RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 10:41:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
We don't say bats don't have ancestors with feathers because bats don't have feathers. We say that because no ancestors of bats have feathers.


If bats had feathers they could say that their ancestors had feathers. Then they could speculate that these feathers arrived from a common ancestor of birds (well, they seem to have problems classifying birds, more violations of the current hierarchy. Eventually they will keep working on it until they can find some arbitrary way to form some sort of nested hierarchy).

quote:


No ancestors of bats were birds. Since no ancestor of bats were birds, the similarity in your scenario cannot be because of common ancestry.


They speculate the ancestry of bats based on their characteristics. If bats were too similar to birds they can then claim that bats and birds gained these similarities from a common ancestor (they may not claim that an ancestor of bats were birds, but they may claim that bats and birds shared a common ancestor and that's where these similarities come from). Bats and birds have differences that are difficult to explain through common ancestry yet they have similarities that make it difficult to explain through universal evolution.

[quotes]
No. They conclude that because the odds of convergent evolution developing a bat with bird feathers are so small, that it is effectively impossible.


The odds of abiogenesis through unguided natural processes are so small that it is effectively impossible, that doesn't seem to stop them any. How small do the odds need to be before committed naturalists stop wasting our tax dollars on silly theories like universal evolution and abiogenesis through unguided processes while censoring all opposing views because they know their views don't hold up to scrutiny?

quote:


You cannot make adjustments to the hierarchy 'to make it fit'.


Proponents of universal evolution have done this. For instance, after discovering that bats were most genetically related to horses and such they adjusted the hierarchy to accommodate this. They can and do make adjustments to the hierarchy to make it fit. There is no reason why they can't.

quote:


There is only one hierarchy, and that is the one found in reality.


That hierarchy is just an arbitrary method of categorizing organisms to make them easier to refer to.

quote:


Are you seriously suggesting that we can change reality to make a bat with bird feathers fit into the nested hierarchy?


We can change how things are classified into some sort of nested hierarchy.

quote:


There is only one nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy cannot be modified.


Then why do they constantly seem to be adjusting it and re - classifying it. ie: with birds they can't seem to know how to adjust it. They keep on changing it to make it fit some sort of hierarchy and are having problems. Eventually, if they work hard enough, they can make it fit some sort of arbitrary hierarchy. The fact that they are having so many problems just helps demonstrate that such a hierarchy is arbitrary.

quote:


However, scientists are not in agreement as to the relationships between the orders; evidence from modern bird anatomy, fossils and DNA have all been brought to bear on the problem but no strong consensus has emerged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds

They thought they knew how to classify bats until they saw their genetic information. It violated the hierarchy so they just adjusted the arbitrary hierarchy to accommodate for the violation. Again, such a hierarchy is arbitrary.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 10:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yehren
They lied to you about that, too, or possibly didn't know any more than you do about it.


There you go again. Anything you disagree with must be a lie. Excellent logic. You can't refute it so just label it a lie. Very good reasoning. Now, when will atheists stop getting their lies funded by our tax dollars?



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 10:46:02 PM)

Yehren observes:
Ah, you've confused scientific models with "assumptions." Becaise ID is a religion, based on faith, the idea of basing models on evidence is sometimes a difficult one for IDers. Maybe you could review here to learn more about it; it would help you understand the quote you've posted here.

Here's a hint: Learn the difference between a phenogram, and a cladogram, and you'll probably figure it out. If not, here's another: you don't see many molecular phenograms.

quote:

Well no, you are dissembling;


Nope. I'm quite serious. I said that you mistook "Darwinian model" for "Darwinian assumptions." It's possible you know the difference, but I gave you the benefit of a doubt.

quote:

the paper is clear:


If it was, you certainly wouldn't have confused the two, would you? As noted above, the actual paper has rather odd and obscure terminology, just as you'd expect if an anthropologist and a pharmacist decided to try their hand at molecular biology.

Which is what happened here.



scutus -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 10:47:22 PM)

quote:

For instance, after discovering that bats were most genetically related to horses and such they adjusted the hierarchy to accommodate this. They can and do make adjustments to the hierarchy to make it fit. There is no reason why they can't.
O rly? Source?



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 10:52:43 PM)

Yehren, on the weird assertion that increases in information don't happen:
They lied to you about that, too, or possibly didn't know any more than you do about it.

quote:

There you go again. Anything you disagree with must be a lie.


There you go again. You invented a false opinion, and then attributed it to me.

quote:

Excellent logic.


Maybe for you. In this case, it was a lie, or (as I said) possibly mere ignorance. The offer to show you how it happens is still open, if you want to see.

quote:

You can't refute it so just label it a lie.


I offered in the first post to show you why such a claim is hooey. The offer is still open.

(paranoid mini-rant about atheists and taxes)

The usual. As I said, the offer is open if you want to learn how information increases in populations.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 10:58:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scutus

quote:

For instance, after discovering that bats were most genetically related to horses and such they adjusted the hierarchy to accommodate this. They can and do make adjustments to the hierarchy to make it fit. There is no reason why they can't.
O rly? Source?


http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4669/
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne42.htm#060620
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025575.600-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html

They did not expect bats to be as closely similar to horses genetically as they are because it violated their previous arbitrary hierarchy. So what do they do? They re - classify things to make it fit some other arbitrary hierarchy.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 11:02:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yehren

Yehren observes:
Ah, you've confused scientific models with "assumptions." Becaise ID is a religion, based on faith, the idea of basing models on evidence is sometimes a difficult one for IDers. Maybe you could review here to learn more about it; it would help you understand the quote you've posted here.


Just replace the word ID with universal evolution.



Yehren -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/3/2007 11:28:23 PM)

quote:

Just replace the word ID with universal evolution.


No, no. The Discovery Institute invented ID. "Universal evolution" is your baby.



scutus -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/4/2007 12:11:36 AM)

Wow, disingenuous to say the least.

You said:
quote:

For instance, after discovering that bats were most genetically related to horses and such they adjusted the hierarchy to accommodate this.


Lets focus on that word 'most'. Bats are the 'most' genetically related to horses? Lets see what you said later:
quote:


They did not expect bats to be as closely similar to horses genetically


And lets see what New Scientist says:
quote:

bats seem to be more closely related to horses than cows are.


Thank you for providing the sources that contradict your earlier claims.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (3/7/2007 12:34:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
We don't say bats don't have ancestors with feathers because bats don't have feathers. We say that because no ancestors of bats have feathers.


If bats had feathers they could say that their ancestors had feathers. Then they could speculate that these feathers arrived from a common ancestor of birds (well, they seem to have problems classifying birds, more violations of the current hierarchy. Eventually they will keep working on it until they can find some arbitrary way to form some sort of nested hierarchy).

quote:


No ancestors of bats were birds. Since no ancestor of bats were birds, the similarity in your scenario cannot be because of common ancestry.


They speculate the ancestry of bats based on their characteristics. If bats were too similar to birds they can then claim that bats and birds gained these similarities from a common ancestor (they may not claim that an ancestor of bats were birds, but they may claim that bats and birds shared a common ancestor and that's where these similarities come from). Bats and birds have differences that are difficult to explain through common ancestry yet they have similarities that make it difficult to explain through universal evolution.

[quotes]
No. They conclude that because the odds of convergent evolution developing a bat with bird feathers are so small, that it is effectively impossible.


The odds of abiogenesis through unguided natural processes are so small that it is effectively impossible, that doesn't seem to stop them any. How small do the odds need to be before committed naturalists stop wasting our tax dollars on silly theories like universal evolution and abiogenesis through unguided processes while censoring all opposing views because they know their views don't hold up to scrutiny?

quote:


You cannot make adjustments to the hierarchy 'to make it fit'.


Proponents of universal evolution have done this. For instance, after discovering that bats were most genetically related to horses and such they adjusted the hierarchy to accommodate this. They can and do make adjustments to the hierarchy to make it fit. There is no reason why they can't.

quote:


There is only one hierarchy, and that is the one found in reality.


That hierarchy is just an arbitrary method of categorizing organisms to make them easier to refer to.

quote:


Are you seriously suggesting that we can change reality to make a bat with bird feathers fit into the nested hierarchy?


We can change how things are classified into some sort of nested hierarchy.

quote:


There is only one nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy cannot be modified.


Then why do they constantly seem to be adjusting it and re - classifying it. ie: with birds they can't seem to know how to adjust it. They keep on changing it to make it fit some sort of hierarchy and are having problems. Eventually, if they work hard enough, they can make it fit some sort of arbitrary hierarchy. The fact that they are having so many problems just helps demonstrate that such a hierarchy is arbitrary.

quote:


However, scientists are not in agreement as to the relationships between the orders; evidence from modern bird anatomy, fossils and DNA have all been brought to bear on the problem but no strong consensus has emerged.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds

They thought they knew how to classify bats until they saw their genetic information. It violated the hierarchy so they just adjusted the arbitrary hierarchy to accommodate for the violation. Again, such a hierarchy is arbitrary.


You are making it a lot more complicated that it actually is. You have this habit of dragging a simple argument out until it is a tangled mess.

YOU are the one making the claim that bats with feathers can be fitted into the nested hierarchy.

SHOW ME.

Please, show me how a bat with feather can be fitted into a nested hierarchy.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (8/3/2007 1:44:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yehren

quote:

Just replace the word ID with universal evolution.


No, no. The Discovery Institute invented ID. "Universal evolution" is your baby.


So Darwinists don't believe that all living organisms share a common ancestor?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (8/3/2007 1:46:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scutus

Wow, disingenuous to say the least.

You said:
quote:

For instance, after discovering that bats were most genetically related to horses and such they adjusted the hierarchy to accommodate this.


Lets focus on that word 'most'. Bats are the 'most' genetically related to horses? Lets see what you said later:
quote:


They did not expect bats to be as closely similar to horses genetically


And lets see what New Scientist says:
quote:

bats seem to be more closely related to horses than cows are.


Thank you for providing the sources that contradict your earlier claims.


Ok, perhaps the articles don't state that bats are most genetically related to horses (it doesn't state that they aren't). The point is that this is a violation of the previous arbitrary nested hierarchy so they arbitrarily revise the hierarchy to make it into some other arbitrary hierarchy.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (8/3/2007 1:49:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
YOU are the one making the claim that bats with feathers can be fitted into the nested hierarchy.

SHOW ME.

Please, show me how a bat with feather can be fitted into a nested hierarchy.


They can classify them closer to birds. They can claim that they got these feathers from the ancestors of birds. Or they can claim that it is due to convergent or parallel evolution. Just like they arbitrarily re - classify them when they found a violation in the presumed relationship of bats, cows, and horses, if bats had feathers they can arbitrarily classify them into some other hierarchy.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (8/5/2007 11:12:14 PM)

I go away for a few days and look what happens...

I still want to deal with the platypus, now that you're back Betta, so I'll direct you to our previous thread since this one is now mostly dealing with birds and bats and feathers...

I won't post in this one just yet... not until I've had a chance to read it right through.[;)]

Edited to bold link, since it was hard to see...



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (8/6/2007 8:36:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
YOU are the one making the claim that bats with feathers can be fitted into the nested hierarchy.

SHOW ME.

Please, show me how a bat with feather can be fitted into a nested hierarchy.


They can classify them closer to birds.

'Closer'? I think we need a diagram of the nested heirachy.


----------------Common ancestor
---------------/
--------------/\ Mammals - Reptiles
-------------/--\
------------/----\
-----------/\-----\
----------/--\----/\ Reptiles - Aves (birds)
---------/----\---\-\
--------/\-----\---\-\
-------/--\-----\---\-\
------/----\-----\---\-\
-----/\-----\-----\---\-\
---B--*----*-----*---R-A

Bats (B) have features from the animals marked with a Star (*) (other mammals), and even some remnants from reptiles (like all mammals have), but they have no features from Aves (A). A bat with features would still have to be related to the Star (*) animals, but somehow it would also have to be related to Aves. Try to achieve that: it's impossible. There is no way it can break off of the Ave line and also break off of the mammal line... which is why bats with feathers don't exist.

quote:

Or they can claim that it is due to convergent or parallel evolution.

Not possible as well. Convergent evolution can make other systems to keep warm and display colours (like fur/feathers), but the bat already has fur: it has no reason to develop feathers. Even if you go back and say it separated in the time when it had no fur (when it was a reptile), then how do you explain the common features with mammals that it wouldn't be related to? You can't.

quote:

Just like they arbitrarily re - classify them when they found a violation in the presumed relationship of bats, cows, and horses, if bats had feathers they can arbitrarily classify them into some other hierarchy.

Out of curiosity: can you, without going to the dictionary, tell me what the word 'arbitrarily' means? Because the way you're using it...

Where, exactly, would they 'arbitrarily re-classify' a bat with feathers to? I maintain that it isn't possible.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (8/27/2007 1:24:03 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6


They can classify them closer to birds.

'Closer'? I think we need a diagram of the nested heirachy.


----------------Common ancestor
---------------/
--------------/\ Mammals - Reptiles
-------------/--\
------------/----\
-----------/\-----\
----------/--\----/\ Reptiles - Aves (birds)
---------/----\---\-\
--------/\-----\---\-\
-------/--\-----\---\-\
------/----\-----\---\-\
-----/\-----\-----\---\-\
---B--*----*-----*---R-A

Bats (B) have features from the animals marked with a Star (*) (other mammals), and even some remnants from reptiles (like all mammals have), but they have no features from Aves (A). A bat with features would still have to be related to the Star (*) animals, but somehow it would also have to be related to Aves. Try to achieve that: it's impossible. There is no way it can break off of the Ave line and also break off of the mammal line... which is why bats with feathers don't exist.


They can restructure the hierarchy like this (in fact, they seemed to have done this in the case of bats).

----------------Common ancestor
---------------/\Mammals - Reptiles
--------------/\-\
-------------/--\-\
------------/----\-\
-----------/\-----\-\
----------/--\-----\-\ Reptiles - Aves (birds)
---------/----\-----\-\
--------/\-----\-----\-\
-------/--\-----\-----\-\
------/----\-----\-----\-\
-----/\-----\-----\-----\-\
---B--*----*-----*----R-A

It could be speculated that other groups lost their feathers. In the article about bats, horses, and cows they found a violation in the previous hierarchy so they arbitrarily re - arrange the hierarchy

quote:


Okada and his colleagues looked at genetic mutations caused by retroposons, lengths of DNA that can copy themselves into RNA and then reverse-copy themselves back into DNA at a different location on a chromosome. Closely related species share more of these mutations than more distant relatives. The analysis by Okada's team forces a rethink of the relationships of many mammalian orders, which are currently classified by morphological and nuclear DNA sequence data.

"We need to look at fossils from a new point of view, because there must have been a common ancestor of bats, horses and dogs," Okada says.


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/mg19025575.600-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html

Protists have been very difficult to classify for many years because they have characteristics in common with the kingdoms animalia, plantae, and fungi. So what did they do to solve the problem? They arbitrarily created a new kingdom; protista. In fact, to explain the violation in the hierarchy, in the Endosymbiont Hypothesis, Lynn Margulis speculates (based on practically no evidence whatsoever) that the first protists were formed by a symbiosis relationship among many prokaryotes. According to this unsupported hypothesis, these prokaryotes lived within another moneran as endosymbionts. The endosymbionts and their host cell became a team and benefited from one another. The endosymbionts eventually lost their independence and created the organelles in eukaryotic cells (such phenomena has never been observed, it is only speculated).

Also, there is nothing stopping them from creating new phylums to solve discrepancies or just pushing the branches / divergences higher up in hierarchy.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/1/2007 11:40:05 AM)

Another violation is the fact that mitochondria have circular DNA like bacteria do. To accommodate this violation, naturalists came up with Endosymbiotic theory which speculates that this violation was the result of a symbiotic relationship between a bacterium and some other speculative cell. This is allegedly how the first eukaryotic cell appeared. Of course there is virtually no evidence for this and there is no evidence that this ever occurs in nature, it is just unsupported speculation to accommodate for another nested hierarchy violation.

More on that here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/4/2007 8:46:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Another violation is the fact that mitochondria have circular DNA like bacteria do. To accommodate this violation, naturalists came up with Endosymbiotic theory which speculates that this violation was the result of a symbiotic relationship between a bacterium and some other speculative cell. This is allegedly how the first eukaryotic cell appeared. Of course there is virtually no evidence for this and there is no evidence that this ever occurs in nature, it is just unsupported speculation to accommodate for another nested hierarchy violation.

More on that here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA


You will have to show me how the mitochondria violates any nested hierarchy. I honestly don't see how it does.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/4/2007 9:19:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
You will have to show me how the mitochondria violates any nested hierarchy. I honestly don't see how it does.


quote:


Borrelia burgdorferi and the genus Streptomyces contain linear chromosomes, like the eukaryotes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote

quote:


Borrelia burgdorferi is species of bacteria of the spirochete class of the genus Borrelia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borrelia_burgdorferi

quote:


Eukaryotic DNA is divided into several linear bundles called chromosomes, which are separated by a microtubular spindle during nuclear division.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotes

Here, you have two bacteria that don't share a feature in common (that is, one that has linear chromosomes and one that does not) that one bacteria (the one with a circular chromosome(s)) shares in common with the mitochondria of a supposedly more distant ancestor (the eukaryote). Yet another violation of this nested hierarchy.



BVZ -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/11/2007 1:13:19 AM)

Oh OK. Sounds interesting. Microbiology is not my field, so I'll wait for someone with more knowledge in the field to address this issue.

You mention OTHER violations... what are they?



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/12/2007 1:17:00 AM)

quote:

They can restructure the hierarchy like this (in fact, they seemed to have done this in the case of bats).

----------------Common ancestor
---------------/\Mammals - Reptiles
--------------/\-\
-------------/--\-\
------------/----\-\
-----------/\-----\-\
----------/--\-----\-\ Reptiles - Aves (birds)
---------/----\-----\-\
--------/\-----\-----\-\
-------/--\-----\-----\-\
------/----\-----\-----\-\
-----/\-----\-----\-----\-\
---B--*----*-----*----R-A

And we come to the heart of the issue. The reason they absolutely cannot do this is fairly simple. Aves have features that evolved on the Reptile line. We can see this easily by comparing dinosaurs (especially feathered ones) with aves. We have absolutely no fossils with these features other than dinosaurs and aves. We also have no living creatures with these features other than aves.

The creatures that lived before the dinosaurs were lizard-like mammals. The fossils we have show no feathers, but some show fur, which is not compatible with feathers.

So please, how could they update the nested heirachy to accomodate a bat with feathers? You're the one making the claim... back it up.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/12/2007 1:33:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Aves have features that evolved on the Reptile line.


Again, this is speculated based on the fact that aves share certain features with reptiles.

quote:


We have absolutely no fossils with these features other than dinosaurs and aves.


If there was a bat with feathers, that bat will have fossils and then they can claim that it diverged earlier. The fossil record actually does not show the relationships, what it shows is a sudden burst of all these organisms all occurring all at once. There is no fossil evidence that these organisms evolved from one another.

quote:


We also have no living creatures with these features other than aves.


If there was a bat with feathers, then those would constitute living creatures with these features as well (and your statement will be false). What's your point?

quote:


The creatures that lived before the dinosaurs were lizard-like mammals.


Speculation.

quote:


The fossils we have show no feathers, but some show fur, which is not compatible with feathers.


The reason it is speculated that fur and feathers are not compatible is because bats don't have feathers. If bats do have feathers, it can be speculated that they are compatible.



Quasar6 -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/12/2007 2:10:16 AM)

*sigh*

You are impervious, do you know that Betta?

Rather than trying to reply to your disassembly of my post, (which would be 5 replies to 'speculation, it's speculated, you've been speculating' which is starting to sound like an all-purpose 'ignore-the-evidence' word), I'm simply going to say this:

Aves share certain features with dinosaurs, that dinosaurs don't share with mammals. This indicates a 'closer' common ancestor between birds and dinos than between mammals and birds. No mammals have features in common with birds that the dinosaurs (the birds ancestors) didn't share. Indeed, they cannot, because the same feature can't evolve twice... the chances against it are far too great. If we found one, a pegasus, or a griffon, or something like that, it would break up the nested heirachy, pulling apart common ancestory. That is why it would be a violation.

Now, if you can show me a way the heirachy could be reworked to incorporate things that evolved on both lines after the divergence, I'll agree that a nested heirachy violation won't falsify what you have dubbed 'universal evolution'. Until then, this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to falsify the theory.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/12/2007 2:47:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quasar6
Aves share certain features with dinosaurs, that dinosaurs don't share with mammals. This indicates a 'closer' common ancestor between birds and dinos than between mammals and birds.


Again, the relationships are determined based on their features. If the features were any different, they would simply redefine the relationships to fit some other conceivable model. Since the fossil record does not show any relationships of these organisms (ie: you can't trace it back to some common ancestor because the fossil record shows that these organisms exploded suddenly all at once) the relationships are speculative.

quote:


Now, if you can show me a way the heirachy could be reworked to incorporate things that evolved on both lines after the divergence, I'll agree that a nested heirachy violation won't falsify what you have dubbed 'universal evolution'. Until then, this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to falsify the theory.


Again, they can re - work the hierarchy to make it such that these things received their features from some common ancestor on the same line (ie: pushing up where the divergence occurred). Since the fossil record gives no clues as to a common ancestor (rather, it shows that everything emerged suddenly in an explosion) there would be nothing stopping them from speculating that there was some common ancestor that had all these features (ie: there is nothing stopping them from speculating that dinosaurs had a common ancestor with some far earlier organism that we can no longer find fossils for).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Nested Hierarchy violations? (9/12/2007 2:51:18 AM)

Seriously, the fossil record is the last thing an evolutionist should reference, the fossil record does not support common ancestry whatsoever. That's why darwinists resort to arbitrary nested hierarchies, if the fossil record supported a common ancestor, they would resort to that instead. Instead, in the fossil record we see things emerging (and often disappearing) suddenly, with little to no gradual transitions among different organisms whatsoever.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI