|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 1:14:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
cow, if you would get off your liberal soapbox and actually do a little unbiased research, you would easily find the factual basis for unclemonkey's statement:
quote:
Student achievement has stagnated or fallen in most subjects since 1970, with the largest and most thoroughly established decline occurring in basic literacy. That is the verdict of the five most reliable sources of evidence: the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the International Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA), the Young Adult Literacy Survey (YALS), the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), and the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS). Together, these five groups of tests cover the gamut of ages from 9 to 25, and a full range of academic subjects. From Public School Academic Performance
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 1:18:00 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3917
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
cow, if you would get off your liberal soapbox and actually do a little unbiased research, you would easily find the factual basis for unclemonkey's statement:
quote:
Student achievement has stagnated or fallen in most subjects since 1970, with the largest and most thoroughly established decline occurring in basic literacy. That is the verdict of the five most reliable sources of evidence: the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the International Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA), the Young Adult Literacy Survey (YALS), the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), and the International Adult Literacy Survey (IALS). Together, these five groups of tests cover the gamut of ages from 9 to 25, and a full range of academic subjects. From Public School Academic Performance
Unc was referring to the 1950's, doc. Apology accepted in advance. 
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 1:31:07 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
And the 1950's were not before 1970? No apology required. 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 3:27:47 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Sounds like a good project for you, cow. I look forward to your results.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 5:02:29 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3917
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Sounds like a good project for you, cow. I look forward to your results.
I knew you'd duck.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 5:06:43 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I knew you'd duck. I knew you weren't interested in learning the facts. It's esier to bad-mouthe unclemonkey without them, isn't it?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/21/2008 5:10:43 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3917
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I knew you'd duck. I knew you weren't interested in learning the facts. It's esier to bad-mouthe unclemonkey without them, isn't it?
So far you haven't shown, nor has unc, any facts to back up the contention that the education system in the US began a "downward trend" in the 1950's.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 7:54:19 AM
|
|
|
PROPHETSONG
Posts: 79
Joined: 9/21/2006
From: PHILADELPHIA
Status: offline
|
AMEN BROTHER
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
Along with our shoddy education system,
It didn’t used to be a shoddy education system. In fact when the Bible was used in public schools as a reader our education system was far superior to what it is now. This is easily verified by a little history research of early Americans like Noah Webster.
It started its downward trend when God was kicked out of public schools in the 1950s and the more influence atheism has on the public school systems the shoddier it gets.
_____________________________
JER 1: 18 Today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the whole land--against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests and the people of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 1:26:49 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
Seems this thread has veered in many directions, but as a newcomer I would like to add my perspective on the OP and some early posts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jfcbrian
I have some simple questions for anyone who believes in theistic evolution. This is not to put any one down but to help me understand how you view certain things.
Some of these questions follow the assumption that you interpret your Bible according to what science says.
Well, that is a wrong assumption. Science does not dictate how to interpret the Bible. It can be a contributing factor in the same way, for example, as a knowledge of history can be a contributing factor.
quote:
1. Do you believe in the Virgin birth when science says that this is impossible?
Science doesn't really say miracles are impossible. It says miracles are not grist for scientific investigation because they are unique, unrepeatable events. A scientific investigation into a miracle will generally come up with the conclusion "We don't have a scientific explanation for how this happened."
That is not the same thing as saying it didn't happen.
quote:
This is a big one.
2. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ without scientific proof.
(I’m really curious about this one as I have heard that some churches getting rid of this teaching.)
Same as #1
quote:
3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?
I would say neither. I think the biblical author intended from the first that they be seen as representative of humanity as a whole. It is noteworthy that "Adam" as a proper name is not used in the creation accounts. The Hebrew is simply "the man" and so could be a generic "man" rather than an individual person. There are also texts where the same Hebrew phrase is clearly used to indicate a collective entity, not a single individual. Gen 1:27 and 6:7 both use "the man" in Hebrew, but clearly intend a generic meaning. So the bible itself does not give a straightforward answer on this, but allows of several interpretations. You will also find different interpretations advanced by different theistic evolutionists, including the possibility that Adam and Eve were specific individuals.
quote:
4. Evolution is the best answer for the evidence if there was no God. But You know that there is a God then why do you cling to a hypothesis that excludes God or any supernatural event out of hand?
Because it is also the best answer for the evidence that does not exclude God or any supernatural event out of hand. If you agree that it is the best answer for the evidence, why do you reject it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 1:39:04 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Because it doesn't exclude God. So, expand on this a little, Dan. Are all mutations random, or does God select certain ones to promote evolution? How much control does He exert on the environment to accomplish natural selection?
Scientifically, mutations are unpredictable (the essential meaning of random, in this case). Perhaps God does select certain mutations to promote evolution, but these would be indistinguishable, scientifically, from mutations not so chosen. Since there is no way to distinguish divinely selected vs non-selected mutations, there is no scientific option but to treat them all as random. Ditto on the environment.
quote:
Are we more evolved than the hominids which God first "imbued with spirit"?
Are you suggesting that to be "more evolved" would imply "improved"? If so, no, we are not. Does "more evolved" mean "a different species"? Then it would depend on whether or not you think the hominids God first "imbued with spirit" were H. erectus rather than H. sapiens. There is no way we can know that.
However, assuming that the hominids whom God first "imbued with spirit" were H. sapiens, then we are neither "improved" nor a different species. We have, however, evolved as all living things do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 1:43:15 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
It's a shame you cannot see the forest for the trees, Veritas! Celestial mechanics, "germ theory", and meteorology all demand an ordered, predictable universe to function. Evolution demands nothing but the suspension of reason to even suggest that ordered complex information results from random chance physical events. Which is where I guess God enters into the theistic evolutionary picture - I'm still waiting to see.
I am not sure where you see the difference. Evolution also demands an ordered predictable universe to function.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 1:54:13 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:iluvatarquote:
A young earth and a global flood should leave behind evidence that we can still see today.
Like marine fossils on top of the highest mountains?
No, those can be explained by tectonic movement and orogenesis. But a flood should leave behind a distinct historical break in the records (both written and physical) of any civilization extant at the time of the flood. We see no such break.
It should leave a record of a recent genetic bottleneck in humans and all species preserved on the ark. There is no such record.
If you believe that only Genesis kinds were preserved on the ark with the various species diversifying from the original kind, there should be records of the emergence of new species as humans first observed them e.g. of the first wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos and other canids, not to mention dogs. We have no such records. There appears to be no time within human recorded history when these sub-groups of the Genesis kinds did not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 2:06:57 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Whatever the distinctions you're trying to make, the fact remains that none of those things (evolution, Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) include or exclude any gods.
Certainly not - but in a universe governed by laws which are observable and testable, some things are amenable to experimentation and prediction (Newton's laws, germ theory) and some less so (weather patterns, evolution).
Some are part of ongoing processes that we can continue to observe (Newton's Laws of Motion, Germ Theory, and the study of weather patterns) and some are the result of unique events that will never occur again (evolution).
How is evolution any more unique than weather or disease? Germ theory doesn't tell us which individuals will catch the measles. It only tells us how measles spread through a population. Weather patterns may tell us certain areas are more susceptible to tornadoes than others, and at certain seasons, but they don't predict a specific tornado in Barrie ON on a particular date. Isn't evolution also mostly about patterns, not unique events? Why would these patterns be any less predictable than the patterns of the weather -- except in that biological systems are more complex than atmospheric systems.
quote:
So one can't categorize them as being the same in terms of scientific investigation - and only one specifically impinges on who humans are, and where they came from - and that is a spiritual, moral, social, and philosophical question by definition - and so evolution certainly overlaps those other magisteria .
But how does the biological origin of humanity impinge on the theology of who we are morally, spiritually and philosophically? What difference does it make to my relation to God if my pre-Adamic ancestors were australopithecines?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 2:17:32 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
In reality most scientist regardless of their field of study, have to interpret the evidence with the assumption of the earth being millions or billions of years old in order to be accepted.
That's because the age of the earth was concluded from the evidence to be old over 200 years ago. Until you can provide evidence to upset that conclusion, it remains the basis for doing science today.
quote:
I have a question, if the earth has an appearance of age, then what is a young earth suppose to look like. Have we observed what a younger earth does look like? I think you know you what the answer to this is.
If the earth has the appearance of age, why are scientists wrong to conclude from that appearance that it is old?
If the actual age of the earth is not what it appears to be, who is the liar?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 2:28:41 PM
|
|
|
PROPHETSONG
Posts: 79
Joined: 9/21/2006
From: PHILADELPHIA
Status: offline
|
The scientific methods used to determine the aged of the Earth have never been proven to be accurate. For instance the most popular dating method for rocks have a variance of 25 percent according to variable that can not be accounted for
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
In reality most scientist regardless of their field of study, have to interpret the evidence with the assumption of the earth being millions or billions of years old in order to be accepted.
That's because the age of the earth was concluded from the evidence to be old over 200 years ago. Until you can provide evidence to upset that conclusion, it remains the basis for doing science today.
quote:
I have a question, if the earth has an appearance of age, then what is a young earth suppose to look like. Have we observed what a younger earth does look like? I think you know you what the answer to this is.
If the earth has the appearance of age, why are scientists wrong to conclude from that appearance that it is old?
If the actual age of the earth is not what it appears to be, who is the liar?
_____________________________
JER 1: 18 Today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the whole land--against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests and the people of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 2:29:33 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
difference rather than an evolution vs. creationism difference.
quote:
3. Where does Adam and Eve fit into your theology? Were they real or stories made up to teach us lessons?
This is where the rubber hits the road as far as I'm concerned. Theistic evolution proponents, it seems to me, too easily allow this question to hang out there. But, unless Adam and Eve are real people, then a LOT of the Bible falls into disrepute.
On what grounds do you say that?
quote:
But, it goes farther than that. It extends to a real Noah and a real flood as well. I have not heard any serious discussions on the theological implications of dismissing the flood as a story or myth from theistic evolutionists. They may be there; but, I haven't come across them.
I would like to discuss these theological implications. Can you spell them out for me?
quote:
But, as a theistic evolutionist, where does God fit into the fabric of the evolution theory? It seems to me that, fundamentally, it excludes the intervention of God or any supernatural event. How do you reconcile that?"
God fits into the fabric of evolution in the same way God fits into the fabric of chemistry.
I think the problem lies with forgetting that God is immanent as well as transcendant, sustainer as well as creator. Intervention is not the only way God relates to nature. To limit God's relationship to nature to intervention, like a clockmaker working on the cogs and wheels of his invention, is IMO ceding theology to Deism.
It would be better to abandon the notion of the universe as a vast, complex machine that can only be diverted from its "normal" functioning by intervention. Brian Swimme suggests that the universe might be better understood in terms of music than machinery.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 2:37:42 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
If anyone wants to talk about theistic evolution (as implied by the title of this thread) this is my question too. How do you reconcile the concept that people came into being over multiple generations of changing beings with the idea that sin came into the world by Adam and Eve and was then passed along to every person after them.
How is sin passed from one generation to another today? Did you inherit sin with your parent's DNA? Or is sin inherited in a non-biological manner? i.e. is it due to a gene or a meme?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 6:36:12 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would say neither. I think the biblical author intended from the first that they be seen as representative of humanity as a whole. That's an interesting opinion, gluadys, but Jesus seemed to have a different attitude toward Adam and Eve. Please read Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6 and tell us how two specifically named humans described as existing at a particular time could possibly "represent humanity as a whole" by the infallible Son of God.
quote:
Evolution also demands an ordered predictable universe to function. "Demands"? Do you understand what "random mutation" means, gluadys?
quote:
How is evolution any more unique than weather or disease? Umm, I would be more than happy to cite thousands of published studies of the observations related to testable hypotheses in the field of pathophysiology of diseases. Would you take the time to read them? Please cite just one scientific article that describes the observations of evolution of one organism into a higher, more complex different organism.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 7:04:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I would say neither. I think the biblical author intended from the first that they be seen as representative of humanity as a whole. That's an interesting opinion, gluadys, but Jesus seemed to have a different attitude toward Adam and Eve. Please read Matt 19:4 and Mark 10:6 and tell us how two specifically named humans described as existing at a particular time could possibly "represent humanity as a whole" by the infallible Son of God.
Since when are "male and female" (the terms Jesus uses) specific names? Note also, that no specific names are used in either Gen. 1:26-27 or in Gen. 2:18-25. (Some translators insert the name 'Adam' into Genesis 2, but the Hebrew makes no distinction that justifies this. It consistently uses the term 'ha-adam' which means "the man", not necessarily a specific man.
quote:
quote:
Evolution also demands an ordered predictable universe to function. "Demands"? Do you understand what "random mutation" means, gluadys?
Yes and yes. Do you think mutation is all there is to evolution? Do you think unpredictability is inconsistent with an ordered universe?
quote:
quote:
How is evolution any more unique than weather or disease? Umm, I would be more than happy to cite thousands of published studies of the observations related to testable hypotheses in the field of pathophysiology of diseases. Would you take the time to read them?
You are bypassing the question. What does pathophysiology contribute to establishing evolution as a "unique event" in contradistinction to the patterns of disease or weather systems? How, for example, are the patterns of evolution any less predictable than the patterns of epidemics?
quote:
Please cite just one scientific article that describes the observations of evolution of one organism into a higher, more complex different organism.
Evidence for straw men consists of straw. Organisms do not evolve. Ask me about actual evolution, and I will find the evidence for it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 7:40:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
It consistently uses the term 'ha-adam' which means "the man", not necessarily a specific man. So "the man" is not a specific man? That's a grammatical oxymoron!
quote:
Yes and yes. Do you think mutation is all there is to evolution? By all means, let's not forget the twin goddesses of natural selection and indeterminate eons of time. Are these "ordered and predictable" factors?
quote:
You are bypassing the question. Nope, you just don't like my answer. I provided a dramatic difference (read more unique) between the myriad of observational studies underlying the science of pathophysiology and you cannot come up with one citation of a single observation of evolution. Are you bypassing my request?
quote:
Organisms do not evolve. I could not agree more! Evolution has never occurred, is not now occurring, and will never occur. Glad we found some common ground.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 8:17:10 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
It consistently uses the term 'ha-adam' which means "the man", not necessarily a specific man. So "the man" is not a specific man? That's a grammatical oxymoron!
In English it is. The English definite article specifies an individual. When we use a term generically, we omit the definite article. So we say e.g. "Man is a political animal" But in other languages, the definite article is often required when speaking generically as well as specifically. Aristotle's original Greek text says 'ho anthropos' not 'anthropos'. Similarly the French and Italian equivilents are 'l'homme' and 'l'uomo' with the definite article in both cases. It would be incorrect to omit it. Latin and Russian would say just 'man' but they never use a definite article at all, even when speaking of a specific man. 'vir' and can mean "a man", "the man" or "man". So whether or not it is a grammatical oxymoron depends on the language. Each language has its own rules on such matters.
quote:
quote:
Yes and yes. Do you think mutation is all there is to evolution? By all means, let's not forget the twin goddesses of natural selection and indeterminate eons of time. Are these "ordered and predictable" factors?
Evolution, taking into account all factors, is just as predictable as auto accidents to an insurance company. I expect you will agree that auto accidents do not upset the ordered nature of the universe.
quote:
quote:
You are bypassing the question. Nope, you just don't like my answer. I provided a dramatic difference (read more unique) between the myriad of observational studies underlying the science of pathophysiology and you cannot come up with one citation of a single observation of evolution. Are you bypassing my request?
The amount of evidence was not the original question. Jhud alleged that Newtons' Laws of Motion and Germ Theory and meteorology refer to ongoing processes and so can be observed, while evolution refers to unique events which will never occur again. He is wrong. Evolution is an ongoing process and that process can be observed in the same way weather patterns or the distribution of disease in a population can be observed.
quote:
quote:
Organisms do not evolve. I could not agree more! Evolution has never occurred, is not now occurring, and will never occur. Glad we found some common ground.
Oh evolution occurs. It just does not occur in organisms. Every organism ends its life with the same genetic endowment that it received at conception. That is why you will not see organisms change into other organisms.
Until you can think in terms of populations and statistical change over generations, you will not have a handle on evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/26/2008 10:16:55 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3260
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
So whether or not it is a grammatical oxymoron depends on the language. Each language has its own rules on such matters. That's a very nice dissertation on definite article usage but it has nothing to do with Christ's identification of A&E as factually historical people living in a factually historical timeline.
quote:
Evolution, taking into account all factors, is just as predictable as auto accidents to an insurance company. This is without a doubt the most preposterous statement regarding evolution I've ever read on these forums. Congratulations, gluadys!
quote:
I expect you will agree that auto accidents do not upset the ordered nature of the universe. I expect you have no concept that our fallen world leads to auto accidents.
quote:
Evolution is an ongoing process and that process can be observed in the same way weather patterns or the distribution of disease in a population can be observed. Then cite one article describing an observation of such an alleged event. This is the last time I'm asking you, gluadys!
quote:
Oh evolution occurs. It just does not occur in organisms. This is the second most preposterous statement I've ever read. As if you really think populations can participate en masse in sexual reproduction? Unbelievable.
quote:
Until you can think in terms of populations and statistical change over generations, you will not have a handle on evolution. Until you can understand simple Mendelian genetics, we have nothing further to discuss!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Theistic Evolution questions. - 4/27/2008 1:18:29 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
So whether or not it is a grammatical oxymoron depends on the language. Each language has its own rules on such matters. That's a very nice dissertation on definite article usage but it has nothing to do with Christ's identification of A&E as factually historical people living in a factually historical timeline.
But he didn't. He said "male and female". He did not identify anyone as Adam and Eve. So all he said is that God made humans male and female.
quote:
quote:
Evolution, taking into account all factors, is just as predictable as auto accidents to an insurance company. This is without a doubt the most preposterous statement regarding evolution I've ever read on these forums. Congratulations, gluadys!
Talk to someone who knows insurance. If a company cannot predict with a fair degree of accuracy what proportion of its clients will have auto accidents over the next quarter, they will not stay in business long. Evolution is about the same sort of predictable probabilities.
quote:
quote:
Evolution is an ongoing process and that process can be observed in the same way weather patterns or the distribution of disease in a population can be observed. Then cite one article describing an observation of such an alleged event. This is the last time I'm asking you, gluadys!
Endler, J. A. 1991. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under
different visual conditions. Vision Research 31:587-608.
quote:
quote:
Oh evolution occurs. It just does not occur in organisms. This is the second most preposterous statement I've ever read. As if you really think populations can participate en masse in sexual reproduction? Unbelievable.
Clearly, you are not understanding the statement. No en masse sexual reproduction is necessary to change the distribution of alleles in a gene pool. Only a normal generational turnover. But no change in an organism is needed either. Good thing, because organisms do not evolve. Populations, on the other hand, do.
quote:
quote:
Until you can think in terms of populations and statistical change over generations, you will not have a handle on evolution. Until you can understand simple Mendelian genetics, we have nothing further to discuss!
Mendelian genetics is the basis of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
