Question About Evolution

Page 7 of 15 [ 233 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15 Next

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 2:13 am

MarketAndChurch, your arguments against evolution show you are NOT familiar with the evidence and furthermore that you have bought into the oogity-boogity intelligent design irreducible complexity and astronomical odds BS that is all over the internet and in our society unfortunately. These arguments have been thoroughly debunked. You really do need to educate yourself on this subject. You keep spouting falsehoods like "Macro evolution has not been observed." It has.

Also, the DNA of different species show nested hierarchies in the patterns of data comparing the placement of endogenous retroviruses (for just ONE example), and nested hierarchies are what would be expected if there were a branching family tree from a common ancestor. Why would the creator plant all these clues in the DNA that seem to show evolution happens? See, you just look at DNA and say oh it's designed, there must be a God. I'm saying how do you account for all the nested hierarchies of different types of data when comparing DNA, and even more, how do you explain how all these DIFFERENT things being measured all produce the same tree of life, in other words, why do they match each other, and also why do they match the fossil record? See, everything, literally everything we can observe and measure, is consistent with the idea that life evolved from a common ancestor. That's just the way it is but you seem unaware of the evidence and keep spouting lies and BS. Why is that?

Why would God design human chromosome 2 so that to all intents and purposes it looks exactly like two ape chromosomes fused together end to end? Sure, he might have poofed us out of dust instantly fully-formed as humans with this fusion of two ape chromosomes built into us by design, but why? Doesn't that seem a bit deceitful of the creator to make it LOOK like evolution happens. Btw, the discovery that human chromosome 2 is two ape chromosomes fused together is something that was a test of evolution, and sure enough, the evidence supports evolution. So again, why? Do you even KNOW about human chromosome 2? Are you going to go to some creationist or intelligent design web site to find some BS response to this incredibly strong evidence?

Did you know even Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box and the intelligent design movements star "scientist") admits that humans and chimps share a common ancestor (it's in his more recent book The Edge of Evolution)?

IF you are a sincere seeker of truth, again, IF, here are some resources that could help educate you so you won't be as ignorant about this subject:
The Sensuous Curmudgeon is an awesome blog that has a section of links to many articles about evolution and other resources. There are other blogs such as The Panda's Thumb and Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, but I really like the writing of The Sensuous Curmudgeon and many very smart and talented people regularly comment on his articles.

The talk origins web site is a bit dated, but still a very good place to go for accurate information on this subject. There is a talk origins discussion group too in Google groups if you have sincere questions.

Google is your friend.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 03 Nov 2012, 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 Nov 2012, 2:26 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

the beauty of it, MarketAndChurch, is that evolution explains and predicts so much about the natural world with very few assumptions needed to be held.

If I understand what you're saying, you recognize that not everyone who accepts evolution as a fact necessarily denies a spiritual component or God. I think what I see you arguing against mainly is the idea that many who accept evolution claim it disproves any spiritual component to creation. I agree with you there that it does not.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there is a God. The question is totally irrelevant to whether or not evolution happens. There may be some atheists who try to say that evolution disproves God. Well, they are as big or bigger fools than the Creationists I've been bashing in my posts to this thread.

OTOH there is a lot more evidence of more different types that supports evolution than you seem aware of, and you seem misinformed about much you think you know. It also seems like you've been brainwashed by some of the "irreducible complexity" BS and astronomical odds BS of many creationist sources, unless of course, you're one of those making up these bogus arguments and spreading the misunderstanding everywhere.

I apologize if I seem rude in these posts. There is a difference to me in disagreements over religious or political views, which are individual opinions, compared to disagreements about what actual evidence exists for scientific ideas or the patterns shown by the data from that evidence. I am calling out what I see as blatant falsehoods or distortions about the physical world that have EVIDENCE that anyone can check for themselves if it is important enough to them, but that they might not check if such blatant falsehoods or distortions are not challenged.

I am not a creationist.

I am part of the intelligent design community. There's a difference. Creationists source science from the bible. We don't. Intelligent Design merely posits a designer was involved. It doesn't preclude evolution, even including macro-evolution. It simply asks the questions that academia never bothered to ask... how was it that Darwin swept the academics in the same way Marx did, prior to any meaningful evidence came along? They were already a godless bunch looking for a creator-less creation story, and since then, have taken a simplistic theory and tried to find answers that make it come to life.

Evolution cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. It is not even a relevant or meaningful question, except for those whose knowledge of the bible is primitive, be it an atheist or a pious religious person.

What I am arguing is that the brands of evolution a theistic person subscribes to, is, definitionally, different then that that the atheist subscribes to. The atheist rigidly sticks to naturalism as all there is, and even, for the sake of entertaining the thought, a God does exist, it was absent in the creation of the universe, the creation of the planets, and the creation of life.

The Christian, or Jew, has Genesis 1:1 to account for though... Genesis 1:1 suggests that the universe had a beginning. It suggests that this God created something from nothing. It suggests linear thinking and that there is progress to be hand during this lifetime whereas the pagans around it thought of this existence as a closed infinite loop, wherein all of their Gods had natural beginnings, and life was a never ending cycle that had no beginning, and we would do what others did before us, and those before them. It suggests that nature has no will of its own, God wills it, and time and space come into existence. That is what the religious and the non religious needs to be aware of... are the ramifications of Genesis 1:1, and what it suggests.

Anyways, complexity of life is a fact. Observationally, to a non-scientific person, nature is very simple. Our study of the natural world shows it to be a very very complex set of biological living systems. Please put forth evidence for any of the things you've posted about. You posited 48 just for fun in your last post, but in all seriousness, how many changes would it require for you to fly like a hawk, or to return to the ocean?

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 2:34 am

The Dover trial showed conclusively that the intelligent design movement is just a thinly-disguised rewriting of what was called "scientific creationism" back in the 1980s. The Discovery Institute that champions the intelligent design movement has a "wedge document" that makes it plain their main goal is to destroy what they see as materialistic viewpoint science and replace it with a theologically based viewpoint. They are trying to send America and the world back to the Dark Ages, although of course they think it will make everything better.

So you're not a Christian. So what. You're STILL ignorant about this subject. The Discovery institute are some of the slickest LIARS out there right now. If you are relying on them for your arguments and your information,, well, you are being lied to.

Either that, or you yourself may be one of those out to spread LIES and misinformation for whatever purpose. See, I know what you're saying is BS, but do you know that too? If not, please educate yourself so you can see it clearly for yourself. If you do know you're spreading lies and distortions, then why are you doing that? That just seems wrong to me...

You misquoted me btw. I said 42, not 48, and that is a cultural reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. If you really do want to research the evidence for what I am saying, I gave you names of web sites and blogs to check a couple posts before this one. I have doubts as to whether you are a sincere seeker of truth, or if maybe you are one of those out to knowingly spread lies. Only you know. I hope you are at least honest with yourself even if not with us.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 03 Nov 2012, 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 Nov 2012, 2:35 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

well stop telling me then and link the proof that macro evolution has been debunked. The fossil record clearly isn't proof, in what lab was this theory tested, under what conditions, and how can one conduct the same test?

You should know never once did I bring up the chimpanzees-human connection. I merely asked how we and tortoises have a common ancestor, and how an zebra can become a whale.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

DerStadtschutz
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Sep 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,467

03 Nov 2012, 2:39 am

Have either of you two ever heard of the Dogons? If not, I think you would both be interested in learning about one of their cave paintings/"legends."

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 2:46 am

Evolution does NOT work like that. No you will never see a zebra turn into a whale.

You also will not see a cat give birth to a dog (or vice versa). It's funny that some of the things anti-evolution people ask for to prove to them that evolution happens would in fact if found present some problems for our current understanding of evolution to explain.

A big problem is many do not understand that it is not individual organisms that evolve, it is breeding POPULATIONS that evolve. Some subgroups may be split off from the rest of the population and, if on the outer fringes of the environment that species can endure, those subgroups may change over time to adapt to the more extreme environments where eventually they can no longer breed with other descendants of their ancestral population.

BUT from these questions, and your talent with words, it seems very much to me that you DO know about the evidence for evolution but you are using weasel words and BS definitions and BS questions to mislead people. Either that, or you are very ignorant even if talented with words. It seems you are following Discovery Institute teachings almost as if from a script. You ask me for evidence. It's there. Google is your friend. I shouldn't have to hand everything to you on a silver platter especially since it seems likely you will NOT accept any amount of evidence to change your mind.

Look it up yourself. It's there. Maybe some of the other people in this forum will help you. I noticed several posting helpful links earlier that you ignored. I call BS on you MarketAndChurch.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 03 Nov 2012, 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 Nov 2012, 2:47 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

I'm being lied to? By the Discovery institute? Why can't you put forth a workable example of macro evolution?

Materialism has been a thorn in the side of science, it is too limiting. Where is physics without fields or forces or time or numerical values? All you do is accuse me of lying, and never once put forth an answers to anything I have posted. Give me an explanation the process of giving a human being the eyesight of a cheetah... and all of the biological changes and mutations required for the process to take place?

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 2:53 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:

I'm being lied to? By the Discovery institute? Why can't you put forth a workable example of macro evolution?

Yes, you are, big time lies.

As for your second question, like I told you. LOOK IT UP. Google is your friend. You obviously know how to use a computer and have internet access. IF you really are a sincere seeker of truth, you can do this. I call BS on you still. With every post it becomes clearer you are either very ignorant, insane or evil (or some combination of the above). I can tell from your posts you are not stupid, so which is it? If it's just ignorance, that is the easiest to fix. I can't help you with the others though.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 Nov 2012, 2:54 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

Evolution does NOT work like that. No you will never see a zebra turn into a whale.

You also will not see a cat give birth to a dog (or vice versa). It's funny that some of the things anti-evolution people ask for to prove to them that evolution happens would in fact if found present some problems for our current understanding of evolution to explain.

A big problem is many do not understand that it is not individual organisms that evolve, it is breeding POPULATIONS that evolve. Some subgroups may be split off from the rest of the population and if on the fringes on the environment that population can endure may change over time to adapt to the more extreme environment where eventually they can no longer breed with other descendants of their ancestral population.

BUT from these questions, and your talent with words, it seems very much to me that you DO know about the evidence for evolution but you are using weasel words and BS definitions and BS questions to mislead people. Either that, or you are very ignorant even if talented with words. It seems you are following Discovery Institute teachings almost as if from a script. You ask me for evidence. It's there. Google is your friend. I shouldn't have to hand everything to you on a silver platter especially since it seems likely you will NOT accept any amount of evidence to change your mind.

Look it up yourself. It's there. Maybe some of the other people in this forum will help you. I noticed several posting helpful links earlier that you ignored. I call BS on you MarketAndChurch.

You need to give me a working example of all of the biological structures that would have to change for such a change between species to take place. Your copout is time and random variation, and natural selection. It is not scientific if you cannot quantifiably put a number of the mutations possibly involved, nor is it scientific to find 7 examples and draw links between species. 7? 48? That is what it takes for something to sprout wings and fly, considering all of the complex mechanisms with flight? Or for something to adopt fins and flippers?

You haven't given any evidence whatsoever to macro evolution, if you have, please repost your original poster and I will look it up. You have no working example in nature either. You don't have the fossil record to support you either.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 2:56 am

You are spouting lies and BS MarketAndChurch, whether you do so knowingly or not.

It wouldn't matter what evidence I show you. You have your mind made up and apparently an agenda.
That's it for me in this thread. Post away all you want about how impossible it is for us to have evolved.

This thread is pigeon chess. To quote an online urban dictionary, that:

Quote:

Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Origin:
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com book review)

Idiot.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 03 Nov 2012, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 Nov 2012, 3:01 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

MarketAndChurch wrote:

I'm being lied to? By the Discovery institute? Why can't you put forth a workable example of macro evolution?

that's fine, its BS when I challenge your opinions, none of which you are the author of, but it is not BS when you excuse my points as Discovery Institute talking points, and then therefore do not have to deal with any of it?

You brought up chromosome 2 and the apes, I didn't, because I don't take any issue with it. I brought up whales and zebras and peoples and tortoises because I do have issues with thta, and you cannot put forth an possible answer from the fossil record of we are related...

If you are religious, the answer is a common designer. If you are an atheist, the answer is a common ancestor. That's the difference between our views, and why there might be obstacles to either camps adopting the others reasoning.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 3:21 am

Just because one accepts common descent does NOT make one an atheist. That is another of the falsehoods spread by the anti-evolution crowd. I guess THIS will be my last post in this thread. I just did not want to leave that further BS of yours unchallenged. Of course you can say it again, and probably will. Liar.

My only agenda is truth. I want to know the truth whether or not it conflicts with what I believe or what I want to believe. That is why such slimy liars as The Discovery Institute really disgust me.

Now if it turns out that the fact of evolution disproves some denominations of Christianity or other religions, so what? It's for the greater good if we are not following false teachings. You know what the Dalai Lama said about science and Buddhism? He said if any findings of science conflicted with Buddhist teachings then BUDDHISM WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. Now THAT is spiritual and intellectual honesty. Your folks at the Discovery Institute have none of that.

It does seem very much like no evidence I submit would be acceptable to you, that you would find new weasel words or BS definitions to distort the truth. Whatever. I hope you can live with yourself.

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

03 Nov 2012, 3:35 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

Just because one accepts common descent does NOT make one an atheist. That is another of the falsehoods spread by the anti-evolution crowd. I guess THIS will be my last post in this thread. I just did not want to leave that further BS of yours unchallenged. Of course you can say it again, and probably will. Liar.

My only agenda is truth. I want to know the truth whether or not it conflicts with what I believe or what I want to believe. That is why such slimy liars such as The Discovery Institute really disgust me.

Now if it turns out that the fact of evolution disproves some denominations of Christianity or other religions, so what? It's for the greater good if we are not following false teachings. You know what the Dalai Lama said about science and Buddhism? He said if any findings of science conflicted with Buddhist teachings then BUDDHISM WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. Now THAT is spiritual and intellectual honesty. Your folks at the Discovery Institute have none of that.

It does seem very much like no evidence I submit would be acceptable to you, that you would find new weasel words or BS definitions to distort the truth. Whatever. I hope you can live with yourself.

I don't want to requote myself over and over.

Evolution doesn't challenge the existence of a God, only the understanding that God was not involved in any creation process excludes the existence of any God. I've also said that religion and science cannot conflict, if science says something is scientifically true, then religion cannot deny it.

But religion cannot hinge itself to something that will never be fully resolved: Science. Science is young, you don't know all there is to know, and if anyone in science throughout history had the hutzpah to declare that what we know now is all there is to know, then we would be robbed of the non-challenging that would then go on as you accept dogma and the orthodoxy of the day.

Buddhism changing, for what exactly? What theological components of Buddhism are hinged to a scientific belief? It is faith in something that science cannot measure. You cannot measure reincarnation if it exists, or the moment of moksha.

You are closed to debate. You can't win on the points. Maybe my points are unwinable on. Maybe science should do just that: Answer that at this time, we don't know the answer to your question. But they don't do that. They come up with explanations to cover for what they don't know, as if it can or has been verified in reality. Next time, just save yourself the time and answer with exactly that: I don't know the answer to that, but maybe in time, we will find something testable, and verifiable.

_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.

TheBicyclingGuitarist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,332

03 Nov 2012, 4:36 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:

Evolution doesn't challenge the existence of a God, only the understanding that God was not involved in any creation process excludes the existence of any God. I've also said that religion and science cannot conflict, if science says something is scientifically true, then religion cannot deny it.

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but I couldn't in good conscience let such a slimy lie go unchallenged. Accepting evolution does NOT necessarily mean "understanding that God was not involved in any creation process." Where do you get this garbage? Oh yeah, the Discovery Institute. You admitted you use those liars as your source.

So since evolution is scientifically true, that means no religion can deny it, right? You said it yourself!

MarketAndChurch wrote:

You are closed to debate. You can't win on the points. Maybe my points are unwinable on. Maybe science should do just that: Answer that at this time, we don't know the answer to your question. But they don't do that. They come up with explanations to cover for what they don't know, as if it can or has been verified in reality. Next time, just save yourself the time and answer with exactly that: I don't know the answer to that, but maybe in time, we will find something testable, and verifiable.

I'm not closed to honest debate. So far I have not encountered that with you. I (and others) present evidence. You dodge and twist and use weasel words and BS definitions and oogity boogity instead of acknowledging the evidence or coming up with an answer for it. What about nested hierarchies for example?

And for the record, evolution IS testable but nothing in science is verifiable. The most we can hope for is to falsify it, in which case the explanation must be changed to account for the new evidence. If the explanation cannot adapt, it is discarded. That is how science works. Now for religious people, if their explanation is falsified, THEY IGNORE THE EVIDENCE!

_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

03 Nov 2012, 4:41 am

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:

MarketAndChurch wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg[/youtube] :lol:

_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

03 Nov 2012, 9:00 am

AngelRho wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

JNathanK wrote:

AnotherKind wrote:

First time I understood evolution 5-6 years ago when I found some forgotten potatoes which have had worms. At that moment, I thought the worms evolved from bacteria inside the potatoes, which most probably were maggots, but that actually helped me to understand the theory of evolution that made no sense to me before in spite of all the proofs and documentaries. Even now I wonder how some people can understand things without making associations.

So, you stumbled across the concept with this random thought and realized later that that would explain speciation if it occurred over billions of years, rather than a few weeks in your potatoes.

I cant figure out what she is saying either.

Either (a) she KNOWS that the bacteria didnt evolve into worms- but that that spurious idea momentary flashed across her mind. So even though she knows its wrong- its somekind of metaphor for evolution- even though it happened on a tinier timescale than real evolution. Even this doesnt really make sense to me-but whatever.

Or (b) She really IS under the impression that bacteria in potatoes can become maggots. In which case she is both hugely wrong AND doesnt understand evolution.
In fact she reinvented the disproven Medeaval theory of Spontaneous Generation-which has nothing to do with evolution.

Medieval Spontaneous Generation? Nah, it's not completely disproven. Just rebranded as an unproven origins theory--the idea that life can spontaneously form out of soap bubbles.

And no, I'm not kidding. Unproven =/= disproven. We HAVE disproven that worms spontaneously spring out of rotten meat and vegetable matter. Abiogenesis hasn't been proven or disproven, but it is a valid scientific hypothesis.

The idea that life AT ONE POINT IN TIME in the FAR distant past billions of years Gradually evolved from non life-probably through millions of years of intermediate steps--is not the same thing as thinking that maggots spring overnight from pototoes or rotton meat all of the time on a daily basis. Abiogenisis is not the same thing as spontaneous generation.

It's the same thing in principle. Life spawning from non-life? The Medieval view was that it could happen overnight, the scientific view is that it took billions of years for the exact initial conditions to occur for abiogenesis. The only difference is time and detectability. Someone of the Medieval period would have trouble detecting the spontaneous generation of a single-celled organism whereas a present-day scientist could conceivably witness it happen. A Medieval observer wouldn't have the means to explain apparent spontaneous generation but could show evidence that it happens. A current scientist observing the same thing would have the means to refute Medieval observations and explain what's really going on. And it's quite simple...leave a control substance like rotted meat in the open air exposed to flies and the identical substance in an experimental, protected condition. Come to think of it, it would have been possible even in Medieval times to do this, but more unlikely that anyone would have the presence of mind to concern themselves with it.

Dishonesty doesnt help your cause.

Saying 'abiogenisis and spontaneous generation are the same thing because they both involve nonlife becoming life' is like saying "because both a school bus and the Concord have a driver up front and two rows of passenger seats in the back then that means that every schoolbus is a supersonic airliner".

Last edited by naturalplastic on 03 Nov 2012, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Page 7 of 15 [ 233 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15 Next

Jump to:

Question About Evolution Post Reply New Topic

Question About Evolution