Do you believe in evolution?

Sorry, but archaeoptryx is not a good example of a transition from anything to anything.


Archaeoptryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as found in modern flying birds). It had the elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.

Further, CT scans of the skull of archaeopteryx has revealed that it had a brain like that of a modern bird. Its brain was 3 times the size of a dinosaur of similar size and very large optic lobes necessary to process the visual imput a flying creature would recieve. Also, its inner ear had a cochlea length and semicircular canal that were in nearly exact proportion to modern birds.

Archaeoptryx also had had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. This would indicate the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac (at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds). And this in turn strongly indicates that the unique bird lung design was already present in what almost every evolutionists claims is the earliest bird.

And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

A couple of things to keep in mind here: First, Feduccia always said that Archaeopteryx descended from archosaurs - it may not be transitional, but it still descended from them. Second, Feduccia is more or less the only paleontologist with this particular opinion. But most important - Feduccia also says that evolution, common descent etc. are facts and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for those facts.

Archaeoptryx was a flying, perching bird. It is not an example of a transitional creature. Just look at the evidence, not just in the case of archaeoptryx, but everything. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) with no trace of ancestors. The sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) with no trace of ancestors. Where is the evidence of evolution.

By the way, there are three other types of flying creatures—flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). What are the odds that millions of years of evolution of these three different types of flying creatures, each involving the fantastic transition from a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, the museums should be full of fossils of intermediate forms for each. But alas, not a trace of a transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures.

The odds are easy - much easier then the odds for the origin of life itself. Envirnoment shapes the form - hence you have animals as dissimilar as kangaroos and white tail deer or the American Cheetah-type cat and the African Cheetah occupying the same ecological niches with similar forms. Actually - just for the heck of it, look up prehistoric marsupial life in South America after the Andes first split the continent and effectively isolated the south. You had an incredible array of marsupials develop and occupy the same niches, with very similar physical forms, that mammels evolved into in the northern continent. There were marsupial equivelants to elephanst, tigers, and more.

The other fact - even more important - that people tend to disregard is very very few lifeforms ever become fossils. Fossils require extremely rare conditions to be preserved and more, to be preserved intact. Most species never leave any fossil evidence.
 
Werbung:
Let me add Archaeoptryx is not the only example of a transitional fossil. Othniel Charles Marsh assembled an incredible array of fossils in his reconstruction of the evolution of horses in the form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types. This is often cited as a family tree with a number of clear transitional fossils. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik. So you see...there are some transitional fossils.
 
looks lik the wiley coyote cleared the air on this subject!!
way above my head in this conversation.Impressive
 
A couple of things to keep in mind here: First, Feduccia always said that Archaeopteryx descended from archosaurs - it may not be transitional, but it still descended from them. Second, Feduccia is more or less the only paleontologist with this particular opinion. But most important - Feduccia also says that evolution, common descent etc. are facts and that the theory of evolution is our best explanation for those facts.

I am aware of what Feduccia says and believes, which is why I used his quote. I figured it would carry more weight with you than if I posted a quote from some creationist anatomist. Feduccia, however, is not the only scientist that holds that postion since CT scanning has revealed the details of the skull and the pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. Now, there are very few palentologists who hold that it was not a fully developed flying creature.

And decended from is not an argument for macroevolution.

The other fact - even more important - that people tend to disregard is very very few lifeforms ever become fossils. Fossils require extremely rare conditions to be preserved and more, to be preserved intact. Most species never leave any fossil evidence.

And that makes a good argument for evolution? The simple fact of a theoretically incomplete fossil record? Since archaeopteryx was a fully developed flying creature, the odds are far greater of finding a fossil of one of its many transitional forms (if you believe in macroevolution) than finding multiple examples of its fully developed flying form.
 
I am aware of what Feduccia says and believes, which is why I used his quote. I figured it would carry more weight with you than if I posted a quote from some creationist anatomist. Feduccia, however, is not the only scientist that holds that postion since CT scanning has revealed the details of the skull and the pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis. Now, there are very few palentologists who hold that it was not a fully developed flying creature.

And decended from is not an argument for macroevolution.



And that makes a good argument for evolution? The simple fact of a theoretically incomplete fossil record? Since archaeopteryx was a fully developed flying creature, the odds are far greater of finding a fossil of one of its many transitional forms (if you believe in macroevolution) than finding multiple examples of its fully developed flying form.

I'm still waiting to hear the supporting data for your argument. We understand you're position, you won't budge. So perhaps you'd care to enlighten us to this overwhelming data that has you so utterly convinced that macro-evolution is not possible.
 
Let me add Archaeoptryx is not the only example of a transitional fossil.

Archaeoptryx is not an example of a transitional fossil. It had fully formed feathers, its brain was like that of a flying animal, and its skeleal and muscular structure was fully developed for flight. That is not transitional.

Othniel Charles Marsh assembled an incredible array of fossils in his reconstruction of the evolution of horses in the form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types. This is often cited as a family tree with a number of clear transitional fossils. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik. So you see...there are some transitional fossils.

Actually, the story told about the evolution of the horse is just that. A story. There is no gradual change from the little 4 toed creature of 50 million years ago to the horse we know today. The truth is that instead of gradual change, the fossils for each "intermediate species" appear fully distinct, exist for a time, and go extinct. This does not represent transition.


Paleontologist Colin Patterson, director of the Natural History Museum in London, where "evolution of the horse" "transitional fossils" were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

The evolution of the horse scenario has been fabricated by using sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, to present what evolutionist wish they could prove. There are more than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which, by the way, are completely different from each other. Each has been proposed by various researchers. It is clear that evolutionists still have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called eohippus (hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. Those evolutionists ignore the fact, however, that eohippus is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has no relation whatsoever to the horse.

The imaginary line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic to say the very least. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that several variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. It is possible to bring specimens from different sources together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is simply no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.

And the walking whale? That one is not a transitional fossil either. The backbone of this creature ended at the pelvis and it had powerfully muscled rear legs. This is typical land animal anatomy. The backbone of a whale, on the other hand goes right on to the tail and there is no pelvic bone. Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and basilosaurus, a typical whale.

Further, below the backbone of basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. Some evolutionists claim that these are vestigial legs. The fact is that these bones actually had another function. In basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales they act an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.’[ To describe ese bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is just one more example of the level of intellectual dishonesty that evolutionists will go to in order to construct their stories.


The tiktaalik is no more a transitional form than the coelacanth. When fossils of that fish were first discovered, they had the same high hopes that it represented a transitional fossil. When a living specimine was found, however, those hopes went down the drain as it became evident that those fins had nothing to do with walking, but were simply for fine maneuvering while swimming. The structure of tiktaalik's fins is nearly identical to those of coelacanth. If anything, the discovery of tiktaalik creates more gaps in the fossil record rather than closing any. I can unserstand that evolutionists want to believe in macroevolution. Hell, many of them have their entire lives invested in that belief. But fabricating stories to fill gaps is no substitute the hard evidence that they are so sorely lacking. The transition from any species to any other species would involved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of generations. That being said, the probability of finding transitional forms of any creature is thousands upon thousands of times greater than finding a fully developed creature. The pitiful handfull of fossils that can even be falsely represented as transitional should make it clear that however the life we see around us got here, macroevolution is simply not the route it took.
 
I'm still waiting to hear the supporting data for your argument. We understand you're position, you won't budge. So perhaps you'd care to enlighten us to this overwhelming data that has you so utterly convinced that macro-evolution is not possible.

Like I said. I don't know. But the fact that I don't doesn't make it necessary for me to believe blatant fabrication in order to be able to sleep at night. I can accept that there are things we don't know. Perhaps some day, some genuine transitional fossils will be found and then I will reevaluate my position. Or more non transitional fossils will be found that will simply reinforce my position.

The numerical fact is that tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of generations would be required for the transition from one species to another and that makes the odds of finding transitional fossils far greater than of finding non transitional forms. The fact that we have enough non transitional fossils to fill a city full of warehouses but only a pitiful handfull that are such that even a transitional story can be made up about them is evidence enough that macroevolution is not likely to be the route we, or any other creature on earth took to get here.
 
Archaeoptryx is not an example of a transitional fossil. It had fully formed feathers, its brain was like that of a flying animal, and its skeleal and muscular structure was fully developed for flight. That is not transitional.

Actually, the story told about the evolution of the horse is just that. A story. There is no gradual change from the little 4 toed creature of 50 million years ago to the horse we know today. The truth is that instead of gradual change, the fossils for each "intermediate species" appear fully distinct, exist for a time, and go extinct. This does not represent transition.

In terms of evolution – that does represent transition – a gradual change from a browsing creature of the woods to a grass eating plains running animal. Because it is “transitional” does not mean it each one is not a fully distinct species. Perhaps we need to define what transitional means because there are different types of transitional fossils.

First – there is "General lineage". This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events (the process by which new biological species arise) are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible.

Second – there is "Species-to-species transition". This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general .

Another point to consider is transitions to New Higher Taxa. Both types of transitions often result in a new "higher taxon" (a new genus, family, order, etc.) from a species belonging to a different, older taxon. There is nothing magical about this. The first members of the new group are not bizarre, chimeric animals; they are simply a new, slightly different species, barely different from the parent species. Eventually they give rise to a more different species, which in turn gives rise to a still more different species, and so on, until the descendents are radically different from the original parent stock. For example, the Order Perissodactyla (horses, etc.) and the Order Cetacea (whales) can both be traced back to early Eocene animals that looked only marginally different from each other, and didn't look at all like horses or whales. (They looked rather like small, dumb foxes with raccoon-like feet and simple teeth.) But over the following tens of millions of years, the descendents of those animals became more and more different, and now we call them two different orders.

Source for the above information is Talk Origins Archive.

Paleontologist Colin Patterson, director of the Natural History Museum in London, where "evolution of the horse" "transitional fossils" were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

The evolution of the horse scenario has been fabricated by using sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, to present what evolutionist wish they could prove. There are more than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which, by the way, are completely different from each other. Each has been proposed by various researchers. It is clear that evolutionists still have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called eohippus (hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. Those evolutionists ignore the fact, however, that eohippus is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has no relation whatsoever to the horse.

The imaginary line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic to say the very least. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that several variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. It is possible to bring specimens from different sources together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is simply no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.

I agree with what you say about the evolution of the horse – except, it does not in any way contradict evolution and that’s the issue. And also keep in mind - it is not only fossil evidence that is used to make these determinations but evidence from a host of other fields. Evolution is a fact – the exact mechanisms and details are still being explored but nothing you say above disputes evolution itself. Since then 1870, when Othniel Marsh first put together what he believed was the sequence of equine evolution the the number of equid fossils has increased dramatically, changing the overall evolutionary picture.

Yes - the actual evolutionary progression from Hyracotherium to Equus has been discovered to be much more complex and multi-branched than was initially supposed and the straight, direct progression from the former to the latter has been replaced by a more elaborate model with numerous branches in different directions, of which the modern horse is only one of many.

Yes - the change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of fossoles, and it is only in retrospect that certain evolutionary trends can be recognized

Fossil evidence suggests that the progression between species was not as smooth and consistent as was once believed – there I agree with you. However - some transitions, such as that of Dinohippus to Equus, were indeed gradual progressions, others, such as that of Epihippus to Mesohippus, were relatively abrupt and sudden in geologic time, taking place over only a few million years. Again, that doesn’t disprove evolution but instead suggests a new theory: punctuated equilibrium.

Eventually, in 1951 George Simpson recognized that the modern horse was not the "goal" of the entire lineage of equids – and yes, this contradicted modern evolutionary theory at the time. Simpson felt that Equus was simply the only genus of the many horse lineages that has happened to survive. This still doesn’t disprove evolution nor does it put a diety in the loop – it merely changes the details of the picture. People tend to jump on this as “proof” that evolution if weak, and that very weakness in turn provides “proof” that ID is valid. It doesn’t.
 
And the walking whale? That one is not a transitional fossil either. The backbone of this creature ended at the pelvis and it had powerfully muscled rear legs. This is typical land animal anatomy. The backbone of a whale, on the other hand goes right on to the tail and there is no pelvic bone. Basilosaurus, believed to have lived some 10 million years after ambulocetus, possesses the latter anatomy. In other words, it is a typical whale. There is no transitional form between ambulocetus, a typical land mammal, and basilosaurus, a typical whale.

Further, below the backbone of basilosaurus and the sperm whale, there are small bones independent of it. Some evolutionists claim that these are vestigial legs. The fact is that these bones actually had another function. In basilosaurus, these bones ‘functioned as copulary guides’ and in sperm whales they act an anchor for the muscles of the genitalia.’[ To describe ese bones, which actually carry out important functions, as ‘vestigial organs’ is just one more example of the level of intellectual dishonesty that evolutionists will go to in order to construct their stories.

I would disagree – you left out Rodhocetus, for example, that falls between Basilosaurus and Ambulocetus. There is quite a good article with a lot of supporting evidence for the macro-evolution of the whale: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological.. It is too lengthy to print here: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

The tiktaalik is no more a transitional form than the coelacanth. When fossils of that fish were first discovered, they had the same high hopes that it represented a transitional fossil. When a living specimine was found, however, those hopes went down the drain as it became evident that those fins had nothing to do with walking, but were simply for fine maneuvering while swimming. The structure of tiktaalik's fins is nearly identical to those of coelacanth. If anything, the discovery of tiktaalik creates more gaps in the fossil record rather than closing any.

Actually, aside from the tiktaalik and coelacanth, there are other excellent examples of transitional fish fossils (source is talkorigins):

Kenichtys: most fish have anterior and posterior external nostrils. In tetrapods, the posterior nostril is replaced by the choana, an internal nostril opening into the roof of the mouth. Kenichthys, a 395-million-year-old fossil from China, is exactly intermediate between the two, having nostrils at the margin of the upper jaw (Zhu and Ahlberg 2004).

A fossil shows eight bony fingers in the front fin of a lobed fish, offering evidence that fingers developed before land-going tetrapods (Daeschler and Shubin 1998).

A Devonian humerus has features showing that it belonged to an aquatic tetrapod that could push itself up with its forelimbs but could not move it limbs back and forth to walk (Shubin et al. 2004).

Acanthostega, a Devonian fossil, about 60 cm long, probably lived in rivers (Coates 1996). It had polydactyl limbs with no wrists or ankles (Coates and Clack 1990). It was predominantly, if not exclusively, aquatic: It had fishlike internal gills (Coates and Clack 1991), and its limbs and spine could not support much weight. It also had a stapes and a lateral sensory system like a fish.

Ichthyostega, a tetrapod from Devonian streams, was about 1.5 m long and probably amphibious. It had seven digits on its rear legs (its hands are unknown). Its limbs and spine were more robust than those of Acanthostega, and its rib cage was massive. It had fishlike spines on its tail, but these were fewer and smaller than Acanthostega's. Its skull had several primitive fishlike features, but it probably did not have internal gills (Murphy 2002).

Tulerpeton, from estuarine deposits roughly the same age as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, had six digits on its front limbs and seven on its rear limbs. Its shoulders were more robust than Acanthostega, suggesting it was somewhat less aquatic, and its skull appears to be closer to later Carboniferous amphibians than to Acanthostega or Ichthyostega.

I can unserstand that evolutionists want to believe in macroevolution. Hell, many of them have their entire lives invested in that belief. But fabricating stories to fill gaps is no substitute the hard evidence that they are so sorely lacking.

They don’t appear to be lacking hard evidence nor do they appear to be fabricating stories. Unlike religious theories – they base their theories on evidence, not lack of evidence

The transition from any species to any other species would involved thousands upon thousands upon thousands of generations. That being said, the probability of finding transitional forms of any creature is thousands upon thousands of times greater than finding a fully developed creature. The pitiful handfull of fossils that can even be falsely represented as transitional should make it clear that however the life we see around us got here, macroevolution is simply not the route it took.

New theories on the “how” of evolution are continually being put together as new evidence comes to light. That’s the way science works. You should also realize it is not just fossil evidence that this is based – macro-evolution is supported by multi-disciplinary evidence.
 
Like I said. I don't know. But the fact that I don't doesn't make it necessary for me to believe blatant fabrication in order to be able to sleep at night. I can accept that there are things we don't know. Perhaps some day, some genuine transitional fossils will be found and then I will reevaluate my position. Or more non transitional fossils will be found that will simply reinforce my position.

The numerical fact is that tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of generations would be required for the transition from one species to another and that makes the odds of finding transitional fossils far greater than of finding non transitional forms. The fact that we have enough non transitional fossils to fill a city full of warehouses but only a pitiful handfull that are such that even a transitional story can be made up about them is evidence enough that macroevolution is not likely to be the route we, or any other creature on earth took to get here.

Fossils are very very rare to begin with. Fossilization requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely. In addition many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well, many species have small ranges thus their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small. Also – the evolution of new species is probably fairly rapid in geological terms so transitions between species will be uncommon. Add to that, other processes destroy fossils. Erosion (and/or lack of deposition in the first place) often destroys hundreds of millions of years or more of the geological record, so the geological record at any place usually has long gaps. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground. And, not only that – as rare as fossils are, their discovery is rarer still – typically, we only found those that have been exposed by erosion and only then if that exposure is recent enough that the fossils don’t erode.

As far as transitional fossils consider – as climates change, species migrate so we can’t assume a transition will occur all at one spot. Often times fossils must be collected from all over a continent – or the world – to find the transitions. Add that to overall rarity. Furthermore, regional politics interfere with collecting fossils. Some fabulous fossils have been found in China only recently because before then the politics prevented most paleontology there.

This shortage is not just in fossils but in paleontologists and taxonomists. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them.

Also, the description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized – particularly among marine microfossils, which have the best record but are the most boring (to non-paleontologists).
 
We will just have to agree to disagree. Like I said early on, I can see evidence for microevolution and have no problems there, but the fossils set out to demonstrate macroevolution simply ask too much of the imagination to be considered more science than storytelling.
 
We will just have to agree to disagree. Like I said early on, I can see evidence for microevolution and have no problems there, but the fossils set out to demonstrate macroevolution simply ask too much of the imagination to be considered more science than storytelling.

Okay...I'm cool with that. Obviously, I find the evidence both convincing and scientific. Sliante! :)
 
No, it is still a theory. A widely-accepted and highly probable theory, but a theory, because it is not fully provable as "fact."


You my friend need to get acquainted with some scientific terminology... look at the links provided for you...

I find this to be a very weak yet often brought up point in such discussions.... you realize what physics is right?? HIGHLY theoretical... or even math (i.e number THEORY...)
 
Werbung:
You my friend need to get acquainted with some scientific terminology... look at the links provided for you...

I find this to be a very weak yet often brought up point in such discussions.... you realize what physics is right?? HIGHLY theoretical... or even math (i.e number THEORY...)

All right, all right, I get the picture. I need to stop playing devil's advocate all the time. If I had to pick something to believe I'd certainly go with evolution - I just think there are still a few more elements to the bigger puzzle that haven't been figured out yet.

And aren't you supposed to be against the idea of evolution, God?
 
Back
Top