Jump to content


Photo

Why Are There Still Apes?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
230 replies to this topic

#21 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 May 2009 - 04:18 PM

Please don't put words in my mouth.  Gorilla is a genus.  Canis is a genus.  Homo is a genus.  Felidae is a genus.  Species exists below the genus level.  Using your logic, let's just find a fossil of a dog and say dogs have been in stasis for however long.

View Post


Are you sure you can support speciation by the evidence?

Here are the teeth next to a modern female gorilla.They appear to be the exact same species.The tooth size and spacing could'nt line up more perfectly.Their is certainly many times more variation within dogs (e.g. poodles and grey hounds) which are the same species.

Posted Image



Thanks.

#22 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2009 - 06:13 PM

Are you sure you can support speciation by the evidence?

Here are the teeth next to a modern female gorilla.They appear to be the exact same species.The tooth size and spacing could'nt line up more perfectly.Their is certainly many times more variation within dogs (e.g. poodles and grey hounds) which are the same species.

Posted Image
Thanks.

View Post


You seem to have genus and species confused. Canis genus contains wolves, dogs, foxes, jackals, extinct species, etc, gorilla genus contains eastern and western gorillas. Fossils of extinct gorilla species aren't any problem except for creationists who want them to be and mean something they're not.

If you want to be the authority who can look at a picture and say the teeth fit so it must be the same species, then so be it. If you ever examine a great ape mouth, humans and gorillas are great apes, you'd see the problem with your logic.

#23 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:03 AM

Hello Arch, it’s good to hear from you. Your name looks familiar, have we meet somewhere before?

Anyway, that argument is a non sequitur. Neither Americans nor British are (nor is there real evidence that they ever were) descendants of an ape-like creature. Both are intelligent, can reason and can speak. Both can conceptualize, write, design, create and build. None of which has been demonstrated by any ape, or ape-like creature.

Which brings me to another question along these lines; if we (as “supposed” animals) have “purportedly” spent the last few millions of years “allegedly” “evolving” from primordial slime, why is man (of all this earth’s inhabitance)  the only “creatures” with these features?

And no, a dog’s bark and a whale’s singing aren’t the same as our language.

View Post


Sorry de_skudd, I forgot my internet died the other night when I tried to answer to you and then never got back to it.

I use the name Arch, or ArchDragon virtually everywhere I go (online), so if you've seen either of those two before there's a good chance it was me.

I concur, my question in no way relates to evolution. The point I was hoping to get across is that one thing (in this case people) can turn into another and yet have the original population still exist. I was attempting to show a logical comparison.

No ape can communicate, reason or build? You obviously have not met Koko the gorilla! Wiki - Koko

I agree that a dogs bark or whale singing isn't the same as our language in the same way I don't think Spanish is the same as English. Just because they are primitive (the dogs, not the Spanish :angry: ), doesn't mean they don't have intelligence.

Regards,

Arch.

#24 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:29 AM

Sorry de_skudd, I forgot my internet died the other night when I tried to answer to you and then never got back to it.

I use the name Arch, or ArchDragon virtually everywhere I go (online), so if you've seen either of those two before there's a good chance it was me.

View Post


Gotcha, I thought I saw you around at other sights (FRDB etcetera). The name looked familiar.


I concur, my question in no way relates to evolution. The point I was hoping to get across is that one thing (in this case people) can turn into another and yet have the original population still exist. I was attempting to show a logical comparison.

No ape can communicate, reason or build? You obviously have not met Koko the gorilla! Wiki - Koko

I agree that a dogs bark or whale singing isn't the same as our language in the same way I don't think Spanish is the same as English. Just because they are primitive (the dogs, not the Spanish  :angry: ), doesn't mean they don't have intelligence.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



The problems with this series of analogies are manifold.

Did Koko evolve these supposed language skills on her own (her species over millions of years), or did Dr. Patterson “design” a program to teach Koko utilizing “Pavlovian conditioning” such as Positive reinforcement, Negative reinforcement, Positive punishment, Negative punishment, Avoidance learning, Extinction, Noncontingent reinforcement, Satiation, Immediacy, Contingency, Size, etcetera…?

I taught my dog to let me know when she needs to go outside, when she is hungry etcetera. A friend of mine has a dog that rings a bell by the back door when it needs to go out. I’ve seen videos of differing domesticated animals (do you see the distinctions here) that flush the toilet after themselves, but my dog never comes up to me and says “You know what Dee, I really need to go out, but my lack of evolutionary opposable thumbs has robbed me of the ability to turn a door knob!”, “Oh, and while you’re at it, could you grab me a Beggin Strip® out of the cupboard. I’m hankerin for some of it’s man-made fake-meat goodness”!

Spanish and English are equal languages, English and barking (or whale singing etcetera) are not, although all of these species have had “supposed” millions of years to evolve such. Which, of course beggs my original question “if we (as “supposed” animals) have “purportedly” spent the last few millions of years “allegedly” “evolving” from primordial slime, why is man (of all this earth’s inhabitance) the only “creatures” with these features?

The question was not do ALL the other species on this planet display some semblance of primitive intelligence, but rather, why have they not shown equal evolutionary progression (or even a fraction to half as much)? Therefore, there is no logical comparison.

#25 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:45 AM

The question was not do ALL the other species on this planet display some semblance of primitive intelligence, but rather, why have they not shown equal evolutionary  progression (or even a fraction  to half as much)? Therefore, there is no logical comparison.


This can all be explained via Genesis.
As originally created, all animals could speak and be understood by Adam and Eve. See genesis for example of the serpent speaking to Eve.
It must have been God's punishment to the animals for Adam and Eve's disobedience which robbed them of mutually intelligible language.
In the same way, after the tower of Babal incident, different groups of humans could no longer understand each other.

You ask about the evolution of equal intelligence for all species, then appear satisfied if some have only a fraction of the maximum. How small could that fraction be, and still seem reasonable to you?

#26 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:33 AM

This can all be explained via Genesis.
As originally created, all animals could speak and be understood by Adam and Eve.  See genesis for example of the serpent speaking to Eve.
It must have been God's punishment to the animals for Adam and Eve's disobedience which robbed them of mutually intelligible language.
In the same way, after the tower of Babal incident, different groups of humans could no longer understand each other.

View Post

An interesting concession. Evolutionists generally prefer not to acknowledge the explanatory capacity of Genesis. (Balaam's ass might've been included.)

But the question here is not about Genesis. The question boils down to explaining mankind's superior intelligence using stories of evolution.

You ask about the evolution of equal intelligence for all species, then appear satisfied if some have only a fraction of the maximum.  How small could that fraction be, and still seem reasonable to you?

View Post

:D
I'd substitute 'best known' for 'maximum', or something like that. I'm reluctant to think mankind has maxed out.

#27 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:06 AM

This can all be explained via Genesis.
As originally created, all animals could speak and be understood by Adam and Eve.  See genesis for example of the serpent speaking to Eve.
It must have been God's punishment to the animals for Adam and Eve's disobedience which robbed them of mutually intelligible language.
In the same way, after the tower of Babal incident, different groups of humans could no longer understand each other.

You ask about the evolution of equal intelligence for all species, then appear satisfied if some have only a fraction of the maximum.  How small could that fraction be, and still seem reasonable to you?

View Post


I see no less than three major misconceptions you have in your above post. And with the attitude you’re displaying, it’s no wonder you’re having these problems.

So, can you show me the specific scriptures that state “all animals could speak and be understood by Adam and Eve”, or is this an assumption on your part? Can you tell me what other animal spoke to man in the Bible?

You seem to have a problem with all creation suffering after the fall of man? Let me ask you hypothetically; If you as a father, get thrown in jail, does not ALL of your family (wife, children, family pets etcetera) suffer for your mistake? It’s a little thing we call “cause and affect”…

The tower of Babel analogy is another bad example you’re using. The groups may have had “group to group” communication difficulties, but they could still communicate with each other. And ALL the groups were speaking in higher language, they weren’t barking at each other or singing whale songs.

I asked a simple question that isn’t hard to understand, but is hard to fathom for the atheist evolu-theist. And it has nothing to do with percentage amounts that would make evolution palatable. Do you know why? Because ONLY man has “supposedly” evolved to such a high state! What percentage of all the anamals who have inhabited this planet is that? According to the evolutionary model, and ALL the evidence we currently have (your presuppositions and assumptions aside) no other animal on this planet has “evolved” an iota when compared to ALL the things man has achieved. And this is a little elitist, and a lot illogical.

The last question is, how reasonable is the lack of rational you are providing here?

#28 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:07 AM

But the question here is not about Genesis. The question boils down to explaining mankind's superior intelligence using stories of evolution.

View Post


And that's the point he's trying to dodge here CTD...

#29 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:38 PM

I see no less than three major misconceptions you have in your above post. And with the attitude you’re displaying, it’s no wonder you’re having these problems.

So, can you show me the specific scriptures that state “all animals could speak and be understood by Adam and Eve”, or is this an assumption on your part? Can you tell me what other animal spoke to man in the Bible? 

You seem to have a problem with all creation suffering after the fall of man? Let me ask you hypothetically; If you as a father, get thrown in jail, does not ALL of your family (wife, children, family pets etcetera) suffer for your mistake? It’s a little thing we call “cause and affect”…

The tower of Babel analogy is another bad example you’re using. The groups may have had “group to group” communication difficulties, but they could still communicate with each other. And ALL the groups were speaking in higher language, they weren’t barking at each other or singing whale songs.

I asked a simple question that isn’t hard to understand, but is hard to fathom for the atheist evolu-theist. ............................... According to the evolutionary model, and ALL the evidence we currently have (your presuppositions and assumptions aside) no other animal on this planet has “evolved” an iota when compared to ALL the things man has achieved. And this is a little elitist, and a lot illogical.

As I said in my post, the serpent is the only animal recorded as speaking. However, what is significant is that this does not call for any explanation. Obviously speaking animals were as every-day as gods walking through the garden.
As to intelligence, all that is stated is that the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals. This may not put it on equal intellectual footing with Adam, but the serpent certainly knew enough psychology to tempt Eve.
Perhaps I should have specified that it was only reptiles, mammals, marsupials and birds that could speak.

I certainly do question the morality of punishing the families of guilty people. I think the only justification is that human justice is imperfect and our social welfare system does not adequately offset the effect of a father in jail. I also do not see that this is relevant to my exegesis.

As to the tower of babel story, humans retained their intelligence when the languages were confused. The various animals were not so fortunate. Their languages were reduced to the various calls and sound which they use today. But are you sure that human language is not corrupted. I think there are many examples of misunderstandings between people when they are using the same language. Perhaps we are all aflicted by the Tower of Babel syndrome.

#30 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:48 PM

Do you remember the quote somebody said about life arising by chance would be like a chimpanse randomly typing on a typewriter and reproducing Shakespeare ? Believe it or not,scientists actually tried the experiment and all they got was the chimp pushing the R key over and over again.I'm sure they may be smart enough to be trained to type,but they have no conscience idea what they're doing as far as the language goes.

#31 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:54 PM

Gotcha, I thought I saw you around at other sights (FRDB etcetera). The name looked familiar.

View Post


I keep hearing FRDB mentioned, but I'm not familiar with the site. I think someone may have stolen my nickname! :lol:

Did  Koko evolve these supposed language skills on her own (her species over millions of years), or did Dr. Patterson “design” a program to teach Koko...

View Post


Judging by the article I sent you Koko was taught the original language skills (presumably with a similar system to Pavlovian conditioning) by the doctors there. However she has used this language on many occasions in novel ways she was never taught to do. This shows a basic understanding of the mechanics behind the language she was never taught.

"while Koko knew the words for "water" and "bird" separately, Koko chose to combine these two words to describe a duck the first time she had ever seen the animal land on a lake. Similarly, Patterson says that Koko invented "drink-fruit" (melon), "water-bird" (swan) and "animal-person" (gorilla)." - wikipedia

...my dog never comes up to me and says “You know what Dee, I really need to go out, but my lack of evolutionary opposable thumbs has robbed me of the ability to turn a door knob!”, “Oh, and while you’re at it, could you grab me a Beggin Strip® out of the cupboard. I’m hankerin for some of it’s man-made fake-meat goodness”!

View Post


Likewise I wouldn't expect a Spanish man to ask that question as he doesn't know English. My dog definitely lets me know when he needs to go out to the toilet or wants food. Like a Spanish man he doesn't do it in English, but he lets me know.

Spanish and English are equal languages, English and barking (or whale singing etcetera) are not

View Post


I didn't realise you spoke whale de_skudd! Wait you don't? But then how do you know it is an inferior language? Or are you assuming that because you don't understand it, it must be inferior?

The question was not do ALL the other species on this planet display some semblance of primitive intelligence, but rather, why have they not shown equal evolutionary  progression (or even a fraction  to half as much)? Therefore, there is no logical comparison.

View Post


To answer your question "why are humans the only animals to evolve intelligence to such a level" I have to admit I don't know. I could throw some assumptions at you but that would be all they are, assumptions.

So instead I'd like to ask an alternative question. Why do humans not show equal signs of evolution to certain species of animals. For example, why can we not lift 50 times our weight (ants), why can we not camouflage ourselves (charmeleon), why can we not reproduce asexually (bacteria), why can we not regrow limps (drop-tail lizards) etc etc.

Humans can't do any of those things! We must be terribly un-evolved! Or...maybe we're just different. Like every other animal.

Food for thought ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#32 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:48 AM

The question was not do ALL the other species on this planet display some semblance of primitive intelligence, but rather, why have they not shown equal evolutionary  progression (or even a fraction  to half as much)? Therefore, there is no logical comparison.

Why would you expect all species to have the same intelligence?
Does this seem any more probable to you than that every animal should be the same size and shape?

The only idea I know of in this direction is the idea that there is some built-in drive toward perfection or intelligence in all life.
This is perhaps associated with the idea that there is some discrete and finite end point or goal to evolution or human progress - even if we have not got there yet.

There is certainly no mechanism in evolution to produce any similar result. Life may has started as a single species, but seems to have always been a strong tendency toward diversity, both between species and within any one species. Part of Darwin's insight was that this was due to competition between similar species or individuals.

Another thought is that intelligence is an expensive trait, brains require a lot of metabolic energy. No species can maintain an expensive feature if it does not provide a corresponding benefit. Some life-styles require more intelligence than others.

#33 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 29 May 2009 - 05:26 PM

De Skudd
[he question was not do ALL the other species on this planet display some semblance of primitive intelligence, but rather, why have they not shown equal evolutionary  progression (or even a fraction  to half as much)? Therefore, there is no logical comparison.

.

This is a good and valid question and I don't believe we really have a definitive answer to it.

It is fair to say, as Keith C says, that we shouldn't expect intelligence to evolve uniformly, but as to why it evolved in people to such an extent, we don't know.

However, bearing in mind the high degree of similarity between chimp and human DNA, and the well-demonstrated existence of mechanisms to change DNA, it is clear that there is a set of changes to DNA that could be made that would transform one into the other. In other words, there is no magic ingredient to human intelligence.

It's also the case that anthropoid primates in general are among the most intelligent species - so we're not an isolated species in that respect.

#34 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 30 May 2009 - 08:06 AM

Another thought is that intelligence is an expensive trait, brains require a lot of metabolic energy.  No species can maintain an expensive feature if it does not provide a corresponding benefit.  Some life-styles require more intelligence than others.

View Post


Across primates, there is an interesting trade-off between the size of the brain and the size of the gastrointestinal tract. Both the gut and the brain are metabolically expensive tissues.

Posted Image
http://www.scielo.br...ipt=sci_arttext

In a sense, this is a trade-off between an intelligent gut and an intelligent brain. A large 'intelligent' gut allows the animal to digest a wider range of foods (e.g., leaves) and survive in an environment with relatively low protein.

Despite their large brains, many human explorers in the African and South American jungles have died of starvation - where the smaller brained primates thrive.

The increase in brain size that we see over the last 3 million years of hominid evolution would have required a more and more efficient means of acquiring this high protein diet.
Posted Image

#35 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 30 May 2009 - 10:44 AM

One mistake we may make is equating brain size to higher intelligence.

African Gray parrots have small brains but are very intelligent. For example. There is a bird named Alex, who can count, identify objects, shapes, colors and material, knows the concepts of same and different, and bosses around lab assistants in order to modify his environment.

Interesting article: Is a brain really necessary

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head.  He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty.  Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain".  A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness.  The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid.  The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.


The Brains of Miniature Humans Miniature humans have normal intelligence. In 2004, the remains of at least seven humans of about three feet in stature, who lived about 18,000 years ago, were discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores. Homo floresiensis, as they were called, has a skull that holds 380 cubic centimeters, whereas typical humans have a skull that holds between 1,300 and 1500 cubic centimeters. However, the Flores people seem to have been of normal intelligence; they made delicate stone tools, with which they hunted dwarf elephants. Accounts vary as to why they were so tiny. Some have argued for genetic dwarfing; others have pointed to the fact that, in general, isolated island species are smaller than mainland species. As a result of deficiencies in growth hormone, some individual humans today do not reach sizes larger than Homo floresiensis. However, these proportionate dwarfs (formerly called “midgets”) typically enjoy normal intelligence. Proportionate dwarfs are relatively rare in societies with access to modern medicine because growth hormone treatment enables them to attain average sizes.


link

http://news.national...res_sapiens.jpg

Posted Image

Louis Pasteur suffered a cerebral accident and continued to do research. His autopsy showed that he lived and worked with 1/2 his brain, the other 1/2 being completely atrophied.

Cognitive ability is not necessarily related to brain size.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2009 - 12:43 PM

It's also the case that anthropoid primates in general are among the most intelligent species - so we're not an isolated species in that respect.

View Post


The most intelligent as compared to what, us? We're not so similar as you'd lead on in that respect. Also, our DNA isn't all the dissimilar for a fruit fly so we're not as isolated a species in that respect compared to your logic.

#37 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 May 2009 - 01:43 PM

Why would you expect all species to have the same intelligence? 

View Post



If you go back and read what he said, you wouldn’t be misinterpreting it so badly. Are you purposively attempting to run the end-around so that you don’t have to answer it? He simply asked why evolutionist are so arrogant as to imply that humans are the only species (out of all the species) on this planet, after all of this time, to show significant and disproportional cognitive, intellectual, manipulative and imaginative growth.

For example, what other animal on this planet as done a combination of the following: Planted crops to sustain its community, built cities out of tooled materials with artificial light, heat, water sources, waist disposal, entertainment and transportation; has written sonnets, songs, books, plays and movies (along with the machinery to display them); found ways to overcome flight, the depths of the seas and space? And this is all a small drop in the bucket of what man has achieved.

No other species on this planet has even made an iota of a dent in this body of achievement, and yet you want to play word games instead of attempt to rebut the assertion? Or use so feeble an argument as to confute the question with a generalization?

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 May 2009 - 06:22 PM

Across primates, there is an interesting trade-off between the size of the brain and the size of the gastrointestinal tract. Both the gut and the brain are metabolically expensive tissues.

Perhaps this "hypothesis" deserves its own thread. And perhaps it can be stated as something other than an assertion therein. If that should happen, those who support the idea should prepare to face simple common-sense evidence, like a picture of a fat dude.

Despite their large brains, many human explorers in the African and South American jungles have died of starvation - where the smaller brained primates thrive.

View Post

I'm not familiar with this idea. I've heard explorers died due to disease, heat, dangerous natives, and all sorts of causes. Somehow I doubt starvation is very high up on the list. I would further expect a good amount of whatever starvation did take place was due to ignorance rather than actual lack of available food.

Now that the irrelevant has been addressed, can someone explain how come there are still apes? How is it that intense competition and struggle permitted the unfit to survive right alongside the fit for millions of years? How come the selection goddess took yet another vacation?

I know intelligence, and the extreme uniqueness of mankind is being discussed as well. At least that's a related topic. Both are valid, unanswered questions, and both deal with evostories about human origins.

#39 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:46 AM

I just thought I would share this Unscientific American cover...

It fits well in this thread. The picture is worth a thousand words:

Posted Image

#40 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 May 2009 - 05:48 AM

I'm just curious, are we the only creature that has the whites of our eyes so highly exposed?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users