"New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Rumraket · **#61** by **Rumraket** » Jun 07, 2014 11:54 pm

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness

You got a supernaturalist hypothesis on human consciousness? Let's hear it.

GenesForLife · **#62** by **GenesForLife** » Jun 08, 2014 12:03 am

Made of Stars · **#63** by **Made of Stars** » Jun 08, 2014 12:06 am

Mmm, brainnzzz...

Rumraket · **#64** by **Rumraket** » Jun 08, 2014 12:07 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:It seems ADP, that the following pattern shows that materialists do not have even a hypothesis on origins, as demonstrated by these six irrefutable observations:

Irrefutable observations? Given how several of them are just straight up false I don't give much for what you think is "irrefutable".

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of species for Darwin begins with species already in existence

Yeah, the origin of species is an explanation for biodiversity, not life's ultimate origins.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of stars begins with the explosion of existing stars and with protostars

Bzzz. false. The first generation of stars formed after the big bang following big bang nucleosynthesis.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of genes that code for new proteins begins with modifying existing genes

Yes, mostly.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of species by neo-Darwinism begins with existing complex reproducing life

Yes.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of life on earth is increasingly seen as seeded from already existing alien life

No it isn't. Straight up false.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:- the origin of the universe is increasingly explained by appeals to the pre-existing multiverse.

What's with the "increasingly" bullshit? Can you even produce any actual data in support of your claimed trends here?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:This pattern demonstrates that many in the public

What pattern? You have not established a pattern, you have merely asserted it.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:, following a gullible media, have undue confidence in the claims about origins from materialists.

Who? What claims specifically? What media? Who are these "public" people with undue confidence?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Consider also originating the process to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule? Atheists have nothing and we can affirmatively know that they will forever have nothing in that regard

Really?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:because a high-level understanding of physics and information affirmatively demonstrates that the laws of physics do not include symbolic logic functions.

What the fuck do you think happens inside your computer? Ever heard about a logic gate? You think a ghost sits inside your CPU?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Information is not physical, and hence, strictly material systems cannot give rise to information systems.

Diametrically opposite to demonstrable fact. All physical systems by definition convey information.

Made of Stars · **#65** by **Made of Stars** » Jun 08, 2014 12:11 am

I think we should all just shut up and listen to the sermon from the mount, like a good radio audience does.

Not.

Rumraket · **#66** by **Rumraket** » Jun 08, 2014 12:11 am

I wonder whether you're even aware your computer has a hard drive, Bob. What do you think is inside the hard drive? An immaterial disc?

kennyc · **#67** by **kennyc** » Jun 08, 2014 12:12 am

Wow. We got a live one here. :roll:

kennyc · **#68** by **kennyc** » Jun 08, 2014 12:13 am

Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Because atheists don't have a workable hypothesis to account for human consciousness

You got a supernaturalist hypothesis on human consciousness? Let's hear it.

This outta be good!

Bob@RealScienceRadio · **#69** by **Bob@RealScienceRadio** » Jun 08, 2014 1:53 am

hackenslash wrote:
Bob wrote:Do Atheists Even Have a Hypothesis on Origins?

No, but scientists do, and many of those are atheist.

Hello hackenslash! Where I say atheists, you can read atheist scientists, because that's who I'm referring to. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. So, the pattern that I provided hackenslash demonstrates that atheist scientists do not even have a hypothesis on origin of life, species, proteins, stars, consciousness, encoding DNA, etc.

- Bob Enyart

willhud9 · **#70** by **willhud9** » Jun 08, 2014 2:21 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:

~Snip~

willhud, millions of Christians believe in evolution, and so I'm not speaking for them. Whereas virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement. You asked how would we explain defects? Worldwide, and for centuries, that is the answer from creationists.

^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. So God creates this world and says its good. He creates men and women and says they are good. So ends Genesis 1. Then we get a different narrative focusing on Adam and the creation of Eve and the temptation of sin. Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.

Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do? For it is not in the Bible and that is some wickedly insane eisegetics.

Furthermore the fall does not explain why Christians whom are blind still are blind, or how Christians whom are saved still go blind and deaf with age. If the grace of God covers them then surely the ill effects of the fall should not be in effect. Unless they are still not purified white as snow by the blood of Christ. You see this strict interpretation that fundamentalist creationists adhere to not only contradicts itself on Christian, but it hinders the very Gospel which you preach.

Since apparently you were unaware of how creationists would answer your question, even though you may reject it out of hand, still, you could consider that this is an internally consistent part of our worldview which certainly matches the decay and suffering that we see all around us and arises from a fundamental and pervasive teaching of Scripture. (As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)

The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.

Bob@RealScienceRadio · **#71** by **Bob@RealScienceRadio** » Jun 08, 2014 2:27 am

Hi ADParker! Well, the Rangers are beating the LA Kings 4-to-3, and the rest of the family is immersed in the game, so I thought I'd steal a few minutes for RationalSkepticism.org. I'm picking this up with you saying that you're...

ADParker wrote:Not a fan of the term "Darwinism"... like we worship Charles Darwin [or] take his works as 'gospel'...

What a coincidence ADP. Earlier today, I had the resident atheist at a theology forum criticize me for using the term "evolutionist". I posted there that I've also been criticized by an abortionist for calling him an abortionist, and liberals for calling them liberals. I don't quite understand all that. Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (emphasis on the theoretical) didn't even like me using the word "people". That's funny, no? When I am called a Christian creationist, a pro-lifer, a fundamentalist evangelical, or even an anti-choice activist, I don't run from it. I own it. Could it be that all those complaints are just obfuscation issues? I assure you ADP that neither me nor any creationist I have ever interviewed has suggested that Darwinists believe everything Darwin ever wrote. (For example, his overt racist and sexist contemptible comments, as at AmericanRightToLife.org/darwin, are rejected, I believe, by countless Darwinists.) And I can't recall any creationist making the claim, either, that Darwinists worship Darwin. So I'd rest easy on those concerns. A Darwinist today is someone who generally adheres to the modern synthesis (which of course isn't all that modern anymore, what with the study of epigenetics being what it is.)

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So here are the kinds of questions that lead educated folks to doubt Darwinism:

Okay, do you have any actual reason, or better yet evidence, that these kinds of questions have led educated folks to doubt Darwinism. Or is it that only people who already doubt for other reasons (religious indoctrination for instance) use them in cases like this?

Thanks for the good question ADParker. I'd like to try to answer it. According to a prestigious pro-evolution institution, as reported on and linked to (including the raw data), over at Real Science Radio, the percentage of U.S. MDs who believe that some kind of intelligent design must be involved in the origin of mankind, here's a breakdown of some of them by worldview:
- Buddhist doctors: 43% reject materialistic Darwinism (compared to 36% who accept it)
- Hindu doctors: 54% reject materialistic Darwinism
- Jewish doctors: 32% reject materialistic Darwinism (contrary to the anti-intelligent design position of the pro-evolution Louis Finkelstein Institute at the Jewish Theological Seminary which commissioned the --rather expensive-- survey)

There were even 2% of atheist doctors who reject the strictly materialistic Darwinism approach, who I'm suggesting ADP consider questions like the four I listed, as do the atheists who are friendly to the ID Discovery Institute, and like atheist Thomas Nagel who subtitled his latest book, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False."

Of the Real Science Radio report I mentioned earlier, that provides links to lists of names and to research from prestigious organizations that document the more than half-a-million degreed Americans, most of whom with PhDs and most in science-related specialties, who reject strict materialist Darwinism, one smaller group of highly-credentialed scientists at The Third Way (about 15 of them), acknowledge that neo-Darwinism and its natural selection cannot account for the diversity of life. These scientists include molecular biologists, etc., from institutions like Oxford, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University, MIT, University of Vienna, University of Bonn, UCLA, Princeton, and you would have a hard time dismissing their assessments due to religious beliefs since they are all anti-creationists.

Ha! The Kings have just tied it up 4-to-4! As soon as the Rangers went up in the first period 2-to-0 I felt sorry for them.

Talk to you soon, I hope, ADP!

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

p.s. Now it's going into overtime!

Fenrir · **#72** by **Fenrir** » Jun 08, 2014 2:40 am

Fenrir wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
byofrcs wrote:The problem with Dawkins' use... and the creationists use of design is that no one can tell the difference between a design that has been evolved and a design that has been created manually. ... they are unable to show how you can tell the difference.

Hello byofrcs! Both sides have long offered their methods of demarcation. Perhaps like you, I've been reading mainstream evolutionary work for decades, since the 1970s for me, and reading Dawkins specifically along with creationist writings since the 80s, and the "old-earth" ID movement since the 90s. The Darwinist camp offers a philosophical, and the ID camp provides a mathematical, method of demarcation.

The ID camp offers mathematical proof of design? Show me.

willhud9 · **#73** by **willhud9** » Jun 08, 2014 2:41 am

Consider also how the process might have originated to encode a protein sequence onto a DNA molecule?

This quote drives me absolutely, positively insane because a basic, fundamental understanding of chemistry, not even biochemistry is needed to understand this.

1) All atoms want to create bonds. Some bonds are stronger then others. Some atoms are better at creating bonds than others. Carbon is one of the atoms which can bond and create giant, lengthy molecules from those bonds.

2) In order to increase stability, carbon based molecules can "self-replicate." This means the molecules use surrounding atoms to create more of the same molecule. So right there we have necessary step #1 for life i.e. self-replication.

3) This self-replication builds complex molecules which build into basic organelles. These organelles have specific functions and depending on the stimuli they experience such as exposure to nitrogen or sodium they respond in some manner. This is gives step #2: stimulation.

4) So the complex molecule happens to be a polynucleotide. This polynucleotide is a strong chemical bond, and it develops alongside amino acids which are also strong bonds to form even stronger bonds in the forms of proteins. It is the force and laws of Chemistry which derive the protein code from the DNA molecule.

5) Scientists can directly observe this and we know with a certainty its plausibility.

patient zero · **#74** by **patient zero** » Jun 08, 2014 3:15 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Where I say atheists, you can read atheist scientists, because that's who I'm referring to.

Then you'd better write atheist scientists from now on or else it will keep making you look like you have no clue what you're talking about (still might not help, though).

Bob@RealScienceRadio · **#75** by **Bob@RealScienceRadio** » Jun 08, 2014 3:16 am

Hi ADP! I think now we might be getting to the good stuff in your post. Let's see...

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:1. By Darwin and Dawkin's slow and gradual steps (like how you climb Mt. Improbable), would you agree that, in theory, *IF* THERE ARE NO STEPS between two very complex biological systems (like perhaps monochromatic and dichromatic vision), that neo-Darwinism is falsified.

"Darwin and Dawkins": Interesting that you single out those two. It just reeks of agenda really.

My agenda ADP is that I seek to love God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself. As a part of that, I hope to show people that claims that science has explained origins apart from the existence of our Creator are exaggerated. I hope that is open enough for you. And I'm not quite sure how listing the father of evolutionary science and the world's most prominent advocate could reek of anything. That confuses me. I feel bad that it offended you because we're having a good conversation and I'd hope it doesn't get sidetracked into emotionalism by the mere use of the leading proponents' names.

ADParker wrote:"If there are no steps": If you mean by that (and I think you do, just trying to be clear and precise) that if there is no way to get from one point to another by "neo-Darwinistic" means (by the means of known, and as of yet unknown, evolutionary biology means - mutations, natural selection etc.) Then if were true then any theory that concluded/claimed that it did happen that way would be false.

Thank you for working for clarity ADP. Well, I so very much wish that I could just agree with your restatement of my question. Except that, I think my words were more meaningful than your paraphrase. The way you reworded it, you have me offering a tautology: If Darwinist means do not exist, then Darwinism is false. Yes. Of course. But that's turned my question into a tautology that anyone holding any position shouldn't mind agreeing with. For example, *IF* Christianity were false, then Christianity would be false. Yes. But the Apostle Paul offered something more courageous, especially in his day. He volunteered that IF Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain.

So, the question I asked is:

I wrote:By Darwin and Dawkin's slow and gradual steps... would you agree that, in theory, *IF* THERE ARE NO STEPS between two very complex biological systems (like perhaps monochromatic and dichromatic vision), that neo-Darwinism is falsified?

You offer ADP:

ADParker wrote:Technically the theory (a human construct) wouldn't be "falsified" until that was demonstrated and "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" by the relevant scientific examination and tests. In other words a theory isn't falsified until it has been 'proven' false, even though it would of course have been false all along.

I love your last point there ADP, that in such a case the theory would have then been false all along. However, regarding what precedes that, hmm. My question presented a very clear theoretical stipulation, whereby, if true, would falsify Darwinism. ADP, you turned it into a tautology, and are now arguing that the stipulation may not be true. That's all interesting, and worth discussing sometime, but it's off point and a direct answer would have helped me understand your position better.

ADParker wrote:"Neo Darwinism" as you call it...

ADP, that's what everybody calls it.

ADParker wrote:"Neo Darwinism" as you call it would not be falsified that way though no.

ADP, you are now vindicating my concern above that you turned my straightforward question into a tautology. By doing so, you felt comfortable answering it directly and affirmatively. Then, you challenged what was the given in the question, and now you're reversing your answer above, and I think the reason you are doing so, is because you're shifting into responding to my actual question rather than your tautological paraphrase. And it seems that you are uncomfortable answering the question itself.

ADParker wrote:Because that is not as precise a theory to make such claims. The theory of evolution is a broad term encompassing a large number of 'lesser' theories. It is one of those that at best could be falsified in this hypothetical case.

Well, we've done an interview on naive natural selection, which is the popular misconception of Darwinism, and you're showing that you are aware that the theory is much more complex and offers various options that, when some evidence appears to falsify the theory, another mini-theory pops up to rescue the overarching structure.

However ADParker, you are wrong on this. If there are no small incremental steps between two very complex biological systems, the entire structure of Darwinism fails. I almost thought you saw this a couple paragraphs up, but unfortunately, back then, you were only agreeing with your own tautology. This is why, just as so many astronomers are going public in rejecting the big bang, so many biologists are going public with their assessment that Darwinism is not a robust theory and that the data has thoroughly falsified it.

Thanks ADP. That was question 1. We were close to a meeting of the minds, if only in the context of a theoretical question. But, it didn't happen.

Thanks though for the effort!

- Bob Enyart
Real Science Radio

patient zero · **#76** by **patient zero** » Jun 08, 2014 3:25 am

Fenrir wrote:
Fenrir wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Hello byofrcs! Both sides have long offered their methods of demarcation. Perhaps like you, I've been reading mainstream evolutionary work for decades, since the 1970s for me, and reading Dawkins specifically along with creationist writings since the 80s, and the "old-earth" ID movement since the 90s. The Darwinist camp offers a philosophical, and the ID camp provides a mathematical, method of demarcation.

The ID camp offers mathematical proof of design? Show me.

That request did seem to rattle Bob. Hope he's not too scared to show that mathematical proof he claims the IDists have.

LucidFlight · **#77** by **LucidFlight** » Jun 08, 2014 3:35 am

Welcome to Ratskep, Bob!

:wave:

ElDiablo · **#78** by **ElDiablo** » Jun 08, 2014 3:50 am

Calilasseia · **#79** by **Calilasseia** » Jun 08, 2014 4:00 am

Oh dear, he's peddling the "design" assertion, whilst demonstrating that like every other fanboy of the "design" assertion, he doesn't know what it takes to convert that assertion into an evidentially supported postulate. This is going to be good.

Oh, and IDists don't have a "mathematical" argument for the "design" assertion, they have apologetics based upon deliberate misrepresentation of probability theory. Not to mention the usual erection of a false dichotomy. Dembski's nonsense was understood to be nonsense by real mathematicians the moment he published it, and it took him 12 years to abandon it in the face of the overwhelming rebuttals.

Bob@RealScienceRadio · **#80** by **Bob@RealScienceRadio** » Jun 08, 2014 4:27 am

Ha! The Kings just won.

So it's 2-to-0 in the stanley cup finals.

Hi AD!

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:2. Is it possible that there are no physical or even logical steps between monochromatic and dichromatic vision systems? (There is a non-trivial level of increased complexity going to dichromatic vision.)

I have no idea.

Thanks for the direct response. Regarding my use of the word "logical", oftentimes we can explore concepts by way of mathematics (the topic of our radio program yesterday), and logically, even when we can't empirically study something. [Einstein was big on this process, spent years doing this, and spent more years pondering how such a process could even be possible. And among the atheists cliches that we falsify is this: Only knowledge gained empirically is valid. And so, how did you figure that out? That's a fun one, no? We've got a ton of 'em!]

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:3. When you consider, as in the image below (and at http://rsr.org/files/images/science/vis ... stream.jpg ), that a brain's incoming visual data stream doesn't include anything like an analog representation of the outside world, but instead, presents a symbolic encoding of that information, can you identify any of the fundamental laws of chemistry or physics that involve symbolic processing?

The address on that image doesn't appear to exist, and redirects you to your radio site.

Sorry for the confusion ADP. Yes, just like wordpress will often redirect the URL to their customer's custom URL, all that's happening is that we're redirecting the URL. The address and the redirect are both correct. But sorry for the confusion.

ADParker wrote:Did you just make that image up yourself?

Yes. Thank you. Except that, it wasn't just now. It was a few years ago.

Regarding your comments, thanks for pointing out that you don't know enough about the topic to reply. But perhaps you can realize ADP that this same lack of knowledge that you have might call into question your judgment that my question is "decidedly misleading".

Because biological vision systems make use of symbolic logic, and because the laws of chemistry and physics have no symbolic logic functions, therefore, Darwinists can search for eternity but they will fail to demonstrate that there is a physical path for chemical and physical processes to develop a symbol-driven system. And at that point, Darwinists are out of options. Of course, they could explore the strong force, and the coulomb force, and gravity, but searching these for symbolic logic functions would be to make a category error. (Hey, scientists have even found organisms utilizing quantum mechanical functions, but none of that is relevant. As Einstein pointed out, and was mystified by for decades (see AmericanRTL.org/einstein), you cannot get from a purely physical world to the realm of ideas.

ADParker wrote:...showing an image of what "the brain "sees" " doesn't really make that much sense.

ADP, I show you that image in hopes that in it you will see God. I'm trying to get you to realize the actual dilemma that materialism faces, rather than have you feel content only dealing with caricatures of reality. Vision systems alleged arose may times over, in organisms that lacked a common ancestor that was sighted. (As you know, Darwinists call that concept convergence, like when dolphins and bats allegedly evolved nearly identical and very extensive computer coding/sequencing to implement echolocation.)

When you see that static, ADParker, consider a slug or a bug that is going about evolving, by an unguided process, a vision system. Once it functions, even in the most rudimentary way, then natural selection can get to work and preserve what is functioning and kill off what is not. So, the evolving bug brain would happen through a googolplex of complex algorithms before it randomly fell upon one that might give it some semblance of a valid interpretation of that static. In fact, even the concept of it trying to interpret the incoming data stream is itself incomprehensible. But, let's give you that. So, while the above vision data actually encodes a flower, as far as the bug knew, it might represent:
• The sound of thunder
• A predator’s mouth
• The taste of mold
• An atheists fingers in ten splints
• The heat of a flame
• A spider’s web
• The smell of ozone
• Nothing

So ADP, how does the supposed evolving bug brain begin to decipher such a data stream to identify a flower in the above static (i.e., encoded symbols)? You might say, as you have, that you don't know enough about the subject to offer a reply. But don't worry. You're in the best company. Because that Univ of Calif professor who authored Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved has no clue either. At least, if he does, he never even attempted to answer such questions in his lengthy textbook. In fact, his book has almost nothing whatsoever about how eyes evolved. It's simply an anatomy book filled with really great photos and fun facts about biological vision systems. (Of course you can doubt my assessment, but I would hope that you might give me the slightest benefit of the doubt after hearing Richard Dawkins above vindicate my televised 1997 assessment of his entire body of work which he published in his bestselling books.) So, Ivan Schwab can offer no hint of an answer either ADP, so that leaves the both of you with blind faith that somehow, that bug will start correctly interpreting all that static. Somehow.

(And have you considered ADP that the poor bug will have to interpret a stream of electrochemical signals that is continuous and constantly changing?)

ADParker wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:4. Looking at the image below (and at http://rsr.org/images/PermTOL/TrochleaKGOVchallenge.jpg ) does all that you've learned about neo-Darwinism enable you to give a rough algorithm, no details, just a broad-stroked description, of how one of the more simple functional aspects of our vision system could evolve? PZ Myers posted this challenge, and said that, speaking for himself, he could not. Even though it's one of the simplest parts of the eye system, I think it's unanswerable from your belief system.

... Sounds like you are trying to make modern evolutionary biology out to be some sort of 'religion'...

It does. Wow. With that question? I sure didn't see that coming.

My trochlea challenge to evolutionists is simply another iteration of irreducible complexity. Only, instead of using wildly complex and unfamiliar molecular machines, like a flagellum, I'm using something that most everyone can relate to. A pulley.

Because it's so simple, it's difficult for either side to obfuscate. PZ Myers has spent a lifetime studying neo-Darwinism and he's considered an expert and he acknowledged that he cannot give an answer, even though I've only asked for a general broad outline of an answer, on how that trochlea could evolve.

ADParker wrote:An odd question: A "rough algorithm" for a rather precise little part of the development of the eye in particular.

I'll leave it at that. ADP, thank you for taking my questions seriously. I do appreciate that!

- Bob Enyart

Ouch. I think I was just reprimanded for ending my post with my name and city.

"New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

Who is online