At Quanta: Mathematical Analysis of Fruit Fly Wings Hints at Evolution’s Limits

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 21, 2021

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On one hand, despite dramatic mutations in individuals’ genes and diverse environments in which they grow, members of a species develop into strikingly similar creatures. This robustness ensures that almost all individuals are functional. On the other hand, for evolution to occur, members of a species need diverse traits that natural selection can act upon. Those two forces — robustness and evolvability — tug in opposite directions. One wants less variation, and one wants more.
Around 20 years ago, biologists expected genetics and environmental factors to produce substantial heterogeneity, giving natural selection plenty of choice, said Alex Lancaster, an evolutionary biologist at the Ronin Institute in New Jersey who wasn’t involved in the new study. But, he said, more recent observations have attested to unexpected similarity across populations…
The photos of fly wings offered no clues as to the mechanisms that restrict the possible morphologies that can develop. Rather, the results substantiated the extensive power of these guardrails. Natural selection must mostly act on the significant diversity exhibited in the small number of linked, variable traits, while robustness tightly constrains the rest. Elena Renken, “Mathematical Analysis of Fruit Fly Wings Hints at Evolution’s Limits” at Quanta

Evolution has LIMITS? Isn’t it supposed to account for everything? Put another way, consider the Darwinian claim:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, wherever and whenever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.

The claim is doubtful, given the huge constraints on the system.

The paper is open access.

Comments

Hanks
flip-floped from randomness to determinism
You noticed that in a complicated switch that went back on itself. From a starting point forward circling back to the opposite. There's always some semblance of order in all natural phenomena but we're looking at a question of degree. We consider some forces deterministic because they are highly predictable (not absolutely perfectly predictable in any and all possible cases). Others we call random because they are mostly or highly unpredictable. Saying "some day we will be able to predict it perfectly" is an unproven assumption. Until we can predict it, the best description for the process is that it is random. That is, unless someone wants to assert the theological proposition that "nothing is random because all is known by God" - that's certainly true but the proof for that has to go into the proofs for the existence and omniscience and omnipotence of God (which is not a bad idea to work from).Silver Asiatic_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
Like any good paradox, it’s only contradictory until you understand it. A lot of things are not what they appear at first sight. Chaos is seemingly random because the patterns look like they are not predictable but...
I think any good paradox is something we cannot truly understand - that's why it's a paradox. In this case, it's the same. What you provided was a paradoxical, contradictory explanation - not an understanding. You said "chaos is seemingly random because the patterns look like they're not predictable, but ..." What should follow from that is something like "but, it's not random because it is predictable". That's the parallelism. "It seems random because it seems unpredictable, however, it's deterministic because it is predictable". Instead, however, you just preserved the paradox.
Chaos is seemingly random because the patterns look like they are not predictable, but if you look under the hood they are perfectly deterministic.
Chaos is seemingly random because it seems not predictable, however it's not random because when you understand, it is perfectly predictable. But no - you didn't say that. You said instead, Chaos seems random because it seems not predictable, however, if you look under the hood, it is deterministic. That doesn't solve the contradiction. You should say "when you look under the hood, it is predictable". That's how to show the non-randomness. Just show the predictability and thus eliminate the illusion that it is random. But the fact is, it's not predictable - therefore even though there is some mathematical modelling involved, chaos seems random and actually must be considered random until or unless it is predictable. Every natural occurrence, force or process contains some semblance of order. But that's not enough to describe everything as deterministic.Silver Asiatic_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H Like any good paradox, it’s only contradictory until you understand it. A lot of things are not what they appear at first sight. Chaos is seemingly random because the patterns look like they are not predictable, but if you look under the hood they are perfectly deterministic.
You know that and you still believe in darwinist evolution? :) Haha , you know the new studies on epigenetic that nothing in cell is random therefore all processes are goal oriented and you(as a darwinist) flip-floped from randomness to determinism but you keep the darwinist dogma. It's like a commandment that biologists obey blindly no matter what evidences say. Big-time cognitive dissonance .Hanks_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

Queriuys @ 109 -
This is hopeless. Yes, the equations are deterministic, but the variables need to have INFINITE precision for the outcomes to be deterministic.
You're right, it is hopeless. You now don't seem to be aware that rounding is a deterministic process. There are even standards for how to do it (e.g. see IEEE 754).
Question: Why does the double pendulum system behave in such a bizarre way without repeating itself?
Because it's chaotic. But the finite representation will repeat, thanks to discretisation (and thus a finite state space), and hence be in a limit cycle.Bob O'H_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

SA @ 106 -
you can get seemingly random behaviour from totally deterministic systems That’s a paradox. Or, in other words, contradictory. I’m not saying it is false, but just that it violates logic given what we mean by deterministic and by random.
Like any good paradox, it's only contradictory until you understand it. A lot of things are not what they appear at first sight. Chaos is seemingly random because the patterns look like they are not predictable, but if you look under the hood they are perfectly deterministic.Bob O'H_{September 29, 2021
September
09
Sep
29
29
2021
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H @105,
Again, no. This is simply wrong. Some of us (obviously not you) have looked at the mathematics, and yes the equations are totally 100% deterministic.
This is hopeless. Yes, the equations are deterministic, but the variables need to have INFINITE precision for the outcomes to be deterministic. They aren’t, so we get observable and measurable chaos.
No, the mathematical operations don’t involve rounding. The computational operation may do, though.
Yes, finally you’re starting to get it! Now, please watch the double pendulum video linked above. Question: Why does the double pendulum system behave in such a bizarre way without repeating itself?
Do you know have any idea how weather models work? They don’t model behaviour at a small enough scale for chaotic behaviour to dominate the uncertainty: they split the world up into blocks, and model the large-scale behaviour within and between blocks. The blocks are large enough to contain hundreds of butterflies flapping their wings.
Yes, I do happen to know how weather models work. Question: If the models are so good, why is weather prediction so poor? If you did your homework, you might know about the famous theoretical computation of putting a complete weather station at the corners of every square meter on the surface of the earth, and then repeating the process at one-meter increments from the surface of the earth out to the practical limits of the atmosphere (the so-called “high-temperature cold zone”). Question: Do you know the computational result of this theoretical experiment with regard to weather prediction? What you still don’t get is that any of those butterflies can be the direct cause for rapid and surprisingly dramatic changes within a weather cell that can quickly amplify into, for example, a tornado at a great distance away. Oddly enough, chaotic systems are also observable in mathematics. Question: Since you’re claiming to be knowledgeable in chaos theory, can you provide an example of a chaotic system from mathematics? Oh, and what about the other questions previously posed to you? -QQuerius_{September 28, 2021
September
09
Sep
28
28
2021
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Determinism is an assumption that covers for our lack of knowledge of the process built-in place at the Big Bang. We don't know why physical processes give orderly outputs (which we call 'deterministic'). Science does not know if there is an underlying, determined order producing laws and effects that determine outcomes. Actually, material processes cannot actually "determine" anything since they are mindless and just operate somewhat regularly. But there's no reason why these could not change radically at any moment - we just assume they will stay constant.Silver Asiatic_{September 28, 2021
September
09
Sep
28
28
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Is the concept of random, just deterministic events that are too complex to be understood exactly? So we make up a word to describe the unpredictability of the future outcomes of extremely complicated systems, that is called “random.” Extremely useful. It’s much much easier to deal with a range of outcomes rather than trying to be precise. Over time, predictions of the outcomes of these complicated systems gets better and better such as weather predictions. Or how frequently certain variations to genomes will show up. But this latter phenomenon has nothing to do with the Evolution debate, so worrying about it leads no where in that discussion. Extremely relevant in genetics though.jerry_{September 28, 2021
September
09
Sep
28
28
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
you can get seemingly random behaviour from totally deterministic systems
That's a paradox. Or, in other words, contradictory. I'm not saying it is false, but just that it violates logic given what we mean by deterministic and by random. The way to disprove that an output is random is by indicating where the deterministic outputs will land with precision. An aircraft flying from NY to Los Angeles is a deterministic process. We can indicate the endpoint with precise accuracy, the exact space where it will land - even within inches. There's some randomness from environment and human involvement, but the precision of the measure far-outweighs the randomness of the system. We call the weather random because we can't show that kind of precision as a deterministic output. From our perspective, the weather remains a random output until or unless it can be demonstrated as deterministic. Until then, we can assume that it's deterministic, but we don't know that and calling it random is more accurate (given that we accept the idea of randomness). Saying something is "seemingly random" - is the paradox. If it "seems random" to any and all human analysis - then it is random. If some human analysis clearly shows deterministic end-points for the process - then it doesn't "seem random" after all. That's how it is shown to be determined. Dawkins says that nature "seems designed" but is actually the output of blind, unguided, non-designing processes. Then evolutionary theory attempts to prove that by showing what blind processes can do. The same has to be true with a claim that "weather seems random but really is deterministic". It's not enough to just make the assumption - highly accurate demonstrations need to follow. If there are a multitude of errors or complexities or scale considerations that make it impossible to show that the process is determined - then calling it random is the most accurate definition and we're not justified in calling it deterministic.Silver Asiatic_{September 28, 2021
September
09
Sep
28
28
2021
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 100 -
Again, the choice is not binary. Chaotic systems are neither deterministic nor random:
Again, no. This is simply wrong. Some of us (obviously not you) have looked at the mathematics, and yes the equations are totally 100% deterministic. That is the whole reason why they are interesting: you can get seemingly random behaviour from totally deterministic systems.
1. If you pick a point in space, its measurement will (overwhelmingly) have irrational coordinates. 2. Thus, any mathematical operation on it will of necessity involve rounding.
No, the mathematical operations don't involve rounding. The computational operation may do, though.
This is why weather and other chaotic events are not predictable beyond a short amount of time.
Do you know have any idea how weather models work? They don't model behaviour at a small enough scale for chaotic behaviour to dominate the uncertainty: they split the world up into blocks, and model the large-scale behaviour within and between blocks. The blocks are large enough to contain hundreds of butterflies flapping their wings. Uncertain non-chaotic events will also not be predictable beyond a short time span, because the errors propagate through time. So that's not diagnostic of chaotic (or, to be fair, uncertain) dynamics.Bob O'H_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

:) What is that? Bobby O'Hara flip-floped like Dawkins Dawkins contradictions on Junk DNAHanks_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic, Yes, exactly. And this hope of a future proof is like Darwinists hoping for some magical missing links to provide the evidence they need. Hope is another word for faith. Some people choose to put their faith in God, others choose put their faith in undiscovered and perhaps imaginary evidences for materialistic naturalism. -QQuerius_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Querius
It’s not about complexity, the unpredictability of outcomes is about the infinite number of digits required to compute any chaotic system deterministically.
If it cannot be demonstrated that the system is deterministic, then it is just an assumption waiting for some proof. It's like saying that all environmental conditions on earth can be traced back to initial conditions present at the big bang - but we don't know that.Silver Asiatic_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
Err, yes, of course. So?
Yes. Of course. As we agreed. We do not know much, if anything, of the environmental factors affecting affecting selection coefficients over the course of 3 billion years of life on earth. Therefore, we view the selection coefficients as random (or at least can be modelled as being random). That is -we don't know much if anything of the environmental factors. "If anything" means, probably nothing. Yes, as agreed. If we knew the selection coefficients, then selection is deterministic. But as stated, one reason changes in allele frequency are random is that the environment changes in (seemingly) random ways, and so the selection coefficients are random. So, that's good to know. Since we don't know anything about the multitude of environmental factors affecting the selection coefficients as we Yes - both agreed - we don't know for the history of 3 billion years of life on earth. That is, therefore, the selection coefficients are random - as stated and agreed upon. If most or all of the selection coefficients are random, because most or all of the environmental factors are random - then we say that the selection coefficients are random, or can be modelled as such. I'm just expressing the idea that "selection is non-random" - except in those cases where environmental factors are random. That is, except for the effect of combined environmental changes on the entire history of the 3 billion years of life on earth. That's just another way of saying "selection is non-random" with some exceptions. It's just qualifying the statement with what is random. Selection is non-random except for that which is random. I proposed some numeric values for that part which is random, but you didn't like those numbers. Let's just leave it with this general agreement between you and me - this has been good.Silver Asiatic_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @94
And yes, I do know what a strange attractor is. I even know that it’s a deterministic path, i.e. it is NOT RANDOM.
But I bet you didn't watch the video. right? Again, the choice is not binary. Chaotic systems are neither deterministic nor random: 1. If you pick a point in space, its measurement will (overwhelmingly) have irrational coordinates. 2. Thus, any mathematical operation on it will of necessity involve rounding. 3. The rounded off digits will introduce chaos surprisingly quickly, causing paths to diverge. This is why weather and other chaotic events are not predictable beyond a short amount of time.
The reason weather is not totally predictable is not because it’s chaotic, it’s because the system is too big, not because the earth’s atmosphere is a simple system with a large enough Lyopanov exponent.
A positive maximal Lyapunov exponent is said to indicate a chaotic system. With weather, we're starting with a chaotic system. It's not about complexity unless you want to argue that a double pendulum is a "complex" system. Good luck on that. After you watch the video that I previously linked to (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDek6cYijxI), watch this animation of the chaotic behavior or a double pendulum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z8wLLPNE0 It's not about complexity, the unpredictability of outcomes is about the infinite number of digits required to compute any chaotic system deterministically. We don't have them, so you can't. Now, about the previous questions that you're still refusing to answer . . . -QQuerius_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

But even so, I do not think we know much, if anything, of the environmental factors affecting selection coefficients over the course of 3 billion years of life on earth.
Err, yes, of course. So?Bob O'H_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
I could use the same argument to argue that gravity is random, because we know so little about the movement of all particles with mass.
Ok, we're back to viewing selection as a force like gravity. But even so, I do not think we know much, if anything, of the environmental factors affecting selection coefficients over the course of 3 billion years of life on earth. We can't even fully predict weather having direct measurements of conditions in the present day.Silver Asiatic_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Sa @ 95 -
Where I expect you will add more is with the idea that environmental conditions are seemingly random. That is, the belief that “it appears random but is actually deterministic”. I don’t think we can know that.
Indeed. That's why I didn't want to say more. It doesn't matter when modelling evolution if it is random or deterministic, because we'll model it with random processes anyway.
We know almost nothing about the combined effect of environmental factors for any single species. To quantify? We know 1% of the environmental changes? Maybe? If so – then we could say “selection is 99% random – we know only 1% of the selection coefficients in nature in the wild over the development of life on earth”. Agreed?
No, you're conflating the environment, selection, and the response to selection. I could use the same argument to argue that gravity is random, because we know so little about the movement of all particles with mass.Bob O'H_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr “What Evolution Is”
I notice that Mayr ignores environmental randomness as a factor except for "haphazard extinctions". That's a common strategy among evolutionists, even in this case where he admits how random the process is. When adding continual and an enormous number of random environmental factors (even mutations within species change the environment - not to mention climate, geographical changes, competition, nutrition changes, plant, insect, bacterial, virus additions and deletions, toxins, accidental deaths, changing food supplies - digestive abilities, size and number of niches, epigenetic factors, migration, changing reproductive strategies) ... all of that is added randomness that is virutally impossible to model even for a single period of time for a single species over the course of 3 billion years of life on earth.Silver Asiatic_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
I think what you are trying to get at is that changes in allele frequency are random, and one reason for this is that the environment changes in (seemingly) random ways, and so the selection coefficients are random (or at least can be modelled as being random). But once we know the selection coefficients, selection is deterministic.
Yes, that's what I was getting at and that was a good response - answering my original request for an explanation of the idea "selection is non-random". It lines up with my understanding. Where I expect you will add more is with the idea that environmental conditions are seemingly random. That is, the belief that "it appears random but is actually deterministic". I don't think we can know that. Normally, if it seems random, from a scientific perspective, we accept it as random. That said, you offered a good qualification on the statement: "selection is not random". That is: "Selection is random except when we know the effect of a multitude of environmental factors and therefore know the selection coefficients." I'd follow that by proposing, that over the past the 3 billion years of life on earth, we know very little if anything of the environmental factors affecting selection coeffieients. Changes in bacteria, viruses, plants, nutrition, climate, presences of competitors - collaborators, size and distribution of niches, geographical structures, droughts, floods, accidental occurences, adaptations to different diets, toxic substances-plants-insects ... We know almost nothing about the combined effect of environmental factors for any single species. To quantify? We know 1% of the environmental changes? Maybe? If so - then we could say "selection is 99% random - we know only 1% of the selection coefficients in nature in the wild over the development of life on earth". Agreed?Silver Asiatic_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Queroius -
So, the weather, which is chaotic, is “totally predictable”? Do you even know what a strange attracter is?
The reason weather is not totally predictable is not because it's chaotic, it's because the system is too big, not because the earth's atmosphere is a simple system with a large enough Lyopanov exponent. And yes, I do know what a strange attractor is. I even know that it's a deterministic path, i.e. it is NOT RANDOM.Bob O'H_{September 27, 2021
September
09
Sep
27
27
2021
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H @90,
NO! Chaos is deterministic: that’s the whole point. It can produce patterns that look random, but it is totally predictable.
So, the weather, which is chaotic, is "totally predictable"? Do you even know what a strange attracter is? I bet you didn't watch the video link. Now, how about the questions that you never got around to answering . . . ET @92, The effect of natural selection is actually pretty subtle. By far, natural selection is mostly about survival of the luckiest and, as you wrote, it's all about elimination rather than innovation. Had Bob O'H actually read the book he'd dissed, he'd know about the "evolutionary" battle between malaria and humans and how long it takes in several relevant cases--as historically observed and confirmed by Michael Behe's back-of-the-envelope calculations. -QQuerius_{September 26, 2021
September
09
Sep
26
26
2021
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Strange that evos say there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. Is contingent serendipity really deterministic? From "What Evolution Is" page 117:
What Darwin called natural selection is actually a process of elimination.
Page 118:
Do selection and elimination differ in their evolutionary consequences? This question never seems to have been raised in the evolutionary literature. A process of selection would have a concrete objective, the determination of the “best” or “fittest” phenotype. Only a relatively few individuals in a given generation would qualify and survive the selection procedure. That small sample would be only to be able to preserve only a small amount of the whole variance of the parent population. Such survival selection would be highly restrained. By contrast, mere elimination of the less fit might permit the survival of a rather large number of individuals because they have no obvious deficiencies in fitness. Such a large sample would provide, for instance, the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection. This also explains why survival is so uneven from season to season. The percentage of the less fit would depend on the severity of each year’s environmental conditions.
He goes on to clarify NS and chance's role:
The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. Chance plays an important role even at the second step, the process of elimination of the less fit individuals. Chance may be particularly important in the haphazard survival during periods of mass extinction.- Ernst Mayr "What Evolution Is"
It isn't clear that Bob O'H understands natural selection.ET_{September 26, 2021
September
09
Sep
26
26
2021
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

This discussion is an illustration of the red herring nature of selection and the futility of discussing it. Selection definitely exist but is irrelevant in the Evolution debate. Some people are obsessed with this process when they should just accept that it’s real but irrelevant to the debate. And then move on to the real issues. Over and done with. Never to be revisited again except when someone suggest it has anything to do with the Evolution debate. Similarly the fixation on Darwin should be discarded. Taking the position that Darwin discovered something useful but what he discovered has nothing to do with the Evolution debate is the much more powerful argument. Trying to discredit him is actually counterproductive. The headline should be
ID accepts Darwin’s ideas but show they have nothing to do with evolution
Irony is the more powerful approach.jerry_{September 26, 2021
September
09
Sep
26
26
2021
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Querius @ 79 -
Chaos theory reveals how outcomes can be both random and deterministic at the same time–they can coexist and are compatible.
NO! Chaos is deterministic: that's the whole point. It can produce patterns that look random, but it is totally predictable. The notion that deterministic and random process can coexist is thoroughly uncontroversial, and is the basis of the analysis of pretty much any experiment.Bob O'H_{September 26, 2021
September
09
Sep
26
26
2021
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

SA @ 75 -
My point is that it doesn’t make sense to offer an unqualified statement like “selection is non-random” as you did.
On the contrary, it does if you actually know what you are talking about.
The fact that selection does not act in some circumstances, along with the idea that we don’t know why it didn’t – means that is it more random than non-random, and it is more unlike gravity than it is similar to it.
But we do know why: the selection coefficients are 1. I think what you are trying to get at is that changes in allele frequency are random, and one reason for this is that the environment changes in (seemingly) random ways, and so the selection coefficients are random (or at least can be modelled as being random). But once we know the selection coefficients, selection is deterministic.Bob O'H_{September 26, 2021
September
09
Sep
26
26
2021
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

Hanks- Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes producing the diversity of life starting with some unknown populations of prokaryotes, is incompatible with God. Obviously God-guided evolution is compatible with God.ET_{September 25, 2021
September
09
Sep
25
25
2021
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Hanks @83,
Querius do you believe God is the source of death ? Evolution is incompatible with God. You can’t have the cake and eat it.
Do you believe that the God created both the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? And who created the Lake of Fire, the second death? And yet God wants us to choose life! To answer your question, I don't believe that evolution is incompatible with God, but I think it's more complicated than either/or. Here's what I believe: - God created the universe and all life on earth. - Life did not "evolve" from non-living chemicals. I don't believe in "goo to you." - General body plans (kinds) were designed by God. Bears didn't evolve into whales as Darwin proposed. - Living things were designed to adapt to changes in environment--fine tuning within a narrow range. There are several ingenious mechanisms for adaptation, perhaps five or six. Mutation is by far the weakest. For example, feathers might be homologous to scales, but they didn't "evolve" from scales. - The fundamental nature of all things is information and consciousness. As John 1:1 states, "In the beginning was the Logos"--the Word, which is personified in the form of Yeshua, Jesus, "was with God and was God." The choice isn't between having a cake and eating it. God created amazing designs for His glory and for our delight in being able to try to figure out what He made and how it works. God is incredibly brilliant and loving, and He gave us the freedom to choose. -QQuerius_{September 25, 2021
September
09
Sep
25
25
2021
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Code doesn't rhyme with Darwin.Hanks_{September 25, 2021
September
09
Sep
25
25
2021
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply