Why Not Accept the Fossil Record at Face Value Instead of Imposing a Theory on it?

_{Barry Arrington

January 11, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

In a comment to a prior post Johhnnyb makes the following excellent points (see here):

One thing which I think ID can contribute to any historical aspect of earth history is shaving off hypothetical creatures. While there are certainly many creatures which haven’t yet been found, and I’m sure many of these creatures include chimeras of existing features in existing creatures, there is no reason to believe that there must be creatures where none have been found or evidenced. Darwinism has a bad habit of perpetually adding dashed lines in-between creatures for where it expects to find relationships. Instead, ID says that, perhap we can just take the fossil record as we find it. Perhaps what we need to be doing is measuring, say, the average known time fossils go missing from the fossil record, and use that plus statistical completeness estimates to estimate the error bounds of the fossil record. Instead, Darwinists will substitute a narration of what they think happened in the past to substitute for 99% of earth history, rather than simply looking at what’s there.

Here’s a simple example – extinction estimates. Darwinists will say that 99.99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Well, that’s actually a bunch of B.S. There are roughly 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record, and well over 1,000,000 species that exist today. Taken at face value, even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct (which they haven’t), that means that 80% of species that ever existed ARE STILL ALIVE. That’s quite a stretch. So where do Darwinists get their number? By assuming that innumerable species existed in the transitional spaces. Why? Because they _must_ have existed there for their theory to be true.

ID says that Darwinism is simply an unnecessary hypothesis. We should take the fossil record as it comes to us, measure its completeness on its own terms, and determine its limits as we can determine apart from Darwinism. After doing so, we might find certain features of the fossil record to be consistent with Darwinism, or we might not. The problem is that the Darwinists distort what they see to fit into their picture of Darwinism. There are also a set of Silurian trackways which were thought to be arthropods…why? Because it was thought that tetrapods hadn’t existed yet. Basically, Darwinism has been forcing the way in which we view the fossil record and earth history. When it is in conflict with the data, over and over again, the data gets modified to fit with Darwinism. ID makes a clean break with the Darwinistic picture, and would allow us to take the animal distributions within the fossil record much more on its own terms.

Comments

Speciation, more accurately referred to as cladogenesis, is the first and most important step in macroevolution. Indeed, macroevolution is cladogenesis, according to current evolutionary theory. So, if YECs have indeed accepted that speciation occurs, then they have by definition also accepted that macroevolution occurs. But, of course, they don't, because they don't define macroevolution in a way that can be empirically tested nor formalized in a consistent theory. This is one of the most common logical fallacies: argument by semantic slight-of-hand (also known as a "material fallacy").Allen_MacNeill_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

From one of Allen MacNeill's links in comment 38:
As many evolutionary biologists (including me) anticipated, creationists and intelligent design ("ID") supporters have moved the goalposts, arguing that they have always accepted that speciation occurs, but that it does not necessarily mean anything for macroevolution, especially if one defines "macroevolution" as the origin of higher taxa (i.e. taxonomic categories above the level of species).
Wrong again Allen. YECs have accepted "speciation" even with its ambiguity, since the time of Linneaus- more than 200 years ago! Answers in Genesis on speciation The Current Status of BaraminologyJoseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

In comment #44 shackleman wrote:
"...the DNA match would carry far more weight than some physical similarities."
This would only be the case if there were a one-to-one correspondence between DNA code and phenotype. Under such conditions, changes in DNA sequence would cause changes in phenotype the way that Mendelian alleles are correlated with unitary traits. This was one of the basic assumptions upon which the "modern evolutionary synthesis" of the early 20th century was built. Ronald Aylmer Fisher laid out precisely these preconditions in his foundational book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, first published in 1930. However, this fundamental assumption has been virtually abandoned by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. This change was set in motion in the early 1960s by the publication of Motoo Kimura's revolutionary 1968 paper, "Evolutionary rate at the molecular level" [Nature 217 (5129): 624–626, available online at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/kimura.pdf ]. Kimura showed that most changes in DNA sequence are not associated with detectable changes in phenotype. The rise of evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo") further undermined the "one gene-one trait" paradigm, and recent discoveries in developmental plasticity and epigenetics have almost completely superceded this concept. And, as I have pointed out several times (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/09/gene-is-dead-long-live-gene.html and http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html ), this means that both the version of evolutionary theory that is usually attacked by ID supporters and their own alternative hypotheses (which, like the "modern synthesis" are virtually all based on the "one DNA sequence-one trait" paradigm) are almost completely out of date (talk about fighting the last war...). The result of all of these changes in evolutionary theory (necessitated by new discoveries flowing from empirical research) has been a refocusing of emphasis on phenotypic changes and away from the singular focus on changes in allele frequencies that dominated the "modern evolutionary synthesis". This new, "extended synthesis" is the subject of Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller's new book on this subject, due out in April (see http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Extended-Synthesis-Massimo-Pigliucci/dp/0262513676/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263331463&sr=8-1 ). I will be reviewing this book on my blog ( http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ ) in the very near future.Allen_MacNeill_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Common design can be observed with PCs and the peripheral devices that have to work with them. It can be observed with automobiles. It can be observed in buildings which were all built to the same code. It can be via one designer or many designers working with the same standards. Common design is basically not re-inventing things every time you want something different. You take what exists and works and put it to use in other ways. Any questions?Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Shackleman, Glad to be of service. :)Collin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
There you have it- Darwin's words refute the notion that UCD predicts a nested hierarchy.Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Michael Tuite:
Of course evolution (descent with modification) predicts the observed nested hierarchy.
Your ignorance and stupidity are sad and amusing. That is false for the many reasons provided over the decades. 1- Transitional forms (and intermediates), by their very nature/ definition blur the lines of distinction required by nested hierarchies. 2- With nested hierarchies defining characteristics must be A) immutable (in order to keep containment) and B) Additive (otherwise there would be only one level) 3- Descent with modification does not have such a direction- defining characteristics can be "modified" out of existence and you lose containment. 4- Darwin hisownself said that extinctions, not descent, led to the distinct categories observed. 5- You couldn't support your claim if your life depended on it and that makes you feel threatened in some way. Grow up and get over it...Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Mr Shackleman, It seems to me that, all things being equal, the DNA match would carry far more weight than some physical similarities. If we had ancient DNA, we would use it! In its absence, we do the best we can.Nakashima_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Collin, Yes! That's a perfect analogy and illuminates the point I'm trying to make very well. The key is in the code, man! The DNA is king! For those unfamiliar with programming languages, the analogy can be made using word processing programs for even more clarity. Compare Microsoft Word 2003 to the latest version of OpenOffice Writer. Two completely different code-bases, utterly unrelated, look nearly identical. Meanwhile, Microsoft Word 2007 is a direct descendant, of Word 2003, complete with whole sections of duplicated and borrowed code, yet it looks very different from its predecessor. If, without access to the code, all you had was the appearance to go by, you would determine that OpenOffice Writer, and not Word 2007, was the direct descendant of Word 2003! You'd be wrong of course. It's true that this family of applications (pronounced genus) is called "Word Processor" and that both Word and Writer belong to that genus, but they aren't descendants of each other, and in fact didn't evolve down the same programming pathways at all. Thanks for the analogy, Collin. It's exactly the point I was trying to make.shackleman_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Shackleman, I think that you make sense. Is it like this: One programmer makes a program using C++ and another makes the exact same program using BASIC. What is the relationship/origin? Compare that with two similar (not exactly the same) programs, both written in C++, with similar code. In the second instance we might infer that one of the programs is an updated version of the program made by the same programmer. Meanwhile in the first instance, the program written in BASIC is a copy of the result of the program, not of the code itself.Collin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Your bluster is both amusing and sad. You seem to believe that the strength of your commitment to nonsense will somehow make it true. Of course evolution (descent with modification) predicts the observed nested hierarchy. Perhaps you perceive that observation to be a threat to your hopes for eternal salvation, but neither you nor the addleheaded "creation scientists" upon whom you seem to rely exclusively can refute it. Read a book (by someone outside your comfort zone). MichaelMichael Tuite_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Collin, For the Horde!!shackleman_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, and Mr. MacNeil, Thanks for the replies and clarifications. They were helpful. Maybe my question would be better understood if I said it thusly: why is a fossil dating millions of years old with *physiological* similarities considered more closely related to us than chimps, whose DNA is 98 percent similar to ours? It seems to me that, all things being equal, the DNA match would carry far more weight than some physical similarities. I think too that this goes to what Mr. Arrington was saying. What value, really, is there in assuming biological relation, based on creatures we have not found in light of the fact that even with 98% genetic similarity, our physiologies are different enough from chimps (as an example) to rule out *direct* biological relatedness. Does anyone else see what I'm trying to say and could phrase it better? I still don't think I'm expressing it very well here. Thanks again for your time. I know, being a true layperson here, I don't necessarily merit a response, but I do appreciate everyone's consideration very much!shackleman_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, The debate is not ID vs evolution. The debate is about blind, undirected processes vs purposeful, directed processes. Ya see "design" is a natural process. That said you don't even have a testable hypothesis for "blind, undirected processes".Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill:
That’s because the only ID “answer” to the question of how complex structural and functional adaptations came into existence is either silence or magic.
This is like beating a dead horse- In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make ANY scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific processes used, is by studying the design in question. That said a targeted search would be a specific design process. Ya know like Dawkins' "weasel", "EV", the programs in "Evolving Inventions", etc. And then there is Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothsis" put forth in "Not By Chance".Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
First of all, The genus Homo has been around for 2.5 million years-
Unless of course we consider artifacts that have been dated earlier than that.
It’s the nested hierarchy, not mere similarity.
The observed nested hierarchy should be evidence against Common Descent for the many reasons provided in books, other threads and other forums. The reasons Zachriel keeps ignoring as if that makes them go away...Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Michael Tuite, brachiopods "evolving" into brachiopods? That fits in very well with the Creation model of biological evolution- ie baraminology.
You’ll find that their exquisitely sculpted morphologies offer compelling evidence for common descent and a nested hierarchy of derived traits.
Descent with modification wouldn't expect a nested hierarchy due to the very nature of transitionals and intermediates. So in order to avoid further embarassment I would suggest you figure out what a nested hierarchy is and why evolution doesn't expect one.Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Mr. MacNeill, I concede that arguments by analogy are not evidence or proof of any kind. But analogies are useful to help you think of a problem in new ways. I also concede that there is no direct evidence of design in nature like there is for automobiles. But I do believe that there is strong circumstantial evidence of design in nature. Indeed, forensic scientists make design inferences all the time. They don't necessarily have to infer that the stab wound was made by a blond haired man or a Latina woman, just that it was non-accidental. That is what ID-ers try to do. I think that they should be encouraged to see where their incipient movement leads rather than cut down by deniers before it can get any momentum. I also think that a design inference is totally independent of any inference of supernatural intervention. This may just be my personal belief, but I believe that God (if He is the designer) is not "supernatural" per se. Not any more so than a video game designer is supernatural with respect to the World of Warcraft. Here's a hypo: An ogre in the World of Warcraft becomes self-aware. Could it ever, scientifically, prove to his fellow ogres that their world was designed? What evidence would he use? What methods and tools would he use?Collin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

I agree with both Cabal (comment #31) and Collin (comment #32), who asserted that both evolution and design can explain the changes over time in automobiles and living organisms. However, there is a very significant difference between these two explanations: one (the design hypothesis for the phylogeny of automobiles) is based on direct empirical evidence: a written history in which the actual designers are known and were recorded by witnesses who were present during the design process. Ergo, the phylogeny of automobiles as the result of intelligent design is a directly empirically verifiable (and verified) explanation. The same is not the case for the phylogenies of living organisms. With only a few exceptions (such as Culex molestus), such phylogenies must be inferred on the basis of indirect empirical evidence. This means that one hypothesis (design) differs from the alternative hypothesis (evolution) in that the design hypothesis requires the direct intervention in natural processes of an unidentified (at least in public), unobserved (and unobservable), supernatural designing agent, whereas the evolutionary hypothesis does not. It relies on purely natural explanations using purely natural forces, all of which can be empirically observed. Indeed, they have been observed operating directly in the origin of both new adaptations and new phylogenetically distinct taxa (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-species-of-finch-may-have-evolved.html http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-species-of-finch-in-galapagos-so.html and http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html ) The design hypothesis for the origin and evolution of living organisms has no supporting empirical evidence nor is it based on the same metaphysical assumptions as all of the other natural sciences. Furthermore, all arguments in its favor (such as the analogy between automobile design and phylogenetic evolution) are essentially arguments by analogy, which are completely lacking in logical validity. For more on the problem of arguments by analogy, see: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/tidac-identity-analogy-and-logical.html http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/identity-analogy-and-logical-argument.html and http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/analogies-metaphors-and-inference-in.htmlAllen_MacNeill_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

In comment #15 johnnyb wrote:
"First of all, on Behe’s flagellum, he did not think that it was poofed into existence."
False. This is exactly how Dr. Behe asserted that the bacterial flagellum came into existence. This is documented by Larry Arnhart here: http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/09/has-anyone-seen-evolution.html Here is paragraph #4 in Arnhart's post:
"A few years ago, I lectured at Hillsdale College as part of a week-long lecture series on the intelligent design debate. After Michael Behe's lecture, some of us pressed him to explain exactly how the intelligent designer created the various "irreducibly complex" mechanisms that cannot--according to Behe--be explained as products of evolution by natural selection. He repeatedly refused to answer. But after a long night of drinking, he finally answered: "A puff of smoke!" A physicist in the group asked, Do you mean a suspension of the laws of physics? Yes, Behe answered. Well, that's not going to be very persuasive as a scientific answer. And clearly Behe and other ID proponents prefer not to answer the question. [emphasis added]
That's because the only ID "answer" to the question of how complex structural and functional adaptations came into existence is either silence or magic.Allen_MacNeill_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

In comment #30 shackleman wrote:
"...at best all we can infer from the fossil record is a loose family or genus membership..."
Precisely, and this is why virtually all so-called fossil "species" are usually taxonomically classified at the level of genus (or higher). This was the point I made in comment #5 and why Arrington's quotation from johnny b's post that there are about 250,000 extinct species (and that therefore about 80% of all species that have ever existed are alive today) is completely and utterly absurd. Virtually all of the estimates of 250,000 currently described and classified "species" of fossil organisms are taken from David Raup's book, Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck, published in 1991. On page 21 (paperback edition, ISBN 0393309274), Raup wrote
"About 250,000 species have been described, named, and located reasonably well in space and time."
However, he immediately went on to explain that this number represented only a tiny fraction of all fossil species. Indeed, on page 3 of the same book, Raup wrote
"...somewhere between five and fifty billion species have existed at one time or another."
As one of the world's premier paleontologists, Raup made this estimate on the basis of several calculations, which were based on empirically determined rates of discovery and classification of fossil organisms. Ergo, his estimate that over 99.9% of all species that have ever existed is not only the most widely accepted estimate, it is the only one based on quantitative empirical methods. Therefore, johnny b's assertion that estimates of extinction rates by paleontologists are "a bunch of B.S." is itself not only "a bunch of B.S.", it's both a deliberate quote mine (and therefore a deliberate lie) and also an assertion based on absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever. Just like everything else in ID...Allen_MacNeill_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Cabal said, "What content would a concept like “common design” have WRT evolution? By themselves alone, those two words tell me nothing. Made by the same designer? Made in the same factory? Made at the same time? Made using the same tools? What signs point to the proposed commonality? The difference between a T-Ford and a Ford Focus: Common Design or evolution?" Both! Let me elaborate: Neither the T-Ford nor the Ford Focus could have existed without thier ancestors or their engineers. Neither one could have gone "poof" into existence. Yet each one is a produce of original intelligent design. With respect to DNA, common design, is, I think, a very reasonable explanation. Consider these two analogies: 1. A software engineer creates a new program. Shortly thereafter, another program enters the market that is very similar. Turns out that the underlying programming is very similar. In a suit for copyright infringement, a jury would infer that it is likely that there is common design in the programming, and therefore plagarism. This is a reasonable inferrence. 2. For this example, I'll just provide a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StylometryCollin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

shackleman: Would not proponents of Darwinian Evolution tout this as *the* missing link? And that we are therefore *directly* descended from chimps?
No. First of all, The genus Homo has been around for 2.5 million years; Australopithecus date to nearly four million years. They are clearly more closely related than chimpanzees. More specifically, we can sometimes place an organism close to the lineage, but we can rarely if ever be sure that it is on the direct line of descent. That's because evolutionary descent tends to branch repeatedly.
shackleman: Does this not show how difficult it is to assume common descent based on the “eye-test” of fossilized bones?
It's the nested hierarchy, not mere similarity.
shackleman: ... so if that is indeed the case, does not my thought experiment show that at best all we can infer from the fossil record is a loose family or genus membership, and that descent cannot or should not be inferred therefore?
That's right. Cousins. And that is how most cladograms are constructed.Zachriel_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Collin,
It could be ancestry, but it could also be common design.
What content would a concept like "common design" have WRT evolution? By themselves alone, those two words tell me nothing. Made by the same designer? Made in the same factory? Made at the same time? Made using the same tools? What signs point to the proposed commonality? The difference between a T-Ford and a Ford Focus: Common Design or evolution?Cabal_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

I'm not sure if this really belongs here (though I do think it's related) but I have a question in the form of a thought experiment that I'm hoping you more learned and wise folks (in both camps) can help me with (either in refutation or in refinement, if you please!!) Suppose, for sake of argument, that chimpanzees were extinct, and suppose also that they became extinct a few million years ago. Now suppose that a fossil of a chimp was discovered that had a perfectly preserved sample of DNA. Suppose further that after analysis it was discovered that this sample of DNA was a 98% match to our own. (I know, that figure is disputed, but suppose for sake of argument). Would not proponents of Darwinian Evolution tout this as *the* missing link? And that we are therefore *directly* descended from chimps? After all, the DNA matches to 98%. It's painfully obvious to see the error. Does this not show how difficult it is to assume common descent based on the "eye-test" of fossilized bones? I'd imagine that a DNA test would be far superior to what is currently available to paleontologists, so if that is indeed the case, does not my thought experiment show that at best all we can infer from the fossil record is a loose family or genus membership, and that descent cannot or should not be inferred therefore? Thanks in advance (to both sides) for humoring me.shackleman_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Joseph said: Yet in that vast majority we do not find evidence for Common Descent." With all due respect, sir, you are not even wrong. Bold, brash polemics are fun to type and to read; however, the profound ignorance of such a statement does a grave disservice to the veracity of your arguments. In order to avoid further embarrassment, may I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Start with the brachiopods. You'll find that their exquisitely sculpted morphologies offer compelling evidence for common descent and a nested hierarchy of derived traits. MichaelMichael Tuite_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Collin writes:
The difference is that astronomers can use their understanding to predict where planets will be and then confirm their predictions. That is science. In contrast, neodarwinism has very little predicting power.
So that means, if biologists were able to use the theory of evolution to predict in which strata and in which area you would find certain fossils, you would be satisfied that evolutionary biolody is actually science?hrun0815_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

that's "made it a point" not "make it a point."Collin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Retroman said: "Why not just let people know that planets revolve around the sun instead of telling them why and how they stay in their orbits? Why impose a theory on the rotation of the planets? Why not just let it speak for itself?" The difference is that astronomers can use their understanding to predict where planets will be and then confirm their predictions. That is science. In contrast, neodarwinism has very little predicting power. Joseph, you are absolutely right. As one physics professor told me, "The presence of DNA shows that all life has a common origin." He make it a point to not say "ancestry." It could be ancestry, but it could also be common design.Collin_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Seversky sez that there isn't any way to test ID. Then why are scientists not only say that they have tested it but they have falsified it? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say out of one side of your arse that ID is untestable and out of the other say besides we have tested it and refuted it.
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe
Joseph_{January 12, 2010
January
01
Jan
12
12
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply