Evolution of the human eye
- Thread starter Mr Laurier
- Start date
- Status
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
The existence of God is really only on topic here if it is asserted that the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an adequate explanation for the evolution of the eye. Creationists and IDists believe that it is not; theistic evolutionists* and atheists believe that it is.
That looks to me like an IDist position. As a theistic evolutionist* I don't hold with it; my position is that the "information" necessary is created by the process of evolution itself as it unfolds.
"Blind and random" is a straw man.
*I am using "theistic evolutionist" here as a shorthand for my own position, though the term can cover a variety of opinions similar to my own which include a variety of metaphysical solutions to the problem of divine causality.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Once again you have asked me this before IE post #830
you said Is natural selection at all a major component in evolution? after I was explaining the EES and that natural selection was one of several forces that caused evolutionary change. I replied in the following post #831 Steve said
Of course, it is one of the major causes and drivers of evolution. But not the only one.
You asked me again about natural selection in post #163. You said
2. What role, if any, do natural selection have?
Steve said
NS plays an important role but is only one of a number of forces that influence evolutionary change.
Once again you asked me about NS in post #1182 and once again I acknowledge that natural selection plays a role in evolution.
Steve said
I do not deny natural selection happens just its role in how life can change and adapt to their enviroments.
So once again you make unsupported claims. I have clearly and consistently acknowledged that natural selection is an important force in evolution.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
And therefore as Mr Laurier said in the OP that creationist thought the human eye was created De novo as is in one go. Then the process for how the human eye evolved from a primitive eye is explained to counter the creationist view. Therefore other views as to how the human eye may have come about are also relevant to counter the OP.
Not necessarily. It is really the position of any person who believes God created life regardless of how it happened. The question is 'did God play any part in the creation of life on earth'. If so what did he do. It would logically follow that if God is the creator of life then there must be some code or laws that life follows to create life. God would not just throw a dice in the hope that life would come about in the specific way it did. He determined it even before the existence of the universe.
As life may be only on planet earth and a specific set of conditions is needed not only for the earth in its position within the universe but for the earths environment to allow not just life but intelligent life. This requires a pre-determined set of conditions and not chance or accident as most atheists believe in how the conditions for life and life itself occurred.
So theres no way around the fact that if God is the creator then his signature has to be within the creation of life. That is not ID but a logical position for any Christian who supports God using evolution as his tool for creation. God does not leave things to chance and the BIble states this.
The question is do you or anyone who supports the various positions on "theistic evolutionist" see the hand of God in the process at all. According to Wikipedia "theistic evolutionist" is equated to God-guided evolution, God directed evolution or "Orthogenesis", evolution that occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God", that God creates through evolution, that God, as Creator, uses evolution to bring about his plan, liberal Christians accept evolution so long as they can reconcile it with Gods divine design.
So as you can see it logically follows that "theistic evolutionist" or the many variations of it need to incorporate God in some way as the designer or guider of evolution.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I think it is detectable by science its just that the atheistic chooses not to acknowledge it. It comes back to peoples worldview, (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). What an atheist may see as a natural process without any God behind it a Christian will see as Gods handy work. But as Dawkins said evolution can give the appearance of design so I think the atheist just tries to attribute a self-creative process to the same design Christians actually see as Gods creative work.
So it makes one wonder do atheists really try to explain that design away. I mean it has all the same hallmarks of design we see in human made things even more so yet they try to say it somehow came about from some self creative process that can produce greater information that was not originally there which is contradictory to how we explain all other design.
But if Christians seeing Gods design in nature and with aspects of the evolutionary process is natural and logical then perhaps people should not criticize them for doing so like they are some creationists. I appreciate that the scientific method is about testing observations and verifying them which is different to supernatural processes. But design is different in that we can look for its hallmarks in nature just like we do when assessing human designed processes.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
I think that remark is self-serving and offensive. It is not only offensive to scientists, atheists and theists alike, but to Traditional Christians like myself who believe that God can do His work in a way that appears to science as a completely natural process, and have the theology to back up that belief.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
As far as I under the Bible mentions Gods design IE
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Job 38:4-39
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
“On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.
Job 10: 9-12
Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
That may or may not be the case as no demonstrated science has verified this. But even if it was the case we don't really know how it happened or if it happened by Darwinian evolution. It is just assumed because the stages all fit into this nice story. But the details between each stage are never explained.
There are millions of steps that are needed to create an eye and some involve multiple mutations happening at once. If any random mutations altered the precise workings of the eye this would undermine its entire integrity. A slight change to one component would need alterations to connected components at the same time. As mentioned by Charles Pritchard in his paper in 1866 just as Darwin said.
Suppose, for instance, one of the surfaces of the crystalline lens of the eye of a creature, possessing a crystalline and a cornea, to be accidentally altered, then I say, that unless the form of the other surface is simultaneously altered, in one only way out of the millions of possible ways, the eye would not be optically improved. An alteration also in the two surfaces of the crystalline lens, whether accidental or otherwise, would involve a definite alteration of the form of the cornea, or in the distance of its surface from the centre of the crystalline lens, in order that the eye may be optically better. All these alterations must be simultaneous and definite in amount, and these definite amounts must coexist in obedience to an extremely complicated law.
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/evidevolcrs/readings/Pritchard-CSN-66-apndxA.pdf
That would need what would seem like impossible odds without some pre-existing information directing things. The eye spot used for the first stage is in fact not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis. But this is very complex and is never fully explained how it came about. That is why it makes more sense that the information for evolving eyes was there from a very early stage and did not completely rely on a random and blind process to evolve such complex and orchestrated components.
As far as I understand all eyes have common genetic info that was there from a very early stage of eye evolution. Complex eyes which are just as complex as today’s eyes appeared relatively suddenly in the Cambrian explosion.
In addition to assuming the abrupt appearance of a fully-functional eyespot, standard accounts of eye-evolution invoke the abrupt appearance of key features of advanced eyes such as the lens, cornea, and iris. Of course the emplacement of each of these features--fully formed and intact--would undoubtedly increase visual acuity. But where did these parts suddenly come from in the first place? As Scott Gilbert put it, such evolutionary accounts are "good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest."
Biological theory: Postmodern evolution? : Nature News
Due to the diversity of eye types around the world, scientists used to believe that eyes had many independent origins. Advances in technology helped us learn more about the molecular structure of eye, and showed that proteins known as opsins are the foundation of all eyes in all creatures. This commonality confirms that all organisms with eyes, at one point, shared a common ancestor.
https://www.scienceworld.ca/stories/eyes-how/
A shared trait common to all light-sensitive organs are opsins. Opsins belong to a family of photo-sensitive proteins and fall into nine groups, which already existed in the urbilaterian, the last common ancestor of all bilaterally symmetrical animals.[15] Additionally, the genetic toolkit for positioning eyes is shared by all animals: The PAX6 gene controls where eyes develop in animals ranging from octopuses[16] to mice and fruit flies.[17][18][19] Such high-level genes are, by implication, much older than many of the structures that they control today; they must originally have served a different purpose, before they were co-opted for eye development.[14]
That would point to information being around early that allowed the different eyes to form by tapping into pre-existing genetic info through developmental processes like developmental bias which can produce certain specific forms like the eye rather than through a random process which is hit and miss and that could end up taking forever.
Of particular interest is the observation that phenotypic variation can be biased by the processes of development, with some forms more probable than others [12,17,25–28]. Bias is manifest, for example, in the non-random numbers of limbs, digits, segments and vertebrae across a variety of taxa [25,26,29,30], correlated responses to artificial selection resulting from shared developmental regulation [31], and in the repeated, differential re-use of developmental modules, which enables novel phenotypes to arise by developmental rearrangements of ancestral elements, as in the parallel evolution of animal eyes [32].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
As some have said this view relies heavily of natural selection as the sole creative force that can solve any problem in evolution when other processes may be the cause. It may be that organisms are equipped to adapt in response to their environmental pressures.
So it may not have been a random and blind change that wasn’t quite good enough but rather a well suited adaptation for that particular environment through developmental processes of pre-existing genetic info. If things change then the organism will evolve in response to the changing environmental pressures.
As far as I understand 'light sensitive cells' is not even an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis. As pointed out above 'light sensitive cells' mean nothing to eye evolution if the brain does not understand what it does and regulates it. The eye spot is much more complex than made out and this is never explained as the starting stage for the eye. It is just assumed that it was there already there and working.
For example, all accounts of eye evolution start with a fully functional eyespot, not mere "light-sensitive pigments." As Mark Ridley's textbook Evolution explains, the commonly-cited model of eye evolution began with a crude light-sensitive organ. The simulation, therefore, does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. To begin with, it takes light sensitive cells as given ... and at the other end it ignores the evolution of advanced perceptual skills (which are more a problem in the evolution of the brain than the eye).
(Matt Ridley, Evolution, p. 261 (3rd Ed., Blackwell, 2004).)
I disagree. There are millions of steps and these are never explained in how they could have happened by a random and blind process of Neo-Darwinism. Wiki only explains how the eye works and then assumes Darwin’s evolution. Explanations are not evidence for how things happen. Like mentioned above evolutionary accounts are "good at modelling the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest."
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I wasnt mentioning design as in explaining what design is. I was showing that the bible mentions God as the designer and creator of what we see. So I guess if you want to give an explanation of design it would be everything we see. The cosmos, human DNA, the Cell, the earth and its contents. If you take Dawkins meaning of design then he says that evolution gives the appearence of design. So that is saying that life and the processes that bring about all life is what design looks like.
How do you see disign. Is God the designer of everything. Is his design seen in what he has created.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
They are explained by the mechanism involved: randomly distributed variation and natural selection.
You have no idea of how the randomly distributed variation on which evolution relies is produced, and neither did Pritchard. Pritchard had an excuse--it was a hundred and fifty years ago and no one then had any idea of how evolution actually worked. You have no such excuse.
"Random and blind" again.
Claiming things don't exist doesn't make them go away.
Upvote
0
NxNW
Well-Known Member
This is false, because an eye can evolve in a few hundred thousand generations.
Also false. The ability to detect light or movement is useful for survival, even if the ability is not optimum.
A bit of quick research and you'll see that the original light sensitive cells come from the brain. This is not a major obstacle.
Natural selection is not a random and blind process.
Again, this is false.
Nobody is claiming it happened by a random and blind process.
Is that even a word?
False. Wiki refers you to actual data. To wit:
A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve
Abstract
Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through continuous small improvements of design. An upper limit for the number of generations required for the complete transformation can be calculated with a minimum of assumptions. Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
This is an unsupported claim based on a simplification of the actual evolution it would take to produce a human eye. An assumption has been made on a few basic steps without realistically accounting for the many other steps that are required to produce the level of complexity that’s involved.
This is a common tactic of explaining Darwinian evolution in that it starts with the first step being the already there and functioning without explaining the many other steps in how that got there and assuming the rest happened which often require multiple mutations to be present simultaneously to gain a functional advantage rather than single step mutations.
As Michael Lynch says in one of his papers
Simultaneous emergence of all components of a system is implausible
Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection
The whole sequence is simplified showing only certain steps without any detail. The fact is there are over 2 million functioning parts in the human eye and the 10 or so simple steps in no way accounts for or explains this.
An eye is composed of more than 2 million working parts
20 Facts About the Amazing Eye - Discovery Eye Foundation
Once again you are simplifying evolution where it doesn’t reflect reality. This is a good example of how people fall for the just so stories made by some evolutionists. You are using the ability to detect light as a one-step wonder when to get to that point requires 1,000s of steps most often with simultaneous multiple mutations with function and benefit first time up. The odds for that are impossible by random mutations and blind selection of Neo-Darwinism.
What you need to do is explain how each of the 1000s of steps needed to get to the light sensitive ability can be useful for survival without causing a non-benefit and causing dysfunction. Evidence shows that even if only 2 simultaneous mutations were needed it would take much more time than evolution claims.
As far as I have read light sensitive ability originated in simple organisms which don’t have a brain. So this shows how you have skipped over many steps and how people buy into the stories created. The question is how this light sensitive ability evolved into the many components required for more complex sight which is connected to the brain.
How did the mechanisms in the eye itself evolve an understanding of what was being seen at the same time. If the eye evolved a new function that was not processed by the brain at the same time then the new function would mean nothing. Yet to do that the right simultaneous mutations needed to happen at the same time which has been shown to be impossible.
I never said it was. But under Neo-Darwinism mutations are random
Modern Synthesis also represents a particular way to understand evolution. It primarily focuses on genes:
- new variation arises through random genetic mutation
Genetic mutation is the result of haphazard processes, such as errors in DNA replication or the influence of cosmic X-rays. In other words, no controlling process or system guides mutation in a way that benefits organisms [3].
About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
Natural selection is blind as Richard Dawkins explains
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Richard Dawkins the Blind watch maker.
Putting these 2 together makes Darwinian evolution a blind and random process.
How is it false when I have posted the science that supports this above?
This is how Darwinian evolution is described as shown above.
Of course it’s a word. It is a common and well-known meaning of evolution under the Modern evolutionary synthesis. IE
Essentially, neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis my emphasis) introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical Darwinism with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of changes in allele frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly divided research traditions, the Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This fusion took place roughly between 1936 and 1947.
Neo-Darwinism - New World Encyclopedia
But just like Darwins original theory was challenged and updated with Neo-Darwiniam (modern synthesis) so to is Neo-Darwinism.
While the modern synthesis remains the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it has both been expanded and challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged.
Neo-Darwinism - New World Encyclopedia
So natural selection has been challened as the only prevailing force in evolution.
You keep saying that and I keep showing that you are wrong. The data that Wiki may link is only showing how the eye currently works. It cannot link any evidence for how the eye evolved as that is past data that is no longer available. Only assumptions can be made for how the eye may have evolved based on the current way the eye is found in different organisms. But the idea that each different eye evolved by Neo-Darwinism from simple to complex from one another is an assumption.
Like I said this is based on assumptions and does not take into consideration the realistic steps involved in evolving the eye and even if the eye did evolve simple to complex it is also an assumption it happened solely by Darwin’s theory of evolution. In fact there is evidence that natural selection cannot evolve more complex systems like the eye. IE
There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
One could even argue that the stringency of natural selection is reduced in complex organisms with behavioural and/or growth-form flexibilities that allow individuals to match their phenotypic capabilities to the local environment. Some of these shortcomings have recently attracted attention, and a scaffold for connecting evolutionary genetics, genomics, and developmental biology is slowly beginning to emerge (59⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–66).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
That emergence has partly come in the form of developmental processes which can facilitate and explain the evolution for how complex organs such as eyes came about. Basically all eyes come from a similar set of genetic information that was around very early for which the creation of various eyes can come about by using existing information rather than blindly and randomly evolving new functions. This makes more sense considering the evidence that the complexity and precision of the eye would be beyond Darwinian evolution alone.
Of particular interest is the observation that phenotypic variation can be biased by the processes of development, with some forms more probable than others [12,17,25–28]. Bias is manifest, for example, in the non-random numbers of limbs, digits, segments and vertebrae across a variety of taxa [25,26,29,30], correlated responses to artificial selection resulting from shared developmental regulation [31], and in the repeated, differential re-use of developmental modules, which enables novel phenotypes to arise by developmental rearrangements of ancestral elements, as in the parallel evolution of animal eyes [32].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
The potential macroevolutionary significance of developmental bias is further exemplified by hundreds of examples of repeated co-option and recruitment of the same developmental pathways into the building of analogous structures and organs in otherwise unrelated organisms [reviewed in Shubin et al. (2009) and Held (2017)]. Some of the most spectacular cases include the independent evolution of eyes across phyla (Mercader et al. 1999; Kozmik 2005; Kozmik et al. 2008). ); in each set of cases the same set of pre-existing genes, pathways, and morphogenetic processes was used to arrive at functionally highly similar outcomes.
Rather than reflecting constraint, such cases are consistent with developmental systems shaping evolutionary trajectories by generating opportunities to evolve complex structures repeatedly, reliably and regardless of taxonomic context. At the same time, the number of genetic changes needed to evolve a lineage-specific eye, is significantly reduced compared to a scenario requiring the de novo evolution of genes for each structure.
https://www.genetics.org/content/209/4/949
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Thats because there are more than one definition for design especially when it comes to biology as design is also functional which may not always be the case in other areas such as information, engineering or art.
Basically I think function in design is the qualifying aspect for design as opposed to comparisons of design in nature and human made artefacts based on information alone. This can best be summed up in Paleys example for design which he compares to finding a watch and concluding that not only its specified information or structure but function and usefulness to the finder makes it unique as something designed as say compared to somthing not designed and random like a rock.
Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1).
There are thus two features of a watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent design. First, it performs some function that an intelligent agent would regard as valuable; the fact that the watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch could not perform this function if its parts and mechanisms were differently sized or arranged; the fact that the ability of a watch to keep time depends on the precise shape, size, and arrangement of its parts suggests that the watch has these characteristics because some intelligent agency designed it to these specifications. Taken together, these two characteristics endow the watch with a functional complexity that reliably distinguishes objects that have intelligent designers from objects that do not.
Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This can be then used in biology even more so with how the specified complexity also has function which differentiates it from other design such as Shannon information.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Weve been through this before. Variation is not randomly distributed and some variation is directed towards certain outcomes that cause it to be favoured more than others thus natural selection is not the other force that determines what variation is used.
There is plenty of evidence of how variation is produced. I have posted links on this before and you have acknowledged their importance. Pritchards view has been verified by todays findings of how the eye works. The fact is the eye did not evolve one mutation at a time and therefore there were components that required simultaneous multiple mutations. Scientists have supported the fact that even when 2 mutations are needed to evolve a function it can take more time than evolution cliams.
Both are legitimate descriptions to use so I cannot see why you are complaining. IE
Put simply, evolution is the product of random mutation. randomness, which is built into many evolutionary processes, will remove our ability to “see into the future” with complete certainty.
Evolution: the product of random mutation - Cosmos Magazine
And as Dawkins famously put it when he coined the phrase the Blind Watch Maker that natural selection is blind to what is best and needed for adatation and survival ahead of time
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Richard Dawkins the Blind watch maker.
Or as Wiki mentions
natural selection is "blind" in the sense that changes in phenotype can give a reproductive advantage regardless of whether or not the trait is heritable.
Natural selection - Wikipedia.
So natural selection can select a change in phenotype that is not necessarily the best as far as being heritable for survival so therefore is blind to what is best and needed for living creatures.
What I am saying is that there are other forces as I have explained to you before that produce suitable and adaptive variations that fit with what a creature needs for survival because the creatures own development is responsive to environmental pressures and can produce well suited changes and the creature can directly influences its own evolution in positive ways through changing its niche and behaviours rather than rely on blind and random proceses of Darwinian processes alone.
The creative force of change is within living creatures not natuire itself. Nature has no power to create and c hange things and this is the lie Darwinian evolution sells.
Yes it does, its a fact.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
I see, you have even stoped pretending that you are not an ID proponent.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
Not really. I dont adhere to ID per-se but rather take a little of each position that I think is relevant and supported. As you know I support the Extended evolutionary synthesis which is in contradiction to ID in some ways. I also support thiestic evolution which has some similarities to ID.
I think all who support thiestic evolution will agree that there is some elements of ID within nature to their position. Afterall God as creator also is the ultimate intelligence behind creation and therefore this has to be part of how God created. But as I said I don't take any specific position but will support whatever appears to have evdience for.
I don't need to rely on ID or any other view to prove my belief. In that sense I am really in a better position than most as I don't have any fixed idea and in fact admit I don't really know what the truth is ultimately. Whereas you or someone who adheres to the Standard view of evolution only as a fixated position can be just as dogmatic as any creaionist.
I am sure you just sit back and observe threads not intending to participate in the actual topic but rather to just discredit people.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
