Question for readers: In a world where horizontal gene transfer is an important force, what becomes of Dawkins’s Selfish Gene?

_{News
November 30, 2019

Culture, Darwinism, horizontal gene transfer, Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
horizontal gene transfer
Intelligent Design}

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

I used to see people reading iconic books like this one (right), like it was their new religion (and, actually, it was). But I hear more and more about horizontal gene transfer in the science media. Genes jumping from one life form to the next, creating changes, for better or worse.

So what becomes of five-star Darwinian concepts like Richard Dawkins’s “selfish gene” that is supposed to uphold neo-Darwinism—which is about ancestor-descendant relationships?

The selfish gene is an entity driven by an unadmitted teleological force to replicate itself in offspring.

But horizontal gene transfer—hardly taken seriously the day before yesterday—features genes that simply somehow end up on a different string. See, for example, Horizontal gene transfer allowed plants to move to land.

Is a relentless force of selfishness driving them to do that? Or do they just drift and end up on that string? And, given the number of times HGT keeps cropping up, what becomes of the textbook Tree of Life, which makes no real sense apart from descent?

See also: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more .

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

BA77@88, does this mean that you can’t tell us the SI units that are used to calculate CSI and IC?Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

Ed George, as an atheistic materialist, you are not even allowed immaterial mathematics in the first place. Again, your worldview is insane, you have lost your mind.
An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

BA77@86, so EC and CSI are not traceable to any SI units. I’m glad to hear that EC and CSI are no more mathematically valid than fitness.Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

ED G. it is your Darwinian theory that admits no exceptions to materialism. You can't embrace materialism and then appeal to immaterial concepts to try to prove it feasible. It ain't rocket science Einstein!bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

BA77
Exactly! Darwinian materialism is a cruel task master, if it is not physical it is not real. Period! Yet the central concept of Darwinian evolution itself, i.e. ‘fitness’, is immaterial. It is just another example, in a long line of examples. of Darwinists helping themselves to immaterial concepts that can only be properly grounded in a Theistic worldview.
Are you serious? The detection of design through measuring CSI and IC is every bit as “material” an endeavour as measures of fitness. As such, it is just as bound by traceability to the SI as you claim fitness is. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that traceability to the SI is not critical to assess the validity of a theory.Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

ET,
Please explain why biological fitness needs to be/ should be measured in SI units. Is it because materialistic “math” is limited to those?
Exactly! Darwinian materialism is a cruel task master, if it is not physical it is not real. Period! Yet the central concept of Darwinian evolution itself, i.e. 'fitness', as should be obvious by now, is immaterial,,,, it simply has no physical /material units that it can be precisely measured with, It is just another example, in a long, long, line of examples, of Darwinists helping themselves to immaterial concepts that can only be properly grounded in a Theistic worldview.bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

BA77
December 2, 2019 at 6:53 pm Ed G., it is not ID that has a problem with immaterial concepts, nor with a immaterial mind. It is atheistic materialism that denies that an immaterial reality exists.
It is amusing how quickly you shift subjects when your own arguments are used against you. So, to repeat, what SI units are used to calculate CSI and IR? Or are you willing to admit that traceability to the SI is not critical for the validity of a theory?Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

bornagain77- Please explain why biological fitness needs to be/ should be measured in SI units. Is it because materialistic "math" is limited to those? There is an evolutionary unit called the Darwin, but I don't know if it applies to genetic change. I don't see why it couldn't.ET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

. EDTA @ 52
The logic leading to ID is fine without the same volume of published papers as evolution.
A couple of thoughts: 1) ID is not in competition with the idea that variation and selection occurs in nature, so this whole comparison has a heavy dose of irrelevant rhetoric to begin with. 2) There are large swaths of “mainstream” scientific literature that support ID, which even further dissolves this rhetorical comparison. As an example, in 1961 Crick and Brenner demonstrated that a linear multi-referent code existed in DNA. If materialist defenders think that ID proponents are not allowed to count that among the knowledge that supports ID, then they clearly have another thing coming. In 1958, Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik isolated the interpretive constraints in the gene system that Crick predicted in 1955 (with Peirce, Turing, and von Neumann intellectually in-tow). None of those things are off the ID table, and never will be. In 1961, Marshall Nirenberg set out to crack the gene code and was required to demonstrate the relationships within the code in order to know them. This is because they could not be derived otherwise (i.e. from the dynamics of the system). None of these historical points of knowledge are off the ID table. In 1948, Jon Von Neumann actually predicted the fundamental conditions of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator, which were then verified by experiment. That prediction included a multi-referent symbol system as the core condition of the system. Physicist Howard Pattee spent years writing about the physical properties of the gene system, concluding from its dynamic organization (decades ago) that it was the only other example of a general-purpose language structure known to exist. Frankly, it would be silly to expect ID proponents to ignore these things already in the record.Upright BiPed_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Eddie Bogart, quote-miner:
I don’t mean to be difficult,...
You are being willfully ignorant. Why does evolution by means of blind and mindless processes get a pass?ET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Ed G., it is not ID that has a problem with immaterial concepts, nor with a immaterial mind. It is atheistic materialism that denies that an immaterial reality exists. In short, it is not an insult but simply a statement of fact that Darwinian materialists have lost their minds. Take it how you like, but that is simply the way it is. Don't be offended at me. Be rightly offended at the worldview that forces you, and other Darwinists, into such an insane position! To repeat,
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

ET
I know that CSI and IC are measured as information, in bits. It’s logarithmic, so it’s well beyond your capabilities.
What SI unit is the bit? I don’t mean to be difficult, but if BA77 is going to insist on SI traceability for fitness, why do the CSI and IC get a free pass? Either SI traceability is required for a valid theory or it’s not.Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Ed Bogart, quote-mining loser:
So, you don’t know what SI units are used to measure CSI or IR either?
I know that CSI and IC are measured as information, in bits. It's logarithmic, so it's well beyond your capabilities. What is fitness measured in?
Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.
That pretty much says what we have is of little use.ET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

ET
And ID has said exactly how to measure CSI and IC. Your ignorance speaks volumes.
So, you don’t know what SI units are used to measure CSI or IR either? Is it the second? The meter? The kilogram? The ampere? The candela? The mole? The kelvin? There are only seven. Surely two of the key measures of ID are traceable to the SI. It seems rather hypocritical to expect fitness to be traceable to the SI but not for ID’s poster boys for empirical measures.Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Ed George- Please grow up and learn that ID is not anti-evolution. That way you don't continually come off as a willfully ignorant, equivocating coward. The slam-dunk against evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is it makes untestable claims and as such is outside of science. And ID has said exactly how to measure CSI and IC. Your ignorance speaks volumes.ET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

BA77
In short, you, as an atheistic materialist, have lost your mind.
You ask for the SI units that are used to measure fitness, as if it is a slam dunk against evolution, and then go all insult when someone asks you the same thing about two of ID’s key “measures”. As KF would say, “that speaks volumes”.Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

Reaper:
As opposed to the detection of intelligent design in biology?
ID has the PRE-specified criteria something must meet before we say it is designed. But yes, like ALL of science, ID relies on OBSERVATIONs taken after the fact that something happened. Did you have a point besides exposing your ignorance?ET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

LOL, you just can't make this stuff up.
Maybe I am missing something but what SI units are used to measure irreducible complexity? Or Complex specified information?
You, as a Darwinian materialist, are 'missing' an immaterial mind in which immaterial concepts, such as mathematics itself (and/or the abstract concept of 'fitness'), can be held. In short, you, as an atheistic materialist, have lost your mind.bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

ET
Biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment.
As opposed to the detection of intelligent design in biology? Thank you for making me laugh. It is great for relieving stress.Reapers Plague_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

BA77
Too funny, two atheistic materialists agreeing with me that fitness cannot be physically measured in si units.
Maybe I am missing something but what SI units are used to measure irreducible complexity? Or Complex specified information?Ed George_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Too funny, two atheistic materialists agreeing with me that fitness cannot be physically measured in si units. Thanks for conceding my point. To remind, YOU GUYS are the ones who are Darwinian materialists, not me! To a Darwinian materialist if something does not have physical properties that can be measured then it simply does not exist.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Ergo. and sans your concession that fitness cannot be directly physically measured, fitness is not 'reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories', to wit per Darwinian materialism, fitness must be abstract, i.e. fitness does not really physically exist. Per Bob at 61:
There is no SI unit of a count.
Aside from the fact that ‘counting’ itself is an abstract property of the immaterial mind, Bob apparently thinks that fitness is directly related to how many offspring a organism may have Yet, as far as empirical science is concerned, (the stuff that Bob resolutely ignores), Behe wrote a paper entitled "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution" (and a subsequent book entitled "Darwin Devolves"), in which he shows, via empirical evidence, that the vast majority of mutations that increase the supposed ‘fitness’ of an organism “degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.” He dubs it, “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.”
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Let me just point out the glaringly obvious, (since what is glaringly obvious is often completely lost on atheistic materialists), breaking stuff to gain a reproductive advantage is, in reality, NOT making the organism more physically fit and stronger in any meaningful sense than it originally was. In fact, such a situation directly contradicts the way ‘fitness’ is often presented to high school students. i.e. fitness is presented as a improvement to an organism to high school students, not as a loss of function. Per Seversky at 65:
There is no SI unit for fitness since it is not regarded as such a constant.
And thank you Seversky for agreeing with my post at 51 where I point out that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science precisely because there are no laws or constants in the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a scientific theory upon. To repeat: As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”
The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14) Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences. ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf
In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468
Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf
Thus, both Bob and Seversky have, in actuality, (apparently unbeknownst to themselves), conceded the major points that I was trying to make against their supposedly 'scientific' theory. i.e. Namely that Darwinism is a pseudoscience with no real basis in science. Thanks for playing guys. :) You two are good sports for allowing the unbiased readers to see just how vacuous your position actually is.bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Biological fitness is an after-the-fact assessment. And as such:
Natural selection disappears as a biological force and reappears as a statistical artifact. The change is not trivial. It is one thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution; it is quite another thing to say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of various regression correlations between quantitative characteristics. It hardly appears obvious that if natural selection is simply a matter of correlations established between quantitative traits, that Darwin’s theory has any content beyond the phenomenological, and in the most obvious sense, is no theory at all.
ET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H @ 66
I thought the SI unit for creation was The Day, although there is still some debate about the exact size of the unit.
Another question is whether the Standard Divine Day existed before God created it. He could have taken an eternity to create the universe and then just pretended He knocked it off in six days and rested on the seventh because even the Almighty gets tired. How would we ever know?Seversky_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

There is no SI unit for fitness since it is not regarded as such a constant. There is also no SI unit for divine creation even though Christians seem to regard it as the most basic constant.
I thought the SI unit for creation was The Day, although there is still some debate about the exact size of the unit.Bob O'H_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77@ 60
BS Bob. everything I’ve touched upon supports the fact that you cannot define fitness in a rigorous mathematical manner. i.e. in si units. I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can see through your BS.
To make it simple for you SI units are base measurement units of seven physical constants such as volume, mass or time:
The revised SI rests on a foundation of seven values, known as the constants. (SI is the acronym for the International System of Units, which is informally known as the metric system.) The values of the constants are the same everywhere in the universe. In the revised SI, these constants completely define the seven base SI units, from the second to the candela.
There is no SI unit for fitness since it is not regarded as such a constant. There is also no SI unit for divine creation even though Christians seem to regard it as the most basic constant.
Translation, the real world is not kind to your mathematical fantasies in the least, Yet you. like all atheistic Darwinists, blatantly ignore the real world when it falsifies your preferred worldview.
And you, like so many Christian creationists, blatantly ignore the real world when it falsifies your preferred religious worldview. For example, I refer you to the measured age of the universe which vastly exceeds that which can be inferred from Scripture or the lack of empirical evidence for a global flood or the existence of the son of your God manifest in physical form as Jesus.
Newsflash Bob, the real world of empirical science could care less how you, as an atheist, would prefer the world to be.
I assume that the real world could not care less how I as an atheist or you as a Christian would prefer it to be. It is what it is. Yet you have spent a lot of time, based on your questionable interpretation of quantum phenomena, arguing that the nature of physical reality is observer-dependent, which would seem to contradict what you wrote above.Seversky_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

ba77 - in which of my papers have I "ignor[ed] empirical observation when [I] don’t like what it says", and in what way have I done that? You're essentially accusing me of misconduct, so I would expect you to have clear examples of this. I'm guessing that you don't have any actual examples, and you're just making wild accusations. So go on, prove me wrong by giving explicit examples from my papers.Bob O'H_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Bob claims,
Especially to someone who, unlike you, actually inhabits the world of empirical science.
LOL, You wouldn't know empirical, i.e. real world, science if it bit you in the rear end. If I still worked at the chemical factory that I worked at in Texas, I would fire anyone who treated science as you do. (i.e. ignoring empirical observation when you don't like what it says), You would be a extreme danger to yourself and everyone else who worked at that chemical factory (not to mention the surrounding neighborhood). Furthermore, I would do my damnedest to see to it that you never saw the inside of another chemical factory in the Gulf coast area. And no one in the field would even bat an eye when I told them the reason for you being black-balled!bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Bob- you do not inhabit the world of empirical science. When it comes to science you know about as much as a new born babyET_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

ba77 - There is no SI unit of a count. Even physicists aren't that stupid that the see the need to define it in terms of physical constants.
Newsflash Bob, the real world of empirical science could care less how you, as an atheist, would prefer the world to be.
Um, you've just been emphasising that Price was a Christian (as, of course, was Fisher), so this is a very strange comment to make. Especially to someone who, unlike you, actually inhabits the world of empirical science.Bob O'H_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

BS Bob. everything I've touched upon supports the fact that you cannot define fitness in a rigorous mathematical manner. i.e. in si units. I am more than satisfied that the unbiased reader can see through your BS. As ET pointed out, "Seeing that you ignore that which refutes your BS, there is no point in continuing" Translation, the real world is not kind to your mathematical fantasies in the least, Yet you. like all atheistic Darwinists, blatantly ignore the real world when it falsifies your preferred worldview. Newsflash Bob, the real world of empirical science could care less how you, as an atheist, would prefer the world to be.bornagain77_{December 2, 2019
December
12
Dec
2
02
2019
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply