Ancient Domains Of Mystery, forum overview / General / Darwinism
| Online users ( Unknown) |
| Application object not working properly at the moment, no clue who is online... * Numbers in parentheses are the number of minutes since the user last loaded a page. Logged-in users time out after 40 minutes (unless they manually log out), lurkers and anonymous posters after 20. |
This thread is 7 pages long.
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds ago. |
Caladriel: Wah, sorry, got carried away a bit. With regards to your point about singularities, that's not necessarily true. A growing number of scientists (including Stephen Hawking) are starting to believe that there might be some quark exclusion principle that stops singularities forming in black holes. As for whether or not there was a singularity before the big bang... we don't know. The only degree of certainty scientists have from the evidence is up to about 3 milliseconds after the start of the universe. F50: The Cambrian explosion happened 542 million years ago according to fossil records, which goes completely against most ID beliefs. Besides, it doesn't classify as a prediction of intelligent design - instead people change the ideas behind ID to fit in with what exists. This goes against the entire definition of scientific theory. A theory must make a prediction that is unknown and can be experimentally verified - to be a sound theory it must make numerous such predictions and not be contradicted repeatedly by scientific evidence. Read up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster to see why Intelligent design doesn't count as a scientific theorem. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5757 days, 2 hours, 13 minutes and 53 seconds ago. |
Flying Spaghetti Monster.....sounds very interesting :D "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds ago. |
Not heard of it? Goodness... Check out the wikipedia article, it's quite humorous. May you be touched by his noodley appendage ;) Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 44 minutes and 3 seconds ago. |
You know that it happened 542 million years ago how? The explosion of fossils fits precisely what you would expect under ID. The date could be argued if I knew how they decided upon that date. If you require predictions to be unknown at the time, then what has Evolution predicted? The missing links would have been such a prediction as at the time they expected to come across some later, but the links they expected one hundred years ago have not yet been uncovered. Are you saying that ID has repeatedly contradicted scientific evidence? Examples please... Another interesting point I could bring up is the origin of symbiosis, something which ID has no problem with but I know of no theory within Evolution to explain the Wrasse cleaning stations. see: Wikipedia: Wrasse I do not see how the FSM has significance when talking about testable theory. FSM makes several points against flawed arguments Christians have made. Actually, I like many of the points it makes. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/16/2007 at 21:07 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes and 26 seconds ago. |
some basics: mutations are random. they can be usefull as well. read wikipedia -- chapter mutations. black holes do have volume. at least theu did last time i was interested in this topic. timing of fossiles -- usually does come from meassuring radioactive isotypes of elemnts. basically carbon. not so basics: why symbiosis should not fit in evolution? basically according modern theories (not so modern, as i keep hearding this for15 years) most of multicellular live arised as symbionts. since mytochondries and chloroplasts have they own indepent DNA, they are believed to be symbionts who merged into some better organized cells billions years ago. speaking about cambrian explosion. read whole article. there is enough explanation in it. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 35 seconds ago. |
F50: The date comes from carhon dating, of course, which is a very exact science, used both for analysing fossil records and archaelogical remains, and even in criminal investigations. ID contradicts a stupendous amount of scientific data. For a start carbon dating of every rock on earth. Geological studies very clearly show the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. Astronomical studies show that the Earth formed out of the protodisc from the sun around that time, and that the universe has been expanding rapidly for the last 14 billion years. The fact that we can see faraway stars is proof that the universe must be older than a few thousands years (otherwise the light wouldn't have reached us yet). It contradicts all fossil records showing humans evolving from apes, and the origins of life going back billions of years. If god really designed all this then he is intentionally deceiving humanity, and I find that very hard to believe. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes and 27 seconds ago. |
carbon dating is not so exact science. don't remember exactly which sea mammal was classical example of this method having flaws. basic contradiction is you can't be 100procent sure what sort of carbon izotype distribution was on earth 500 billions years ago. was it affected my metheorit impact, vulcan activity, geochemical changes? it is very good theory, but not exact. carbon is primal method for organic stuff, rocks are evalued on argon and other elementals,iirc. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
ej Unregistered user |
It all makes sense now. So evolution created life and god is a flying spaghetti monster. |
||
|
Tianjin Registered user for monsters - Death incarnate Last page view: 5592 days, 21 hours, 20 minutes and 14 seconds ago. |
Gozer: "You are suggesting that people ought to act according to their beliefs (be it a belief in Darwinism or anything else) - that to do otherwise would be irrational or an indication that one was not truly committed to the beliefs that one professed to be committed to. However, this is a fallacious argument because emotions - not logic - have the greater influence on our behaviour." There is no question that emotions do influence our behavior, nonetheless, logic DOES influence behavior. (you can give us whatever proportion of emotion to logic you think we act on) E60% L40%? 50/50? 90/10? Acting on emotion instead of logic (rational thought) perfectly fits the definition of irrational. ________________________________________________ That the universe is expanding out from a point is undisputed by almost all astrophysicists. There was a beginning. (whatever you want to call it - Big Bang, the command of God, or the: "Don't touch that! Damnit! Now look what you did!") The big question is: Where did all that matter come from? Caladriel: you need to learn to read more carefully. Try the TiLiCat! It's experience! Tiger, stuffed with deboned Lion, stuffed with deboned Wildcat, and slow roasted with a mix of herbs. (served raw for Trolls) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/18/2007 at 00:24 (GMT -5) by Tianjin] |
||
|
Z Unregistered user |
I know Godel's theorems, it is actually quite easy to prove that something is impossible to be proven (if you know basics of programming). (Godel theorem does not work on any Universe and proof rules, you need to assume some minimal complexity of Universe, and use "our" proof rules.) I don't think there is any problem with Godel's theorems, they don't say that logic is wrong, it just says that there are things which we will never know (and IMO God, if He exists, does not know them either). In my opinion, if we assume existence of things to which logic does not apply, then such a discussion makes no sense since reasoning can lead to anything then. I could likewise say that Godel's theorems are false, because God (who is actually Thomas Biskup) made the world in a way that logic does not apply to it because He loves us, and so there is a way for us to prove everything we want. Or that Universe does not exist at all. IMO it's just simpler to admit that the axiom of causality contradicts itself, and throw it out. |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3592 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes and 3 seconds ago. |
Here's a website (haven't browsed through all their articles) which explain in a scientific way why Earth isn't older than 30k years. I'm not saying I believe all that, but some of you might find it interesting: http://members.aol.com/adobebill/E_Earth.html#a_C-01 For the Horde! [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/17/2007 at 06:50 (GMT -5) by Mewto] |
||
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3891 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
"Well, if God created time when It created the Universe, then I would say that "before" cannot be applied to the Universe, since there was no time or "before" until God created the Universe." That would mean that there was no god before the universe was created, which in turn would lead to the conclusion that god and the universe were created at the same time. Then, who created god? If god is almighty and created the universe and everything, why didn't he make it foolproof? Why did he have to satan and everything eveil too? "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3592 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes and 3 seconds ago. |
We have a choice: we can choose between God and Satan. If we didn't have a choice, we would be just mindless puppets. For the Horde! |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes and 27 seconds ago. |
why God should be related to time? at least time as we understand? isn't it eternal, allmighty, etc? edit: mewto: i read the link. arguments are stupid beyound discussion. guys who wrote them should read basic physics. not quantic one, newton style. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/17/2007 at 11:36 (GMT -5) by Soirana] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes and 48 seconds ago. |
Ok, some rational, scientific thoughts from me: F50, the first wrong assumption you make, is that proteins must come first, and then comes the DNA. If you had some solid biochemistry education, you'd know that proteins come second (it's RNA->Proteins-> other stuff). Enzymes are not only proteins, RNA strands also have the ability to catalyse reactions. Since RNA can come spontainously into being given the right environment, the rest is pure survival of the fittest. DNA is a logical step forward, but only AFTER you're more complicated. As for the rest of your arguments... sorry, but I don't find Inteligent Desing to be a scientific theory. It's just make-believe without any rational base. Being a theory involves being able to be proven right or wrong. If something if PROVEN, then it becomes a THEORY. P.S. John Paul II stated, that evolution does not contradict the teachings of the church. If any of you think otherwise, you should be excommunicated, period. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes and 27 seconds ago. |
speking abot nuclear acids/protein relation: it is very unclear who came first. RNA is way to fragile. i would like to believe start was short protein catalysing his own formation from amino acids. nuclear acids and lipid membranes probably apeared lot of later. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) |
||
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3891 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Mewto: I'd have to agree with Soirana about the link. It's complete b*****t. "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/17/2007 at 12:41 (GMT -5) by Morio] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Mewto: I must say that web-site is quite amazing. It's not just stupidity, it's like a deliberate effort to be as stupid as possible. The statements made are bizarre, and each one would take a matter of minutes to fully tear apart. Most importantly though you shouldn't really trust material that comes from "members.aol.com". You also should not trust anyone that throws facts figures around without quoting his sources. Looks at a wikipedia article on evolution or astronomy and you will see sometimes hundreds of references backing up everything that is said. Furthermore, stop and think about why only American fundamentalist Christians belive in intelligent design - if there were any real truth or evidence behind it then we'd see a lot more scientists of all faiths across the world endorsing it. It should also be noted that our present theories of evolution do not explain everything. It is just a theory after all, and we will probably never know the full facts behind every detail of the world (all science is like that - constantly pushing back the boundaries of ignorance, but there are always things missing from our understanding that we can only guess at). It is quite easy to argue that god has encouraged life to evolve, and in particular influenced the evolution and development of man, without contradicting any scientific evidence. This is what the vast majority of religions these days preach. There's no proof of it, but then there's nothing to say it's impossible - it's just a matter of faith. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/17/2007 at 12:56 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
Mewto Registered user Last page view: 3592 days, 14 hours, 41 minutes and 3 seconds ago. |
Heh, I didn't say I believed that stuff :)) I read an article in which someone criticized that same website, probably the funniest article I've read this month. Like Darren Grey said, "our present theories of evolution do not explain everything". If humanity survives 500 years, people would probably have different theories by then. It's like with those SF movies, to have engines capable of intergalactic travel, the current laws of physics would probably have to be re-thought. Sometimes I wish Einstein would have been born last decade :/ For the Horde! |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5757 days, 2 hours, 13 minutes and 54 seconds ago. |
I personally wish I was born in the middle ages......would've loved to be a knight...or roman times too....sigh....I yearn for the simple life.... "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
Mewto: Current ideas won't be scrapped, just revised and refined. This has already happened to evolution in fact - Darwin's original ideas have been superceded by similar but more complex ideas which explain more things in detail. In physics this sort of thing happens all the time - Newtonian gravity was superceded by Einstein's general relativity, and one day it will be superceded by a quantum theory of gravity or some superstring theory. But the old stuff is still known and taught in schools, because it is still correct - just not to 100% accuracy. Similarly "survival of the fittest" that's taught in schools is an oversimplification of something that modern evolution theories have advanced beyond. Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." |
||
|
nOOb-mAsTeR Registered user Master of all things nOOby!!! Last page view: 5757 days, 2 hours, 13 minutes and 54 seconds ago. |
My school doesn't teach anything...considering that they say that every possible method isn't true...(I dunno if anybody here knows about this, but anyways: a school nearby mine(Dover) last year had a teacher who taught intelligent design in his biology class, and atheist students in his class sued the school for trying to impress religion upon them. This was a big issue for weeks, which is probably why my school avoids all possible issues) "You try to give Fang, the large dog the bone. Fang, the large dog says,"Do you know who I am, mortal?!?!" My smartest dog ever:D |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 44 minutes and 4 seconds ago. |
"If something if PROVEN, then it becomes a THEORY." According to the definition of science in my most recent textbook science can't PROVE anything beyond doubt. Science is too error prone to say something that conclusively. A THEORY was defined as being consistent with the data (given a reasonable amount of data). A law is something that has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt (contradicting no evidence). Evolution is *not* a law. From wikipedia (in the article about the "beneficial" mutation mentioned in the mutation article): "The allele has a negative effect upon T cell function, but appears to protect against smallpox, plague and HIV." This is not a good mutation. Sure, it does protect against certain diseases, but that doesn't make it good. You will have a net health increase if you contract one of these diseases but really, you are better off without it. Sickle-cell anemia an another such condition, giving resistance to malaria. In both of these cases the health of the person affected is negatively effected. That and most of said diseases (including malaria) are easy enough to avoid here in North America provided you aren't born (or near to it) with them. "F50: The date comes from carhon dating, of course, which is a very exact science, used both for analysing fossil records and archaelogical remains, and even in criminal investigations." Criminal investigations is good. You have a good chance of knowing the atmospheric surroundings and there is less time for contamination. Exact science is not what I would call analyzing fossil records. If the Earth had a higher atmospheric pressure at the time... And here is an Evolutionist's article about carbon dating: "We can't date things that are too old. After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all. If you hear of a carbon dating up in the millions of years, you're hearing a confused report." The reason symbiosis would have trouble developing (with specific regard to the Wrasse)is this: 1. The Wrasse eats dirt off of mouth of other (carnivorous) fish. Other fish eats Wrasse. 2. Other fish waits for cleaning. Wrasse stays clear. The Wrasse then, should be confined to cleaning fish that would not eat fish of similar size to the Wrasse. However there are Wrasses that clean such fish. Both behaviors must have started at the same time. How (other than by ID)? "[ID] contradicts all fossil records showing humans evolving from apes, and the origins of life going back billions of years." What records? Ramapithecus: jawbone (about two inches of it). Australopithecus: Southern Ape (its an ape!) Lucy: Assorted fragments (ape and human) Skull 1470: Dated 2.6 million years old (probably C-14, no wonder). Human, perfectly human. Java Man: Human. Possibly only 500 years old. Neanderthal Man: Modern human suffered from diseases. Brain size 10% to 15% larger than average human. Piltdown Man: Hoax. Some suspect Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle. Nebraska Man: Tooth from extinct pig. PS: To repeat an earlier question: What has Evolution predicted? Pigs haven't evolved wings...yet. PPS: Don't mean to sound hostile. Have fun and don't mind the pun. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/17/2007 at 19:41 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Soirana Registered user Chaos Freak Last page view: 4142 days, 17 hours, 35 minutes and 27 seconds ago. |
pigs haven't evolved wings but lizards did:) (dinosaurs i meant) you are seriously messed with human ancestors. both Neanderthal Man and Australopithecus are side branches. fossiles are lot of noumerous. (h.habilis, h.erectus) wrasse feeds also on ectoparasytes. so it possible started cleaning each other (common stuff in animal world). than some other fish get involved. for stoping mess cleaning station appears. mouth cleaning should appear very late. mainly as result of fact: other fish very rarely eats wrasse. even without clearing. as said carbon is not the only method. you can take any element and meassure it is izitopes. some have long half period some short. if you are stuck with mutation fear, try this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html edit: >The allele has a negative effect upon T cell function to by best knowledge of source materials statement is quite uncertain. A root is a flower that disdains fame. Kahlil Gibran(1883-1931) [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/18/2007 at 00:13 (GMT -5) by Soirana] |
||
|
Darren Grey Registered user Last page view: 4232 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
F50: By the theory of evolution one can easily predict a number of things that weren't discovered until much much later. For instance if all life evolved from a common source then the very basics of how we pass on genetic information must be the same in all animals, and the actual genetic code should be similar. Low and behold, a few decades ago we discovered DNA, and modern mappings ofthe genome show remarkable similarities between us and other creatures. Things like the evolution of the eye are easy to infer from Darwin's theories, but weren't understood and proved properly until very recently. Big Bang makes predictions like how much of each type of element there should be in different parts of the universe, or the way the doppler shift should change between stars and galaxies - very easy to observe and verify these. It made a prediction about there being a microwave background radiation that wasn't discovered until decades later (and which was in fact discovered quite by accident). Intelligent Design made a few predictions when it first came out that have since been disproven - the evolution of the eye is one of them (the argument originally was that something as complex as the eye couldn't have evolved since it has so many key components, but this is easily disproven both by fossil records of the eye's evolution and by looking at animals with less advanced eyes). Other things like how old the Earth should be are also easily disproven. One thing I'm presently wondering - what do people who support intelligent design believe about the likes of dinosaurs? Waldenbrook, the dwarven shopkeeper, mumbles: "I'd offer 9 gold pieces for yer dwarven child corpse." [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/18/2007 at 08:25 (GMT -5) by Darren Grey] |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 44 minutes and 4 seconds ago. |
Microwave background is part of big bang (regardless of how it was commissioned) not necessarily the theory of Evolution. After reading an article about misconceptions about the big bang it really makes a lot more sense. There are several theories regarding dinosaurs: 1. They are just that, "terrible lizards". Lizards never stop growing and in ideal early-earth conditions with less disease, higher air pressure, and other factors, long-life = long-lizard. 2. Most of them were wiped out by the flood (which would allow for some nice fossilization circumstances as well). 3. Some Dinosaurs still live(d). There are pictures of Catholic Saints killing dragons etc. Most of these were eventually slain by man. Water monsters though, have largely escaped man's wrath In other words, the Loch Ness Monster might just be (or have been) real). ID makes predictions about civilization long ago. Therefore, archeology the fossil record are places to look. The human (as in modern man) tracks at the bottom of the grand canyon are an example of this (I think the flood could've created the grand canyon in much the same way Mt. St. Helens created its canyon complete with a river at the bottom). While DNA makes lots of sense with Evolution. It also makes sense as to ID. The mutations article you pointed me to agrees with me. "...a mutation may be favorable in the sense that it permits survival in an unfavorable environment and yet be unfavorable in a better environment." mutations that are all good -- like a mutation that develops a better sense of smell or a sense of smell specifically tuned to prey or a mutation that grants a new ability -- have not yet been discovered. I'll disprove more ape/man skeletons when I have time later. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/18/2007 at 14:54 (GMT -5) by F50] |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes and 48 seconds ago. |
F50, dinosaurs were NOT lizards. I think that you have little knowledge about biology, if you state that they were. IIRC The only "dinosaurs" that live up to today are birds. And if evolution is impossible, then I guess my work will be impossible. As an animal breeder (in training), my job is to create animals better suited to human needs by the mechanisms of evolution. Just sped up by quick generation cycling and stoping 99,5% of the animals (male ones) from breeding. But since evolution is a false theory, I guess my life is ruined, huh? A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. |
||
|
F50 Registered user Last page view: 5469 days, 3 hours, 44 minutes and 4 seconds ago. |
Evolution /= Natural Selection. There is a very *big* difference. Natural selection has nothing to do with mutations. Natural selection works within the genes of a given species. Natural selection is incapable of transforming one species into another (though since the definition of species in uncertain it would probably be better to say genus instead of species). I said there were several theories about the dinosaurs. I didn't necessarily say I agreed with them. Actually I haven't really thought about the dinosaurs, just picked up a few ideas in passing. "If the bread weights that much in the draklor chain, then it's no wonder so many die of starvation. AND - what kind of IRON RATION weights as much as an iron shield?! A dinner for four, oven included? ;)" -Maelstrom |
||
|
Maelstrom Registered user The Knight of the Black Rose Last page view: 3110 days, 7 hours, 47 minutes and 48 seconds ago. |
You're mixing things up. Selection is just a tool I use to get what I need. It is used to spread mutations, and that is what I do. Like the mutation of the miostatin gene, which has really improven the muscle growth of cattle. That is evolution. A new gene pops up, and spreads due to selection. When the population is incapable of breeding with it's former brethren, then it can be called a new species. If I remember correctly, a desert fly has divided into 2 seperate species during my life time. A pessimist sees a dark tunnel. An optimist sees a light at the end of that tunnel. A realist sees a train. And the train driver sees three idiots on the tracks. [Edited 1 time, last edit on 5/19/2007 at 13:16 (GMT -5) by Maelstrom] |
||
|
Morio Registered user Holy Champion of ADoM Last page view: 3891 days, 10 hours, 34 minutes and 36 seconds ago. |
I remember reading about an experiment with fruit flies. Two colonies of fruit flies were kept separate from each other, and after a few generations the flies from different colonies couldn't get offspring with eachother. Also some butterflies that used to be white have turned black after coal powerplants have been build and the trees aren't as white anymore. "I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with, but I know World War 4 with be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein |
| Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |