Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Phys.org: New study finds our ancient relatives were not so simple after all

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Researchers at the University of Nottingham have solved an important piece of the animal evolution puzzle as their new study reveals that our ancient ancestors were more complex than originally thought.

Way back in our distant evolutionary history, animals underwent a major innovation. They evolved to have a left and right side, and two gut openings. This brought about a plethora of significant advantages in terms of propelling themselves directly forward at increased speed through the early seas, finding food, extracting nutrients, and/or avoiding being eaten.

However, a research team, led by Dr. Mary O’Connell at the University of Nottingham has found that Xenacoelomorphs branch much later in time, they are not the earliest branch on the bilaterian family tree, and their closest relatives are far more complex animals like star fish. This means that Xenacoelomorphs have lost many of the complex features of their closest relatives, challenging the idea that evolution leads to ever more complex and intricate forms. Instead, the new study shows that loss of features is an important factor in driving evolution.

Note: Lacking a naturalistic mechanism for the generation of the new information of novel features, the idea of the “loss of features” is put forward as a driving factor for supposed evolutionary advance.

“There are many fundamental questions about the evolution of animals that need to be answered… many parts of this family tree that are not known or not resolved. But what an exciting time to be an evolutionary biologist with the availability of exquisite genome data from the beautiful diversity of species we currently have on our planet, allowing us to unlock secrets of our most distant past,” says Dr. Mary O’Connell, associate professor in life sciences.

The paper, titled “Filtering artifactual signal increases support for Xenacoelomorpha and Ambulacraria sister relationship in the animal tree of life” has been published in Current Biology. It details the application of a special phylogenetic technique to help in extracting signal from noise over deep time, showing increased support for Xenacoelomorphs being sister to ambulacraria (e.g. star fish) rather than being the deepest diverging of the bilateria.

The research team at the University of Nottingham will now explore other challenging family trees and other connections between genome changes and phenotypic diversity.

Full article at Phys.org.
Comments
BA77
When an engineer is wrong, people may die. (Yet) When a Darwinian biologist is wrong, tens of millions of people become atheists”,,, (and then a couple of hundred million people die).
"(and then a couple of hundred million people die)." I didn't think of that .... very true ...martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Jerry @7
WHAT MAKES DARWINIAN BIOLOGISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY Because they are right on most things
you sure ? Published two days ago at THECONVERSATION.COM:
Some biologists and philosophers claim that evolutionary biology needs reform, arguing that traditional explanations for how organisms change through time that scientists have assumed since the 1930s are holding back the assimilation of novel findings
The study of evolution is fracturing – and that may be a good thing https://theconversation.com/the-study-of-evolution-is-fracturing-and-that-may-be-a-good-thing-186580martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Not sure what is worse
Few see a downside to atheism. This argument has no validity to them. We are now into religion, specific religions as a reason to believe ID. A lot of people believe that religion is a drag. So they will obviously accept Darwinian Evolution for the reasons I have listed. Aside: I believe that lack of religion is slowly leading us into decline which at some point will become rapid. But the average person doesn’t see this and many look at lack of religion as a positive and technology as a miracle that will make us continually happier. Aside2: people here keep espousing the same arguments that have no purchase with the educated person. They fail to understand why people believe what they do. Essentially they are talking to themselves, an extremely small community.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
"When an engineer is wrong, people may die. (Yet) When a Darwinian biologist is wrong, tens of millions of people become atheists",,, (and then a couple of hundred million people die).
Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/ Sept. 2022 - Hitler and the Nazis, as well as all the other murderous Atheistic tyrants of the 20th century, indeed took their quote-unquote ‘inspiration’ directly from Darwin’s theory. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/royal-society-lecturer-says-what-richard-weikart-has-been-saying-for-years/#comment-765186
bornagain77
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Martin_r: But it doesn’t seem to be the case with Darwinian biologists … they are wrong all the time, You certainly are not a scientist. My dad was an engineer and he had a similar view of physicists. Scientists, including Biologist, make models of how they think systems work. Everyone (except you I guess) understands that the model is most likely flawed and certainly temporary and will be replaced when we get more and better data. Your question is like asking: why did Newton get it wrong? His model was very good for the data he had AND still works very well in certain situations. In another millennium someone might ask: why did Einstein get it wrong? IF you were honest you could ask your same questions about every scientific field. Before chemistry there was alchemy. Before geology there was . . . a lot of false guesses and suppositions. The only field that hasn't supplanted itself at some time is mathematics. What was true in mathematics 2000 years ago is still true today. But that is the only field that can say that. I trust biologists to be honest and as accurate as they can be given the data and information they have at the time. The process of peer review is an attempt to keep them honest and clear about what they did and what they measure and what they concluded. So, I trust them knowing that in 100 years we'll have new data, more data, better analytic tools, etc which may mean having to revise the basic tenets. That's the way science works. Biology is no different . . . a bit younger than some sciences, quite a bit messier than some sciences, harder to do experiments in than some sciences but still a 'hard' science nonetheless.JVL
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Jerry @14
When an engineer is wrong, people may die.
When a Darwinian biologist is wrong, tens of millions of people become atheists. Not sure what is worse ...martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
It’s a sometimes true generalization. It’s not really scientific
Thank you for agreeing with me. Everything I said is accurate. Science has nothing to do with attitudes toward Evolution. Maybe when the ID community understands that, change in attitudes will be a possibility.
When an engineer keeps making mistakes, his reputation will suffer and eventually, he will lose all his future jobs. But it doesn’t seem to be the case with Darwinian biologists
There is zero downside to taking the Darwinian position on Evolution especially when it’s so obviously true for genetics. When an engineer is wrong, people may die. Nothing like that exists in Evolution. It does exist in genetics and for that they are as right as engineers. When will the ID people realize as Lizzy Bennett did: “I’ve been so blind.” Prejudice has a way of doing that. So does Pride.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
JVL @6
Engineers always get things right the first time I guess. So the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing . . . fake news? The Surfside condominium building collapse . . . not the engineers fault? The Ponte Morandi collapse . . . eh, it was raining, it’s complicated. The Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway collapse? St. Francis Dam collapse? Never the engineer’s fault? Must be nice being so perfect.
of course engineers make mistakes. As to examples above, please keep in mind, that not always it is engineer/designer's fault. Sometimes bridges/buildings collapse because of material suppliers, or sloppy workers etc. You are talking about very complex things ... it is very similar to an airplane crash ... very skilled investigators come in to figure out what happened, and in most cases it is not a design flaw (engineer's fault). PS: but again, you haven't answered my question. When an engineer keeps making mistakes, his reputation will suffer and eventually, he will lose all his future jobs. But it doesn't seem to be the case with Darwinian biologists ... they are wrong all the time, but You and Co. still believe what they say. So that's why i am asking, what makes them so trustworthy ? It is a simple question ....martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
"there is plausibility that lots of small changes lead to large changes" This idea is one of the obfuscations Evolutionists employ to protect their speculations. It's a sometimes true generalization. It's not really scientific. Andrewasauber
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
so including my bad English, i speak 3 languages in total …
I was in Europe for a small gathering of like minded individuals. One was from Luxembourg and spoke no Dutch. One was from Holland and spoke no German. They had a great conversation with each other in English.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Chuck @8
Because as far as i (sic) know, bees don’t use no (sic) tools.
i apologize for my bad grammar, i have mentioned it many times that i am from Europe and English is not my first language. But i am trying to improve it all the time. I am also used to it, when a Darwinist can't answer my questions, i get attacked/ridiculed because of my bad English. So let me correct myself: Bees don't use tools. and what is wrong with the "as far as i know" ? PS 1: i am not building bridges (i am not a civil engineer), i am a mechanical engineer... hopefully you can tell the difference PS 2: by the way, how many languages except your mother language do you speak ? I also speak German, and my mother language ... so including my bad English, i speak 3 languages in total ...martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
For the general public’s sake, I hope you are better at building bridges (or whatever you do) than your writing suggests
Can we all agree that it’s best that ChuckDarwin doesn’t build bridges. He cannot put together a coherent thought let alone a coherent sentence. Thank God he’s not an engineer. There’s a great line from JAG, the TV series about military lawyers. “You never say anything funny, people will start to think you are a lawyer.” That sums up Chuck except, the line for Chuck should be “ You never say anything true or funny, people will start to think you are a lawyer.”jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Re: Martin_r
Because as far as i (sic) know, bees don’t use no (sic) tools.
For the general public's sake, I hope you are better at building bridges (or whatever you do) than your writing suggests. What's that saying about the devil being in the details.....chuckdarwin
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
WHAT MAKES DARWINIAN BIOLOGISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY
Because they are right on most things and there is no downside to believing in it. 15 years ago it was pointed out that every truthful argument for Darwinian Evolution was based on micro evolution or genetics. So there is largely truth in what they claim. Does anyone here doubt genetics? Genetics is based on Darwinian processes. Secondly there is no short term downside to their claims that micro evolution leads to macro evolution. If anyone can point to any, it would be interesting since the area that anyone cares about is health and all their claims are supported by genetics or micro evolution. Finally, there is plausibility that lots of small changes lead to large changes. Most technology is done that way. Thus, why wouldn’t the average person believe in Darwinian Evolution which supposedly works that way. People here and in the ID community are fantastic at science but the average person even with a great education sees nothing wrong with what we know is a false narrative. ID people go around congratulating each other on how obvious their evidence and arguments are but are clueless on how to persuade. Just look at the useless discussions that appear on UD. Aside: most people go around believing in many false narratives so why expect people who believe in Darwinian process to not believe it is the basis of Evolution. Especially when ID people are so bad at persuasion. Aside2: there is most definitely a short term major downside to doubting Darwinian Evolution. It’s called not eating. The hardcore will cancel anyone who challenges it as Bill Dembski found out at Baylor, a religious based university.jerry
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
Martin_r: This is my personal collection of quotes from mainstream Darwinian papers: “…current concepts are reviewed…” “…uprooting current thinking….” “…latest findings contradict the current dogma….” “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” “… in contrast to the decades-long dogma …” “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex than thought ….” And those phrases NEVER EVER appear in engineering journals or research papers? Never? Engineers always get things right the first time I guess. So the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing . . . fake news? The Surfside condominium building collapse . . . not the engineers fault? The Ponte Morandi collapse . . . eh, it was raining, it's complicated. The Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway collapse? St. Francis Dam collapse? Never the engineer's fault? Must be nice being so perfect.JVL
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
Relatd @2
And bees went to bee school to learn how to build....
when you mentioned bees ... I as an engineer, i never understood, how a rational educated person with some technical background can even think, that honeycombs are product of some blind natural process AKA Darwinian evolution ... and that bees somehow evolved the capability of making honeycombs the way they look.... because honeycombs look like 3D printed :))) I would be very curious, how many people (e.g. Seversky, Chuck, JVL and co.) would be able to create honeycombs with that precision using no tools. Because as far as i know, bees don't use no tools. Also, Darwinists have to prove (e.g. using fossil record), that bees evolved this capability in time, because right now it seems that honeycombs look the way they look from the beginning ... and, it wouldn't be bad, if Darwinists show us how honeybees evolved in first place :))))))martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT
and here we go again:
... more complex than originally thought.
I know that i put this question before, but i have to ask again: JVL, CHUCK, Seversky, Alan Fox and co., WHAT MAKES DARWINIAN BIOLOGISTS SO TRUSTWORTHY ? WHY DO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE BELIEVE WHAT THESE GUYS SAY ? THESE GUYS SEEM TO BE ALWAYS WRONG ... This is my personal collection of quotes from mainstream Darwinian papers: "...current concepts are reviewed..." "...uprooting current thinking...." "...latest findings contradict the current dogma...." “… it challenges a long-held theory…” “… it upends a common view…” "... in contrast to the decades-long dogma ..." “… it needs a rethink … ” “… the findings are surprising and unexpected …. ” “… it shakes up the dogma … ” “… earlier than thought…” “… younger than thought….” “… smarter than thought ….” “… more complex than thought ….” PS: Seversky, i hear you say that science is self-correcting and blah blah blah .... but my question was, (with so many self-corrections), what makes Darwinian biologists so trustworthy ?martin_r
November 11, 2022
November
11
Nov
11
11
2022
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
ChuckyD states, "Fitness is the only criterion by which evolution is measured," Interesting claim seeing that no one can seem to find a precise definition for this 'fitness' that we are suppose to be measuring evolution by.
Evolutionary Fitness Is Not Measurable – November 20, 2021 The central concept of natural selection cannot be measured. This means it has no scientific value. Excerpt:,, to measure something, it needs units. How is fitness to be measured? What are the units? Physicists have degrees Kelvin, ergs and Joules of energy and Faradays of electricity, but do 100 Spencers on a Haeckl-o-meter equal 10 Darwins of fitness? ,,, The term “fitness” becomes nebulous when you try to pin it down. Five evolutionists attempted to nail this jello to the wall, and wrote up their results in a preprint on bioRxiv by Alif et al. that asked, “What is the best fitness measure in wild populations?” (One might wonder why this question is being asked 162 years after Darwin presented his theory to the world.) ,,, The authors admit that their results do not necessarily apply to all living things. (they state), “A universal definition of fitness in mathematical terms that applies to all population structures and dynamics is however not agreed on.” Remember that this statement comes over 162 years after evolutionists began talking about fitness. If you cannot define something, how can you measure it? And if you can’t measure it, is it really scientific?,,, https://crev.info/2021/11/evolutionary-fitness-is-not-measurable/ Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Has Left a Legacy of Confusion over Biological Adaptation Brian Miller – September 20, 2021 Excerpt: Evolutionary biologist Robert Reid stated: “Indeed the language of neo-Darwinism is so careless that the words ‘divine plan’ can be substituted for ‘selection pressure’ in any popular work in the biological literature without the slightest disruption in the logical flow of argument.” Robert Reid, Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, PP. 37-38 To fully comprehend the critique, one simply needs to imagine attempting to craft an evolutionary barometer that measures the selection pressure driving one organism to transform into something different (e.g., fish into an amphibian). The fact that no such instrument could be constructed highlights the fictitious nature of such mystical forces. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-has-left-a-legacy-of-confusion-over-biological-adaptation/
As Professor of Zoology John O. Reiss himself honestly admitted, “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.”
Where is the purposelessness of evolution? – 23 March 2012, Excerpt: The only way variation is seen as random is that it is random in respect to the effect variation has on fitness. The major problem with this is that the precise meaning of fitness has not been settled. There is still a major debate about what exactly fitness is supposed to mean (see this post for more on this issue). John O. Reiss notes also make the following interesting remark: “The rigor of this approach, however, is lessened because there is as yet no universally agreed upon measure of fitness; fitness is either defined metaphorically, or defined only relative to the particular model or system used. It is fair to say that due to this lack, there is still no real agreement on what exactly the process of natural selection is. This is clearly a problem.” Without a proper definition of fitness, we can’t really say what natural selection is in the first place. Also, without a proper definition of fitness we can’t really make any sense of how variation can be random relative to fitness in the first place.,,, https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Where-is-the-purposelessness-of-evolution-20120322
Moreover, the more precise one tries to be in mathematically defining ‘fitness’, then the more one finds that that more rigid definition of ‘fitness’ falsifies Darwinian evolution For instance, when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are taken into account, then, as John Sanford and company have now shown, it mathematically falsifies “Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase”
The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations – June 2018 Excerpt: Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong, Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford – February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/
Moreover, if ‘fitness’ really were the way in which all life on earth originated and diversified, then, as Donald Hoffman has now mathematically proven, “an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
This finding that ‘fitness’ undermines our ability to have reliable observations, and as far as empirical science itself is concerned, is catastrophic for Darwin’s theory. Specifically, since reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone on of the scientific method itself, then a worldview that undermines our ability to have reliable observations about reality, obviously, cannot possibly be based upon the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Moreover, completely contrary to what is, via the mathematics of population genetics, predicted for the "unreliability' of our observations if Darwinian evolution is true, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. reliable conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than what the mathematics of population genetics predicted, via 'fitness', for Darwinian evolution. For instance In the following ‘Delayed Choice’ experiment that was done with atoms instead of photons,, it was found that “At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
Apparently empirical science itself could care less if Darwinian atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, and 'fitness', that ALL of their observations of reality are illusory!
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
CD at 1, So, you missed the Tree of Life graphic in your Biology textbook? The one that showed single-cell life turn into aquatic life, turn into land animals and turn into man? That sort of thing does not show randomness or even fitness, but design. But not a 'less complex to the more complex' since we still have most of the various single-celled examples to aquatic life, to land animals, and man. And bees went to bee school to learn how to build beehives, find flowers and so on.relatd
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
The function of natural selection is not “ever more complex and intricate forms.” It is fitness. Fitness is the only criterion by which evolution is measured, not intricacy or complexity. So-called “loss of features” is balanced by more efficient metabolism, less energy use and other advantages such as exploiting different features of the ecosystem. Contrary to the commentary on the OP, loss of features has been recognized for years as a driver of evolution……chuckdarwin
November 10, 2022
November
11
Nov
10
10
2022
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply