Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 08:59 pm
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2447&program=CSC&callingPage=disco

Darwinian Doubts
By: David Berlinski
Wichita Eagle
March 9, 2005


Original Article

NOTE: The article below is the full version by Dr. Berlinski. The Wichita Eagle opted to shorten the piece to only 400 words.

The defense of Darwin's theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not. It is not a strategy calculated in induce confidence in the scientific method. A paper published recently in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington concluded that the events taking place during the Cambrian era could best be understood in terms of an intelligent design - hardly a position unknown in the history of western science. The paper was, of course, peer-reviewed by three prominent evolutionary biologists. Wise men attend to the publication of every one of the Proceeding's papers, but in the case of Steven Meyer's "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," the Board of Editors was at once given to understand that they had done a bad thing. Their indecent capitulation followed at once.

Publication of the paper, they confessed, was a mistake. It would never happen again. It had barely happened at all. And peer review?

The hell with it.

"If scientists do not oppose antievolutionism," Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, remarked, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak." Scott's understanding of 'opposition' had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."

Everyone else had better shut up.

In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality.

Look - The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences - quantum electrodynamics, say - is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.

Look - Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak to non-existent selection effects.

Look - Darwin's theory is open at one end since there are no plausible account for the origins of life.

Look - The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

Look - A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.

Look - Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

Look - Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

Look - The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives - differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?

But look again - If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory since it's otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?

These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.

Serious biologists quite understand all this. They rather regard Darwin's theory as an elderly uncle invited to a family dinner. The old boy has no hair, he has no teeth, he is hard of hearing, and he often drools. Addressing even senior members at table as Sonny, he is inordinately eager to tell the same story over and over again.

But he's family. What can you do?

David Berlinski holds a Ph.D. from Princeton University. He is the author of On Systems Analysis, A Tour of the Calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm, Newton's Gift, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky, and, most recently, Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics. He is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,507 • Replies: 74
No top replies

 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 11:33 pm
Quote:
the case against Darwin’s theory retains an almost lunatic vitality.

I think the world 'almost' can be dropped

Quote:
Look – The suggestion that Darwin’s theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences – quantum electrodynamics, say – is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen unyielding decimal places. Darwin’s theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.

Um, how about 'a genetic mutation that favours one organism's reproduction over another will favour the reproduction of that organism's genetic difference?

Quote:
Look – Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak to non-existent selection effects.

Wow, the theory has only been around for a couple of centuries, it describes eons long processes, and field test results so far are weak - who would have thought?
Quote:
Look – Darwin’s theory is open at one end since there are no plausible account for the origins of life.

I'm sure I've seen Darwin's theory applied to complex replicating molecules that form amino acids - which are naturally occuring and are the building blocks of life. Regardless, the theory was not attempt to explain the origins of life, just how new species came about.

Quote:
Look – The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

Can't think of anyway to argue with an amorphous statement that sounds like a sound bite rather than a point of argument.

Quote:
Look – A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.

Leaving no descendants fits with Darwin's theory - but, as we well know, the fossil record is horribly incomplete.

Quote:
Look – Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

I plead ignorance, but modelling is just modelling and always has difficulties with complex systems - no bastard can tell me where Cyclone Ingrid is going to be tomorrow but that doesn't mean climatology is bunkum.

Quote:
Look – Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.


And cockroaches and sharks haven't changed for millions of years. So?

Quote:
Look – The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives – differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?


Whaaaat? Ever seen the skeleton of a cat next to a rabbit? They are so similar it's freaky - outward appearances seem to exponentially increase our perception of difference - which would explain centuries of senseless black/white racism.

Quote:
But look again – If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin’s theory since it’s otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?


Mindless supposition, who said what's scientifically more interesting?

Certainly Darwin isn't perfect, neither is Einstein, Newton or any other trailblazer, but the essential ideas opened entire new vistas of thinking about and understanding our world and our place in it. I'd encourage any improvement on, or provable replacement for any of Darwin's theories, but for you to publish Berlinski's work hoping that no-one would realise his close work with a christian think tank is oh so typical of you, my lovely Gunga.

Anyway, for a critique of Berlinski - have a look at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/dyslexic.cfm

On the other hand I don't think Berlinski should be suppressed for holding or promoting his views - if anything they encourage a revisiting of Darwinian thought and that can only be a good thing.

Advocating for the devil again.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 05:44 pm
Quote:

The defense of Darwin's theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not. It is not a strategy calculated in induce confidence in the scientific method.


I am a physicist and I have studied Quantum Electrodynamics. Almost all of us agree that the scientific method used in support of evolution is the same that we use.

These biologists you say "believe in suppressing criticsim when possible..." are are part of mainstream science. They use the same methods, the same logic and go to the same schools as the other scientists.

They are also using their science (and the foundation of modern science is evolution) to do amazing things-- from curing diseases to advancing genetic engineering to cloning....

We physicists know the tendency of the shrill religious adherents criticizing the discovery of science.

From Gallileo, persecutied for saying "But it moves" and being forced to renounce his discovery of moons around Saturn, to the opposition to Newton because of a Christian doctrinal faith in Aristotle.

You opposition to science is not just about biology, and it is nothing new.

It is a group of people who put religious belief above reason opposing people who continue to advance knowledge with open minds.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 05:53 pm
Quote:
Look - A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.


It's estimated we've found less than 1 thousandth of a percent of the ancient animals.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 05:56 pm
Quote:

Look - Darwin's theory is open at one end since there are no plausible account for the origins of life.


Darwin's theory also never says there isn't a god. May not be a the Judeo-Christian god but we already knew that. So maybe some god did make it. Darwin didn't really talk too much about origins of life but of origins of species and of evolution.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 06:18 pm
What is interesting is that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to accept evolution as fact. People with a science education are the most likely to believe in evolution.

This is according to Gallup.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

There is a reference (I will have to look it up) that about less than 1% of people with advanced life science degrees give credence to creationism. And don't blast them.... they are awfully productive these days. Bioengineering is the hot science right now and they are making impressive advances in areas that count.

In issues of science, it is amazing how people still choose to listen to clergy rather than scientists.

You would think the people who study the evidence, make discoveries and create the basis for the technology that is changing our world would be the most credible voices...
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 06:20 pm
Diablo,

You are quite right, the theist view, where there is a God who uses evolution over millions of years, is quite popular even among scientists-- 40% according to Gallup (compared to 5% of scientists (not life scientists) who are creationists).

I am convinced that evolution is fact. I am agnostic as far as God, but it is certainly possible.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 06:54 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

The defense of Darwin's theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not. It is not a strategy calculated in induce confidence in the scientific method.


I am a physicist and I have studied Quantum Electrodynamics. Almost all of us agree that the scientific method used in support of evolution is the same that we use.

These biologists you say "believe in suppressing criticsim when possible..." are are part of mainstream science. They use the same methods, the same logic and go to the same schools as the other scientists.


Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com:
http://www.i5ive.com/article.cfm/christianity_science/75915

Censorship of Information on Origins
http://www.rae.org/censor.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 03:25 pm
Re: Darwinian Doubts
gungasnake wrote:
Look - Darwin's theory is open at one end since there are no plausible account for the origins of life.

Now, that's just plain false. You have misrepresented a well known portion of the theory of evolution.

The beginning of life on Earth has two steps:

1. Many studies have shown that volumes of water of the composition of Earth's primordial seas form organic compounds naturally in the presence of any of a number of forms of energy discharge. These organic compounds are the basic building blocks of life.
2. The theory says that after billions of years, and in mammoth tons of ocean, finally by chance a self-replicating molecule formed, and the rest is history.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 03:40 pm
The actual theories you read postulate a "primordial soup", actually a sort of a broth or witches brew of large molecules and quasi-biological ingredients, in the ancient oceans.

As Michael Denton rightly points out, such a prebiotic stew would leave definite marks on early rocks, and numerous studies have been done amounting to searching for such marks or traces in rocks from those times.

Guess what? No such evidence has been found.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 10:31 pm
gungasnake wrote:
The actual theories you read postulate a "primordial soup", actually a sort of a broth or witches brew of large molecules and quasi-biological ingredients, in the ancient oceans.

As Michael Denton rightly points out, such a prebiotic stew would leave definite marks on early rocks, and numerous studies have been done amounting to searching for such marks or traces in rocks from those times.

Guess what? No such evidence has been found.

Even if it were beef stew, I can't see how it would leave any marks on rocks identified as "early" that would stand out from other oceanic compositions. How does some fluid leave a mark on a rock, other than wear? How would it interplay with rain? Cite your source and include evidence of the correctness of the assertion in the citation. I absolutely doubt the correctness of what you are saying.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 10:50 pm
gungasmoke, Since you are ready to refute evolution and Darwin's theories, show us when and how god created this planet and all the living things on it. Please don't use the bible for your only support. We want facts and figures as proof. Just to say god created it is not proof or fact. Evolution on the other hand is proven by scientists all over the world in many areas of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, and all the sciences known to man. Creationist continue to insist this is "adaptation," but that definition actually means evolution or change.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: Darwinian Doubts
gungasnake wrote:
Darwinian Doubts


Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Gunga has doubts".
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 03:40 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
gungasmoke, Since you are ready to refute evolution and Darwin's theories, show us when and how god created this planet and all the living things on it.


If you're l;ooking for an argument with an absolute biblical literalist you need to find somebody else; I ain't one.

To me the evidence clearly indicates several things: mainly that evolution does not work and that our biosphere, past and present is the product of genetic engineering and re-engineering; that this genetic engineering has mainly come in spurts and not so much as a continual process as Darwin claimed; that more than one pair of hands was involved.

In particular, a loving and omnipotent God never created biting flies, mosquitos, chiggers, ticks, and disease vectors. Whoever created those things was some sort of an A$$#ole; moreover, we should shortly have the ability to eliminate all such from our planet, and should waste not a second in doing so.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 06:32 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
...As Michael Denton rightly points out, such a prebiotic stew would leave definite marks on early rocks, and numerous studies have been done amounting to searching for such marks or traces in rocks from those times.

Guess what? No such evidence has been found.

...Cite your source and include evidence of the correctness of the assertion in the citation....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 10:03 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
...As Michael Denton rightly points out, such a prebiotic stew would leave definite marks on early rocks, and numerous studies have been done amounting to searching for such marks or traces in rocks from those times.

Guess what? No such evidence has been found.

...Cite your source and include evidence of the correctness of the assertion in the citation....


No problem...

Quote:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a
number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and
the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this
planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random,
they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Fred Hoyle
Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148


Quote:


"...in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive
earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if
not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical
evolution rates would have been negligible. ... It is becoming clear that
however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged
from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.
We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the
prebiotic soup.' " (p. 86)

"...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy
would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then
doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima
facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not
just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a
message sequence." (pp. 211-212)

Charles B. Thaxton (Creationist)
Ph.D. Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard,
Staff member of the Julian Center
The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories
Philosophical Library, 1984


Quote:


"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many
discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it
comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no
positive evidence for its existence." (p. 261)

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is
impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together
suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an
occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (p. 264)
"It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which
possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever
existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all
its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams.
It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than
the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man." (p.
338)

Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Adler and Adler, 1985,



http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abiogenesis.htm

Quote:

The first stage on the road to life is presumed to have been the buildup, by purely chemical synthetic processes occurring on the surface of the early Earth, of all the basic organic compounds necessary for the formation of a living cell. These are supposed to have accumulated in the primeval oceans, creating a nutrient broth, the so-called "prebiotic soup." In certain specialized environments, these organic compounds were assembled into large macromolecules, proteins, and nucleic acids. Eventually, over millions of years, combinations of these macromolecules occurred which were endowed with the property of self-reproduction. Then, driven by natural selection, ever more efficient and complex self-reproducing molecular systems evolved until finally the first simple cell emerged. The existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial to the whole scheme. Without an abiotic accumulation of the building blocks of the cell, no life could ever evolve. . . . Yet rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of a bioticially produced compound been found. Most notable of these rocks are the "dawn rocks" of western Greenland, the earliest dated rocks on Earth, considered to be approaching 3,900 million years old. . . . As on so many occasions, paleontology has again failed to substantiate evolutionary presumptions. Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 11:01 am
gungasnake wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
...As Michael Denton rightly points out, such a prebiotic stew would leave definite marks on early rocks, and numerous studies have been done amounting to searching for such marks or traces in rocks from those times.

Guess what? No such evidence has been found.

...Cite your source and include evidence of the correctness of the assertion in the citation....


No problem...

Quote:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a
number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and
the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this
planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random,
they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Sir Fred Hoyle
Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148

Not relevant to my question.

gungasnake wrote:
[
Quote:


"...in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive
earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if
not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical
evolution rates would have been negligible. ... It is becoming clear that
however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged
from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis.
We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the
prebiotic soup.' " (p. 86)

"...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy
would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then
doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima
facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not
just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a
message sequence." (pp. 211-212)

Charles B. Thaxton (Creationist)
Ph.D. Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard,
Staff member of the Julian Center
The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories
Philosophical Library, 1984

Not relevant to my question.


gungasnake wrote:
[
Quote:

"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many
discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it
comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no
positive evidence for its existence." (p. 261)

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is
impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together
suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an
occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (p. 264)
"It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which
possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever
existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all
its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams.
It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than
the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man." (p.
338)

Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Adler and Adler, 1985,

Not relevant to my question.

gungasnake wrote:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abiogenesis.htm

Quote:

The first stage on the road to life is presumed to have been the buildup, by purely chemical synthetic processes occurring on the surface of the early Earth, of all the basic organic compounds necessary for the formation of a living cell. These are supposed to have accumulated in the primeval oceans, creating a nutrient broth, the so-called "prebiotic soup." In certain specialized environments, these organic compounds were assembled into large macromolecules, proteins, and nucleic acids. Eventually, over millions of years, combinations of these macromolecules occurred which were endowed with the property of self-reproduction. Then, driven by natural selection, ever more efficient and complex self-reproducing molecular systems evolved until finally the first simple cell emerged. The existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial to the whole scheme. Without an abiotic accumulation of the building blocks of the cell, no life could ever evolve. . . . Yet rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of a bioticially produced compound been found. Most notable of these rocks are the "dawn rocks" of western Greenland, the earliest dated rocks on Earth, considered to be approaching 3,900 million years old. . . . As on so many occasions, paleontology has again failed to substantiate evolutionary presumptions. Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.

What compounds has he looked for and in what age of rocks do they first appear? Give me some explanation of what the heck he is talking about, or else this is inadmissable.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 11:12 am
Quote:

What compounds has he looked for and in what age of rocks do they first appear? Give me some explanation of what the heck he is talking about, or else this is inadmissable.


It doesn't really sound like you have much of a mental picture of what this so-called "pre-biotic soup" would have amounted to. I mean, we're not talking about some sort of a thin chicken broth here; in order for the theories about life arising out of this stuff by chance to have any shot, this soup would have been thick and consisted of tarry elements which would have impregnated any rocks they came into contact with the same way in which bituminous elements impregnated the remains of ancient forests to create coal. The evidence this would have left would be very, very obvious; nonetheless as Denton notes, there is no such evidence on this planet.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 11:14 am
gung, Have you ever seen amber with insects in them? Maybe not.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 11:14 am
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:

What compounds has he looked for and in what age of rocks do they first appear? Give me some explanation of what the heck he is talking about, or else this is inadmissable.
...in order for the theories about life arising out of this stuff by chance to have any shot, this soup would have been thick and consisted of tarry elements which would have impregnated any rocks they came into contact with the same way in which bituminous elements impregnated the remains of ancient forests to create coal.

Nonsense. Cite your source.

gungasnake wrote:
The evidence this would have left would be very, very obvious; nonetheless as Denton notes, there is no such evidence on this planet.

Answer my previous question about what compounds they have looked for, and in what age of rocks they do first appear.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Darwinian Doubts
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2020 at 08:09:12