Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what should we be looking for? Shouldn't we be looking for something like a dinosaur that has sharp teeth, claws, and other obvious dinosaur traits along with some feathers to indicate some sort of bird-like half dinosaur, half bird creature? Oh, wait a second, we have on of those in our fossil record already... it's called archaeopteryx. I suppose that's not good enough though, right? And I'm not even going to talk about Tiktaalik, unless you really want me to.
---------------
Archaepteryx is just a bird, see the non fossil living counter-part the Hoatzin. Tiktaalik is just a fish. Even the name the biologist selected means "fresh water fish", how appropriate!
Nikk, I think I made it quite clear that I was tired of people spouting off at the mouth about the ToE and when questioned providing no sort of empirical evidence for what was said. You have not provided me with the things I asked for. I was even nice enough to make a list.
Quoting bible verses, and throwing your own opinion of what natural selection and evolution hold no weight in the arena. I asked you to cite for me what YOUR definition of evolution was, AND if at all possible, what Darwin's was. What was your response? That no one has clearly defined evolution?!!?!!?! Gee, I'm pretty sure Darwin was quite clear on the matter, and ALL of the scientific research done in the last 150 years, although it may be expanded on due to increases in technology, have all coincided with what Darwin said.
I asked you to provide me with the 'genetic switch' that inhibits the gene from mutating. Change in DNA is not loss, and change can mean a lot of things. I asked you to research what macromutations, genome duplication, chromosome duplication, and transporons were and how they work. You kind of blew that one off in entirety. In fact, from what I can tell, I don't even know if you made it that far down my reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikk
What proof do you base your arguement on? What facts when look at make us say "Yes, this is billions of years old"? What person has existed back in these millions of years to say to us "yes there are millions of years".
Actually there is an enormous amount of proof on the age of the earth. In fact, I meant to ask you something... How do you think paleontologists know where to dig for dinosaur bones of a certain era? Do you think they just walk around the desert and go "Here looks good guys, let's start digging."?? No, absolutely not, in fact, usually, they look for sedimented layers, they perform radioactive dating on the rocks and THEN they start digging. If what you said was true, they should just be digging random holes up around the Earth. There's a science to digging for bones as well.
Anyway... here's some articles for the age of the earth, not that I expect you to read them, or even study them, I just expect a direct refutation of what was said because it doesn't 'line up' with your version of thinking.
I have plenty more if you like, but I'm sure that will keep you busy not reading the material I just posted. As a side note, the articles from TalkOrigins are very good and all of the references used are cited at the bottom. Yes, yes, I know, now you're going to question the authors who were cited and the veracity of their knowledge... how do I know?? Because that's what Creationists always do. If it gives you any confidence whatsoever, the scientists who are cited have put their papers up for peer review. I promise you that when a scientist puts his paper up for peer review he has subjected himself to the will of other scientists to try and "break" his theory. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists will continuously perform experiments to try and "break" it. It must be noted however, that a refutation of the findings must be backed up with empirical evidence as well. That's why universities like Yale, Harvard, MIT, and CalTech are so famous for what they do in the scientific community. Because they constantly have scientists who coin new ideas and theories, and often, when put to the test, their theories are found to be true. Anyway, just thought I might address that before you made it an issue and brought the response off the topic, you're getting pretty good at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikk
GCS Troop,
Did not Jesus Christ say "If you have seen me you have seen the father". So, since Adam was created in the image of God and Jesus who is God born in human flesh was a decendant of Adam and yet looks like the Father, then the difference in appearance between Adam and Christ is negligable. Jesus as reported by his diciples was just a man. So, we must conclude that man has since the begining has looked like man, who was created in the image of God. This image has experienced no significant change till the time of Christ and from the time of Christ to us.
We are not transitional forms.
Evidence? I can't accept the Bible as a form of evidence because I have yet to see any sort of supporting evidence that has proved anything in the Bible to be true. How can we prove that the Bible is the word of God and thus true? When you get back to me on that, without saying "It's just faith, man" than perhaps we can start discussing why we are relying on the Bible to perform our scientific experiments but until then I'm not buying it as evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikk
Archaepteryx is just a bird, see the non fossil living counter-part the Hoatzin. Tiktaalik is just a fish. Even the name the biologist selected means "fresh water fish", how appropriate!
Wow, I pretty much hit the nail on the head didn't I? I suggest you read back to my first post and see where I predicted that you would just call it "Not a transitional creature." So, what SHOULD we be looking for nikk? Let me guess, you're not going to give me answer, like you didn't give me this same answer when it was on my list, but what SHOULD we be looking for nikk? You tell me, because I'm out of ideas. Every time we do find something it's refuted as "just a fish, or just a bird, or just an ape, or just a this or just a that" yet these same people are asking for creatures that have "two sides" to them. Archaeopteryx is hardly "just a bird" in fact it has an enormous amount of dino features. Tiktaalik is hardly just a fish but had you put any sort of effort into your research you'd know that.
I'm going to ask for the same things I asked for again Nikk. I'm going to ignore any post that you come back with that says "Jesus said this.."; "God said that"; or "The Bible says this" because it cannot be backed up. I want EMPIRICAL, peer reviewed evidence to support your claims Nikk, or for all intensive purposes I'll just put you on as another in the long list of drive-by Creationists who just argue against evolution because it doesn't make them feel good. In fact, I'll shorten the list so that you don't have to do as much reasearch. It was a bit demanding of me to request so much from you in one fell swoop, but then again, you did no research whatsoever in disputing the claim, as is evidenced by your lack of citations, or even links to articles.
So here we go: Here's a revised list of what I want you to bring to the table in your next response. I don't want any deviation from the topic about how the Theory of Evolution sucks, or that it's inaccurate, because I'm not asking about that. All I'm asking for Nikk is this:
Show me a study that has proven that genes must stop changing at a certain point. Show me the barrier/switch/mechanism that stops the gene from changing within a species. If you can show me, with some sort of laboratory experiment, peer-reviewed article, or both (preferrably) than you have my respect and my apologies.
I'll chime in because I love to think out side the box. Darwin's theory just may be correct. We evolved. And we will continue to evolve as long as we exist. I love Christ by the way. I thought it might be best to disclose that up front.
Just because we evolve or evolved does not necessarily rule out God creating the form of evolution to exist for us to exist. The wind blows, where does it come from and where does it go, so is the spirit of Christ?
And for the sake of relevancy and is it just me as I may be the only one to think smart people existed long before we came along and when the Bible was written does any one not think/believe as though scientist existed then too and perhaps took part in the writting of the book?
We are to according to the Bible all become non-existant in the form of fire. I remember 7th grade science class in Mr/ Lively's class room and the discussion for the day was how the earth was moving closer to the sun. hm. A big ball of fire and if smart scientist existed in the days of the Bible and they saw this don't you think they may want to write about it in the form of a time capsule so as to ready those who may read what they have written for our final days to be?
Wow, I did it. I've been holding that back for years. Really now though GCS, you shouldn't be getting all upset with people. We're doing the best we can with the knowledge that we have.
GCS have you read Ecclesiastics I think it is right as it mentions lighted hooves and a creature with four-side face. Could be alien life form? When I read the part about the lighted hooves or feet, I thought of the sneekers with lights that I bought for my kids once.
PS. I hope I spelled all correctly. Run on sentences though that may appear, that's a me thing, in how I write.
Science and philosophy they really don’t go together, but you keep working on it, may be they will one day.
I'll chime in because I love to think out side the box. Darwin's theory just may be correct. We evolved. And we will continue to evolve as long as we exist. I love Christ by the way. I thought it might be best to disclose that up front.
Just because we evolve or evolved does not necessarily rule out God creating the form of evolution to exist for us to exist. The wind blows, where does it come from and where does it go, so is the spirit of Christ?
Welcome to CD, at least this forum, I can't recall seeing you on here before. I have always stated that the theory of evolution does not and should not eliminate one's belief in god. Granted, I do not believe in god, but understanding why and how evolution works is not my 'proof' that god does not exist.
Ken Miller is an absolutely brilliant biologist. He is constantly 'fighting' those who wish to present ID (Intelligent Design) into the classroom, and he has an excellent video at the National Museum of Science and History in New York City in the evolution section. He is also a devout Catholic. Understanding how evolution works is not the eliminating factor in deducing some sort of god complex.
On that note, I must say that when one is brought up to believe that some sort of deity created the earth, stars, etc... that accepting evolution must be very difficult because it does go against everything they've been told to be true in regards to god.
However, where I think a lot of scientists who have set out to prove evolution, such as Dr. Miller find solace in their findings is that they read the Bible not as a direct word for word translation of their god's word but a more allegorical work with implied meanings. To me, and I'll speak only for myself, this does not make sense to me, but I do understand how one could come to those terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
And for the sake of relevancy and is it just me as I may be the only one to think smart people existed long before we came along and when the Bible was written does any one not think/believe as though scientist existed then too and perhaps took part in the writting of the book?
There is no doubt in my mind that smart people, scientists if you will, were around during the writing of the Bible. Heck, the way we classify taxonomies and phylogenic trees was first started by a Greek 'scientist'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
We are to according to the Bible all become non-existant in the form of fire. I remember 7th grade science class in Mr/ Lively's class room and the discussion for the day was how the earth was moving closer to the sun. hm. A big ball of fire and if smart scientist existed in the days of the Bible and they saw this don't you think they may want to write about it in the form of a time capsule so as to ready those who may read what they have written for our final days to be?
I understand what you are saying, but you're also assuming that scientists 2000-3000 years ago were accurate in everything. Many scientists did not have the same testing and/or observational methods that modern day scientists do. Keep in mind, it wasn't until the 15th century that we realized the world wasn't flat, and roughly around the same time that we found out the earth revolved around the sun.
Also as a side note, because the Earth is on an elliptical orbit, it will be closer to the sun at certain times than others. Also, before the sun dies, it will expand large enough to envelop the Earth. Cool huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
Wow, I did it. I've been holding that back for years. Really now though GCS, you shouldn't be getting all upset with people. We're doing the best we can with the knowledge that we have.
I understand that people are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. That's exactly why I get irritated. People come on here, quite frequently might I add, perform a drive-by "Evolution is wrong because.." and when asked about any sort of supporting documentation they resort to either attacking myself as a non-credible spokesperson, attacking the ToE with unsubstantiated claims, and then usually end up quoting the Bible as their 'science book' as to why evolution is a bad theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ESPECIALLY if you're going to knock a 150 year-old theory (more like Law) in the ground.
If you're going to come on here and dispute the theory of evolution, by all means I welcome you to. Just make sure you at least know what the actual theory of evolution is before you come on here blabbering. I think from now on, whenever someone knocks evolution, I'm going to ask for their definition of evolution because I usually end up arguing with someone who thinks that evolutionary theory is one that states something like this: "Given enough time monkeys will turn into humans."
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
GCS have you read Ecclesiastics I think it is right as it mentions lighted hooves and a creature with four-side face. Could be alien life form? When I read the part about the lighted hooves or feet, I thought of the sneekers with lights that I bought for my kids once.
I have read the Bible twice and have referenced it on numerous occassions after or during researching something. I don't remember that particular part in Ecclesiastics, but I'll take your word for it as it's been several years. I suppose it could be an alien life form, I doubt it, but I won't rule it out. It doesn't make any difference to me as the Bible was written by men so if they saw an alien I suppose it could be mentioned in the Bible. Odd things are just as prone to happen now as they were 2000 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
PS. I hope I spelled all correctly. Run on sentences though that may appear, that's a me thing, in how I write.
Believe me, I've read much worse. Not to say that I'm the greatest speller either but wait until you read some of these posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell
Science and philosophy they really don’t go together.
I couldn't agree more which is why I really have a hard time when people try to present the Bible as a science book. I do, however, think that you can philosophize based on scientific findings. Unfortunately, what I see a lot of people do is base science on their philosophical findings or beliefs. That's not a very good tandem.
When I said that the Darwins ideas came from the Greeks and the Greeks were decendants of Noah and Ultimately Adam, I was not suggesting that Darwin was divinly inspired. I was putting Darwin in a Biblical time frame with Creation 6000 years ago and not in a Unitarian time frame.
As far as the problem you have with creationist refuting your transitional forms, lets look at the other side of the coin. There was a fish that Evolutionary Biologist thought was the missing link by the name of Coelacanth sp. This creature was found in the fossil reccord and dated at 330 million yrs. old. Well, when it was discovered that this dinosaur was being fished off the coasts of madagascar and sold by the fish mongers did any biologist say "hey we were wrong"? No, they was explanations given as to why this species has remain in stasis for 330 million yrs. The creature somehow found ideal conditions in the ocean depths not to change. Why didn't this creature change? It was not because of stasis it is because the millions of year just aren't there. And I am sure that if a suropod would walk out of the congo basin some biologist will say that it found some ideal pocket to live in for Some large amount of time with no change.
When I said that the Darwins ideas came from the Greeks and the Greeks were decendants of Noah and Ultimately Adam, I was not suggesting that Darwin was divinly inspired. I was putting Darwin in a Biblical time frame with Creation 6000 years ago and not in a Unitarian time frame.
As far as the problem you have with creationist refuting your transitional forms, lets look at the other side of the coin. There was a fish that Evolutionary Biologist thought was the missing link by the name of Coelacanth sp. This creature was found in the fossil reccord and dated at 330 million yrs. old. Well, when it was discovered that this dinosaur was being fished off the coasts of madagascar and sold by the fish mongers did any biologist say "hey we were wrong"? No, they was explanations given as to why this species has remain in stasis for 330 million yrs. The creature somehow found ideal conditions in the ocean depths not to change. Why didn't this creature change? It was not because of stasis it is because the millions of year just aren't there. And I am sure that if a suropod would walk out of the congo basin some biologist will say that it found some ideal pocket to live in for Some large amount of time with no change.
Nikk, didn't I ask you to provide me with that little genetic switch??? Isn't this the third time I have asked you? Did I not say in my post that I was expecting a post like this to take it off topic? Isn't that exactly what you did? I don't understand, Nikk, I think I've been pretty clear in what I am asking for. If you'd like me to talk about the Coalacenth open up a new thread and I'll be more than happy to explain it to you. Until then, I believe you have some research to do for me.
Seriously man, not that this is really a threat, but I'm getting tempted to put you on my ignore list because if you keep making scientific claims with no supporting evidence than I'm going to get the impression that you're just trying to troll the board.
If you honestly don't know, and I'm assuming you don't, I'm not going to sit here and plant a victory flag and rub it in your face. I don't need to, I know what I know, I don't need some chest pounding, in your face humiliation to make me feel better. If you're genuinely interested in what the theory of evolution says, how it works, etc... than I have absolutely no qualms about explaining it to you to the best of my abilities.
However, if you want to continue the debate, than I would really appreciate it if you kept it on topic, and answered the questions I posed to you instead of throwing different arguments out to try and change the subject. Please, stick to the topic, or for all meaninful purposes this conversation is over. Now, I've asked very nicely, if you can provide me with the genetic 'switch' that stops genes from mutating backed up with valid testing and observational procedures than we can continue the debate.
What proof do you base your arguement on? What facts when look at make us say "Yes, this is billions of years old"? What person has existed back in these millions of years to say to us "yes there are millions of years".
I have studied biology in University and I have found no evidence to support this theory. Lucy, when examined is just an orangutan. A pigs tooth is just a pigs tooth. Ther goes all of evolutions evidence. Evolution does not reflect what is seen in nature. It does not explain the Cambian explosion. It does not explain the diversity of botanicals, it does not Explain the composition of the Universe. So since it fails on so many levels then it is no good.
Evolution is not natural selection. It is the explaination of how one species become another species. Which we have no evidence for. There is nothing showing a cat becoming a dog. The dog variety we have from the Poodle to the Great dane are all just dog. They are not becoming something else. Humans are not evolving.
Change is not the definition biological evolution. So we cannot just look at a change like hair color and say this is evolution. To prove evolution is occuring we world have to see new formation of genetic information, but we do not. Not even one. A disabled gene is not new information, it is a broken machine. It is a loss of information.
Where could you have possibly studied biology at 'university' and not found any evidence for evolution?
Nikk, I think I made it quite clear that I was tired of people spouting off at the mouth about the ToE and when questioned providing no sort of empirical evidence for what was said. You have not provided me with the things I asked for. I was even nice enough to make a list.
Quoting bible verses, and throwing your own opinion of what natural selection and evolution hold no weight in the arena. I asked you to cite for me what YOUR definition of evolution was, AND if at all possible, what Darwin's was. What was your response? That no one has clearly defined evolution?!!?!!?! Gee, I'm pretty sure Darwin was quite clear on the matter, and ALL of the scientific research done in the last 150 years, although it may be expanded on due to increases in technology, have all coincided with what Darwin said.
I asked you to provide me with the 'genetic switch' that inhibits the gene from mutating. Change in DNA is not loss, and change can mean a lot of things. I asked you to research what macromutations, genome duplication, chromosome duplication, and transporons were and how they work. You kind of blew that one off in entirety. In fact, from what I can tell, I don't even know if you made it that far down my reply.
Actually there is an enormous amount of proof on the age of the earth. In fact, I meant to ask you something... How do you think paleontologists know where to dig for dinosaur bones of a certain era? Do you think they just walk around the desert and go "Here looks good guys, let's start digging."?? No, absolutely not, in fact, usually, they look for sedimented layers, they perform radioactive dating on the rocks and THEN they start digging. If what you said was true, they should just be digging random holes up around the Earth. There's a science to digging for bones as well.
Anyway... here's some articles for the age of the earth, not that I expect you to read them, or even study them, I just expect a direct refutation of what was said because it doesn't 'line up' with your version of thinking.
I have plenty more if you like, but I'm sure that will keep you busy not reading the material I just posted. As a side note, the articles from TalkOrigins are very good and all of the references used are cited at the bottom. Yes, yes, I know, now you're going to question the authors who were cited and the veracity of their knowledge... how do I know?? Because that's what Creationists always do. If it gives you any confidence whatsoever, the scientists who are cited have put their papers up for peer review. I promise you that when a scientist puts his paper up for peer review he has subjected himself to the will of other scientists to try and "break" his theory. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists will continuously perform experiments to try and "break" it. It must be noted however, that a refutation of the findings must be backed up with empirical evidence as well. That's why universities like Yale, Harvard, MIT, and CalTech are so famous for what they do in the scientific community. Because they constantly have scientists who coin new ideas and theories, and often, when put to the test, their theories are found to be true. Anyway, just thought I might address that before you made it an issue and brought the response off the topic, you're getting pretty good at that.
Evidence? I can't accept the Bible as a form of evidence because I have yet to see any sort of supporting evidence that has proved anything in the Bible to be true. How can we prove that the Bible is the word of God and thus true? When you get back to me on that, without saying "It's just faith, man" than perhaps we can start discussing why we are relying on the Bible to perform our scientific experiments but until then I'm not buying it as evidence.
Wow, I pretty much hit the nail on the head didn't I? I suggest you read back to my first post and see where I predicted that you would just call it "Not a transitional creature." So, what SHOULD we be looking for nikk? Let me guess, you're not going to give me answer, like you didn't give me this same answer when it was on my list, but what SHOULD we be looking for nikk? You tell me, because I'm out of ideas. Every time we do find something it's refuted as "just a fish, or just a bird, or just an ape, or just a this or just a that" yet these same people are asking for creatures that have "two sides" to them. Archaeopteryx is hardly "just a bird" in fact it has an enormous amount of dino features. Tiktaalik is hardly just a fish but had you put any sort of effort into your research you'd know that.
I'm going to ask for the same things I asked for again Nikk. I'm going to ignore any post that you come back with that says "Jesus said this.."; "God said that"; or "The Bible says this" because it cannot be backed up. I want EMPIRICAL, peer reviewed evidence to support your claims Nikk, or for all intensive purposes I'll just put you on as another in the long list of drive-by Creationists who just argue against evolution because it doesn't make them feel good. In fact, I'll shorten the list so that you don't have to do as much reasearch. It was a bit demanding of me to request so much from you in one fell swoop, but then again, you did no research whatsoever in disputing the claim, as is evidenced by your lack of citations, or even links to articles.
So here we go: Here's a revised list of what I want you to bring to the table in your next response. I don't want any deviation from the topic about how the Theory of Evolution sucks, or that it's inaccurate, because I'm not asking about that. All I'm asking for Nikk is this:
Show me a study that has proven that genes must stop changing at a certain point. Show me the barrier/switch/mechanism that stops the gene from changing within a species. If you can show me, with some sort of laboratory experiment, peer-reviewed article, or both (preferrably) than you have my respect and my apologies.
Here is the stop which prevents one kind (Most closely related to Family) of animal from becoming another Kind.
Genesis 1 says: 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Each animal, fish, fowl kind was created by God to reproduce after its "Kind". Now there may be a genes or a combination of genes which may keep a kind within a certain genetic perameter. But, since we have not observed one kind of animal becoming another we have to assume there is a specific mechanism that governs this. Or rather, Simply speaking, I think that each kind of animal is just not that genetically diverse to have it transverse the line that separates the species. All changes observed show a scrabling or rearanging of the genetic matterial that each animal already posesses. What we observe in nature should give more praise to the men like Mendel whose work is truly observed rather than Darwins unsupported assumtion that one species comes from another, which is not observed. In fact, if Darwin read Mendels work he probably would not have wasted his time writting "Origin of the Species".
Here is the stop which prevents one kind (Most closely related to Family) of animal from becoming another Kind.
Genesis 1 says: 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Each animal, fish, fowl kind was created by God to reproduce after its "Kind". Now there may be a genes or a combination of genes which may keep a kind within a certain genetic perameter. But, since we have not observed one kind of animal becoming another we have to assume there is a specific mechanism that governs this. Or rather, Simply speaking, I think that each kind of animal is just not that genetically diverse to have it transverse the line that separates the species. All changes observed show a scrabling or rearanging of the genetic matterial that each animal already posesses. What we observe in nature should give more praise to the men like Mendel whose work is truly observed rather than Darwins unsupported assumtion that one species comes from another, which is not observed. In fact, if Darwin read Mendels work he probably would not have wasted his time writting "Origin of the Species".
Hey Nikk, who were the Neanderthals? Where do they fit into the Biblical account? They existed, they are not a figment of anyone's imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
"The most accurate molecular estimates currently available suggest that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis direct lineages (excluding genetic elements from interbreeding/absorption) diverged around 800,000 years ago."
Why are there pygmies in Africa? From what animal did domestic dogs come from? You are completely blowing smoke.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 12-20-2007 at 09:47 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Genes change or maybe they don't
