Letter at The Guardian: Darwin got sexual selection wrong

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 9, 2022

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

The Guardian doesn’t seem to be letting up: Having already published a critique of Darwinism, they continue question Darwin. Here’s a letter they published, critiquing his sexual selection theory:

The question isn’t whether or not we need a new theory of evolution (The long read, 28 June); it’s why it has taken so long to bring the old one into the 21st century. Anchor bias, the difficulty of dislodging the first thing we learn about a topic, makes it challenging for biologists to accept and evaluate experimental data that doesn’t play by Darwin’s rules.
Natural selection had many fathers, including Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus. But sexual selection is exclusively Darwin’s, and is the theory most in need of a second look. The failure to update the theory of sexual selection by incorporating recent genetic breakthroughs and viewing the process through a female lens has left us with a seriously flawed theory of human evolution.
Heather Remoff, “How Charles Darwin got sexual selection wrong” at The Guardian (July 8, 2022)

Heather Remoff is the author of What’s Sex Got To Do With It? (2022).

She seems like another witness to the fact that one can question Darwin today without getting cancelled.

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is, of course, not pleased: In the end, Remoff is tilting at two windmills that have already fallen. Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.”

The ground is shifting under his feet.

Comments

Excellent, Jerry. Any problem with common descent?Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

little point in a discussion when we can’t agree on basic facts
No problem. ID agrees that evolution happened. The concept of evolution here is defined as different species appeared and most disappeared at various times in the last 3 billion years. So evolution under this concept is a fact according to ID. Those are facts. ID agrees that change has happened during our time and this has been essentially covered in genetics. But this is not Evolution and here I constantly use a capital E for Evolution to distinguish it from the changes which happen due to genetic processes. So some change in life forms have nothing to do with the fact of Evolution.
Any problem with common descent?
Yes, it is too nebulous. We discussed the variations of it a few weeks ago. So you may want to read that and offer up a rebuttal. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/how-could-we-test-universal-common-descent/ Aside: others may have their facts to be considered. The above are my initial set. Aside2: a cloudless sky looks blue except during some sunsets and at night.jerry_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Nope ,we reject darwinist imaginary interpretations of reality not reality. Big difference.
Indeed there is. There's little point in a discussion when we can't agree on basic facts. Do you feel like suggesting any common ground from where we could start? Alternative facts are a problem for me. I mean, can we agree that a terrestrial cloudless sky looks blue to all human observers who are not visually impaired?Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

I thought ID was an alternative approach to explaining observed reality.
Nope ,we reject darwinist imaginary interpretations of reality not reality. Big difference.Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

I seem to be mistaken and the ID approach is to ignore reality.
No, ID is based on reality. That’s a fact. But some people’s version of reality is their imagination and their wishful thinking. Interesting is that for some, reality supports their wishful thinking. But certainly not for any anti ID person. That also is a fact.jerry_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Per Alan's link at 42: "Paramecium bursaria is a species of ciliate found in marine and brackish waters.[1] It has a mutualistic endosymbiotic relationship with green algae called Zoochlorella. The algae live inside the Paramecium in its cytoplasm and provide it with food, while the Paramecium provides the algae with movement and protection." So what? Humans also have a "mutualistic endosymbiotic relationship" with bacteria.
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm Of Humans and Our Microbial Guests: A Dynamic and Living Balance - Stephen L. Talbott - Dec. 9, 2014 Excerpt: A rapidly swelling literature is testifying to human dependence upon the diverse microorganisms — collectively, the microbiome (or microbiota) — we play host to. By common admission, we have hardly begun to figure out how these microorganisms affect us,,, http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/org/comm/ar/2014/microbiome_25.htm
Moreover, that bacteria would be helping us in essential ways, instead of eating us, is completely antithetical to the entire 'survival of the fittest' thinking that lies behind Darwin's theory,
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically 'selected' for?
The Logic of Natural Selection - graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308 “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;" - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - pg. 66
Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view of things, be discarded, and/or 'eaten', by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down successful reproduction. In fact, Darwin himself offered the following as a falsification criteria for his theory, "Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species"… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” - Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - page 241 http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1866/1866-241-c-1859.html
Moreover, besides 'benevolent bacteria' being antithetical to Darwin's theory, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the fact that a single cell somehow becomes tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.
Out of One Cell, Many Tissues — But How? – May 15, 2018, Excerpt: From this solitary cell emerges the galaxy of others needed to build an organism, with each new cell developing in the right place at the right time to carry out a precise function in coordination with its neighbors. This feat is one of the most remarkable in the natural world, and despite decades of study, a complete understanding of the process has eluded biologists.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/out-of-one-cell-many-tissues-but-how/ One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4
Shoot, Darwinism, besides NOT qualifying as a hard science (Robert Marks), doesn't even make for good science fiction. Verse:
Psalms 139:14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
bornagain77_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

We add another imagination to the magic list of darwinists.
I thought ID was an alternative approach to explaining observed reality. I seem to be mistaken and the ID approach is to ignore reality.Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox This is hardly controversial. There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.
We add another imagination to the magic list of darwinists . Impressive. All examples are identical with Urey-Miller hoax ,the show few aminoacids and infer cell.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_bursaria
Another joke. Jumping from endosymbiotic relationship to imaginary prokaryote to eukaryote . Our intestinal bacteria is evidence that we evolved from those bacteria ,right? :)))Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramecium_bursaria A fact for Relatd.Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Jerry at 39, Everyone has an opinion. Here, I want facts, just facts.relatd_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.
So what? It is begging the question to assume a mechanism for how they got together if in fact they did. They might have combined but then how is an interesting question. There is a huge gap in the world's understanding of something and what caused this something, whatever this something is. This is especially true of Evolution, using Larry Moran discussion above. We have no idea what has caused Evolution even if it is a fact that it has happened. It is interesting that ID is mainly about cosmology and OOL and dabbles in Evolution less so. But there is far more information about the fact of Evolution. There is little information about the mechanism of Evolution. Because of this plethora of facts, that is where the discussion centers. Not because it is the most relevant.jerry_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

not interested to find the identity of God it’s like rejecting God because other things are more important for you
You are making things up. I certainly did not say or imply that. I suggest you deal with what people say. If you think that ID points to the Christian God, then make the case. I believe ID points to a creator that is consistent with the Christian God. In fact I believe ID is a fantastic first step to understanding what the creator is about. And have said so many times. The problem with this site is that people just want to hold forth on what they believe and not understand what others are saying or even what they themselves are saying. And mostly what others are saying are just personal opinions, many with little justification. I gave a perfect example when Severesky quotes Larry Moran with something that is almost 100% consistent with ID. Then there are anti ID people who nearly 100% of the time have no justification for what they are saying. But it is not just them. Nobody likes to be told that their opinions are not justified. But they still want to express their opinions, justified or not.jerry_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

I always thought sexual selection was a bit of a red herring. One must always keep in mind the difference between "selection of" versus "selection for". It's the difference between shopping for the best TV on the shelf and shopping for the parts to make that TV. The latter makes no sense in terms of survival of the fittest. It makes no difference whether you're shopping for yourself, your wife, your kin or a group. You still have to coordinate disparate elements to do anything worthwhile.hnorman42_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

ET
The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” …
That isn’t the ID approach.
ET chooses a snippet creatively. What I said: The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” is not completely wrong, but ID proponents need to look at ways in which events can unfold but in stages rather than all at once. So Mike Behe's argument about an edge to evolution and irreducible complexity isn't an ID approach?Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

Eukaryogenesis: The Rise of an Emergent Superorganism - May 2022 Excerpt: The eukaryotic cell is extraordinarily distinct from the much simpler bacterial and archaeal cells of the prokaryotic domains. It possesses not only a nucleus and a mitochondrion, but also a sophisticated endomembrane system, a complex cytoskeleton and a unique sexual cycle, leaving the gap between cells of prokaryotic and eukaryotic design as the greatest chasm in biology. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.858064/full Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * - Oct. 30, 2015 Excerpt: However, now that genome sequencing is inexpensive and widespread, the evolutionary story of endosymbiosis has become increasingly clouded and controversial. As new bacterial and eukaryotic genomes are sequenced and the proteins they encode are deduced, the whole evolutionary idea of endosymbiosis has been thrown into utter confusion. One of the most unexpected discoveries has been the utter lack of identified genes that would support the evolutionary tale. As stated in a recent paper, "What was not anticipated was how relatively few mitochondrial proteins with bacterial homologs [sequence similarity] would group specifically with -Proteobacteria in phylogenetic [evolutionary tree] reconstructions: At most, only 10–20% of any of the mitochondrial proteomes examined so far display a robust -proteobacterial signal.4" This lack of evidence for mitochondrial genes derived from bacterial origin in both the mitochondrial DNA and the genome contained in the cell’s nucleus, where most mitochondrial genes are located, is a serious problem for the evolutionary story.,,, http://www.icr.org/article/endosymbiosis-theory-crisis Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 18, 2015 Abstract In the grand schema of evolution, a mythical prokaryote to eukaryote cellular transition allegedly gave rise to the diversity of eukaryotic life (eukaryogenesis). One of the key problems with this idea is the fact that the prokaryotic world itself is divided into two apparent domains (bacteria and archaea) and eukarya share similarities to both domains of prokaryotes while also exhibiting many major innovative features found in neither. In this article, we briefly review the current landscape of the controversy and show how the key molecular features surrounding DNA replication, transcription, and translation are fundamentally distinct in eukarya despite superficial similarities to prokaryotes, particularly archaea. These selected discontinuous molecular chasms highlight the impossibility for eukarya having evolved from archaea. In a separate paper, we will address alleged similarities between eukarya and bacteria. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-archaea-and-eukarya/ Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 25, 2015 Excerpt: In a previous report, we showed that a vast chasm exists between archaea and eukarya in regard to basic molecular machines involved in DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation. The differences in information processing mechanisms and systems are even greater between bacteria and eukarya, which we elaborate upon in this report. Based on differences in lineage-specific essential gene sets and in the vital molecular machines between bacteria and eukarya, we continue to demonstrate that the same unbridgeable evolutionary chasms exist—further invalidating the myth of eukaryogenesis. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/
bornagain77_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Imagination: Prokaryote become eukaryote.
This is hardly controversial. There's plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

But to get to the Christian God as the specific creator, one has to go way beyond what ID can conclude.
:) There is no difference between you and an atheist .Atheists deny the God from the start while yourself after reaching the conclusion that there indeed is a Designer you act like an atheist (not interested to find the identity of God it's like rejecting God because other things are more important for you)Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox This simple flip of perspective So: sex arose in haploid populations, by fusion and subsequent division,
Unfortunately imagination can't replace science and reality. Imagination: chemicals can design life. Imagination: codes emerge by chance. Imagination: Prokaryote become eukaryote. No scientific evidences for above imaginations , only empty statements with ad-hoc fictional explanations . So if you believe above statements then is a piece of cake for you to believe sex emerged by chance (one of many subsystems in the cell that interconnect for a purpose ). :lol: To believe something without any evidence only with assumptions can't be called science.Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Nothing is locked in, especially the Christian God.
Before anyone gets upset, I am definitely not arguing against the Christian God. What I am saying is that ID most definitely points to a creator of the universe. The Christian God is consistent with this conclusion. But to get to the Christian God as the specific creator, one has to go way beyond what ID can conclude. My main point is that neither side wants to address the issues rationally.jerry_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox: “thinking is what the brain does” Not even wrong. The material brain does not, and cannot, think. Thinking is what you, via your immaterial mind, do..
Michael Egnor, M.D. Are We our Brains? Philosophy and the Foundations of Neuroscience - Does your brain think? Does your frontal lobe decide? Or do you think and you decide? What is the relationship between the brain and and the mind; between the brain and the person? ,,, In this episode I speak with Dr. Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon and professor of pediatric neurosurgery about some of the philosophical foundations and faulty assumptions of contemporary neuroscience. https://www.themoralimagination.com/episodes/michael-egnor
bornagain77_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Seversky quotes Larry Moran who quotes Gould and Muller as reasonable approaches. One thing I can guarantee is that neither side wants to debate what was said in this long quote. The two sides will just rant at each other. By the way, ID agrees with most of what was said by Gould and Muller except Gould went off the reservation at least once and cited something as true that is at best speculation or guess. So a good question is why did Seversky quote something that ID essentially agrees with. My guess, is he probably didn’t realize it. Next question: why does anyone answer Seversky when he rarely if ever presents anything relevant. Aside: no one on this site understands Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium even though it’s been pointed out what it is several times. This is just an example of the pattern of misinformation that prevails in this debate. Another example of misinformation is that ID is creationism and advocates with certainty specific processes. ID will go wherever the science actually goes and can change conclusions based on the evidence and logic. Nothing is locked in, especially the Christian God.jerry_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Except for the fact that there isn't any scientific theory of evolution.ET_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
People elsewhere have already considered “who did the first sexual organism mate with?”.
The problem is there isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce eukaryotes, let alone sexual reproduction and everything that requires.ET_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” ...
That isn't the ID approach. Grow up. What is wrong with you?ET_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
It is very easy to deny the primacy of consciousness. To be conscious is to be conscious of something. If there is nothing to be conscious of then how can we know we are conscious? If we are rendered unconscious by an injury or just fall asleep we are not conscious of anything for that period. We only become aware of objective reality again when conscious awareness resumes when we wake up. And it appears that reality continues uninterrupted even though we were not aware of it for a period.
My experience of general anaesthesia is also of being switched off then coming round without any impression of the passage of time. Consciousness should be kept for its original meaning where it is used as a description of the level of brain activity, formalized in the Glasgow scale, which I see avoids the controversy by calling itself the Glasgow Coma Scale now. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/think-well/201906/does-consciousness-exist-outside-the-brain The definition of consciousness as brain activity "thinking is what the brain does"Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Sexual selection? Selection starts only if sex(organ+function+genes) already exists ,right? Sex has a function that can’t evolve bit by bit .It’s 100 % functional from the start or next gen won’t exist.
People elsewhere have already considered "who did the first sexual organism mate with?". The basic problem with this ‘how did the sexes diverge?’ question is that it presumes a multicellular asexual diploid, which then threw up gendered forms and meiosis, maybe both at once, with attendant head-scratching over simultaneity. But there is no evidence such an organism ever existed. Diploidy is a product of sex. Even asexual diploids had sexual ancestors (because they contain at least some of the genetic machinery involved in meiosis, even if they no longer indulge). There are no exceptions, to my knowledge. Asexuality in diploid eukaryotes is a derived characteristic, not the starting point. Sex likely played a significant part in eukaryogenesis. So: sex arose in haploid populations, by fusion and subsequent division, rather than in diploid populations by division and subsequent fusion. This simple flip of perspective profoundly changes the constraints. In the latter, you have to find another ‘divider’ to fuse with, and if you’re the first, there aren’t any. This is similar to ‘who did the first female mate with?’. But start with haploidy and fusion instead, and you already have a population of potential partners. Gender itself came later, after multicellularity. You need multicellularity to nurture eggs, or multiply pollen/sperm. Here The ID approach of "this is too complex to have happened" is not completely wrong, but ID proponents need to look at ways in which events can unfold but in stages rather than all at once.Alan Fox_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Sexual selection? Selection starts only if sex(organ+function+genes) already exists ,right? Sex has a function that can't evolve bit by bit .It's 100 % functional from the start or next gen won't exist. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Most people in science who blindly follow Darwin are not biologists of any kind. Darwin was not a biologist. If biologist is all that matters, most Darwinists fail to meet that criteria, including Darwin.BobRyan_{July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners. Meanwhile, natural selection is pushing against genes associated with high educational attainment, high earnings, a low risk of ADHD or major depressive disorder, and a low risk of coronary artery disease. Lead researcher Prof David Hugh-Jones, from UEA’s School of Economics, said: “Darwin’s theory of evolution stated that all species develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. “We wanted to find out more about which characteristics are selected for and against in contemporary humans, living in the UK.”
Wesley Smith comments:
What an odd approach. If poorer people with lesser educations are having more children than educated people, that is not evolution acting on the human population. It is because people are making choices that impact demographics. Moreover, whether one has a lesser or greater education is not usually genetically, but socially, determined. And if some of those decisions do exert an influence on our future genomes, it will not be because of natural selection but human agency. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/human-evolution-is-a-misnomer/
Silver Asiatic_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Sev at 19, "Since you insist on quoting Marks, a computer scientist and engineer, and Popper and Lakatos, philosophers of science,,,, I will quote,, someone who is an evolutionary biologist", Well, not to nitpick Seversky, but I did also quote Charles Darwin himself honestly admitting that his theory failed to qualify as a 'true science' But anyways, one question for you Seversky, out of all those people, which one's livelihood is directly dependent on the erroneous belief that Darwinism is true? I'll even give you a clue, it ain't Marks, Popper, or Lakatos. :)bornagain77_{July 10, 2022
July
07
Jul
10
10
2022
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply