Lungfish and Humans — Famous novel has almost 100% similarity the Mirriam-Webster dictionary

wd400, this true comment on FB reminded me of the false claim you made the other day for evolution: The origins of codes are as well established as the laws of gravity. Scientific experimentation has established a causal relationship between intelligence and codes. The law of information applies universally and predicts that natural mechanisms will only create sequences of order or random complexity, and only intelligence is capable of creating sequences of specified complexity having purpose and intent. This empirical law of science can be refuted or falsified by a single example to the contrary. bornagain77

Here's your chance to realise your mistake. How do the two statements you've quoted conflict with each other? wd400

Nobody says lungfish are close relatives to humans. They say they are closer than coelacanths.

Really?

some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna wd400

And what kind of fish do you think he suggested I look at? :-) scordova

scordova @ 42 Here you go again with misleading strawman rhetoric.

So how again did the researchers say lungfish are close relatives?

They didn't. They said lungfish are closer relatives than coelacanths.

if you [say] lungfish aren’t close relatives to humans, in any way, what business do you have saying we evolved from fish?

Nobody says lungfish are close relatives to humans. They say they are closer than coelacanths.

if you say lungfish are indeed close relatives, how do you justify your claim except by pulling “dictionary tricks” such as I described

Nobody says lungfish are close relatives to humans. They say they are closer than coelacanths.

@ 43: The longer the sequence, the more difficult it becomes to pull off the dictionary trick, hence the human appear nowhere near the lungfish.

Nobody says the lungfish should be near humans, just nearer than coelacanths.

One can only argue lungfish are close to humans by cherry picking data...

Nobody says lungfish are close to humans. They say they are closer than coelacanths. Do you get it now? You should stop the misrepresentative strawman rhetoric and just simply acknowledge - in crystal clear terms - that the researchers in the paper cited in the OP claim that lungfish are closer to humans than coelacanths, not close in any absolute sense. Then we might have a talk about the legitimacy of their methods. But so long as you continue posting misleading distortions of what the researchers actually claimed, there's no common ground for ongoing discussion. CLAVDIVS

Andre @ 41

CLAVDIVS: Darwin allowed for several common ancestors, not just one. Andre: Really? I wonder does the tree of life have a single trunk or many trunks? According to Darwin it is a single trunk. He spoke of a Universal Common Ancestor!

No, Andre. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Darwin allowed for several common ancestors, not just one:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one... -- Darwin, On the Origin of Species

I think that modern science cannot at this point tell us whether there was one single common ancestor of all life. It appears that the sorts of tiny creatures that existed at the dawn of life could exchange genetic material with each other like bacteria do today, which means the trunk of the "tree of life" is more like the tangled root ball of a potted plant. CLAVDIVS

I ran the following blast search for comparisons of the lungfish cytochrome-c oxidase subunit 1. You cansee the near 100% identity between one lungfish and other lungfishes and 92% identity with other non-lungfishes fishes. The list went on for pages with no humans to be seen, only other fish! One of the reasons for this is that I used a sequence that was short but not very short of around 515 amino-acids. The longer the sequence, the more difficult it becomes to pull off the dictionary trick, hence the human appear nowhere near the lungfish. One can only argue lungfish are close to humans by cherry picking data that seems to agree with a predetermined conclusion and ignore vast amounts of data that conflict with a predetermined conclusion. Here I've just shown humans are nowhere near lungfish for a single data point. A fair comparison of course would compare lots more data points, but I already pointed out, at best one can get only 3% identity between lungfish and humans based on the genome sizes.

Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 Protopterus dolloi (Slender lungfish) 515 100.0% Protopterus annectens (African lungfish) 515 99.0% Protopterus aethiopicus (Marbled lungfish) 515 99.0% 2,710 0.0 COI Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish) (Ceratodus forsteri) 518 95.0% Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish) (Ceratodus forsteri) 518 95.0% Lepidosiren paradoxus (South American lungfish) 517 94.0% Oryzias sarasinorum 516 93.0% Retropinna retropinna (cucumberfish) 516 93.0% Oryzias javanicus (Javanese ricefish) 518 93.0% Oryzias dancena 518 93.0% Ablennes hians 517 92.0% Oryzias celebensis (Celebes medaka) 516 92.0% Pantodon buchholzi (Freshwater butterflyfish) 518 92.0% Oryzias javanicus (Javanese ricefish) 518 93.0% Coregonus lavaretus (Common whitefish) (Salmo lavaretus) 516 92.0% Prosopium williamsoni (mountain whitefish) 516 92.0% Coregonus nasus (broad whitefish) 516 92.0% Prosopium cylindraceum (round whitefish) 516 92.0% 2,595 0.0 COX1 Coregonus clupeaformis (Lake whitefish) 516 92.0% 2,595 0.0 COX1 ...... Epinephelus fuscoguttatus (brown-marbled grouper) 516 92.0%

scordova

I tell you straight up: Your portrayal of this research as equivalent matching an English novel to an English dictionary and finding 100% match on words is misleading and wrong. It’s simply mocking without substance, and it’s hard to believe you’re being serious

I was responding to statements such as those made by WD40, such as ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna” And ironically WD40 didn't come to my defense instead he said:

the record, this is the point where I officially gave up as it was obvious you didn’t have any interest in actually understanding evolutionary biology.

He didn't come to my defesnse despite the fact it was him who said: ” some fish are more closely related to you than they are to tuna”, and it was wd40 who inspired me to post on the illegitimate methodology used to come up with such conclusions in the face of contrary data (like the face at best humans have 3% identity to lungfish on a genome scale (not individual protein scale) comparison. The way one arrives at such conclusions is with the dictionary trick, and even then its worse than that, one pulls off a small dictionary trick and avoid things like orphans. Next the comparisons were done with amino acids not the DNA that codes them so we're not actually seeing the codon bias or any alternative splicing routes to those proteins - another level of illegitimacy. I was merely pointing out how WD40 came out with his fantastic claim lungfish are more closely related to us than to other fish like tuna. This is especially bizarre considering if we don't do the "dictionary trick" at best humans have 3% or so identity to lungfish just based on comparing the sizes of the genomes. Worse for WD40, a simply look at morphology makes the claim laughable. So how again did the researchers say lungfish are close relatives? Here is your problem, 1. if you lungfish aren't close relatives to humans, in any way, what business do you have saying we evolved from fish 2. if you say lungfish are indeed close relatives, how do you justify your claim except by pulling "dictionary tricks" such as I described Either way, you're the one who should be embarrassed. The problem with you is you are being serious, and you don't even see the indefensibility of your position. scordova

CLAVDIVS I'll bite....

1. Darwin allowed for several common ancestors, not just one.

Really? I wonder does the tree of life have a single trunk or many trunks? According to Darwin it is a single trunk. He spoke of a Universal Common Ancestor! Did you see what happened when Darwin's living dog, Richard Dawkins reacted when Dr Craig Venter spoke about the fact that multiple common ancestors? I guess not.... Andre

And what is "Mirriam Webster"? The dictionary is Merriam Webster. Joe

Unguided evolution cannot account for fish. And seeing tat no one knows what makes an organism what it is then universal common descent is untestable. Maybe someday some evo will get the nerve and money to take fish embryos and subject them to targeted mutagenesis to see what develops- taking each generation and doing the same to see if eventually a fish with legs will develop. If not then the entire premise is unscientific and should be taken out of science classrooms. Joe

CLAVDIVS chokes:

3. Darwin’s theory of descent with modification and natural selection is perfectly compatible with being directed, as many ID supporters would agree.

Not according to Darwin and Mayr. Natural selection is supposed to be a designer MIMIC, not a designer. No teleology allowed- read Mayr "What Evolution Is". Joe

Andre @ 32

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers, all related. Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”. That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival — a process known as “natural selection.” These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

1. Darwin allowed for several common ancestors, not just one. 2. Darwin did not presume the development of life from non-life but allowed for miraculous creation of first life. 3. Darwin's theory of descent with modification and natural selection is perfectly compatible with being directed, as many ID supporters would agree. 4. The result of mutations accumulating is always just a variation of the original; what you call "an entirely different creature" is linked to the original by intermediates each of which is a relatively small variation one from the other - natura non facit saltus as Darwin put it - nature does not make leaps. Otherwise OK. Cheers CLAVDIVS

Oops! Andre in 32! Alan Fox

Andre in 52, Neither! More a garbled mix of both. Alan Fox

scordova @ 28 You were criticised for claiming the paper said fish and humans were "close". Your first response to this was @ 15, where you defended and justified that claim, saying:

scordova: How do you interpret this from the paper:

Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

And you defended and justified the claim again @ 17. Only after continued prodding did you then state you never really meant to claim the authors of the paper said fish and humans were "close". Well, good, but as Mark Frank has spelled out the OP was sprinkled with exactly that claim, so please do not try to blame us for "misreading". What is more, you have not responded to my original criticism @ 2 - the actual argument of the cited paper, that lungfish are closer to tetrapods than coelacanths, is analagous to stating The Right Stuff is closer to a German dictionary than to a Chinese dictionary. The authors justify this with a logical, reasoned argument based on empirical measurements. The OP completely misrepresents this statistical, comparative research by painting a ludicrous caricature of the genomic methods actually used. I tell you straight up: Your portrayal of this research as equivalent matching an English novel to an English dictionary and finding 100% match on words is misleading and wrong. It's simply mocking without substance, and it's hard to believe you're being serious. CLAVDIVS

133 Billion to 3 billion.... Dang natural selection sure is a code optimizer of note! How did something that has no intelligence not only deal with random mutations and the environment but 350 million years later with much less code produced an animal that can think about how smart natural selection is! Amazing! Andre

WD400 & CLAVDIVS Would you say this is correct? Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers, all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). Andre

Sal

You, Claudius, wd40 misread what I said. You’re guys are attributing arguments to me which I didn’t make and knocking down arguments I didn’t make.

Look at what you wrote! You may have expressed yourself poorly - I do that all the time. But don't blame the reader.

Would you then use such an illegitimate method to argue humans share a close genetic identity with fish. Apparently Darwinists are quite willing to do exactly that. ….. The paper goes on and on about how closely related we are based on molecular data. …… How then can Darwinists say we are so closely related to lungfish? ……

However, if all you mean't to imply was the paper does not support the proposal the lungfish is more closely related than the ceolocanth then your criticisms of the methodology are irrelevant. PS It is not at all clear what you are trying to say with the diagram. Mark Frank

How can lungfish be a relative if have been around for 380 million years? We have only been around for 6-8 million years? Relative or ancestor? make up your mind! Andre

If I share 1% with something its good enough to be a relative? Are you serious is this kind of just so science enough for you to make it true? Are you serious? 1% is good enough? Andre

scordova @ 15 I’m starting to feel embarrassed for you. Your obstinate refusal to acknowledge what is obvious to any person who can read English is, quite simply, absurd.

Yeah, I said "is proper to say we share more similarity with primates than with fish” which means I never said lungfish are our closest relatives, nor did I say that the paper said so, plus I provided a diagram to highlight the supposed relationship of what Darwinsits believe. Now you're telling me the intended meaning of what I said, that's inappropriate given I'm the one who knows the intended meaning of what I said. You're attributing arguments to me that I didn't make nor intended to make. If you misunderstood, that's another thing. I'm setting you straight, and yet you persist to insist your interpretation of what I said is a better representation of my interpretation of what I said. scordova

Andre @ 22

1. Since we have less than 1% of a lungfish’s genome how are they relatively close?

Good grief, is this really so hard to understand? The lungfish, in a genetic sense, is closer to us than coelacanths. Both lungfish and coelacanths may be really, really far away from us in absolute terms; but relative to coelacanths, lungfish are closer.

2. How does going from 133 billion base pairs to 3 billion base pairs increase complexity?

You're going to have to operationally define complexity (i.e. give us a method to put a number on it) before we could answer that question. Note that 133 billion repeats of the character "A" is likely less complex than a 3 billion character encyclopedia, so length is not necessarily an indication of complexity.

3. I always thought correct me if I’m wrong but Darwinian evolution is all about increase of information…

You're going to have to operationally define information (i.e. give us a method to put a number on it) before we could answer that question. Darwin's original theory of natural selection recognised that organs can be simplified or reduced if that is useful in a particular environment, so if that's what you mean by information then, no, Darwinian evolution is not all about increasing information. CLAVDIVS

Andre, Lungfish are our realtives, not our ancestors. Genome size has almost nothing to do with complexity (since most of most genomes is junk DNA) and we know lung fish are more closely related to us than other fish are from the sequences in their DNA, not the amount of it (most of the lung fish genome is probably a bunch of repetitive sequences duplicated many times over) wd400

By the way, the evolutionists misrepresentation of what I said is inexcusable given I provided a diagram that precludes such silly misreadings of what I said. Look at how many intermediates separate man from the lungfish in the above diagram. scordova

we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

And if humans are tetrapods, then lungfish are close to humans relative to other fish. And I didn't say that lungfish are the closest relative to humans, I explicitly said: "it is proper to say we share more similarity with primates than with fish". You, Claudius, wd40 misread what I said. You're guys are attributing arguments to me which I didn't make and knocking down arguments I didn't make. scordova

scordova @ 15 I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you. Your obstinate refusal to acknowledge what is obvious to any person who can read English is, quite simply, absurd. The cited paper spells out in explicit detail that what was measured was the genetic distance between coelacanths, lungfish and tetrapods, and it found that lungfish were closer to tetrapods than coelacanths. In any case, even taken out of the context of the overall paper, the phrase

the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

is exactly equivalent to the phrase

Jupiter, and not Saturn, is the closest gas giant to the Earth.

As a matter of ordinary English, both phrases leave quite open the question of, in absolute terms, how far away lungfish/coelacanths are from tetrapods, or how far away Jupiter/Saturn are from the Earth; they only claim that in relative terms one is closer than the other. So plucking this phrase out of context doesn't rescue the OP from the charge of being a misleading distortion. Mischaracterising and misrepresenting a cited paper in order score rhetorical points is not okay. It's just not. What makes you think it is? CLAVDIVS

Lungfish Genome 133 Billion Base pairs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish Human Genome 3 Billion Base Pairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome I have some questions? 1.) Since we have less than 1% of a lungfish's genome how are they relatively close? That is one hell of a serious claim! 2.) How does going from 133 billion base pairs to 3 billion base pairs increase complexity? 3.) I always thought correct me if I'm wrong but Darwinian evolution is all about increase of information..... Andre

Sal #15

Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

I interpret this as it is written! A lungfish is closer to the tetrapods than a coelacanth. Tetrapods as I am sure you know are a diverse superclass including amphibians, birds, reptiles and mammals - all of these are more closely related to us than the lungfish which is what the statement says. #17

some fish are more closely related to us than to other fish.

which is another way of saying the same thing. Andre #16 An ape is kind of a tetrapod as I assume you know. I also assume you know we are not descended from any living species. It is widely acknowledged that we have a relatively recent common ancestor with the great apes and a much more distant common ancestor with other tetrapods such as frogs. And yes Sal - while a nice chap who sometimes makes good debating points - is being rather silly when it comes to discussing common descent. One might dispute whether there is a single common ancestor - maybe life originated more than once - but if you accept that once upon a time there was no life on earth then essentially you have two options: * Life began with very simple life forms (e.g. bacteria) and complex life was created by gradual modification of those life forms. * Complex life forms sprang into existence fully formed through a completely unknown process. Every life form we see created is created by descent from another life form often with slight modifications. We have zero examples of them suddenly appearing fully formed. Mark Frank

It's pretty straightforward, Andre "closer" and "closest" are relative terms. Lungfish are particualr closelt related to us, but they are the closest non-tetrapods. And they are more closely related to us than they are to some other fish. I'm not a Darwinist speaks for itself, really. wd400

WD400

"Those are all statements of relative closeness."

How? Show me!

" I’m not a Darwinist."

Huh? Andre

I'm not a Darwinist. Those are all statements of relative closeness. The diagram you reproduce displays precisely the relationship I describe. wd400

Darwinists didn’t say we are closely related to lungfish in this paper or anywhere else

Well, in addition to the paper I cited we have one Darwinist at UD:

some fish are more closely related to us than to other fish. WD40 speaks

scordova

But Sal We descended from apes not Tetra-pods! You Silly creationist! You just don't understand evolution! Andre

Darwinists didn’t say we are closely related to lungfish in this paper or anywhere else. These sentences are simply and clearly wrong.

How do you interpret this from the paper:

Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.

scordova

Its a better option that a creator in making biology did so on the same physivs as physics. Common laws and all that. Chasing dNA likeness is just missing the point. Creatures have like dNA for like parts and unrelated to relationships. Its just a line of reasoning to draw connections of biology by DNA. Even if it was true. Its not biological investigation going on here but merely speculation. Even if true! Robert Byers

#12 Come on scordova You wrote:

Would you then use such an illegitimate method to argue humans share a close genetic identity with fish. Apparently Darwinists are quite willing to do exactly that. ... How then can Darwinists say we are so closely related to lungfish?

Darwinists didn't say we are closely related to lungfish in this paper or anywhere else. These sentences are simply and clearly wrong. Mark Frank

this is a flippant side-step of a serious criticism that it behooves you to address properly.

Your sophistry got the response it deserves, and I pointed out the paper did exactly the illegitimate comparison I talked about.

What’s that, we have to snip out words (orthologous genes) and then artificially concatenate them to make a seemingly identical sentence. We can’t just find a nice contiguous section of 100,583 amino acids and compare them. What did I say about illegitimate methods.

scordova

bpragmatic @ 10 Two wrongs don't make a right. CLAVDIVS

"Your disagreement with evolutionary science doesn’t, in my view, give you the right to represent the cited paper in such a misleading way." What makes you think the cited paper isn't "misleading?". (i.e. drawing or implying widescale and vastly unsupported conclusions based on ridiculously scant evidence based on who knows how many unverified and unverifiable assumptions.) You have absolutely no basis to take a "holier than thou" position. bpragmatic

scordova @ 7

CLAVDIVS: The paper you cite does not claim that “humans share a close genetic identity with fish”. It claims that “the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods.” This is analgous to claiming that The Right Stuff is closer to a German dictionary than to a Chinese dictionary, a claim that is amply justified by objective measurements. scordova: Look at the diagram provided above, who do Darwinists say is yo great great great ….grand daddy?

Thanks for responding, but this is a flippant side-step of a serious criticism that it behooves you to address properly. Your characterisation of the cited paper is utterly misleading. Your disagreement with evolutionary science doesn't, in my view, give you the right to represent the cited paper in such a misleading way. Please amend your OP so it is clear to interested readers what the paper actually says, and please try to do better next time. CLAVDIVS

From the paper

To perform a reliable analysis we selected 251?genes in which a 1:1 orthology ratio was clear and used CAT-GTR, a complex site-heterogeneous model of sequence evolution that is known to reduce tree-reconstruction artefacts19 (see Supplementary Methods). The resulting phylogeny, based on 100,583 concatenated amino acid positions

What's that, we have to snip out words (orthologous genes) and then artificially concatenate them to make a seemingly identical sentence. We can't just find a nice contiguous section of 100,583 amino acids and compare them. What did I say about illegitimate methods. The determination some will go to in order to show fish are humans great great....grand daddy. scordova

If you disagree, please cite where the paper claims humans are closely related to lungfish in absolute terms,

Look at the diagram provided above, who do Darwinists say is yo great great great ....grand daddy? :-) scordova

Mung @ 5

Evolutionary “Theory” is in fact a smorgasbord of incoherent and often contradictory THEORIES.

Even if we grant that what you say is true, this does not change the fact that the OP completely misrepresents the cited paper. CLAVDIVS

wd400:

For the record, this is the point where I officially gave up as it was obvious you didn’t have any interest in actually understanding evolutionary biology.

What's to understand? Evolutionary "Theory" is in fact a smorgasbord of incoherent and often contradictory THEORIES. Mung

take the words in the dictionary and find identical words in the novel

It would be easier and you'll have better success doing it the other way around: take the words in the novel and find identical words in the dictionary. cantor

Ha. For the record, this is the point where I officially gave up as it was obvious you didn't have any interest in actually understanding evolutionary biology. wd400

scordova

How can we assert the great American novel The Right Stuff has near 100% sequence similarity with Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary? Simple, take the words in the dictionary and find identical words in the novel, and you’ll find the spelling is 100% identical in most cases! Would you then use such an illegitimate method to argue humans share a close genetic identity with fish. Apparently Darwinists are quite willing to do exactly that.

No, scordova. Yet again you have posted an OP containing an incorrect premise that is falsified by a few moments of rudimentary research. The paper you cite does not claim that "humans share a close genetic identity with fish". It claims that "the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods." This is analgous to claiming that The Right Stuff is closer to a German dictionary than to a Chinese dictionary, a claim that is amply justified by objective measurements. If you disagree, please cite where the paper claims humans are closely related to lungfish in absolute terms, as opposed to claiming humans are relatively more closely related to lungfish than to coelacanths. If you cannot do this, please amend the OP to note that this assertion of yours about the paper was incorrect, so that the OP is not misleading to any interested readers. Thanks. CLAVDIVS

Seems someone has been adding many new words to the dictionary every time a new species appears:

Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - lifepsy video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zz6vio_LhY Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,, But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,, The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,, Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing. http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/web/export/sites/default/ccsb/publications/papers/2013/All_alone_-_Helen_Pilcher_New_Scientist_Jan_2013.pdf

related note:

Groundbreaking Genetic Discoveries Challenge Ape to Human Evolutionary Theory – June 17, 2013 Excerpt: “It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”,,, http://christiannews.net/2013/06/17/groundbreaking-genetic-discoveries-challenge-ape-to-human-evolutionary-theory/

bornagain77