RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 5:50:46 PM)
quote: Great, now put the two together and you get what I've saying all along. A "group" that has been mating and sharing their genes and evolving, sooner or later they have produce a change in the number of chromosomes or else today, every living thing would have the same number of chromosomes, which they don't. Now it would seem, in the world around us, a differing number of chromosomes seems to be a rather large hindrance to reproduction. This is based on....what? A large portion of our genes don't do anything, not to mention that differing number of chromosomes tend to prevent species from mating that shouldn't (not that they were designed to prevent that mind you). Genes change over time, certain qualities are preferred, others get left behind as junk quote: Now what I have been saying is; no matter how much a "group" has mated and evolved, when that change in the number of chromosomes happens, a new "group" has to be formed because they can no longer mate with the "group" that evolved them. Great, that is what Evolution says happens and as far as I know there is no scientific evidence that shows that could not have happened. Um, no, that isn't what evolution says can't happen. You'll find several species of birds that can mate with each other. Lets do a though experiment to explain it, as I remember learning back in highschool. Species A is the original species of seagull, Species B is an offshoot of species A which formed over several thousand years, Species C is a Species that offshoots from Species B, D from C, and E from D. These species all exist at the same time, Species A can still mate with Species B because there isn't a vast amount of variation between them. The same with B and C, C and D, and D and E. A->B->C->D->E However, because the changes between A and E are so much larger, they cannot reproduce successfully. They have undergone too many changes in their genetics to remain compatible. What are the changes? Well you might as well be asking me to tell you the name of the sperms who died trying to fertilize your mothers egg. Again, it is a thought experiment that has already established evolution as truth, but explains why species are no longer compatible between each other. A real life example with humans would be neandertals, with which we have mated with and there is evidence of Neandertal DNA mixed into the Homosapien species. They are/were the closest relative we had and we were able to mate with them. However, we wouldn't have been able to mate with homo-erectus if it had been around with us, because the change in genetics between us and them would have been too big. Do you understand what I'm saying? Closely related species can reproduce, but species that are much further apart can't. quote: But being some what pragmatic, I have to ask; do I really believe that over the millions of times that happened, Evolution managed to produce at least a male and a female of that new "group" at the same time and place, every time? And as GotSteel was so kind to point out, one pair is not a viable start to a new "group" and so Evolution would have produce more than just two, each time. Perhaps that seems credible to you but to me it seems to be pushing credulity and would seem to take blind faith to believe. ;-) Jesus man, you still don't understand evolution one bit. Evolution didn't manage to produce one male and female to create a new group. Evolution is slow and gradual, never abrupt. It's hard to figure out when species change, but it does happen and it happens over a long period of time. When a species is forced into a new environment, natural selection either kills off the species because it doesn't survive, or some of the species endures and is able to adapt, slowly selecting for traits which allow the species to survive and continue reproducing. Over time, the species that survives will no longer resemble their ancestors, because their ancestors didn't have the same qualities needed to survive they way their descendants do. Do you understand gradual? And do you understand how long millions of years is? It's a long time, time enough for small changes to turn into big changes, big changes which resulted in new species.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles First, I look around and see every living thing has a different number of chromosomes and don't seem capable of mating with those with a differing number of chromosomes, even those with the same number of chromosomes don't seem capable of mating. Like a Red Panda and a Starfish both have 36 and mating would seem impossible. So my first question is; how does Evolution account for this great variety in the number of chromosomes and their inability mate outside their "species"? First of all "every living thing" does not have "a different number of chromosomes" you point that out yourself farther on in the sentence. Second it's not terribly uncommon for animals to be able to breed outside their species, there are pages talking about that towards the beginning of the thread. Third a horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62 yet they're capable of mating. Fourth while the Red Panda and a Starfish have the same number of chromosomes the information contained therein is clearly going to be too different to be compatible. Whoopdeedo, a horse and a donkey can mate. What do you get a mule and then what? Are you really trying to show that mules are proof of Evolution? ;-)

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles First, I look around and see every living thing has a different number of chromosomes and don't seem capable of mating with those with a differing number of chromosomes, even those with the same number of chromosomes don't seem capable of mating. Like a Red Panda and a Starfish both have 36 and mating would seem impossible. So my first question is; how does Evolution account for this great variety in the number of chromosomes and their inability mate outside their "species"? First of all "every living thing" does not have "a different number of chromosomes" you point that out yourself farther on in the sentence. Second it's not terribly uncommon for animals to be able to breed outside their species, there are pages talking about that towards the beginning of the thread. Third a horse has 64 chromosomes and a donkey has 62 yet they're capable of mating. Fourth while the Red Panda and a Starfish have the same number of chromosomes the information contained therein is clearly going to be too different to be compatible. Whoopdeedo, a horse and a donkey can mate. What do you get a mule and then what? Are you really trying to show that mules are proof of Evolution? ;-) The making of a mule simply shows the compatibility of two closely related species, but it also shows the potential of creating new species, so in a way, yes, it does prove evolution. Referring to my example above about the seagulls, there is the potential that the breeding of Species A and species B could produce A/B offspring. If not infertile the way mules are, the new species would likely be capable of interbreeding with both species A and B, and maybe other A/B. If something happens that separates an A/B population from A or B, the species could move forward and continue down a separate evolutionary path. If A/B and B become separated from A, it is likely that B will consume A/B, or vice versa. This is one hypothesis for how the neanderthals went extinct, that homo-sapiens interbed with neanderthals to the point that they no longer existed as a stand alone species. That said, this hypothesis is still in the throes of discussion and no serious conclusion has been reached yet, but I digress. If A/B is consumed by B, qualities of species A that hand been present in species A/B but not in B could be potentially seen in later generations of species B. The creation of a mule shows that compatibility exists between related species for a new species to be created, but the potential for said species to survive in nature is put into question if said species are infertile or possess qualities that work against their ability to survive.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:04:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles As for your point, some evidence would be nice. ;-) Do you remember post 545 where I quoted from your source? Yes, I remember it; this is the actual quote from there "However, a "flattist" approach was more or less shared by all the Fathers coming from the Syriac area, who were more inclined to follow the letter of the Old Testament." (actual quote from the article) which you seem to have turned into this, "That is how Bible scholars determined that the earth was flat during the early dark ages arguing against the scientific, evidence based theory that the earth was spherical."(which I can't seem to find in the article) and would seem to need some additional proof to back it up. ;-)

GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles But being some what pragmatic, I have to ask; do I really believe that over the millions of times that happened, Evolution managed to produce at least a male and a female of that new "group" at the same time and place, every time? face palm That's still not evolution. You shouldn't believe the above because it's ignorant nonsense.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:21:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 a horse and a donkey make a mule who is sterile and creation stops there. I just thought Id throw that in to act like IM smart. Here's the offspring of a mule: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6464853/mule-foal-fools-genetics-impossible-birth [image]local://upfiles/566126/5C8ED117A4D9435685B40AD9DACF35CE.jpg[/image] Mules and hinnies have 63 chromosomes, a mixture of the horse's 64 and the donkey's 62. The different structure and number usually prevents the chromosomes from pairing up properly and creating successful embryos, rendering most mules infertile. There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. A few female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[9][10] Herodotus gives an account of such an event as an ill omen of Xerxes' conquest of Greece in 480 BC: "There happened also a portent of another kind while he was still at Sardis,—a mule brought forth young and gave birth to a mule" (Herodotus The Histories 7:57). Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.[9] There are reports that a mule in China produced a foal in 1984.[11][12] In Morocco, in early 2002, a mare mule produced a rare foal.[9] In 2007 a mule named Kate gave birth to a mule son in Colorado.[13][14] Blood and hair samples were tested verifying that the mother was a mule and the colt was indeed her offspring. A 1939 article in the Journal of Heredity describes two offspring of a fertile mare mule named "Old Bec", which was owned at the time by the A&M College of Texas (now Texas A&M University) in the late 1920s. One of the foals was a female, sired by a jack. Unlike its mother, it was sterile. The other, sired by a five-gaited saddlebred stallion, exhibited no characteristics of any donkey. That horse, a stallion, was bred to several mares, which gave birth to live foals that showed no characteristics of the donkey.[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule Yes, sometimes there some are foals, 60 in the last 500 years, are you actually going to try and pin the validity of Evolution on that? A process that generally results in infertility and if not, generally results in a return to a horse or a donkey. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:24:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Let me try to explain: There is fossil evidence to suggest that many creatures haven't undergone change in thousands or millions of years because they don't need to. Fossil evidence of an ancestor of the modern-day ant eater suggests that they are almost identical. Why is that? Well, there's also fossil evidence to suggest that ants and termites haven't changed much in millions of years. So, the ant eater is already "perfectly" adapted to continue as a species; just the way they are. There are other examples; alligators/crocodiles, sharks, whales, bats, ... the list goes on. Maybe mules aren't "needed" for the survival of the "hippo" genus? Maybe that's why (up until now) they're sterile and can't reproduce? The world abhors a vacuum but, it also doesn't suffer waste, gladly. Your point? Even if they haven't changed in a billion years, Evolutions says they had to change some time. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You really have no idea how reproduction works at the cellular level. Until you do you won't understand why this fixation on chromosome number is nonsensical. Oh yeah, tell me how in sexual reproduction, the number of chromosomes has nothing to do with reproduction. Most scientists would say for sexual reproduction you need half of the chromosomes from the mother and the other half from the father and it would be extremely helpful if they were both the same number. Please tell me how that is an illusion. ;-)

FrostedFlake -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:42:31 PM)
The purpose of having gender is to mix the genome, in order to create random variations, in order that the best of them become more common via the process of natural selection in which the organism best equipped to exploit the situation survives best and then becomes the norm. No? What then is sex for? ETA : This to me is blindingly obvious. Others don't see it. I'd like to know why.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 8:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You really have no idea how reproduction works at the cellular level. Until you do you won't understand why this fixation on chromosome number is nonsensical. Oh yeah, tell me how in sexual reproduction, the number of chromosomes has nothing to do with reproduction. Most scientists would say for sexual reproduction you need half of the chromosomes from the mother and the other half from the father and it would be extremely helpful if they were both the same number. Please tell me how that is an illusion. ;-) No scientist who knows what he is talking about would say that. The processes involved, transcription and translation mainly, really do not care about chromosomes at all. We just find it convenient to look at the genetic material at a very specific point in the life cycle of the cell and at that point the DNA is in discrete chromosomes. The rest of the time, not so much. It literally made no difference when the first hominid with chromosome 2a and 2b fused into chromosome 2 mated with his/her unmutated mate all the genes still matched up.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 9:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 This is based on....what? Reality. quote: A large portion of our genes don't do anything, not to mention that differing number of chromosomes tend to prevent species from mating that shouldn't (not that they were designed to prevent that mind you). That's what they say, your point? quote: Genes change over time, certain qualities are preferred, others get left behind as junk Yep that's what Evolution says. quote: Um, no, that isn't what evolution says can't happen. Really? quote: You'll find several species of birds that can mate with each other. Lets do a though experiment to explain it, as I remember learning back in highschool. Species A is the original species of seagull, Species B is an offshoot of species A which formed over several thousand years, Species C is a Species that offshoots from Species B, D from C, and E from D. These species all exist at the same time, Species A can still mate with Species B because there isn't a vast amount of variation between them. You can call this what ever you want to but as long as they can still mate then they are just variations within the "group". quote: The same with B and C, C and D, and D and E. A->B->C->D->E However, because the changes between A and E are so much larger, they cannot reproduce successfully. A chihuahua and a great dane can't mate but they aren't different species, they are still dogs. quote: They have undergone too many changes in their genetics to remain compatible. What is it that makes them incompatible? quote: What are the changes? Well you might as well be asking me to tell you the name of the sperms who died trying to fertilize your mothers egg. Actually doesn't seem like there are quite that many things that would make them incompatible, one thing might be different numbers of chromosomes. quote: Again, it is a thought experiment that has already established evolution as truth, but explains why species are no longer compatible between each other. Thought experiment? I think you need to run it again, because so far it hasn't established anything. quote: A real life example with humans would be neandertals, with which we have mated with and there is evidence of Neandertal DNA mixed into the Homosapien species. They are/were the closest relative we had and we were able to mate with them. However, we wouldn't have been able to mate with homo-erectus if it had been around with us, because the change in genetics between us and them would have been too big. I know that science says that we have Neanderthal DNA but how do you know they are a different species or that we couldn't mate with Homo-erectus? quote: Do you understand what I'm saying? Closely related species can reproduce, but species that are much further apart can't. Sure I understand what you are saying but the truth is what you call "closely related species" are may not be a different species at all but are the same species and what you call "much further apart" are actually different species. quote: Jesus man, you still don't understand evolution one bit. Evolution didn't manage to produce one male and female to create a new group. Evolution is slow and gradual, never abrupt. I don't know, different numbers of chromosomes seems somewhat abrupt to me. I mean we never find living things with 62.00007 chromosomes do we? quote: It's hard to figure out when species change, but it does happen and it happens over a long period of time. When a species is forced into a new environment, natural selection either kills off the species because it doesn't survive, or some of the species endures and is able to adapt, slowly selecting for traits which allow the species to survive and continue reproducing. Over time, the species that survives will no longer resemble their ancestors, because their ancestors didn't have the same qualities needed to survive they way their descendants do. And like I said leaves the world we live in with the same number of chromosomes for all, no wait the world isn't like that at all. quote: Do you understand gradual? Yep, do you? quote: And do you understand how long millions of years is? It's a drop in the bucket compared to the age of the universe. quote: It's a long time, time enough for small changes to turn into big changes, big changes which resulted in new species. Gee, a long long time huh? Yeah, if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and infinite number of years you'll get the complete works of Shakespeare. In reality what you are going to get is an infinite number of broken typewriters. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 9:33:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles But being some what pragmatic, I have to ask; do I really believe that over the millions of times that happened, Evolution managed to produce at least a male and a female of that new "group" at the same time and place, every time? face palm That's still not evolution. You shouldn't believe the above because it's ignorant nonsense. Actually I've come to realize that you don't understand Evolution. I guess that's why you find it so easy to believe. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 9:37:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake The purpose of having gender is to mix the genome, in order to create random variations, in order that the best of them become more common via the process of natural selection in which the organism best equipped to exploit the situation survives best and then becomes the norm. No? Yes that pretty much covers it. quote: What then is sex for? Well, I can think of one or two other things sex can be used for. quote: ETA : This to me is blindingly obvious. Others don't see it. I'd like to know why. Close mindedness? ;-)

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 9:52:16 PM)
quote: Reality. You're reality and what actually exists in this world are two different things, might wana go see a doctor lol quote: You can call this what ever you want to but as long as they can still mate then they are just variations within the "group" What is a group? Because in defining species only these classifications exist: kingdom phylum class order family genus species quote: A chihuahua and a great dane can't mate but they aren't different species, they are still dogs. Are you sure? Googled it and found that it is possible, except the result would be a mutt with horrible qualities and would likely not live long. Just because one is bigger than the other doesn't mean they can't produce offspring. quote: What is it that makes them incompatible? Actually doesn't seem like there are quite that many things that would make them incompatible, one thing might be different numbers of chromosomes. Exactly, any number of genetic changes, added alleles, missing alleles. Sure the animals can possibly mate and produce offspring, but will they live long? Will they even be born alive? Will the offspring be fertile? It's these sort of things that prevent many cross species mating, because normally the offspring, if they survive birth, won't survive in the wild. quote: Thought experiment? I think you need to run it again, because so far it hasn't established anything. You might want to retake high school in that case, it's not too hard of a concept. quote: I know that science says that we have Neanderthal DNA but how do you know they are a different species or that we couldn't mate with Homo-erectus? The jury is still out on the Neandertal DNA I'm afraid. And we know they're a different species because they are genetically different from us, humans have a certain variety of genetics, neandertals had a variety slightly different from ours. And I don't know if we could mate with homo-erectus, we might have, but that's a woulda coulda question. A more accurate hominid would be Ardipithicus, one of the earliest hominids. The difference between humans and Ardi are so vast that any viable offspring wouldn't last long. So we could mate with them, but the result would either not live once born or would have horrendous chances outside of the womb. quote: Sure I understand what you are saying but the truth is what you call "closely related species" are may not be a different species at all but are the same species and what you call "much further apart" are actually different species. So where is the defining line exactly? If Species A is closely related to Species B, does that make them the same species? And if Species B is closely related to species C, does that make them the same species? Which by definition would make C the same as A. And if C and D are closely related, wouldn't that mean they're the same species as B and A? Do you see the fallacy in that logic? Similarity does not mean they are the same. quote: I don't know, different numbers of chromosomes seems somewhat abrupt to me. I mean we never find living things with 62.00007 chromosomes do we? You do realize the Human Y chromosome is pidly and tiny compared to the X chromosome? You could go as far to say that it's a 0.00007 chromosome. Any stand alone chromosome is defined as: a threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes. A 0.00007 of a chromosome would still be considered 1 chromosome, even if it's 0.000007 of the size of the other chromosomes. quote: And like I said leaves the world we live in with the same number of chromosomes for all, no wait the world isn't like that at all. You're right, it doesn't work like that. Genetics change, things get added, removed, producing species with completely different numbers of chromosomes. Natural selection isn't the only method of evolution, there are other factors involved. I'd quote the rest of your replies but I hardly see the point considering it's not really relevant.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 11:57:03 PM)
Amazing, the Evolution skeptic Can do research, about mules, but can't be troubled to actually read up on the internal cellular processes that happen in fertilization and sexual reproduction! Isn't everyone getting bored by willful ignorance multiplied and emphasized?

eulero83 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/26/2014 12:36:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Maybe I missed it. But in all of this patting yourself on the back, I didn't see how the living things that exist all around us ended up with differing numbers of chromosomes, perhaps you could elucidate. ;-) is this the only concern about evolution you have or are there any others? anyway taking as example chimpanzees they have 24 chromosome couples, humans have 23 but looking the 2nd chromosome you can see it shows proof to be the fusion of two different chromosomes, this is a fact, you can do many hypothesys about how this fusion happended and test them, but it is a fact that humans had in the past 24 couples. Every hypothesys has to connect those two spots or it's not valid, But we know as a fact chromosomes can change their number in some way. Great, now put the two together and you get what I've saying all along. A "group" that has been mating and sharing their genes and evolving, sooner or later they have produce a change in the number of chromosomes or else today, every living thing would have the same number of chromosomes, which they don't. Now it would seem, in the world around us, a differing number of chromosomes seems to be a rather large hindrance to reproduction. Now what I have been saying is; no matter how much a "group" has mated and evolved, when that change in the number of chromosomes happens, a new "group" has to be formed because they can no longer mate with the "group" that evolved them. Great, that is what Evolution says happens and as far as I know there is no scientific evidence that shows that could not have happened. But being some what pragmatic, I have to ask; do I really believe that over the millions of times that happened, Evolution managed to produce at least a male and a female of that new "group" at the same time and place, every time? And as GotSteel was so kind to point out, one pair is not a viable start to a new "group" and so Evolution would have produce more than just two, each time. Perhaps that seems credible to you but to me it seems to be pushing credulity and would seem to take blind faith to believe. ;-) the main problem in understanding your point is it seems you have the idea those mutations happened in a short time like in the movie waterworld where in a world with normal human some happened to born with full working gills because earth was completely covered by water, but that's not how evolution works, if you look at the world around better you'll see that it happens some inidividuals born with different number of chromosomes from parents with the common number, for example down syndrome, if smehow other changes dictated by natuural selection also increase the odds of generate offspring with a different number of chromosomes than after many generations you'll have enough individuals to mate among those with the new number of chromosomes. At this point the two groups will evolve on different paths, but for example horses and donkeys are still close enough that mares prefers a donkey over a stud. Anyway it's just a game of odds and time not of design.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/26/2014 4:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No scientist who knows what he is talking about would say that. If you say so. quote: The processes involved, transcription and translation mainly, really do not care about chromosomes at all. We just find it convenient to look at the genetic material at a very specific point in the life cycle of the cell and at that point the DNA is in discrete chromosomes. The rest of the time, not so much. Let's look at this. Perhaps you can explain why this genetic material, which doesn't seem to care about the number chromosomes, seems to care when it forms chromosomes. In reality, we don't find specific living cells randomly creating random numbers of chromosomes, they seem to make the same number over and over again. quote: It literally made no difference when the first hominid with chromosome 2a and 2b fused into chromosome 2 mated with his/her unmutated mate all the genes still matched up. Again when we look around us, it seems to make a difference, as was pointed out when looking at mules, it generally causes infertility and when it doesn't there isn't a new sustained species developed with a different number of chromosomes, the number seems to always go back to one number or the other. ;-)

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/26/2014 4:38:22 AM)
Well, kleinfelter's and other aberrations put the flush to that misuse of thought, do they not?

chatterbox24 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/26/2014 5:49:30 AM)
If you believe in Creation, and believe anything out of the Bible, we were created in Gods image. I don't want to make this a religious thread, I am just saying he made us smart and gave us dominion over the earth. People of Science have did some incredible things, unbelievable things which have made our life here better with so many conveniences. I also believe some things are practiced just because we can, not because we should. We have the knowledge to do it, but we don't have the knowledge to know the future ramifications of what it will do to us or nature. If scientists could figure out how to breed tigers and humans, that a big wow and amazing, but why do it? Just because you can? I can go kill someone today if I want too cause I can, but should I go do it? My point in saying that is there are consequences, not only for me, but everyone in a broad base. It effects multiple people, and not in a good way. Mother nature has a way of correcting things in imbalance. Sometimes on a small scale and sometimes on a huge scale. Its a rather simple minded approach because we all want to know why why why? Sometimes its just better to accept, because it is. Why cant a mule breed successfully except on the very rare occasion, to me its simple, they just aren't suppose too, nature does not want those genes to continue. Nature is way more powerful then man will ever be. Its actually comical to me to even think we came from monkeys. This aint planet of the apes.[:D] Bless our hearts.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/26/2014 6:12:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Your point? Even if they haven't changed in a billion years, Evolutions says they had to change some time. ;-) You're picking a fight with the wrong guy. I believe evolution was put in motion by God. Sorry. No sale, here. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Page: << < prev 32 33 [34] 35 36 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125