Metaphysics and ID

_{May 14, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

I have just been re-reading R. G. Collingwoods “Essay on Metaphysics”, and am now more that ever convinced that Collingwood’s perspective is incredibly important to the ID debate.

Collingwood was a mid-20th Century British Philosopher who was WaynFlete Professor of Metaphysical Sciences at Oxford University, and who worked himself to death. He published many works – all of them in style that is incredibly easy to read, but very challenging to the reader. Unlike many philosophers he was very interested in the natural sciences, and documented the course of Western science in his “Idea of Nature”. Yet, in his last days he warned that natural science, as now conceived in the West, will ultimately destroy Western Civilization. And this would be because of metaphysics.

Now, metaphysics has had a bad two centuries, and in the popular culture it is simply ridiculed. But there is no escape from it. Rather than argue about particular metaphysical ideas, Collingwood introduced the idea of metaphysics being absolute presuppositions. An absolute presupposition is a proposition that cannot be proven or disproven – it can only be accepted or rejected. Absolute propositions are the foundation of all of our thinking. If we even question one of them that we hold, then all our thinking collapses like a house of cards. For instance, the US Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. This is not anything that can be proven scientifically – you either accept it or reject it. It is an absolute presupposition. Don’t imagine you can prove – or disprove it – scientifically. You cannot – you accept it or reject it and build from there.

Collingwood, having established absolute presuppositions, went on to show how absolute presuppositions have varied with time in Western civilization (meaning there is no such thing as “human nature”), and how they probably vary across cultural lines. From this he referred metaphysics to history and said that the function of metaphysics is to discover the absolute presuppositions at any point in time in every culture. He then went on to say that the set of absolute presuppositions you hold will determine the questions you ask, and that in turn will determine the answers you get. And that, he said, will determine the answers you get from your science.

Collingwood was very big on science being the capacity to formulate questions for which you could get answers. In the Baconian tradition, he saw the scientist acting as the prosecutor would never be allowed to act – torturing Nature to get answers from her. But you will never ask questions that question your absolute presuppositions – the very act of doing so destroys them. Your absolute presuppositions dictate the answers you will get from your science because they constrain the questions you will ask.

From this we can see how evolutionary biology is moribund. You cannot ask why cockroaches have remained unchanged since the Carboniferous, or why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times, or why men don’t have babies. Just to ask these questions calls into question the absolute presuppositions – the metaphysics – that underlie evolutionary biology. And not asking these questions guarantees the answers that evolutionary biology does give. Therefore, ID should boldly ask precise scientific questions that challenge the established orthodoxy. It is questions, far more than their answers, that matter.

Comments

The Rational Metaphysical Foundations For Science: ---The Universe is orderly and rational, we have rational minds to comprehend the rational universe, and there is a correspondence between the two. [Both the investigator and the object of investigation exist and each is in logical harmony with the other] ---The law of identity exists [A thing cannot be and not be at the same time] ---The law of causality, which is a corollary to and is derived from the law of identity, also exists. [a] Anything that begins to exist must have a cause [Universes cannot just pop into existence]. [b] Anything that was in the effect must have been in the cause [Life cannot come from non-life, mind cannot come from matter. [c] The cause cannot give something it does not have to give. [d] Because of a, b, and c, science can search for causes. [We can track down causes because we know that there are no uncaused physical events]. The Irrational Metaphysical Foundations For Science: [embraced by Materialist/Darwinists] ---We do not have rational minds, the universe may or may not be ordered, and there is no such thing as a correspondence of mind to reality because there are no minds and, therefore, nothing with which the universe can come into correspondence. [Matter investigates itself.] ---The law of identity is not really a law because it does not really apply to the real world. It is just something humans constructed. Anything that is socially constructed can be deconstructed. ---There is no law of causality because there is no law of identity. [a] Things can begin to exist without a cause [Universes can just pop into existence--quantum events need no causes--movement itself needs no cause--theoretically, a cement wall could come from out of nowhere and appear in front of a moving vehicle. There is nothing in principle to prevent it, nor can the materialist Darwinist claim that such an event is impossible. He can only say that we have not observed it.] [b] Things can be in the “effect” that were not present in the cause. [Life can come from non-life, mind can come from matter—physical events can come from out of nowhere]. [c] The cause can give things it doesn’t have to give. [Even if intelligence or consciousness never existed, matter can produce it out of nothing—indeed, matter can cause itself. The universe may have caused itself] [d] Because of a, b, and c, science cannot search for causes. [We cannot track down the causes of events because, since some things can be uncaused, we have no way of knowing which events were caused and which events were not caused. Thus, when we have finally tracked down the cause of a certain event, the Darwinist can simply say, (and often does say) “sorry, but this was one of those events that was uncaused. Under the circumstances, science and rational discourse is impossible. (That is why it is futile to talk science with a materialist Darwinist or even attempt a rational discussion with him. It is far better to simply call attention to his irrational orientation. Rationality is a choice, and materialist/Darwinists have chosen not to be rational. Our task is not to debate them but rather to persuade them that rationality is the better choice.]StephenB_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

KF-san, As I understand the presentation of Collingwood's ideas, I can't see a difference between an axiom, an absolute presupposition, and what you are calling a self evident truth. You can construct a theory in which error does not exist, but it won't be very interesting. It certainly won't be related in many useful ways to reality. However, I think warranted theories contain degrees of error and truth, confirmation and disconfirmation. I doubt in Collingwood's view if it is ever possible to escape Plato's Cave. At best, we can exchange one set of fire and shadow for another. The scientists working at the LHC know they are looking at shadows on the wall. Likewise, a biblical literalist is very clear about their absolute presupposition.Nakashima_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

PS: Perhaps I should explicitly add that while it is possible to set up any number of worldviews and associated first plausibles or presuppositions, when such a view leads one to deny a self evident truth like the undeniably true claim "error exists," then that is a sign of deep incoherence and factual inadequacy of that view. So, it lacks warrant.kairosfocus_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Nakashima-San: If one tries to deny that error exists, one immediately sees that either (a) the claim "error exists" is an error [inadvertently confirming it], or else, (b) one's denial is itself an error. Thus, we see immediate reductio ad absurdum and (b) is thus true: the denial that error exists is itself an error. Denying the parallel lines axiom as Gauss etc found out, creates a consistent field of non_euclidean geometry. The two are utterly incomparable. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Here's a good theory: If a google search for a quotation only generates three hits and two of them are by yourself, then it's probably an inexact quotation. The same search with the correct quotation generated 58 hits. :D Ain't the internet great?tragic mishap_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

So I did a google search for the specific phrase "every age gets the science it wants" and I got exactly three hits. How often does that happen? And two of them were posts by me on this blog. I may have the quotation wrong, since if it was correct I would probably be able to find it elsewhere in a google search, but the idea is the same. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/50000-creationist-essay-contest/#comment-58147 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/us-government-genome-mapper-francis-collins-fronts-new-biologos-theory-preferred-to-theistic-evolution/#comment-316146 These links seem to take you to a point somewhat below my actual comment, so you may have to search the page for the phrase to find it. The actual quote is: "But probably every age gets, within certain limits, the science it desires." From "Funeral of a Great Myth" in "Christian Reflections" by C.S. Lewistragic mishap_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Alfred Russel, Would you please compare and contrast the absolute presuppositions of ID and modern evolutionary theory?
Therefore, ID should boldly ask precise scientific questions that challenge the established orthodoxy. It is questions, far more than their answers, that matter.
I challenge you to name any leading philosopher of science who agrees with you.Sooner Emeritus_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

From this we can see how evolutionary biology is moribund. You cannot ask why cockroaches have remained unchanged since the Carboniferous, or why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times, or why men don’t have babies. Just to ask these questions calls into question the absolute presuppositions – the metaphysics – that underlie evolutionary biology. And not asking these questions guarantees the answers that evolutionary biology does give. Therefore, ID should boldly ask precise scientific questions that challenge the established orthodoxy. It is questions, far more than their answers, that matter.
I think the examples you give do not support your argument because, in Collingwood's terms, they are relative not absolute presuppositions. For example, the entry on Collingwood in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes them thus:
In <i<An Essay on Metaphysics Collingwood sought to show that, contrary to the prevailing neo-empiricism of the new philosophical climate, there are indeed meaningful propositions which are neither empirically verifiable nor merely analytic. To this end he distinguished between relative and absolute presuppositions. Absolute presuppositions are presuppositions which govern a form of enquiry and make it possible in the first place. Relative presuppositions are presuppositions that are internal to a particular form of enquiry. To illustrate: the statement that the cause of malaria is the bite of a mosquito would be a relative presupposition, but the statement that we can prevent or produce certain effects by preventing or producing their causes is an absolute presupposition of medical science. Relative presuppositions are empirically verifiable since they may be found to be either true or false. Absolute presuppositions are not empirically verifiable because they are neither true nor false, yet must necessarily be presupposed in order to engage in a particular form of enquiry. Absolute presuppositions are neither analytically true, nor are they empirically true or false, and yet they are meaningful.
In any event, even if your interpretation of Collingwood were true, it would make no practical difference. A science could only be described as moribund when it ceases to be fruitful, when it no longer inspires new ideas, no longer stimulates new research, no longer makes new discoveries, no longer generates new papers. Hmmm, now what else would fit that description?Seversky_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

OP:
From this we can see how evolutionary biology is moribund. You cannot ask why cockroaches have remained unchanged since the Carboniferous, or why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times, or why men don’t have babies. Just to ask these questions calls into question the absolute presuppositions – the metaphysics – that underlie evolutionary biology.
What absolute metaphysical presuposition prevents evolutionary biologists from investigating cockroach evolution? There are thousands of species of cockroach. That diversity indicates that "the cockroach" has not remained unchanged. The evolution of that diverisity is the subject of active research. For example: Adaptive radiation within New Zealand endemic species of the cockroach genus Celatoblatta Johns (Blattidae): a response to Plio-Pleistocene mountain building and climate change. Molecular Ecology, Vol. 13, Issue: 6, June 2004. pp. 1507-1518 Chinn, Warren G.; Gemmell, Neil J. The evolutionary transition from subsocial to eusocial behaviour in Dictyoptera: Phylogenetic evidence for modification of the "shift-in-dependent-care" hypothesis with a new subsocial cockroach. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Vol. 43, Issue: 2, May, 2007. pp. 616-626 Pellens, Roseli; D'Haese, Cyrille A.; Belles, Xavier; Piulachs, Maria-Dolors; Legendre, Frederic; Wheeler, Ward C.; Grandcolas, Philippe Evolution of a novel function: nutritive milk in the viviparous cockroach, Diploptera punctata. Evolution and Development, Vol. 6, Issue: 2, March 2004. pp. 67-77 Williford, Anna; Stay, Barbara; Bhattacharya, Debashish Wood-feeding cockroaches as models for termite evolution (Insecta: Dictyoptera): Cryptocercus vs. Parasphaeria boleiriana. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Vol. 46, Issue: 3, March, 2008. pp. 809-817 Klass, Klaus-Dieter; Nalepa, Christine; Lo, Nathan CONSTRAINTS ON EVOLUTION AND POSTCOPULATORY SEXUAL SELECTION: TRADE-OFFS AMONG EJACULATE CHARACTERISTICS. Evolution, Vol. 58, Issue: 8, August 1, 2004. pp. 1773-1780 Moore, Patricia J.; Edwin Harris, W.; Tamara Montrose, V.; Levin, Daniel; Moore, Allen J. Evidence for Cocladogenesis Between Diverse Dictyopteran Lineages and Their Intracellular Endosymbionts. Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 20, Issue: 6, June 2003. pp. 907-913 Lo, Nathan; Bandi, Claudio; Watanabe, Hirofumi; Nalepa, Christine; Beninati, Tiziana Evidence from multiple gene sequences indicates that termites evolved from wood-feeding cockroaches. Current Biology, Vol. 10, Issue: 13, June 1, 2000. pp. 801-804 Lo, Nathan; Tokuda, Gaku; Watanabe, Hirofumi; Rose, Harley; Slaytor, Michael; Maekawa, Kiyoto; Bandi, Claudio; Noda, Hiroaki Genetic variation and asexual reproduction in the facultatively parthenogenetic cockroach Nauphoeta cinerea: implications for the evolution of sex. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 14, Issue: 1, January 8, 2001. pp. 68-74 Corley, L. S.; Blankenship, J. R.; Moore, A. J. Phylogenetic analysis of the endemic New Caledonian cockroach Lauraesilpha. Testing competing hypotheses of diversification. Cladistics, Vol. 24, Issue: 5, October 2008. pp. 802-812 Murienne, J.; Pellens, R.; Budinoff, R. B.; Wheeler, W. C.; Grandcolas, P.Zolar Czakl_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

KF, For instance if error exists, truth exists as what is there to err about, and knowable truth exists as what is warranted as credibly true. That is still working within an axiomatic system, not across all possible axomatic systems. The assertioin that the sum of the angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees is true in one axiomatic system and an error in two other axiomatic systems. You are no closer to establishing the idea of an absolute truth across all possible systems, or above all possible systems.Nakashima_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

semi-off topic: This article may be of interest to start a thread on: Of microorganisms and man: First large-scale test confirms Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry http://www.physorg.com/news192882557.html The author made some very interesting assumptions in his model that caught my eye: Theobald's study rests on several simple assumptions about how the diversity of modern proteins arose. First, he assumed that genetic copies of a protein can be multiplied during reproduction, such as when one parent gives a copy of one of their genes to several of their children. Second, he assumed that a process of replication and mutation over the eons may modify these proteins from their ancestral versions. These two factors, then, should have created the differences in the modern versions of these proteins we see throughout life today. Lastly, he assumed that genetic changes in one species don't affect mutations in another species—for example, genetic mutations in kangaroos don't affect those in humans. I thought real special of him to assume to be true what needs to be proven to be true. National Geographic got on board to: All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/ It turns out the author is so bold as to actually put a probability on humans being created and not evolving: The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power. This is just so special that a evolutionist would all of the sudden find room for a probability calculation when evolutionists are notorious in their ability to ignore all probabilities that have been put forth. Just one example: In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA Along that same line: Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science." Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas - El Pasobornagain77_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

Ilion: That is one way to show the absurdity. Well, who can but say we are computer programs in a cloud, led to perceive we are brains in vats led to think that we are say girls paddling away in canoes on a lake? And so on to infinite regress. In short, at some point we have to accept the general credibility of our senses, rationality and conscious awareness; or we end up in an infinite regress absurdity of doubts and disputes with no escape. So, absent good reason to understand that we live in a Plato's cave world of contrived shadow shows, we accept the testimony of our senses and common sense; while keeping an open mind. An infinite regress world is madness, not reason. So, we make the Jamesian choice to will to accept that our senses and common sense reasoning in general speak to us credibly. We all must live by faith, and it is best to accept a faith that is not patently absurd by means of plain self-referential incoherence! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Mr Russel, So Collingwood took what mathematicians had been calling an 'axiom' since Euclid, renamed it "absolute presupposition", and sold it as a new idea to the metaphysics academic community? Remarkable. I agree with Ilion, the parenthetical is an example. I think you meant it to be an example, not a conclusion, but your text is unclear. I'll also agree that your presuppositions will guide your questions (though not completely), but the idea that they will also determine the answers is po-mo horse hockey. The Aristotleian who beleives that all things move towards their natural place will get the same value as a modern scientist in an experiment determining the gravitational acceleration of the Earth. If you could find one experiment whose results vary consistently based on the belief system of the scientist running the experiment, you would go a long way towards supporting your position. I don't know of one. I agree with Mr Zolar Czakl that none of your examples is particularly germane. Cockroaches have changed since the Carboniferous, even New York City cockroaches don't grow that big any more! Now the question "How can we reliably detect the intervention of agency into the natural order?" seems to me to rest very much on the presuppositions about agency. Choosing to ask that question about Carboniferous cockroaches vs. asking it about a virus that suddenly apears in Times Square can be driven by presuppositions.Nakashima_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

What absolute metaphysical presuposition prevents evolutionary biologists from asking why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times? The question pertains to the role of contingent events in the history of life, a central topic and an area of active investigation in evolutionary biology and paleontology.Zolar Czakl_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

KairosFucus: "... key foundational worldview claims/commitments are subject to challenge based on reductio ad absurdum. And indeed, that is the fate of the brain in a vat type of proposal linked by F2XL: it entails so wholesale a rejection of our experience of the world that only if we have positive evidence of its truth should we be willing to accept it. ..." Also, the brain-in-a-vat hyper-skeptical hypothesis actually presupposes the very worldview it's designed to call into question.Ilion_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Sirs: Pardon a few remarks. 1 --> Metaphysics, definition (and of course philosophical definitions are also philosophical questions . . . ):
1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value. [Am H Dict]
2 --> In that context, Aristotle's common-sense based definition in Metaphysics 1011b, that truth "says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not" is profoundly wise and deeply challenging once we move beyond immediate and uncontroversial facts at the level of "who stole the cookie from the cookie jar." 3 --> Thus, we see the importance of warranted, credible truths in developing and testing credible worldviews, and the related value of the philosophical method of comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, across live option worldviews. 4 --> In this context, Ilion is right: key foundational worldview claims/commitments are subject to challenge based on reductio ad absurdum. And indeed, that is the fate of the brain in a vat type of proposal linked by F2XL: it entails so wholesale a rejection of our experience of the world that only if we have positive evidence of its truth should we be willing to accept it. (Like,in the Matrix, discovering the apparatus of manipulation; or more profoundly, being released from the physical and mental chains in Plato's Cave.) 5 --> In that context, I must note on self evident truth: truths that, on pain of reduction to obvious absurdity, we see as true once we understand what is being claimed in light of our experience of the world we live in. OFr first instance, I usually use a version of Josiah Royce: error exists. (Such truths form a cluster of key facts that test the adequacy of worldviews. For instance if error exists, truth exists as what is there to err about, and knowable truth exists as what is warranted as credibly true. Immediately, no worldviews that depend on presuppositions that deny the objectivity of truth and knowledge are viable.) 6 --> I also note that science is not at all a matter of proof, at least not in the deductive sense of that term. For, scientific claims on facts and explaining laws or theories are always subject to correction in light of further investigation. Scientific knowledge bases are thus inescapably provisionally warranted, and are subject to future correction. 7 --> In that context, Lakatos can be adapted to highlight that major research programmes in science comprise a worldview-embedded core, with a belt of auxiliary hypotheses, models and constructs that both tie the core ideas to the world of observables and partially insulate the core from simple empirical falsification. For, since the core ideas are seldom on directly observable things, when a prediction is disconfirmed, it is as a rule much easier tro adjust the belt. 8 --> So, the path to empirical discredit of major research programmes is indirect and cumulative, via ending up with a degenerative paradigm that is forced to make ever more ad hoc, after the fact adjustments and explanations to fit observations; instead of easily and accurately predicting them on the strength of core postulates. (Thus too, we see the key mark of a progressive paradigm.) 9 --> Arguably, evolutionary materialism is now increasingly degenerative, and design (though the phoenix has just been reborn) is progressive. ______________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 15, 2010
May
05
May
15
15
2010
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

[of course, that's a typo; I meant "reductio ad absurdum"]Ilion_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

Presuppositions, at least some of them, can be tested indirectly, using the method of "proof by contradiction" or redictio ad absurdum. For instance, we can conclude that the presupposition "God is" is sound/true and that the presupposition "God is not" is unsound/false because treating "God is not" as true generates absurdity.Ilion_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

"Collingwood, having established absolute presuppositions, went on to show how absolute presuppositions have varied with time in Western civilization (meaning there is no such thing as “human nature”), ..." The parenthetical does not follow ... and is, in fact, a presupposition.Ilion_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

No doubt there are times where we'd all like to trust our own thoughts. When it comes to metaphysical presuppositions of what isn't true, one can't ignore the ultimate assumption of them all.F2XL_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

I'll have to read more Collingwoods, though these same ideas are what motivated Cornelius VanTil in 1929 to argue about presuppositions being essential to science and theology alike. There's been a long tradition in the seminaries at both Old Princeton (Charles Hodge) and Westminster discussing the need for presuppositions (metaphysics).Robert Sheldon_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

OP:
From this we can see how evolutionary biology is moribund. You cannot ask why cockroaches have remained unchanged since the Carboniferous, or why dinosaurs have not evolved multiple times, or why men don’t have babies. Just to ask these questions calls into question the absolute presuppositions – the metaphysics – that underlie evolutionary biology.
What absolute, metaphysical presupposition prevents evolutionary biologists from asking why men don't have babies? The question pertains to the origins of sexual reproduction, an area of active investigation within evolutionary biology.Zolar Czakl_{May 14, 2010
May
05
May
14
14
2010
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply