It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: 'Ressurrected' Eggs Support 'Red Queen' Evolution

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Decades-old eggs, thought dead, have been hatched to produce a particular species of zooplankton much different than its present-day descendants. It may not solve the argument of evolution versus intelligent design, but it has ineffably proven adaptation exists, is passed down to offspring via DNA, and happens in a relatively short amount of time.
 



abcnews.go.com
"Kerfoot and geneticist Lawrence J. Weider, formerly of Max-Planck and now of the University of Oklahoma, found layers of eggs dating back nearly a century that were clearly alive. These aren't man-eating dinosaurs, but they were living specimens from a time that is now past.

The eggs had been deposited by a tiny shrimp-like animal in the zooplankton family known as Daphnia retrocurva. These critters live in the cool waters of the lake for only one summer, and then die out, leaving their eggs behind to begin the process anew the next spring."

(...and...)

"About 80 years ago, when the predators were all over the place, the Daphnia retrocurva extended the size of its helmet and spines to make itself less appetizing. Later, when the number of predators shrank, the animal reduced the size of those features, thus conserving its energy for other uses.

The researchers had hit pay dirt. The changes in Daphnia retrocurva were precisely what would have been expected as part of the predator-prey interaction.

Furthermore, DNA analysis shows that the changes were passed on genetically from one generation to the next, until they were no longer needed, thus confirming that the researchers had caught evolution in the act."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Technically, this is evolution, as Charles Darwin theorized it. Certain religious parties claiming that no evidence exists for evolution base their claims on the as yet unproven ape-to-man theories. Darwin, the father of modern evolution theory, never said we are descended from apes, and most likely would have argued against it himself.

What he did claim is that creatures adapt according to their environment, pass those adaptations on to their offspring, and through this process, one species, existing in two different environments for a long enough period of time, can evolve into a different species.

Though this has been repeatedly proven through fossils, experimentation on high-generation turnover insects, and even the pedigree of common house pets, some people will still never accept that evolution is a valid theory.

Personally, I've never seen a problem with combining God and Evolution. I'm sure that God had it in mind that nothing stays the same forever, and that his/her creatures needed to be able to adapt, and pass those traits on in order to survive. Being able to evolve seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for someone far more intelligent than ourselves to include in the blueprints for life.

(PS: Please note in your responses if this article came out buggy)

Related News Links:
www.literature.org
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org
www.envisionsoftware.com
plankt.oupjournals.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Creation/Intelligent Design vs Evolution/Science Your thoughts?
Evolution Misconceptions....
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Evolution Is Dead.




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
To call this evolution is a stretch. As with the example of the spines- the animalie
merely selectively breed to allow those with certain specific traits to proliferate while those without the spines did not.

Adaptation and use of a pre-existing trait in my book.

*edit
Good article


Evolutionists will now have a band wagon to ride

[edit on 15-4-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
*Snicker*.

Cool article, but I guess some Christians will unnecessarily poke their own eyes out to blind themselves from the truth. I myself am an evolutionist Christian.

Christians that believe God didn't allow for evolution to take place are presuming themselves smarter than God. I guess no one ever told these people that "God works in mysterious ways..."

Zip



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I would agree that this is proof of adaption or survival of the fittest(whichever you prefer). The problem with evolution, for most creationist christians(I am one), is that u have to go from single cell to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal and then evolve to man. Seems to me for alot to happen on a planet only about 6 billion or so years old, and especially considering at least half if not a third of that time(while the planet was still cooling) was probably unsuitable for any life what-so-ever.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Nobody ever said that science wasn't mind-blowing. While some things may be hard to grasp, there is no reason to discount scientific theory just because it's hard for you to imagine.

As for our single cell beginnings, well, I'm sure you're aware of how babies are born:

from WikiPedia:

A zygote (Greek: ζυγωτόν) is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually (but not always) a sperm cell from a male and an ovum from a female—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote.


Science is fascinating and at times strange. The average creationist is simply unfamiliar with biological scientific theories, and that's okay, except when the attacking begins.


Zip



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Rren

You call yourself a Christian Creationist (and I respect your beliefs) and you think that 6 Billion years is to short a time for Evolution to take place, but do not Creationists insist that the Earth is only Several thousand years old??



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I would think that Christians that say "science does not make sense therefore it can not be true" should be asking the same questions about topics such as the holy trinity.

The truth of the matter is that species change over time, and this article has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. Where life originally came from is the real thing for evolutionists and creationists to debate.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
There are two groups(as i understand it) of creationist those who believe in the literall 7 days of creation(making the earth, i think about 6000 years old) and those who belive it is 6 long periods of time(we are now living in the seventh day). I am of the latter. And I do not rule out evolution, but evidence of species to species evolution is not yet proved and the timeline of maybe 2 or 3 billion years is not as lond as it sound to go from amoeba to man. I dont know how to insert a link but reasons to believe.orgis a great site run by christian creaionists whom are all scientists, mostly phd's in astronomy and physics.

I am certainley not naive enough to believe anybody has it figured out yet as usual the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
To call this evolution is a stretch.
]
What are you joking?


Adaptation and use of a pre-existing trait in my book.

Helloooooo???


rren
The problem with evolution, for most creationist christians(I am one), is that u have to go from single cell to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal and then evolve to man. Seems to me for alot to happen on a planet only about 6 billion or so years old,

How do you figure 6,000,000,000 years to be too little?


and especially considering at least half if not a third of that time(while the planet was still cooling) was probably unsuitable for any life what-so-ever.

Life is around 4 billion years old, the planet c.f. 4.5 billion years. Life starts very quickly.


spacemunkey
but do not Creationists insist that the Earth is only Several thousand years old??

There are Young Earth Creationists who think that the earth is 6,000 years old, and Old Earth Creationists who think that science is right about the age, but not the history and processes.

Is the time limit your only concern? Do you feel that evolution operates as described perhaps, but that at least a 'minimal diversity' of types was 'created' (and then allowed to evolve)?

lockheed
Where life originally came from is the real thing for evolutionists and creationists to debate.

Creationists cannot debate the subject because they do not operate under scientific prinicples. Its like asking a baptist and a wahhabist to debate australian subincision practices. They can both discuss it of course, but from a sociological standpoint. A phrase from Muhammed can't mesh with the sayings of Jesus. A scientists can't discuss, scientifically, faith based propositions, any more than one can say, microscopically examine a eucharist and determine that its the flesh of jesus.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
same arguement new process...
If anyone doesn't understand evolution, then they never will, due to there own ignorance of science.
This board is about denying ignorance, so if you believe in a religion... good for you, but accept that science can prove its angle a little better than the blind faith of creationists.

I am also a christian, I just believe that the whole concept of creation was yet another bastardized sumarian fairy tale that was borrowed by the Jews to give order and authority to the temple. (there are many)



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
its funny to see this happen

they come out with very reasonable proof of evolution

and the religious zealots continue to deny it
haha

funny times we live in



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation
by Hugh Ross, Ph. D.
The many debates, court cases, letters to the editor, and talk shows on the subject of evolution and creation almost without exception demonstrate the shell game played with the terms creationism, evolution, science, religion, and faith. The game usually begins with a statement that evolution is a proven fact. Next, this claim is established by the presentation of voluminous evidence from the physical sciences and the fossil record for changes in the universe, the earth, and the forms of life on the earth over the course of the last several billion years. Therefore, it is then claimed (or implied) that the theory that lifeforms developed out of some kind of primordial soup and changed through strictly natural processes into more and more advanced species is unquestionably correct.

At some point in the game, creation is defined as adherence to Archbishop Ussher's chronology for the Bible-the claim that God must have created the universe and everything within it in the last 6,000 years or so. Then, more evidences are presented to show the ridiculousness of the 6,000-year time-scale. Finally, the reader is told (condescendingly) that he is free to believe in creation, if he insists, as an act of faith, but that our schools and educators must confine themselves to the facts. Meanwhile, we should exercise the tolerance to grant churches the freedom to teach their religious myths, but only to their own constituency, not to society at large.

What is the result of these shell games? Only one view may be presented to society at large: atheistic materialism (which is, by the way, a religion of sorts).

As an astronomer, educator, and evangelical minister, I concur that the normal physical science definition for evolution is well established—things do change with respect to time and in some cases over a time-scale of billions of years. Incidentally, this fact can be established not just from the scientific record but also from the Bible. The first chapter of Genesis is set up as a chronology documenting how God changed the world over six specific time periods. A literal and consistent reading of the Bible, taking into account all its statements on creation, makes clear that the Genesis creation days cannot possibly be six consecutive 24-hour days. They must be six lengthy epochs. Ussher's chronology represents faulty exegesis, as many Bible scholars affirm.

It is the common life science definition for evolution that must be questioned—the hypothesis that all the changes that take place in lifeforms, both in the present and the past, are by strictly natural processes. For the lifeforms of the present era, I would agree. We do see natural selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, "The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation."

At the same time, as the Ehrlichs also point out, we are witnessing an extinction rate of about one species per hour. Even if the human activity factors are removed, one is still left with an extinction rate of at least one species every year. Yet, the fossil record reveals millennia of both a high extinction rate and a high speciation rate. The Bible offers a solution to the enigma. We are now in God's seventh day of rest; He has ceased from making new creatures. For six days (as seen in the fossil record), God created. On the seventh day (the present era), He rested.


I hope this is helpful......Again sorry I dont know how to insert a link.......ABOVE ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND AT REASONS.ORG



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
The game usually begins with a statement that evolution is a proven fact.

Evolution is a fact. THe theory is that it occurs primarily thru a mechanism of natural selection, in which adaptations are the end result.


Therefore, it is then claimed (or implied) that the theory that lifeforms developed out of some kind of primordial soup and changed through strictly natural processes into more and more advanced species is unquestionably correct.

This is untrue, and whoever Hugho Ross is, he's almost certainly deliberately obfuscating. If anyone is playing a shell game, its him.
Scientists are usually quite clear, evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. Evidential support for what happens in a population of animals in terms of gene frequencies over generational time is not offered to support the origin of life from no-living chemicals.




atheistic materialism (which is, by the way, a religion of sorts).

It most certainly not a religion, and its not entirely evidence that science really supports that. Science cannot answer questions about faith based subjects, science can't prove or disprove that any god exists or that any god has done anything. Effectively, what science can do is determine what happens where no good is necessary, not precisely that one does not exist, which is atheist. Science, in a way, is somewhat agnotistic, rather than atheist. An atheist says 'there is no god'. Science, does not say that. Science is mute on god.


As an astronomer, educator, and evangelical minister, I concur that the normal physical science definition for evolution is well established—things do change with respect to time and in some cases over a time-scale of billions of years. Incidentally, this fact can be established not just from the scientific record but also from the Bible.

Bollocks. YOu cannot demonstrate physical processes via the bible. THe bible is a mythos, and requires interpretation. What this guy sees as something that jives with the scientific explantions he accepts, others see as completely antigonistic to those science principles and that refutes even them.
The bible is something that is interpreted, it does not support even true scientific theories. And this man is an educator?


The first chapter of Genesis is set up as a chronology documenting how God changed the world over six specific time periods. A literal and consistent reading of the Bible, taking into account all its statements on creation, makes clear that the Genesis creation days cannot possibly be six consecutive 24-hour days. T

Unless, of course, god wants them to be 24 hour days, in which case they were. They could be anything, depending on your interpretation.


Ussher's chronology represents faulty exegesis, as many Bible scholars affirm.

Which is precisely the problem. Interpreting the bible is not science, its exegesis. Many scholars agree with Ussher, many disagree. None have rational-scientific support for their bible readings.



But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report,

Paul R. Ehrlich in Human Natures: Genes, Cultures and the Human Prospect, p. 74.

Scientific hypotheses are, in one way or another, tested against nature -- the "real world" that all scientists conventionally agree is "out there."1 Only when hypotheses are sufficiently tested and bind together information from relatively diverse areas that previously had not been connected do they properly become theories. But that is the opposite of the popular understanding of the term; it's scientific meaning is much closer to that of the word fact in common parlance.2 Theories embody the highest level of certainty for comprehensive ideas in science. Thus, when someone claims that evolution is "only a theory," it's roughly equivalent to saying that the proposition that the Earth circles the sun rather than vice versa is "only a theory." Evolution is, in fact, a very useful theory. [underscore added]
spurce


At the same time, as the Ehrlichs also point out, we are witnessing an extinction rate of about one species per hour. Even if the human activity factors are removed, one is still left with an extinction rate of at least one species every year. Yet, the fossil record reveals millennia of both a high extinction rate and a high speciation rate. The Bible offers a solution to the enigma.

What enigma? There are high extinction rates, and there are events where there are high rates of speciation.





sorry I dont know how to insert a link.......ABOVE ARTICLE CAN BE FOUND AT REASONS.ORG


Here's a neat way to do it, i will type it out in caps but you would type it in lower case and w/o spaces

[UR L =HTTP://WWW.WHATEVERSITE.COM]Now give it a name or any text[/U R L]

Now when anyone looks at it, they will see whatever name you gave as a link, and when they click on it it will open up another window.
OR you can just put the address in the text without brackets codes or anything, just the plain url

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but it must have that www.... stuff or else it will just be inactive text.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes. All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity. The “absence of evidence” for a prebiotic soup must be taken as “evidence of absence.”

If a prebiotic soup was not present on the early earth, the existing conditions would not support the formation of prebiotic molecules. Conversely, if it is discovered that the conditions of early Earth were not conducive to the formation of prebiotic molecules, a prebiotic soup would not be found within the geological record.

Fitting with the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup is the growing recognition that the early earth’s conditions would not have supported the synthesis of prebiotic molecules. For example, mounting evidence indicates that the early earth’s atmosphere was neutral, not reducing, composed of N2, CO2, and H2O.33, 34 Even with the absence of O2 (an inhibitor to the process of forming life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be produced in this type of atmosphere.35, 36 Strong evidence also has emerged that there were low, but significant levels of O2 not only in the early earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere.37-39 The presence of O2 would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules
www.reasons.org...LOL i tried Ngydan


Or in other words someone had to start the process Evoulution does not get us here without design...i like the quote "the odds are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully functional 747.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Rren]

P.S. to Ngydan you seem to have a better grasp on this than most i see in these threads.....Do you believe that there is scientific evidence for design, are you still open to this(religous and E.T. implications aside)please point me in right direction for the "other side" of the story thank you

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Rren]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes. All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity. The “absence of evidence” for a prebiotic soup must be taken as “evidence of absence.”


Surely, you jest!

1) The statement of yours that I have taken the liberty of bolding has no place on a site that intends to deny ignorance.

2) Yes, this evidence would be 4 billion years old. It probably no longer exists anywhere.




If a prebiotic soup was not present on the early earth, the existing conditions would not support the formation of prebiotic molecules. Conversely, if it is discovered that the conditions of early Earth were not conducive to the formation of prebiotic molecules, a prebiotic soup would not be found within the geological record.


This reasoning is flawed both before and after the arguement was reciprocated with the "conversely" transition.



Fitting with the lack of evidence for a prebiotic soup is the growing recognition that the early earth’s conditions would not have supported the synthesis of prebiotic molecules. For example, mounting evidence indicates that the early earth’s atmosphere was neutral, not reducing, composed of N2, CO2, and H2O.33, 34 Even with the absence of O2 (an inhibitor to the process of forming life molecules), prebiotic molecules cannot be produced in this type of atmosphere.35, 36 Strong evidence also has emerged that there were low, but significant levels of O2 not only in the early earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere.37-39 The presence of O2 would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules


This is all very presumptuous, and I congratulate it for that. I can mirror the reasoning here to provide irrefutable proof that life did not exist before it did: this planet was created in a lifeless swirl of gas and dust, and here I am today, typing on a keyboard. My heart beats.

Cool, huh?



Or in other words someone had to start the process Evoulution does not get us here without design...i like the quote "the odds are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully functional 747.


This doesn't take into account the predisposition of life to exist. There is some driving force in the universe that causes life to create itself. This is not true for a 747.

Zip



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
This doesn't take into account the predisposition of life to exist. There is some driving force in the universe that causes life to create itself. This is not true for a 747.

Thats my point "some driving force" explain without intelligent design. I dont pretend to be a scientist, I am a believer(I try to keep an open mind) and the fact is for me that my faith does not require me do prove or disprove evolution.....for all I know when I get to heaven God may laugh at me saying he thought he made evolution obvious....who knows certainley not me, but to exclude design as a possibility is not scientifically substantiated says the 27 year old construction worker with no college education.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
To date, origin-of-life researchers have failed to recover any geochemical remnants of prebiotic molecules—organic molecules produced by nonbiological processes.

? The production of amino acids should qualify no?
Not that I am saying that the process that resulted in amino acids is the process that produces life, but certainly, precursors have been produced abioticaly.



All the carbonaceous deposits recovered from the oldest rocks are, without exception, the by-product of biological activity.

? There are carbonaceous lavas erupting to this very day, and there are things like carbonaceous chondrites floating around the solar system itself.





, if it is discovered that the conditions of early Earth were not conducive to the formation of prebiotic molecules, a prebiotic soup would not be found within the geological record.

I don't see why it should be expected to find the precise conditions in the geological record. Life seems to start at the earliest phases and in the earliest rocks, so there aren't very many rocks to be able to look at to find it in the first place.
Generally, the fact that none of the current abiogenesis theories currently are acceptable should not be taken to mean that there is no solution.


earth’s atmosphere, but also in the early earth’s hydrosphere.37-39 The presence of O2 would serve to inhibit the formation of prebiotic molecules

Or it might serve to help it. THese things speak against some of the current ideas, they don't refute the idea that life can arise naturally.



Or in other words someone had to start the process Evoulution does not get us here without design

Unfortunately that evidence doesn't support that idea.


...i like the quote "the odds are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and leaving in its wake a fully functional 747.

Its an nice analogy, but an inaccurate and misleading one. Evolution isn't claimed to work that way. Evolution can build upon smaller previous stages, thats the real power of it, thats how its able to work out adaptations, whch are like solutions to the problems posed by the environment of the population.




P.S. to Ngydan you seem to have a better grasp on this than most i see in these threads

I don't know about that. Once mattison comes in I'll catch a wonking!


Do you believe that there is scientific evidence for design,

I don't think that scientific evidence for supernatural design is even possible. I think nature and supernature have to be kept seperate, or at least that you can't use logical and science to understand the supernatural. Or even detect it. Just like you can't use science to disprove it.


are you still open to this

Open to somethign like ID? Sure, I'm open for anything. If a case can be made that I can't work out as being 'wrong', then why wouldn't I accept it?

please point me in right direction for the "other side" of the story thank you

I like www.talkorigins.org...

Please don't forget the 's' in the origins part. Much like pornwebsites, an unscrupulous creationist 'minister' has registered a website without that 's', so that, if you try to get talkorigins, you get his creationist site.

The talkorigins site is maintained by various sorts of evolutionists, primarily its a collections of FAQS specific to talk.origins, a usenet discussion group that is not run by anyone. The FAQs are pro-evolution, and they address a lot of creationist claims and present the scientific evidence. They also provide links to creationist counter arguments, which is somethign you probably won't see much of in the linked to creationist pages.


When you want things to be in the 'quote' box, you put [Q UOTE ] the text you want quoted and then end with [/ Q UO TE] and then can make your own response.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
In observing reproduction and defense mechanisms and whatnot, in any living thing, from viruses to trees to monkeys, it is obvious that life's most important task is to survive. We, as living things, achieve this seemingly simple task in some surprisingly complex ways.

Just because nature doesn't have a face doesn't mean that its not something to be contemplated and perhaps worshipped. The universe and all of its intricate processes are beautiful and mystifying. Why can't that be enough for us? It's a lot.

Zip



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
To call this evolution is a stretch.
]
What are you joking?


Adaptation and use of a pre-existing trait in my book.

Helloooooo???

I know you well enough to know you read the article- based ON the article this is adaptation pure and simple. As soon as the 'spines' weren't needed they 'devolved.'

No biggie-

Lots of nature has the same abilities. Call it evolution if it makes you feel better, I don't. It is part of the genius of that particular species to be able to adapt in order to SURVIVE.

Don't make things out of nothing. These 'creatures' didn't sprout legs did they? Did they become sentient?

Creation or accident it is immaterial to this thread. These 'beasties' developed (but now this wasn't new was it
) the ability to change their offspring from one type to another. Mankind has been doing the same thing since the beginning of his species.

This is like the argument that dinosaurs became birds- show me a Tyrannosaurus Robin!

Speculation and baloney wrapped into something called science. Well, this ain't science folks, it is Piltdown Man #2.


ps- to the timeline folks
NO ONE comprehends time
.

.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
There is no conflict that I can see between the theory of Natural Selection and Christianity. The ones who are best suited to the times will breed disproportionately to the rest of the population and the demographics of the species will change. (I don't understand where ugly people fit into this equation- maybe it has something to do with beer) -snicker-.

When there were more predators, the ones that didn't make such a good meal were living to breed far more than the tasty ones were, thus the demographics changed. When the predators died off, the tasty ones got to breed more and the demographics shifted back.

This IS evolution. The problem is that the poor teaching in our schools (and the incredible opposition to the theory from the religious crowd) have spawned this ignorance whereby people think that evolution is some magical process whereby the DNA of a creature undergoes extensive fortuitous mutation.
Conditions affect breeding. Breeding affects which traits are passed on to the next generation. These variations can accumulate over many generations to create a very large effect that might be termed "macro evolution". The regligious crowd differentiates between natural selection and "macro evolution" however it seems likely that "macro evolution" is simply the patient accumulation of micro-evolution through natural selection.

Nobody's saying God did or didn't create us here. All we're saying is that the next generation's features depend heavily on which members of the population are getting laid and which ones are getting eaten instead.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join