40 year old guy lying in a corner, taking a nap before the game begins. His camo will probably be old, and he will most likely be toting a pump. He's been playing since before you were born, and if he mentions how much he didn't like when he had to play with oil based paintballs, make SURE he is on your team. This guy is a ghost.-Match99
Your grace...Rhaegar fought valiantly. Rhaegar fought nobly. Rhaegar fought honourably. And Rhaegar died. - Ser Jorah Mormont
0

#124 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 16 October 2009 - 07:28 PM

View PostCyanidepoison, on Oct 16 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

You don't prove scientific laws. Scientific laws are observable facts (hence the other name for scientific laws, scientific fact). Evolution and gravity both fall under this concept. Both are observable.

Yay, let's go back to 8th grade science class again and learn definitions. ;)


Ah, but evolution is not a law. It's still a theory.

Let's go back to the basics since you insisted... (source, dictionary.com)

hypothesis -- a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

theory -- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena -- A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena

law (as in scientific law) -- a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.

In other words -- a hypothesis is an educated guess, a theory is something that seems to fit within the information you have and some tests have been conducted and observed, and a law is a law, proven beyond all doubt that it's true for all cases.

At any time, I can prove gravity. I can pick something up and drop it. Problem solved.

At any time, I can prove objects at rest tend to stay at rest (Newton's 1st law of motion). I set a book on the table, and demonstrate how it goes nowhere until an outside force acts on it.

Scientific laws can be proven.

Neither evolution nor any form of intelligent design can be proven to "scientific law" because we cannot observe either at the scale necessary for the task.

So it's a theory. Exactly as I said before.

And you said I was the moron... ironic, isn't it?

Quote

Anyway, let's move on to Creationism. "God did it! Let's find out how!" That's not FRAGing science, you morons. You observe and THEN postulate, not the other way around.


Allow me to provide an extremely simple, ultra-basic line of thinking that still fits under creationism:

1. By observation, we can demonstrate that naturally, things decay, wear out, degenerate, etc.

Things don't improve on their own without effort put into them. Energy is lost over time.

This, unlike your bad definition before, actually is a scientific law. It's known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

2. Therefore, by observation number 1, it is logical to conclude that there was a finite amount of energy that had to start from some point. It's also logical to conclude that the energy had to come from somewhere.

3. Since no KNOWN natural phenomena can contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then it is reasonable to look for other explanations until a known phenomena exists.

See how simple that was? No Bible references, no pastors, nothing. Just my rational mind.

Quote

But let's disregard that for a second. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to me that your God did anything, it isn't on ME to disprove your statement. I think we can all understand this concept that we've all probably learned in a debate class, philosophy class, etc. Until you can actually provide proof (which, guess what?!, you need to observe before you theorize! Observing the pages of your bible doesn't count, either :( ) of your outlandish statements, your statements have ZERO value. ZERO!


Indeed, the burden of proof in favor of a theory is on me.

However, at the same time, the burden of proof for evolution (or whatever else you want to believe in) is on you. One cannot assume evolution until creation is proven, no more than you need to assume creation until evolution is proven.

As for observation prior to theory, refer to my simplified, made-for-little-children argument of observations in this very post.

Ash, IKE, and I have all posted observation-based arguments without using the Bible as a source (now true, we did reference it for some other unrelated discussion saying "who says they contradict" and some such, but it wasn't part of the argument)

My statements are no more outlandish than yours. Well, except for the fact that I'm not calling anyone names, and actually making an argument instead of saying "you're wrong, because you disagree with this one version I happen to prefer."

Quote

Look, I'm done with this. Arguing with people who can't even get poo like the definition of scientific law correct is a waste of my time.


I laugh at the irony of this whole statement, given real definitions.

Fine by me -- if you can't get the definition difference between a theory and a law, that's not on me.

This post has been edited by Thalion: 16 October 2009 - 07:29 PM

Member of Team Akkadian

0

#125 User is offline   Cuy'val Dar  

  • 327 G.I.R. Bastogne Bulldogs
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 31-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula Louisiana
  • Brigade Name:MICHAEL J. CABOOSE

Posted 16 October 2009 - 09:47 PM

Look guys, evolution and creationism are what most people give an either or about. why cant both be accepted? we cultivate bacteria everyday in labs across the globe. we get it to grow and change to how we want it by adding proteins and other materials. the way i see it, they are two pieces of a puzzle. lets just say, cosmic entity #1 is like a micro biologist with his petri dishes (earth/universe/whatever) and he has enzymes and protiens (lets just say different obstacles to overcome and evolve around) to cultivate his bacteria (in this case, life in general) in petri dish 1 which holds the same bacteria the others hold, he migt add enzyme green. lets just say this causes the bacteria to breathe a certain mixture of "air." he does this with his other petri dishes adding a different enyme each time. after long enough, each one is different so, this cosmic entity simply put obstacles in the way for life to overcome and we evolved around them. read michael chrichton's book congo. this is a wonderful example of how this works.

(if i got my analogy right... if its wrong, cut me some slack. i havent finished biology yet and have yet to get to this)

and i remember reading some where that many mutations (which is often how evolution works) do not take.
Posted Image

Doorbells? Seriously? That's the swear filter?
. -Pirate
"Authenticity bro, everyone voids their bowels when they die."
-Guy at end of paintball movie
0

#126 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 17 October 2009 - 09:31 AM

View Postpvt. Leonard L. Church, on Oct 16 2009, 11:47 PM, said:

Look guys, evolution and creationism are what most people give an either or about. why cant both be accepted? we cultivate bacteria everyday in labs across the globe. we get it to grow and change to how we want it by adding proteins and other materials.


I'm pretty sure what I've said incorporates both, as far as scientifically permissible.

We grow bacteria, but we don't create it.

And that bacteria never evolves to anything beyond bacteria, no matter what obstacles we give it.
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#127 User is offline   Cuy'val Dar  

  • 327 G.I.R. Bastogne Bulldogs
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 31-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula Louisiana
  • Brigade Name:MICHAEL J. CABOOSE

Posted 17 October 2009 - 01:16 PM

ok. the bacteria was just the best analogy i could think of. i would have read all of the comments here earlier (just did now my posts seem to be slightly useless oh well), but i didnt have time
Posted Image

Doorbells? Seriously? That's the swear filter?
. -Pirate
"Authenticity bro, everyone voids their bowels when they die."
-Guy at end of paintball movie
0

#128 User is offline   evillepaintball 

  • You won't do it! You ain't crazy!
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 25-February 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Evansville Indiana
  • Brigade Name:sunshine ac-05

Posted 17 October 2009 - 03:26 PM

Interesting read.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/...nd-feature.html

Thalion, This gives examples of evolution in recent human history.
"it just doesnt look cool unless you're riding a yamazuki zx1200rrr" - C9H13NO3
0

#129 User is offline   Puzuma 

  • That is not dead which can eternal lie,
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 14,380
  • Joined: 22-September 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London ON, Canada
  • Brigade Name:Puzuma

Posted 20 October 2009 - 09:28 AM

No this isn't dead yet.....


I was watching Daily Planet this morning (missed it last night). They were talking to one of the worlds foremost geneticists. According to him, if you were to be completely ground up and had all your DNA sequenced, only 1-5% would be HUMAN DNA. The rest is all bacteria and viral DNA.

So, if macro-evolution is occurring in bacteria and humans are more bacteria than human....
Posted Image
That is not dead which can eternal lie,And with strange aeons even death may die.
0

#130 User is offline   SubMiler 

  • Pistolero
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 01-February 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 October 2009 - 03:39 PM

View PostThalion, on Oct 17 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

And that bacteria never evolves to anything beyond bacteria, no matter what obstacles we give it.


View PostThalion, on Oct 16 2009, 09:28 PM, said:

One cannot assume evolution until creation is proven, no more than you need to assume creation until evolution is proven.


This right here proves you have no idea what evolution is or how it acts. Time and selection are both greatly required. Your only argument against evolution is that "We can't prove it in a lab! Evolution is WRONG" and as a result, it is all up to God. You really expect new species to just up and come out of a petri dish made by some overworked grad student? It doesn't happen like that. It takes time and selection for new species to occur, time that humans are currently unable to fully observe due to this little thing called death. Plus based upon current research grants, no one wants to fund an experiment that lasts thousands of years.

Or I'll make it simpler. Look at the evolution of HIV (which began as the SIV). Take how it began to only infect monkeys until repeated stresses from the environment (human immune system) combined with the high mutation rate inherent within the virus itself was selected towards the genetic component of what is capable of infecting human beings. Additional stresses allowed HIV to become genetically different from the original SIV strand (although still retaining many of the similar RNA components inherent with the obvious different in host infection abilities). That's evolution in a nutshell.

You can't have HIV just popping up out of the blue, nor can you begin to expect an entirely new species to pop out of petri dish because you left it to culture overnight. The change is GRADUAL. Evolution is nothing more than response with regards in selection and the environment. Nothing more, nothing else. The simple to complex organisms isn't necessarily true when it comes to evolution either, rather you have genetic material that is able to be passed down through the generations through random events that placed stresses requiring those genes to be present. That is why every living organism shares similar genetic components with each other because we all began as that similar single strand of RNA or DNA. Of course if you have greater stresses and demands upon genetic components, you will have the quantum physics aspect of anything can happen within the degrees of the physical universe that can lead towards an entirely new species, but only if you observe the change from point A to point B. The Theory of Evolution explains the point A to B, which is definitely provable, the explanation behind the processes, however, are what is up to debate within the scientific community.

ID as far as I'm concerned is older theories such as Lamarck or Aristotle wrapped up with a nice "Christian" bow on top of it. Of course some ID "scientists" argue that "selection" is "God's work" when in reality it is completely random. We live in a thermodynamic world where life proceeds according to a state of randomness. We have a seeming of direction and certainty that has arisen, but because life is an open system, such seemings are possible due to the thermodynamic quality of the universe. So while we perceive life as being directional, the entirety of it remains random.
0

#131 User is offline   HOUND1 

  • VVVCheese Its!
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 529
  • Joined: 02-May 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liberty Paintball, Patterson NY
  • Brigade Name:AMRAAM11

Posted 21 October 2009 - 05:24 PM

View PostSubMiler, on Oct 21 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

It takes time and selection for new species to occur, time that humans are currently unable to fully observe due to this little thing called death. Plus based upon current research grants, no one wants to fund an experiment that lasts thousands of years.


lol'd. besides, you hardly have to wait a few years to see very small-scale evolution in bacteria. when reproducing, accidental mutations in DNA synthesis create new strains of bacteria. this new strain might be, say, more resistant to antibacterials, and one of two things happen:

1: antibiotics kill all of the other bacteria, leaving only the new resistant bacteria. this bacteria reproduces, making a new, resistant population. that in itself is evolution

2: the new resistant bacteria shares its plasmid, a circular piece of DNA containing key genetic information, with a non-resistant strain. this strain takes the information from the plasmid and is now resistant. this isn't evolution as much as the first example, but plasmids are definitely a trait that bacteria have evolved to survive.

BTW: i am christian. catholic, to be exact. what most Christians don't understand is that the early stories of the bible are just there to teach us lessons, and are probably not really meant to be accurate and exact. I believe God created the first spark of life, and it moved on from there by means of evolution.
Posted Image
0

#132 User is offline   SubMiler 

  • Pistolero
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 01-February 05
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 October 2009 - 06:29 PM

View PostHOUND1, on Oct 21 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

View PostSubMiler, on Oct 21 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

It takes time and selection for new species to occur, time that humans are currently unable to fully observe due to this little thing called death. Plus based upon current research grants, no one wants to fund an experiment that lasts thousands of years.


lol'd. besides, you hardly have to wait a few years to see very small-scale evolution in bacteria. when reproducing, accidental mutations in DNA synthesis create new strains of bacteria. this new strain might be, say, more resistant to antibacterials, and one of two things happen:

1: antibiotics kill all of the other bacteria, leaving only the new resistant bacteria. this bacteria reproduces, making a new, resistant population. that in itself is evolution

2: the new resistant bacteria shares its plasmid, a circular piece of DNA containing key genetic information, with a non-resistant strain. this strain takes the information from the plasmid and is now resistant. this isn't evolution as much as the first example, but plasmids are definitely a trait that bacteria have evolved to survive.

BTW: i am christian. catholic, to be exact. what most Christians don't understand is that the early stories of the bible are just there to teach us lessons, and are probably not really meant to be accurate and exact. I believe God created the first spark of life, and it moved on from there by means of evolution.


You started off with mutations & cross overs, then with simple selection. I've always thought of it as the earlier examinations of DNA vs Proteins debates with the protein capsule of smooth & rough virus where no one was thoroughly convinced. Most ID's believe in simple selection but not the larger grand scheme of evolution where entire species can develop. The later is heat-shocking bacteria which is more of genetic uptake rather than evolution. Although you can argue that it is evolution, and I would, but I'm keeping the nerdy scientist that I am at a minimum. Don't even get me started on grad school.

An amazing book to read is Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements. It takes everything you thought you knew about evolution & selection and flips it on a genetic level. It's an amazing read because you start to learn that genes have defenses and offenses to ensure they are the ones passed onto the next generation and eventual fixation within a population. Great for evolutionary debates since ID's tend to argue on a species level but fail to even look at the genetic, which in and of itself is the basis for species arising in the first place. Although when it comes to ID, Christianity has an issue with evolution because largely if species can evolve, then we can become more perfect than God Himself since we are created in God's image. But that's in and of itself an entirely different point.
0

#133 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 October 2009 - 07:36 PM

View PostSubMiler, on Oct 21 2009, 09:29 PM, said:

Although when it comes to ID, Christianity has an issue with evolution because largely if species can evolve, then we can become more perfect than God Himself since we are created in God's image. But that's in and of itself an entirely different point.


Not disputing the nerdyness of your posts ( :P ) because honestly it is over my head, as I am still a simple layman.

What I will say is that when man can get his own dirt, call me. (In relation to the idea of evolving more to become "more perfect" than God.)

View PostHOUND1, on Oct 21 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

BTW: i am christian. catholic, to be exact. what most Christians don't understand is that the early stories of the bible are just there to teach us lessons, and are probably not really meant to be accurate and exact. I believe God created the first spark of life, and it moved on from there by means of evolution.


You're a bad Catholic. :)

(I can make that joke since I'm Catholic as well.)

This is my beef: Just as all proponents of evolutionary theory are not embittered atheists who hate religion, not all 'Creationists' necessarily believe that the earth is 8,000 years old and take the story of Genesis absolutely literally.

Personally, yes, as a layman, I doubt that modern humans evolved from an LCA. I have my reasons.

What I don't understand is what the intervention of, well, God in the process of new species coming into existence is tossed aside in the Either/Or way these debates typically follow. Why couldn't God have "At (x) year, I shall place modern man on this earth in (x) location."

Or any other scenario I could think of in relation to different species. Obviously I can't prove this point of view, and I'm not going to try. I just find it interesting to think about all the ways life as we know could have come into existence.

This post has been edited by Ashrak: 21 October 2009 - 07:42 PM

Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#134 User is offline   Ashrak 

  • Precipice
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 336
  • Joined: 01-December 07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 October 2009 - 07:41 PM

double post

This post has been edited by Ashrak: 21 October 2009 - 07:42 PM

Alea iacta est ~ The board is set, the pieces are moving.
~ Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay withered and strown. ~ Destruction of Sennacherib

~ Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the American states a man who more cordially loves a union with his country than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the United States Congress proposes; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America. ~ Thomas Jefferson (modernized)
Summertime Blues
0

#135 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 22 October 2009 - 12:14 PM

View PostSubMiler, on Oct 21 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

This right here proves you have no idea what evolution is or how it acts. Time and selection are both greatly required. Your only argument against evolution is that "We can't prove it in a lab! Evolution is WRONG" and as a result, it is all up to God.


Go back. Read every post I've made here.

I'll wait.

Hmm... yep, there's more than just that. I wasn't the one who brought the lab up, I just made an observation about it.

I've made other observations that demonstrate problems. I really don't feel like going back and copy/pasting it all.

An example -- "intermediate" creatures (those gradually developing a trait) are frequently at a disadvantage to either creature on the other side. Thus, intermediate creatures would die off simply from natural selection.

Quote

It takes time and selection for new species to occur, time that humans are currently unable to fully observe due to this little thing called death.


And this is all a gradual process, yes?

Problem -- as specified before, many intermediates (those species/creatures between species, while the trait is developing) are at a disadvantage. A 4-legged small mammal or a bat is far better off than a mammal "developing" wings that are currently unusable for flight (they're also not as good for running as the four developed legs)

Any change not completed almost entirely would result in a high probability of an extinct creature.

Quote

Or I'll make it simpler. Look at the evolution of HIV (which began as the SIV). Take how it began to only infect monkeys until repeated stresses from the environment (human immune system) combined with the high mutation rate inherent within the virus itself was selected towards the genetic component of what is capable of infecting human beings. Additional stresses allowed HIV to become genetically different from the original SIV strand (although still retaining many of the similar RNA components inherent with the obvious different in host infection abilities). That's evolution in a nutshell.


To be more specific, that's micro-evolution. It's still a virus. It has some different traits, yes, but it's still basically what it was before.

Don't give me time as an excuse -- that virus is always going to be a virus. It won't over thousands or millions of years develop into a single cell organism (or multi-cell after that).

Nowhere, anywhere, have I said or suggested micro-evolution is impossible. The entire debate has been macro-evolution, that is, the gradual change from one species to another.

Quote

The simple to complex organisms isn't necessarily true when it comes to evolution either, rather you have genetic material that is able to be passed down through the generations through random events that placed stresses requiring those genes to be present. That is why every living organism shares similar genetic components with each other because we all began as that similar single strand of RNA or DNA.


Or it could just be similar because something totally different wouldn't survive. Has anyone been able to observe a test of genetics?

Based on this paragraph, it seems you're arguing all creatures have the same genes, but events around them have selected what remains to survive. But different species have different total number of genes. And since new content is never added - it's all here already, if what you suggest were the case, then it would seem reasonable that all creatures would have the same amount of genes. They don't.
Member of Team Akkadian

0

Share this topic:


  • (13 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users