What Does It Mean To Be Human? Don’t Ask A Darwinist

_{DonaldM
November 19, 2019

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

“What does it mean to be human?” is one of the fundamental questions we all ask. Every once in a while something happens to remind us that those influenced by Darwinism usually only answer the question with “not much”. As a case in point, just today it’s being reported that the father of a son born with two rare diseases was trying to raise money for medical expenses. He had put up signs at a local mall to raise awareness and funds.

“KC Ahlers said he posted six signs around the Franklin Park Mall in Toledo, Ohio to spread awareness about an upcoming fundraiser for his 4-month-old son, RJ. The father told WTVG on Friday that he discovered three additional signs posted next to his that read: “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”

And there you have it. “Only the fit survive, and your diseased child isn’t fit to survive, so just let him die!” Only a true Darwinist would say that.

Comments

ET
It makes me glad that a known reprehensible, quote-mining coward thinks so.
Were you bullied as a child or are you just naturally a sociopath? You, obviously, are not worth talking to. I assume this happens to you often.Reapers Plague_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PST}

Reapers:
Whereas you are reprehensible in both a Darwinian world and a designed world.
It makes me glad that a known reprehensible, quote-mining coward thinks so.
Except that Darwin wasn’t the one who coined “survival of the fittest” or “red in tooth and claw”.
So what? He definitely adopted both of them in an attempt to further his narrative.ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PST}

BA77
Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type, (for instance calling the sign that said “Let the baby die” reprehensible), is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory. As Darwin himself stated
; That’s nice. Except that Darwin wasn’t the one who coined “survival of the fittest” or “red in tooth and claw”. When someone starts a thousand word tome with two easily proven falsehoods, it saves me the effort to read the rest. Thank you for your consideration.Reapers Plague_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PST}

Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria, instead of eating us, are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:
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 We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html
Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers
None of this pervasive altruistic behavior within bacteria makes any sense on Darwinian evolution and in fact directly contradicts the 'predictions' inherent in 'survival of the fittest' thinking. Again, if Darwinian evolution were a normal science instead of basically being a religion for atheists, this should count as yet another powerful falsification of their theory: Verse:
Matthew 25 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, 36 I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you visited Me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’ 40 And the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’
bornagain77_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

R.P.
"As reprehensible as this is"
ET
It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world.
To wit:
"If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p 67
Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type, (for instance calling the sign that said "Let the baby die" reprehensible), is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory. As Darwin himself stated;
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard 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
And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
Moreover, the falsification of this ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’, thinking occurs at the molecular level too. Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the antithesis of selfishness).
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ 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/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747
Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had envisioned. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory). In fact on top of genes being in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm
Moreover on top of all that, 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 notion that a single cell can somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive. To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound and willful ignorance (most likely both).
One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
In fact Darwin stated that “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“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
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
Thus, if evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small single celled organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
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
bornagain77_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PST}

ET
It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world.
Whereas you are reprehensible in both a Darwinian world and a designed world. I guess that means that you win.Reapers Plague_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PST}

As reprehensible as this is,...
It is only reprehensible in an Intelligently Designed world.ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PST}

Correct reapers plagueAaronS1978_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

As reprehensible as this is, blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion.Reapers Plague_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PST}

"Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." At the urging of hard Darwinian reasoning their sympathy was checked to the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.aarceng_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PST}

Seversky tells himself another evidence-free Darwinian 'just-so story' because even he can't handle the barbarity inherent within his own Darwinian worldview:
“... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012
At least Dawkins had enough integrity to honesty admit that the Darwinian worldview entails, "at bottom,,,, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
That Atheism entails a very low view humanity, one does not have to go very far to find examples. In 1995 Stephen Hawking stated that “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” - Stephen Hawking - 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,
In 2002 John Gray, an English political philosopher, stated that “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.”
“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” John Gray - Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals - page 33 - 2002 https://books.google.com/books?id=0GGyCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33
Voltaire claimed that men were , "insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.”
You Chemical Scum, You - Prof. Raymond Tallis - 2012 Excerpt: Significant Insignificances Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” ,,, Voltaire did not consider himself merely an insect, any more than Gray considers slime mould his peer, or Hawking regards Hawking as a quantum of chemical scum. https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You
As should be glaringly obvious by now, the atheist's worldview is about as hopeless and depressing of a worldview as a person can possibly have. Why an atheist would willingly choose the hopeless nihilism of his Darwinian worldview over Christianity I have no idea. Especially since Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a science in the first place:
Nov. 2019 - Darwinian evolution simply fails to qualify as a rigorous and testable science by any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke and is therefore more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than being classified as a real and testable science. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jon-harvey-hump-of-the-camel-weighs-in-on-the-late-phillip-johnson/#comment-688180
And especially since there is now abundant scientific evidence, (from both quantum mechanics and general relativity, which are, by far, our two most powerful theories in science), that human life is not nearly as insignificant in this universe as the atheist has falsely imagined it to be:
Overturning of the Copernican Principle by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-invited-to-consider-a-simpler-perspective-on-the-laws-of-physics/#comment-680427 Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video (review of the scientific evidence starts at the 13:00 minute mark) https://youtu.be/aqUxBSbFhog?t=782
Quote, Verse and Video:
“If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. And He intentionally created you. So your life does have objective meaning, value and purpose. That means you can live a life that is both happy and consistent.” Is There Meaning to Life? - Dr Craig videos (animated video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE 1 Corinthians 2:9 But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.” Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis
bornagain77_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST}

seversky:
Whoever posted that sign is contemptible and quite possibly a troll.
So trolls post facts? Interesting...ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PST}

That sort of commentary happens when you strip the power from someone and you make everything seem meaningless The baby has no meaning just let it die if you do so than the rare disease that it has will also die with it That’s what fills the vacuum when humans become nothing more than to meet robots powered Thermal chemical reactions, And programmed by genes Seversky’s Doesn’t do much to help that either, It reduces sympathy As an incidental instinct acquired as part of social and stings through natural selection That affectively rendering sympathy meaningless like everything else Now I would like also point out in the quote HOW Absolutely certain he is about the origin of sympathy and what became of it. There’s absolutely no way at that time he could’ve known that, it was a complete conjecture, a straight story. As with most Darwinian storytelling is just a task of connecting the dots from survival to the end result, you don’t need science for thatAaronS1978_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST}

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. " Only a Darwinist Cult Zealot like Sev would present such gobbledygook. What utter flipping nonsense. Andrewasauber_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PST}

Whoever posted that sign is contemptible and quite possibly a troll. It certainly doesn't reflect what Darwin thought.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
-- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)Seversky_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply