If math is a reality, atheism is dead

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 2, 2022

Intelligent Design, Mathematics}

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

Earlier this year, researchers discovered what they described as a previously unknown law of nature: a growth pattern which describes how pointed shapes form again and again in nature – from shark teeth and spider fangs to bird beaks and dinosaur horns.
“The diversity of animals, and even plants, that follow this rule is staggering,” evolutionary biologist Alistair Evans from Monash University in Australia said at the time they discovered the mathematical formula, dubbed the ‘power cascade’.
“We found it almost everywhere we looked across the kingdoms of life – in living animals, and those extinct for millions of years.”
Back in 2015, scientists were also delighted to find a classic formula for Pi – the ever-constant ratio between a circle’s circumference and its diameter – lurking in hydrogen atoms.
In a roundabout way, that discovery leads us back to the idea that mathematics provides a structural framework for the physical world. It’s an interesting idea to entertain – so long as your head doesn’t explode.
Claire Watson, “What if Math Is a Fundamental Part of Nature, Not Something Humans Came Up With?” at ScienceAlert (January 2, 2022)

No head explode. We live in a designed universe. Math proves it.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

Here's another hypothesis: 1. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. 2. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems 3. There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can 4. Christopher Hitchens says we can dismiss such claims. 5. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition. 6. Therefore using our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships, in accordance with Newton's 4 rules of scientific reasoning, we infer the genetic code was intelligently designed. Now JVL may not like either of my examples, but it is a given that he can't produce anything as good for evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.ET_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

The design hypothesis: 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. Now compare that to the nothingness of materialism and evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.ET_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Well, apparently you cannot come up with a clear and unambiguous testable teleological hypothesis.JVL_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

"If you can present a clear and solid teleology hypothesis that can be tested with an unambiguous failure criteria let’s hear it."
In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to, “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness(i.e. teleology)” The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014 Excerpt: Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”. Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness 1. One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself. http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/mental_cell_23.htm As Denis Noble, Emeritus Professor of the University of Oxford, states, “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”. “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence. Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.” – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford. http://www.thebestschools.org/dialogues/evolution-denis-noble-interview/ Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution. And as the following 2020 article pointed out, “teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological.” Metaphor and Meaning in the Teleological Language of Biology Annie L. Crawford – August 2020 Abstract: Excerpt: However, most discussions regarding the legitimacy of teleological language in biology fail to consider the nature of language itself. Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/ Thus in conclusion, teleological, i.e. designed based, language is found to be absolutely essential for doing biological research, whereas ‘evolutionary language’ is found to be a superficial ‘narrative gloss’ that can be somewhat easily stripped away from the research papers without negatively effecting the actual science in the papers. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-jonathan-bartlett-will-the-sokal-hoaxes-worsen-the-academic-echo-chamber/#comment-742456 Matthew 12:37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
bornagain77_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

@JVL: :))) The evidence is hidden in plain sight:
the survival of the fittest.
I must recognize that is a genial dissimulation. It's a kind of hypsnosis. Survivability is a goal/purpose/target that is assigned by a Designer. Do not exist survivability without "a plan" to be run in case of emergency.Lieutenant Commander Data_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: If you can present a clear and solid teleology hypothesis that can be tested with an unambiguous failure criteria let's hear it. And that can't be: prove something could have done it. You have to say what it is you think is teleological, you have to have an ability to test it on its own terms (in case there are other explanations that aren't obvious), and you have to accept a fail if that's what happens. I'm interested so what have you got? Please don't muck about with a lot of copy-and-paste quotes and references; just tell us what your testable hypothesis is and how you propose to test it.JVL_{January 4, 2022
January
01
Jan
4
04
2022
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

JVL, I thought of you when I read this, "Cassell,, says that more progress would be possible if not for the fact that so many scientists are infected with what he terms teleophobia — an unwillingness to recognize evidence of teleology and purpose in biology." https://evolutionnews.org/2022/01/teleophobia-cassell-on-the-unreasonable-fear-of-intelligent-design/bornagain77_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious, you mentioned Darwin's Finch beaks, peppered moths, Cichlid fish, and Polar bears, as evidence for Darwinian evolution. Yet even those popular textbook examples do not supply empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Epigenetics and the Evolution of Darwin’s Finches – 2014 Excerpt: The prevailing theory for the molecular basis of evolution (Neo-Darwinism) involves genetic mutations that ultimately generate the heritable phenotypic variation on which natural selection acts. However, epigenetic (Non-Darwinian) transgenerational inheritance of phenotypic variation may also play an important role in evolutionary change.,,, Genome-wide alterations in genetic mutations using copy number variation (CNV) were compared with epigenetic alterations associated with differential DNA methylation regions (epimutations). Epimutations were more common than genetic CNV mutations among the five species; furthermore, the number of epimutations increased monotonically with phylogenetic distance. Interestingly, the number of genetic CNV mutations did not consistently increase with phylogenetic distance.,,, http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/8/1972.full Epigenetics may explain how Darwin's finches respond to rapid environmental change - August 24, 2017 Excerpt: By studying rural and urban populations of two species of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, researchers were able to show that while there was very little genetic variation, there were substantial epigenetic differences that could be related to environmental differences resulting from urbanization. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170824093814.htm Peppered Moth: How Evolution’s Poster Child Became the Rebuttal - Cornelius Hunter - November 27, 2016 Excerpt: research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion. In other words, rather than a nucleotide, in a gene, mutating to one of the other three nucleotides, as you learned in your high school biology class, instead what has been found is an insertion of a stretch of more than 20,000 nucleotides. That long inserted segment consists of a shorter segment (about 9,000 nucleotides) repeated about two and one-third times. Also, the insertion point is not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be “junk DNA” in the past. This observed mutation (the insertion of a long sequence of DNA into an intron), is much more complicated than a single point mutation. First, there is no change in the gene’s protein product. The mutating of the protein sequence was the whole idea behind evolution: DNA mutations which lead to changes in a protein can lead to a phenotype change with fitness improvement, and there would be subject to natural selection. That is not what we are seeing in the much celebrated peppered moth example. The DNA mutation is much more complicated (~20,000 nucleotides inserted), and the fact it was inserted into an intron suggests that additional molecular and cellular mechanisms are required for the coloration change to occur. None of this fits evolutionary theory. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/peppered_moth_h/ Studies on Cichlid Fish Demonstrate the Predictive Power of Engineering Models for Adaptation Brian Miller - October 14, 2021 Excerpt: Researchers increasingly recognize that the most significant variation in cichlid fish results from internal adaptive mechanisms. As Parsons et al. stated: "…there is an emerging view that additive genetic variation accounts for a relatively small percentage of phenotypic variation and rather it’s the context in which traits develop that determines their final form" (Hendrikse et al. 2007, Jamniczky et al. 2010, Pfennig et al. 2010, Hallgrimsson et al. 2014). Conclusion: Future research will undoubtedly continue to demonstrate that cichlid variation did not primarily originate from random mutations but from systems engineered to drive targeted modifications. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/studies-on-cichlid-fish-demonstrate-the-predictive-power-of-engineering-models-for-adaptation/ At the 39:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Michael Behe comments on a 2014 study showing how polar bears subspeciated from brown bears by a loss of genetic information, not from a gain of genetic information as was presupposed within Darwinian thought. Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Limit for Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
So again, without any empirical evidence to back up your claim, you might as well wave a magic wand.bornagain77_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 17: There is no need to pick a fight when none is offered. As for "evidence", we are all aware of microevolutionary effects, which ID usually accepts: things like Darwin's finch beaks adjusting and then readjusting, and peppered moth colour changes (whether true or otherwise), Cichlid fish colour differentiations, and then of course, the polar bear. I do not claim these represent new genetic information, nor that they are all fully optimized. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but I am flexible enough to recognize Darwinism when it seems clearly feasible. Of course no one can "prove" that Darwinism optimized tooth and claw designs, but some "just so stories" are surely more feasible than others? And to deny even the possibility of minimal Darwinian benefits seems irrational. Even Michael Behe recognizes that Darwinian evolution (AKA devolution) works for the benefit of various species. Having said all that, I am NOT claiming that the Darwinian mechanism explains all "convergent evolution" - far from it. Instead I am saying that Darwinism does a fair job of explaining some minor aspects of "evolution"; i.e. various cases of microevolution.Fasteddious_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious, again, without any empirical evidence to back up your claim, you might as well wave a magic wand. Sure Darwinian evolution can 'weed out', but Darwinian evolution is far more constrained in its ability to 'optimize' than you are presupposing. As the following article noted, "The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised." and also "mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind."
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician – Douglas Axe – 2011 Excerpt: In the Oxford job description [1], under the heading Extracts from the grant application to the St John’s Research Centre, subheading Objectives: “1. To construct a mathematical framework, with appropriate theorems, to represent fully the core argument in Darwin’s Origin of Species, namely that the purely mechanical processes of inheritance and reproduction can give rise through natural selection to the appearance of design.” Under the same heading, subheading Summary: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …” “The idea that organisms maximise their fitness as a result of natural selection is extremely important in many areas of biology. The explanatory apparatus of most whole organism, behavioural ecology, work would make no sense without it. However, the logical basis for the idea is in considerable doubt. The mainstream of mathematical population geneticists since about 1964 has emphatically rejected the claim that fitness is maximised. … There has been essentially no formal consideration of the kind of optimisation that emerges so naturally from verbal arguments such as those of Darwin (1859) and Dawkins (1976).” “The concept of fitness optimization is routinely used by field biologists, and first-year biology undergraduates are frequently taught that natural selection leads to organisms that maximize their fitness. Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976) promoted a conceptual integration of modern evolutionary theory in which genes are viewed as optimising agents, which is extremely influential and widespread today and encompasses inclusive fitness theory and evolutionarily stable strategies as well as general optimality ideas. However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. …” Generality is important, as a major aim [of the proposed work] is to find mathematical arguments that match Darwin’s verbal arguments in the Origin of Species, as well as Dawkins’s verbal arguments in the Selfish Gene and later works. … https://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310975799/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician
Of related note: Darwinists are simply stymied in their ability to explain the vast majority of phenotypic traits.
The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf Gene previously linked to obesity is unrelated - June 29, 2015 Excerpt: … in the real world of careful analysis, scientists are just not finding the “genes” that the headline writers need. British geneticist Steve Jones points out that most human traits are influenced by so many genes that there is no likely systematic cause and effect: "We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height … That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for “scientists find the gene for” shows. The three letter word for — the gene FOR something — is the most dangerous word in genetics." And the craze is not harmless, he warns. … https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/gene-previously-linked-to-obesity-is-unrelated/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait - June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/
bornagain77_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Seversky: I think atheism will still be around long after we are all gone and I don’t see how this research makes the Christian God any more likely. This research has nothing to do with any gods or any theology.JVL_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious: Having similar structures and shapes to teeth and claws is hardly a case of “convergent evolution”. Rather it is simply the best approach to using the available materials for the intended purposes. And what you go on to elucidate is a pretty good description of how evolutionary processes work. And you've explained why convergent evolution makes sense. Well done!!JVL_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Having similar structures and shapes to teeth and claws is hardly a case of "convergent evolution". Rather it is simply the best approach to using the available materials for the intended purposes. While the original teeth and claws may have been designed as such, and may indeed have had the optimum shapes, variations would have caused adjustments and a spread of ratios throughout the population. Natural selection would then provide a slight pressure to weed out the extremes as "less fit" and thereby maintain the optimum as the statistical mean for the population. If the original designs had been different from the optimum shapes, then random variation and natural selection would have shifted the average toward the optimum. Various species using the same materials for the same purposes would have developed the same general solutions and then optimized them. All ID people are surely aware that the Darwinian process can do certain simple things to keep a population as fit as possible based on their original design.Fasteddious_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

I think atheism will still be around long after we are all gone and I don't see how this research makes the Christian God any more likely.Seversky_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Imagining that Darwinian evolution can explain some given 'repeated' shape, observed across a wide variety of organisms, is a far cry from empirically demonstrating that Darwinian evolution can account for that given shape. Without any empirical evidence to back you up, you might as well wave a magic wand every time you claim that Darwinian evolution explains a given shape. Reminds me of the many instances where Darwinists have invoked the magic words 'convergent evolution' to try to 'explain away' a repeated feature in life. Yet 'convergent evolution' actually falsifies Darwinian claims rather than confirming them. As Casey Luskin observed, “the main assumption underlying all phylogenetic trees is that biological similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.”,,, “Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,”
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin – February 9, 2015 Excerpt: In Problem 6 of this series, we saw that the main assumption underlying all phylogenetic trees is that biological similarity is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. The problem for evolutionary biologists faced with conflicting evolutionary trees is that biological similarity often appears in places not predicted by common descent. In other words, everyone recognizes that biological similarities often appear among species in cases where they cannot be explained as the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. This means the main assumption fails. We also saw at the end of Problem 6 that when biologists are unable to construct phylogenetic trees, they often make ad hoc appeals to other processes to explain away data that won’t fit a treelike pattern. One of these explanations is convergent evolution, where evolutionary biologists postulate that organisms acquire the same traits independently, in separate lineages, and not through inheritance from a common ancestor. Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature, but a few will suffice.,,, Proponents of neo-Darwinian evolution are forced into reasoning that biological similarity implies common ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. And in the many cases where it doesn’t, they appeal to all sorts of ad hoc rationalizations to save common ancestry. Tellingly, the one assumption rarely questioned is the overall assumption of common ancestry itself. But perhaps the reason why different genes are telling different evolutionary stories is because the genes have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that all organisms are not genetically related. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/02/problem_7_conve/
And as Günter Bechly, a paleontologist, noted, “One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology and are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life.”,,, “,,,We can safely conclude: it is an epic myth, willingly perpetuated by evolutionary biologists, that the similarities between organisms mostly fall in a hierarchic pattern of nested groups and thus suggest common ancestry and indicate phylogenetic relationship. In reality this claim is contradicted by a flood of incongruences and reticulate patterns that shed doubt on fundamental paradigms of evolutionary biology like the notions of homology and common descent.”
Extinct Four-Eyed Monitor Lizard Busts Myth of a Congruent Nested Hierarchy – Günter Bechly – April 23, 2018 Excerpt: One of the most essential doctrines of Darwinian evolution, apart from universal common descent with modification, is the notion that complex similarities indicate homology and are ordered in a congruent nested pattern that facilitates the hierarchical classification of life. When this pattern is disrupted by incongruent evidence, such conflicting evidence is readily explained away as homoplasies with ad hoc explanations like underlying apomorphies (parallelisms), secondary reductions, evolutionary convergences, long branch attraction, and incomplete lineage sorting. When I studied in the 1980s at the University of Tübingen, where the founder of phylogenetic systematics, Professor Willi Hennig, was teaching a first generation of cladists, we still all thought that such homoplasies are the exceptions to the rule, usually restricted to simple or poorly known characters. Since then the situation has profoundly changed. Homoplasy is now recognized as a ubiquitous phenomenon (e.g., eyes evolved 45 times independently, and bioluminiscence 27 times; hundreds of more examples can be found at Cambridge University’s “Map of Life” website).,,, ,,, We can safely conclude: it is an epic myth, willingly perpetuated by evolutionary biologists, that the similarities between organisms mostly fall in a hierarchic pattern of nested groups and thus suggest common ancestry and indicate phylogenetic relationship. In reality this claim is contradicted by a flood of incongruences and reticulate patterns that shed doubt on fundamental paradigms of evolutionary biology like the notions of homology and common descent. This inconvenient conflicting evidence is explained away with a pile of ad hoc hypotheses, correlated with more and more contrived and implausible evolutionary scenarios. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/extinct-four-eyed-monitor-lizard-busts-myth-of-a-congruent-nested-hierarchy/
And as Bernard d’Abrera bluntly put the situation for Darwinists, “For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,,”
Bernard d’Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist – October 5, 2011 Excerpt: renowned butterfly scholar and photographer Bernard d’Abrera considers the mystery of mimicry.,,, “For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,,” “Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html
As both Casey Luskin and Gunter Bechly pointed out, ‘convergent evolution’, far from being a (very) rare occurrence, (as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions), is now found to be a widespread, even a common, occurrence. Here are a few examples of just how widespread this unexpected ‘convergent evolution’ problem is for Darwinists.
Claims about convergent evolution are absurd _ Feb. 2017 1. C4 photosynthesis. According to ‘science’ it has evolved 60 times independently. Scientists have not succeeded in building an autonomous photosynthesis system. But evolution has done this for 60 times! Seems to be easy! 2. Eye 35 times. Think about the complex mechanism and signaling pathways that are connected with brain. And according to ‘science’ humans and squids evolved same eyes using same genes. What a coincidence! 3. Giving birth, 150 times. Piece of cake for evolution. Very convincing. 4. Carnivorous plants. Nitrogen-deficient plants have in at least 7 distinct times become carnivorous. 5. Hearing. 30 times. Bats and dolphins separately evolved same sonar gene. What a surprise! (Do they really think that one gene is sufficient for developing a sonar ability?) 6. Bioluminescence is quite a mystery for science. According to darwinists it has independently evolved even 27 times! 7. Magnetite for orientation, magnetically charged particles of magnetite for directional sensing have been found in unrelated species of salmon, rainbow trout, some butterflies and birds. 8. Electric organ in some fishes. 6 times. Independently from each other. Sure. 9. Parthenogenesis. Some lizards, insects, fishes and rodents are able to reproduce asexually, without males. Etc.. etc.. etc.. http://sciencerefutesevolution.blogspot.fi/2017/02/claims-about-convergent-evolution-are.html
As Gunter Bechly stated, convergent evolution directly challenges the ‘hierarchical classification of life” which is the main, core, assumption that lies behind the Darwinian belief of universal common descent. And Winston Ewert’ used the breakdown in “the hierarchical classification of life” at the genetic level to provide a (very) powerful falsification of Darwin’s theory.
The Dependency Graph of Life – Winston Ewert INTRODUCTION Darwin cited the hierarchical classification of life as evi- dence for his theory [1], and the classification has con- tinued to be cited as a central prediction of evolutionary theory [2]. However, modern research, especially in the area of molecular data, has complicated this picture. Prokaryotes do not fit a hierarchical scheme, leading Doolittle [3, p. 2226] to state: “Indeed, for prokaryotes, molecular data have falsified the [tree of life] hypothesis.” Even amongst more complex lifeforms, data exist which are not congruent with the hierarchical pattern [4–8]. Some push for embracing a view of evolution no longer constrained by the tree of life [9]. Those who do not consider the tree of life falsified nevertheless hold to a modified version of it. Mechanisms have been added to explain deviations from the hierarchy such as horizon- tal gene transfer, incomplete lineage sorting, differential gene loss, gene resurrection, gene flow, and convergent evolution.,,, CONCLUSIONS Explaining the approximate nested hierarchy has been a long standing challenge to common design. No account of this pattern has achieved widespread acceptance amongst those holding to common design. We have proposed a novel explanation, the dependency graph. The predic- tions of the dependency graph hypothesis set out in this paper have been shown to be correct. The biological data was a better fit to a dependency graph than to a tree. The data produced by a simulated process of common descent was a better fit to a tree than to a dependency graph. The data produced by a compiler was both a better fit to a dependency graph than a tree, and a better fit to a tree than to the null model. The inferred biological dependency graphs contained were not simply the tree of life with a few additions, but instead contained many additional modules. https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2018.3/BIO-C.2018.3
In the following article, Cornelius Hunter explains, for the lay audience, just how devastating Winston Ewert’s falsification of Darwin’s theory actually is,
New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018 Excerpt: Where It Counts Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous. Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent. Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other. We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand. Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse. Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division. The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division. Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth? Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models! By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent. 10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence. This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits. But It Gets Worse The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450. In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450. We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/
Thus in conclusion, finding repeated patterns and/or shapes in life, i.e. 'convergent evolution, actually falsifies core Darwinian presuppositions rather than confirming them.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to the good.
bornagain77_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Fasteddious: Actually, this may simply be a case of Darwinian evolution in action. The optimum shape for a tooth or claw is a trade-off between longer (for more ferocious bite/scratch) and sturdier (for sufficient strength/robustness). The chemistry of teeth and claw materials, coupled with the physics of biting and scratching, along with statistics of likely biting/scratching events in the life of the animal (range and number of events) will constrain the optimization of length: width. Random variation and natural selection would then settle on an optimum. Too many long teeth and they break off, reducing ability to hunt and kill prey. Claws too short and they are not sufficiently offensive or defensive. Once animals have teeth and claws, evolution would act to optimize the ratio for the best statistical performance over the life of the species in its population. This new “law” merely describes the result of the optimization; it is not a basis for determining what it should be. Evolution explains having similar solutions to similar problems. What has happened here is that some clever biologists have figured out what basic function along with parameters, coefficients and transformations model that which can be observed. Well done! A classic case of observation, data collection and mathematical modelling.JVL_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Actually, this may simply be a case of Darwinian evolution in action. The optimum shape for a tooth or claw is a trade-off between longer (for more ferocious bite/scratch) and sturdier (for sufficient strength/robustness). The chemistry of teeth and claw materials, coupled with the physics of biting and scratching, along with statistics of likely biting/scratching events in the life of the animal (range and number of events) will constrain the optimization of length: width. Random variation and natural selection would then settle on an optimum. Too many long teeth and they break off, reducing ability to hunt and kill prey. Claws too short and they are not sufficiently offensive or defensive. Once animals have teeth and claws, evolution would act to optimize the ratio for the best statistical performance over the life of the species in its population. This new "law" merely describes the result of the optimization; it is not a basis for determining what it should be. Of course, lest I am misunderstood, the evolutionary optimization only tweaks or adjusts; it does not account for the original existence of teeth and claws.Fasteddious_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

The more we learn about the universe and how it works, the more faith it takes to remain/become an atheist. Lord Kelvin said it best when towards the end of his life he said this: "If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Little did he know how right he was!tjguy_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Of related note to the 'power law', there is also another mathematical principle found in life. i.e. a mysterious 'higher dimensional' (4-Dimensional) component to life:
Post-Darwinist - Denyse O'Leary - Dec. 2010 Excerpt: They quote West et al. (1999), What Darwin Got Wrong – pg 79 “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection." They comment, "In the words of these authors, natural selection has exploited variations on this fractal theme to produce the incredible variety of biological form and function', but there were severe geometric and physical constraints on metabolic processes." "The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection. It's inconceivable that so many different organisms, spanning different kingdoms and phyla, may have blindly 'tried' all sorts of power laws and that only those that have by chance 'discovered' the one-quarter power law reproduced and thrived." Quotations from Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79. http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-much-of-body-plans-of-organisms-can.html#links The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology - 2004 Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00856.x Of Life's Laws And Unity - May 11, 2016 Excerpt: Life obeys certain allometric scaling laws that seem to reveal a sort of overarching design principle at work. We don't know what this principle is, although it's probably related to optimization: What's the best shape for the least amount of energy consumption? A famous allometric law is known as Kleiber's Law, where the metabolic rate of an animal grows as its mass to the 3/4 power. (The metabolic rate can be measured in terms of the rate at which an animal consumes oxygen, for example.) Although there are small variations (due to motion, disease, aging), the relation holds over a wide range of masses. (There are disputes for very small animals without a circulatory system.) Geoffrey West, Brian Enquist and James Brown proposed a model based on blood flow to explain this and a few other general allometric scaling laws with body weight observed in animals (for a review paper see this): Apart from Kleiber's Law mentioned above, life span scales as 1/4 power (so take two square roots of the mass), and heart rate as -1/4 power. Put together, these two laws explain why all species have a similar amount of heartbeats, 1.5 billion, over their life spans. Pause for amazement. The laws are not absolutely precise but do indicate a common trend across an enormous variety of living creatures. On Monday night, I was on a panel on Complexity with Geoffrey West at the New York Academy of Sciences. At some point, I asked West whether alien life, if it exists, would follow the same sort of unifying allometric laws. With a twinkle in his eye, West replied, a big smile on his face: "Well, I can only speculate here, but it seems plausible that this sort of design principle for life does have universal characteristics." It would be amazing if life as we don't know it is, after all, life as we do know it. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/05/11/477607869/of-life-s-laws-and-unity
bornagain77_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Finding a 'new universal model based on a power law between the radius of the structure and its length, which generates a shape called a ‘power cone’,,, a 'power law' that describes a diversity of pointy structures in widely varying organisms, (i.e. teeth, and "the growth of claws, horns, antlers and beaks of vertebrates, as well as the fangs and shells of invertebrates, and thorns and prickles of plants)", is far more devastating to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists than they are aware, or that they are ever willing to honestly admit. Darwinists simply have no clue how any particular organisms achieves its basic 'biological form'. In fact, when Darwinists first formulated the modern synthesis, they excluded biological form from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as being quote-unquote ‘irrelevant’, and thus, “At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved” for Darwinists.
On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina (2020) Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis, (neo-Darwinism) as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00317-3
That biological form is forever beyond the scope of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists is made evident from both DNA and Proteins. With DNA, specifically with mutations to DNA, we find that, “Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly”, and, "None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,,"
Jonathan Wells: Far from being all-powerful, DNA does not wholly determine biological form – March 31, 2014 Excerpt: Studies using saturation mutagenesis in the embryos of fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish and mice also provide evidence against the idea that DNA specifies the basic form of an organism. Biologists can mutate (and indeed have mutated) a fruit fly embryo in every possible way, and they have invariably observed only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jonathan-wells-far-from-being-all-powerful-dna-does-not-wholly-determine-biological-form/ Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
And as Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig points out, “even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements”,,, “the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated”…
Peer-Reviewed Research Paper on Plant Biology Favorably Cites Intelligent Design and Challenges Darwinian Evolution – Casey Luskin December 29, 2010 Excerpt: Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species… (Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some Further Research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,” Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology Vol. 4 (Special Issue 1): 1-21 (December 2010).) https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/peer-reviewed_research_paper_o/
And with Proteins we find "Levinthal's paradox". Specifically, "a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it (randomly) tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,"
Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012 Excerpt: Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are. https://evolutionnews.org/2012/10/a_revolutionary/
Moreover, this failure of the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists to be able to explain the basic biological form of organisms, (or to be able to explain any subset of form found within biological organisms, i.e. the 'power law'), occurs at a very low level, much lower than DNA and Proteins themselves. Specifically, Godel's incompleteness theorem has now been extended into physics and it is now shown that, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour”,,, The researchers further commented that their findings “challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
Thus it is now mathematically proven that it is impossible for Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, to ever give a coherent account of how any organism achieves its basic biological form, (much less to give a coherent account for how any 'mathematical subset', (i.e. the 'power law'), occurred within biological forms. If Darwinian evolution were a 'normal' science instead of being, basically, a unfalsifiable religion for atheists, this should count as yet another devastating falsification of Darwin's theory that puts it squarely in the trash heap of other failed scientific theories throughout the scientific era, (of which there are very many failed scientific theories throughout the scientific era that did not make the cut). Verse:
Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: in this context, the “law” is, quite literally, a formula. Yup but so is the Law of Gravity or Newton's laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. It is the word used for mathematical formulas that model real-world events well.JVL_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

Apparently this was initially reported back in March: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-discover-unknown-law-of-nature-that-shapes-all-the-pointy-things-in-life Here's the original research paper: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-021-00990-w
Here we show a new universal model based on a power law between the radius of the structure and its length, which generates a shape called a ‘power cone’. We describe the underlying ‘power cascade’ model that explains the extreme diversity of tooth shapes in vertebrates, including humans, mammoths, sabre-toothed cats, tyrannosaurs and giant megalodon sharks. This model can be used to predict the age of mammals with ever-growing teeth, including elephants and rodents. We view this as the third general model of tooth development, along with the patterning cascade model for cusp number and spacing, and the inhibitory cascade model that predicts relative tooth size. Beyond the dentition, this new model also describes the growth of claws, horns, antlers and beaks of vertebrates, as well as the fangs and shells of invertebrates, and thorns and prickles of plants.
So, they did some kick-ass modelling! Excellent!JVL_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

BobRyan - it's a law in the sense of a generalisation. I think using "law" in this context is rather silly. Polistra - in this context, the "law" is, quite literally, a formula.Bob O'H_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT}

Sadly the power cascade law is not elucidated in this article BUT some classic mathematics in nature examples are discussed including fractals, primes and Fibonacci numbers (which I find the most incredible).JVL_{January 3, 2022
January
01
Jan
3
03
2022
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

Life isn't using math, life is using intention and desire. The growth is aiming for a particular goal, with a sequence of steps needed to get there. You can call it an algorithm (a while loop), but it's not an equation or formula.polistra_{January 2, 2022
January
01
Jan
2
02
2022
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

This is the first I've heard of a new law being discovered. It is an exciting time.BobRyan_{January 2, 2022
January
01
Jan
2
02
2022
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply