Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Sci-News: Moths Produce Ultrasonic Defensive Sounds to Fend Off Bat Predators

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scientists from Boise State University and elsewhere have tested 252 genera from most families of large-bodied moths. Their results show that ultrasound-producing moths are far more widespread than previously thought, adding three new sound-producing organs, eight new subfamilies and potentially thousands of species to the roster.

A molecular phylogeny of Lepidoptera indicating antipredator ultrasound production across the order. Image credit: Barber et al., doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117485119.

Bats pierce the shadows with ultrasonic pulses that enable them to construct an auditory map of their surroundings, which is bad news for moths, one of their favorite foods.

However, not all moths are defenseless prey. Some emit ultrasonic signals of their own that startle bats into breaking off pursuit.

Many moths that contain bitter toxins avoid capture altogether by producing distinct ultrasounds that alert bats to their foul taste. Others conceal themselves in a shroud of sonar-jamming static that makes them hard to find with bat echolocation.

While effective, these types of auditory defense mechanisms in moths are considered relatively rare, known only in tiger moths, hawk moths and a single species of geometrid moth.

“It’s not just tiger moths and hawk moths that are doing this,” said Dr. Akito Kawahara, a researcher at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

“There are tons of moths that create ultrasonic sounds, and we hardly know anything about them.”

In the same way that non-toxic butterflies mimic the colors and wing patterns of less savory species, moths that lack the benefit of built-in toxins can copy the pitch and timbre of genuinely unappetizing relatives.

These ultrasonic warning systems seem so useful for evading bats that they’ve evolved independently in moths on multiple separate occasions.

In each case, moths transformed a different part of their bodies into finely tuned organic instruments.

[I’ve put these quotes from the article in bold to highlight the juxtaposition of “evolved independently” and “finely tuned organic instruments.” Fine-tuning is, of course, often associated with intelligent design, rather than unguided natural processes.]

See the full article in Sci-News.

Comments
What do you see as the difference
I personally don’t see any real difference. As I said FSCO/I is not something I have ever seen anyone use except a couple people here. Maybe someone else can explain what may be different between it and plain FSCI. Maybe someone else can explain why it is meaningfully different.jerry
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Jerry: No it’s all functional. You also said earlier There really is no difference between them that is meaningful So I'm deriving from this that you think CSI and FSCO/I are almost (but not quite) identical? What do you see as the difference? In my imaginary example, I suggested an abstract painting that perhaps showed CSI but with no obvious "function". Say perhaps a painting like a Mondrian? Would that be considered to have a function? Or should CSI and FSCO/I really just be confined to biology?Fordgreen
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
CSI is more generic metric which detects design but one that is not necessarily “functional”
No it’s all functional. Maybe someone can provide an example where CSI points to something that’s not functional. I don’t know any. For example, every sentence/phrase/most words are CSI. They point to something else which means something. So every sentence in your comment is CSI, a combination of symbols that point to something that has meaning. See https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-sci-news-moths-produce-ultrasonic-defensive-sounds-to-fend-off-bat-predators/#comment-762411 which is a comment above.
As to bits, I’m still not quite clear about that either
A bit is a binary number used in computers. 1 bit is 0 or 1 or 2 possibilities; 2 bits are 00, 01, 10 and 11 or 4 possibilities. 3 bits are 8 possibilities. Etc. 20 bits are 1,048,576 possibilities. 500 bits is an extremely large number. It is bigger than all the particles in the universe multiplied by all the nano seconds or transitions since the Big Bang. In other words all the possible locations of every particle since the origin of the universe. Seems like a fantastically large number but a typical paragraph in a book is more than 500 bits. The possibility of getting such a paragraph by random processes that produces letters and punctuation exceeds the number of particles in the universe at every possible location since then. In other words, impossible.jerry
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Jerry, KF: thanks for your explanations! If I was to put this into my own words then, CSI is more generic metric which detects design but one that is not necessarily “functional”? And I’m correct in understanding the design is beyond the probabilities that could have happened through nature or randomly. I’m trying to imagine what that may look like and the best I could come up with some kind of elaborate pattern with perhaps repeating segments? Perhaps something that may be found in an abstract painting? It’s specified and complex but doesn’t really have a function? Not sure I’m quite getting that yet. And is the complex piece of this due to the probability aspect? As to bits, I’m still not quite clear about that either. Based on Jerry’s explanation then if complexity is measure in 500-1000 bits does that mean a large probability of 1 to the power of 500 or to the power of 1000? Is this is what is meant by “threshold”? That anything with a lower probability (higher power) is beyond the threshold of reasonableness? But how were these numbers (500 to 1000) determined? Why them and not say 300-800? So FSCO/I then is really the same as CSI but in this case the specified design has an actual functional use. Again, I’m not quite clear about what is meant by “functional” here - is that something functional that is perceived by human beings, or something else? I think somebody needs to write a “CSI and FSCO/I for Dummies” book! After all if this stuff matters then it would be great if it could be more accessible to those who don’t have a college eduction (like myself).Fordgreen
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
JVL, the log reduction exercise draws out the meaning. Building on 576, kindly, tell us:
what log [p*q*r] is, but log p + log q + log r, and whether – log [p*q*r]= – {log p + log q + log r} = i[p] – [log q + log r], where p is an information relevant probability and q and r are numbers, leading to the second bracket being a threshold, Th, where too once log is base 2, given that one adds or subtracts like things, such would be in bits. Picking up, once we bound Th to some reasonable blind search threshold, say 500 bits for the sol system and 1,000 for the cosmos . . .
we of course have excellent reason to infer that sol system to observed cosmos scale resources would only search a negligible fraction of the config space. That makes blind mechanisms maximally unlikely to generate FSCO/I and that in turn explains why it is a reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration as key cause. In turn, this gives high confidence to the conclusion that directing intelligence best explains both OoL and Oo body plans. A decisive result. But, one not ever likely to be conceded by inveterate objectors. Who are currently recycling decade old long since adequately answered objections. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Relatd, JVL and I agree on what a metric is, being an extension of "distance" measurements on sets. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
FG, going back to Orgel and Wicken in the 70's, likely with Monod's Chance and Necessity in the air, there was a recognition of a difference between randomness, order and functionally specific information rich organisation. Given description languages such as autocad, such organisation can be reduced to a description so to measurable bits. Dembski, some 20+ years later provided a generalisation, complex specified information where the specification did not have to be by function. He did note in his NFL, that such is cashed out in terms of function in the world of life. So, the descriptive phrase, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I speaks to biological and similar cases where specification is based on functional organisation. A test s-t-r-i-n-g of course, if say meaningful English, is functionally organised, as is computer code. Old fashioned punched paper tape is a good illustration and points to how D/RNA is a string based structure. Once we have complexity beyond 500 - 1,000 bits we can take it to the bank, designed. Objectors to FSCO/I, simply to communicate, produce examples, usually beyond threshold . . . 72 to 143 ASCII characters worth, about 7 - 14 words of typical English text. KF PS, Here is WmAD:
CONCEPT: NFL, p. 148:“The great myth of contemporary evolutionary biology is that the information needed to explain complex biological structures can be purchased without intelligence. My aim throughout this book is to dispel that myth . . . . Eigen and his colleagues must have something else in mind besides information simpliciter when they describe the origin of information as the central problem of biology. I submit that what they have in mind is specified complexity [cf. p 144 as cited below], or what equivalently we have been calling in this Chapter Complex Specified information or CSI . . . . Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. . . . In virtue of their function [a living organism's subsystems] embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specificity criterion . . . the specification can be cashed out in any number of ways
[through observing the requisites of functional organisation within the cell, or in organs and tissues or at the level of the organism as a whole. Dembski cites: Wouters, p. 148: "globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms," Behe, p. 148: "minimal function of biochemical systems," Dawkins, pp. 148 - 9: "Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by ran-| dom chance alone. In the case of living things, the quality that is specified in advance is . . . the ability to propagate genes in reproduction." On p. 149, he roughly cites Orgel's famous remark on specified complexity from 1973, which exactly cited reads: " In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . ." And, p. 149, he highlights Paul Davis in The Fifth Miracle: "Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity."] . . .”
DEFINITION: p. 144: [Specified complexity can be more formally defined:] “. . . since a universal probability bound of 1 [chance] in 10^150 corresponds to a universal complexity bound of 500 bits of information, [the cluster] (T, E) constitutes CSI because T [effectively the target hot zone in the field of possibilities] subsumes E [effectively the observed event from that field], T is detachable from E, and and T measures at least 500 bits of information . . . ”
kairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
JVL, you know quite well a semi-famous test that answers a claim that per the legends goes back to C19. Here is Wikipedia's admission under duress:
[Wikipedia confesses regarding the infinite monkeys theorem:] The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed,
"VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t"
The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[26] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:
RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d...
[ACC: Dec 17, 2019. NB: Where, also, as this is a digital age, we will readily see that we can compose a description language and then create a string of yes/no questions to specify any reasonable object -- as say AutoCAD etc do. Thus, our seemingly simplistic discussion on bit strings *-*-*- . . . is in fact without loss of generality [WLOG].] [Comment: 16 - 24 ASCII characters is far short of the relevant thresholds, at best, a factor of about 1 in 10^100. Yes, the article goes on to note that "instead of simply generating random characters one restricts the generator to a meaningful vocabulary and conservatively following grammar rules, like using a context-free grammar, then a random document generated this way can even fool some humans." But, that is simply implicitly conceding that design makes a big difference to what can be done. ]
In general, objectors are well aware that a single actual, reliable observation of the generation of FSCO/I by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity would shatter the design inference on sign. Formerly, there were many efforts to come up with such but time and again they could be traced to the hand of a designer. As it stands there are trillions of observed cases of FSCO/I and reliably it comes about by design. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Jerry at 611, Confuse the issue. Write "I don't understand" when you do. Write "I'm confused" when you're not. But a lot of good - easy to understand - information has been posted. But to admit that what I just wrote is specific, functional and ordered a certain way? Can't do that. It might "help" ID.relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Fordgreen,
What I’m not clear on is what is the difference between CSI and FSCO/I?
Shakespeare wrote a play titled “Much Ado About Nothing.” This and most discussions here at UD are all about nonsense. CSI or FCSI are trivial but important concepts. There really is no difference between them that is meaningful. It’s just complex(C) information(I) that specifies(S) something else. This something else usually has a function(F). No one except a few people here at UD use FSCO/I so it can essentially be ignored and nothing lost. Nowhere has this phenomenon (CSI) been seen as the result of natural processes. Only due to intelligent input. The complexity(C) can be measured by probability estimates. Probability can also be measured by the term bits which is just a quick way to say a large probability. For example 1 in 2 to 20th power is 20 bits which is much easier than saying 1 in 1048576or a probability less than .000001 This whole discussion should have taken 10 comments total to understand. But that’s not what people want. They want continual irrelevant comments mainly to try to make someone else look bad. That’s what this site is mainly about. Making other people look bad. Prediction: this simple explanation will be ignored as obfuscation is the objective not understanding.jerry
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
:) Dembski 's metric is a decoder in itself. Except is a generalisation and not "a theory of everything" on the functional information. Flash news: Humans are too stupid to discover "a theory of everything". "Too stupid" is not a humiliation is a simple reality.Lieutenant Commander Data
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
The difference seems to be F and O.Seversky
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Fordgreen: What I’m not clear on is what is the difference between CSI and FSCO/I? Is the latter intended as an extension to CSI, a supplement or a replacement? Is there something lacking in CSI that FSCO/I is trying to address? You're not the only one who is confused! But I'll leave it up to other to define the terms.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
I've been reading this thread and been trying to follow along as best as I can, but since my math education stopped at the high school level, there is much I don't understand. But I did have one question. I think I conceptually understand what CSI is trying to achieve. What I'm not clear on is what is the difference between CSI and FSCO/I? Is the latter intended as an extension to CSI, a supplement or a replacement? Is there something lacking in CSI that FSCO/I is trying to address?Fordgreen
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Relatd: What I “seem to think” involves mind reading. I suspect you do not have that power. You suggested I do some things assuming I hadn't done that or considered doing that. Anyway, you can always explain your views more clearly if you think they've been misunderstood or interpreted. It happens to me all the time.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Jerry: 600 and climbing. 1000 here we come with nothing but nonsense along the way. Have you tried evaluating Dr Dembski's metric? Not that it's required but it might help add some meaningful input.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
JVL at 603, What I "seem to think" involves mind reading. I suspect you do not have that power.relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Relatd: Hey. Why don’t you read what you wrote and realize that every letter and every word was specific, complex and in the correct order to convey your meaning? Why don’t you realize that living things can read a code that is very similar and that the instructions, much like a computer program, need to be specific, complex and in the correct order in order for that living thing to function? Hey, I'm just trying to understand Dr Dembski's formulation and how it works. We can discuss all those other things if you wish but that is a different conversation. You seem to think I will completely disagree with you which is not the case.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
600 and climbing. 1000 here we come with nothing but nonsense along the way.jerry
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
JVL at 598, Hey. Why don't you read what you wrote and realize that every letter and every word was specific, complex and in the correct order to convey your meaning? Why don't you realize that living things can read a code that is very similar and that the instructions, much like a computer program, need to be specific, complex and in the correct order in order for that living thing to function?relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
JVL at 599, Let's see. How to put this? I know: I don't care.relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Relatd: No. I try to avoid “new” words being used by the cool kids. Who mostly use them to give people the illusion they are living in ‘the future.’ Metric is not new and has many meanings especially in mathematics. I use it to mean a method or standard of measurement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: "there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to “natural vs [the suspect] supernatural.” Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration." I know how to test and observe unguided, natural processes: set up a situation, observe the results, set up the same situation altering something, see if you get the same outcome, continue altering and observing until you narrow down the cause and effect relationship. How do you do that with a "evident intelligently directed configuration"? Can you set up a situation, record the outcome and have someone repeat that at another time and place? Can both teams make the same alteration and see the same new outcome? Can you work out the pertinent inputs and results? Can you experimentally test intelligent design?JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
JVL at 596, No. I try to avoid "new" words being used by the cool kids. Who mostly use them to give people the illusion they are living in 'the future.'relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Relatd: Note to self: Add the word “metric” to list of Words to Never Use. Party pooper.JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
PS, The late Philip Johnson's response to Lewontin is relevant:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original -- the context is Lewontin in NYRB] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence.
[--> notice, the power of an undisclosed, question-begging, controlling assumption . . . often put up as if it were a mere reasonable methodological constraint; emphasis added. Let us note how Rational Wiki, so-called, presents it:
"Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses." [NB: I am aware that Rational Wiki has backed away, un-announced, from the cat-out-of-the-bag direct phrasing that was in place a few years ago. That historic phrasing is still valid as a summary of what is going on.]
Of course, this ideological imposition on science that subverts it from freely seeking the empirically, observationally anchored truth about our world pivots on the deception of side-stepping the obvious fact since Plato in The Laws Bk X, that there is a second, readily empirically testable and observable alternative to "natural vs [the suspect] supernatural." Namely, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity [= the natural] vs the ART-ificial, the latter acting by evident intelligently directed configuration. [Cf Plantinga's reply here and here.] And as for the god of the gaps canard, the issue is, inference to best explanation across competing live option candidates. If chance and necessity is a candidate, so is intelligence acting by art through design. And it is not an appeal to ever- diminishing- ignorance to point out that design, rooted in intelligent action, routinely configures systems exhibiting functionally specific, often fine tuned complex organisation and associated information. Nor, that it is the only observed cause of such, nor that the search challenge of our observed cosmos makes it maximally implausible that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can account for such.]
That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Yup, nearly twenty-five years ago. No wonder it has been said that paradigms advance one funeral at a time.kairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
F/N: As any particular case can be described in a string of bits in some description language, a "coin" can be seen as a one-bit register. Description on bit strings is without loss of generality, WLOG. I have sometimes spoken of an idealised paramagnetic substance with domains parallel or antiparallel to a weak magnetic field, in effect a basic form of magnetic storage. This is also where Mandl begins his work on stat thermodynamics. L K Nash starts with a string of coins. A binomial distribution applies and for say 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 coins, it is sharp indeed around the 50-50 point, as I have noted here https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/distribution-of-tossed-coins-a-reminder/ As a result, if the coins are tossed at random and are fair, the overwhelming cluster of possible states would be near 50-50 h-t in no particular order. "Read" as 7-bit ascii characters, non functional gibberish appearing to be plausibly random. Were we to see instead, meaningful English text, overwhelmingly, that would point to design. Where, "meaningful English text,"by sharp contrast with "near 50-50 h-t in no particular order," is a detachable, simply stated functional specification. Objecting comments in this thread are cases in point. For strings of 500 to 1,000 or more coins, the possibility of searching the configuration space from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1 and landing in a case under "meaningful English text" is vanishingly small on the atomic resources of our sol system to observed cosmos, as the degree of search to extent of possible configs is negligible. For example, that is why every meaningful internet page in English, of some complexity can readily be identified as designed, even if we did not directly observe the cause. Similarly, functional D/RNA in a genome manifests coded algorithmic information in key part, which points to design, expresses language and reflects that algorithms are goal directed. More can be said but that is a basic outline. Apart from imposed evolutionary materialistic scientism, it would be utterly uncontroversial that the cell and body plans are designed. The problem is not science, evidence, logic, mathematics etc as ever so many objectors imagine, but ideology. Ideology that no longer has a leg to stand on, once from 1953 bon we realised what was going on with R/DNA. KFkairosfocus
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
For those wondering, what the heck is everyone talking about? Here is William Dembski in his own words: https://billdembski.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf Note to self: Add the word "metric" to list of Words to Never Use.relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
LtComData: JVL wants to read a DVD with a microwave oven or a hammer or any other method available in the universe. Any coded information has a unique key for decoding but somehow JVL wants to be able to read information without the key . Intentionally he put an impossible condition that do not exists in reality. But that is what atheists do. Not sure what you're trying to get at. I'm not trying to decode anything. I'm trying to apply a metric designed by Dr William Dembski and published in his 2005 monograph Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. I don't think he claimed the metric decoded anything; I think he proposed it as a way of detecting specified complexity even if you didn't know how to decrypt the 'message'. But you're welcome to read it for yourself and see if my interpretation is correct. Like I said: I didn't come up with the metric I'm only seeing how it works and what kinds of results its gives. Just doing the math isn't reflecting any kind of theological stance especially when I didn't create the formula!!JVL
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Alan Fox in general. You are a propagandist. Period. You are hoping more people don't believe ID, that's all.relatd
August 17, 2022
August
08
Aug
17
17
2022
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 23

Leave a Reply