Jump to content


Photo

Dawkins Vs The Beetle


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

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 April 2010 - 06:52 AM

I saw this and could not help but to laugh.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.c...></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.c...hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The problem with Dawkins logic in this video is that he proves that evolution like this, can only happen "one way". Which adds complexity and more possibility to design and not "it just happens that way" type of claim.

Because what he claims, with no proof, is just like Christians claiming a God that most cannot see. Why is there no proof? Dawkins cannot show that this was the way this evolved. He showed this is the "only" way it could have evolved. Big difference. A claim with zero observable process is only an educated guess or opinion.

#2 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 April 2010 - 08:00 AM

Dawkins obviously has an agenda against God, Christians, and especially the Creation model. His only purpose in this video is an attempt to discount creationists, not to prove evolution.

If this defense method was developed over time, what gave this little instinctive beetle the idea in the first place? Could a beetle think through an idea? How would it know to start working on this defense? Where did it get the checmicals? How did it change its body to store the chemicals?

He said it's either by miracle (yeah), or the long process of evolution (NO)! :(

He is the epitomy of the Christian fish symbol being purposefully and offensively transformed into the Darwin fish with legs.

#3 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 April 2010 - 01:34 PM

Okay after watching this video I have to ask. What is so funny about this video? He explains that complex things are built gradually step by step. What is wrong with that idea?

#4 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 01 April 2010 - 01:43 PM

Dawkins obviously has an agenda against God, Christians, and especially the Creation model.  His only purpose in this video is an attempt to discount creationists, not to prove evolution.


Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I don't know enough about this fellow to say either way.

And attacking him for trying to discredit creationism is a little silly. He is responding to the attack by creationists saying that complex things cannot be explained with step by step minor changes.

Also, and I'm not saying that you are, but complaining that an evolutionist is just trying to poke holes in creationism is more than a little hypocritical. Creationists from what I have seen have done nothing but try to poke holes in evolution, and not try to prove Creationism.

If this defense method was developed over time, what gave this little instinctive beetle the idea in the first place?  Could a beetle think through an idea?  How would it know to start working on this defense?  Where did it get the checmicals?  How did it change its body to store the chemicals?


No idea was necessary for this to happen, maybe its little guts clenched just as it was being attacked, and a weak reaction happened. It scared the predator enough to let it get away.

Again no idea was needed.

Once it discovered it could do this, then like anything else it could practice.

Maybe the chemicals were a by product of another part of its system.

If it was already there, then obviously the body would adapt to the strength of the chemical.

Really though you might as well ask why humans can carry one of the strongest acids known in their stomachs, than focus on a beetle.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 April 2010 - 05:56 PM

Okay after watching this video I have to ask.  What is so funny about this video?  He explains that complex things are built gradually step by step.  What is wrong with that idea?

View Post


When there is more than one way to do it, except the other ways kill. Then it shows thought and guidance. If not then evolution relies on chance and accident. Like saying: Oops, got it right the first time.

Example: How many times did Edison fail before he figured out the light bulb? Now if he had the knowledge (intelligence) to get it right the first time, then he would have got it right in one try. Dawkins is implying that it can happen only one way, and then it did.

But yet there is no provable observable process. Only the claim that it did happen. With the only proof being that the beetle exists, so it happened, correct? I could also use the same logic and claim the beetle was created and the proof is that it exists.

Is that science? Nope. Science is about having an observable process that is repeatable. Not an observable repeatable opinion of how it could have happened.

#6 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 01 April 2010 - 08:25 PM

And attacking him for trying to discredit creationism is a little silly.  He is responding to the attack by creationists saying that complex things cannot be explained with step by step minor changes.

View Post

I'm confident he welcomes any attack, any time I've seen him he is arrogantly offensive to Christians / Creationists.

Also, and I'm not saying that you are, but complaining that an evolutionist is just trying to poke holes in creationism is more than a little hypocritical.  Creationists from what I have seen have done nothing but try to poke holes in evolution, and not try to prove Creationism.

As many have stated on both sides of this discussion, neither side can "prove" anything, either side can only show "evidence" of their worldview. And both sides do well enough in showing their evidence. When we are taught that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old by textbooks and "science" teachers, it is an acceptable practice for a creationist to show how the evidence fits better in a young earth/creation model. It's not "poking holes", it is refutation, it is OK.

And you didn't address this:

"He is the epitomy of the Christian fish symbol being purposefully and offensively transformed into the Darwin fish with legs."

The Christian fish symbol has been a Christian symbol for 1000's of years, the act of purposefully mutating it by adding legs and putting "Darwin" in the middle is a direct assault on Christians. As the five-year-old would say "they started it". :(

#7 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 April 2010 - 12:42 AM

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  I don't know enough about this fellow to say either way. 


All you have to do is watch a couple of his talks on youtube. He is a big time anticreationist, anti-Christian, anti-God. He joins up with groups that make comments such as: We should burn Bibles, We should exterminate all Christians, basically anyone who "hates" God and anyone whom would dare to even believe God exists. He has no problem admitting to evangelizing for evolution by making Christians lose their faith. He deems Christianity as a virus that should be wiped from the face of this planet. He makes all his money by writing books about this hate, doing interviews on how much he hates, teaching others how to hate, and being a spokes person for just about all the Christian hate groups that exist.

To me he is like the Hitler of Social Darwinism. Now watch how many people will now post to defend him, but not one can refute anything I said about him and what he does. His hate teaches evolutionist the same standard that Hitler understood and used to demonize, categorize, and stereotype people for what they believed, or their race.

And attacking him for trying to discredit creationism is a little silly.  He is responding to the attack by creationists saying that complex things cannot be explained with step by step minor changes.


He is arrogant, and deems himself the smartest evolutionist that ever walked the face of this planet.

Also, and I'm not saying that you are, but complaining that an evolutionist is just trying to poke holes in creationism is more than a little hypocritical.  Creationists from what I have seen have done nothing but try to poke holes in evolution, and not try to prove Creationism.


We are not complaining, him constantly implying how smart he is and using this lame argument. Made me laugh. He has tunnel vision that only allows him to see only what he wants. If he found God at one end of his tunnel, he'd find another tunnel just so he would not have to face that he was ever wrong. Or can be wrong. In fact he has his own religion. It's called panspermia. Google it.

No idea was necessary for this to happen, maybe its little guts clenched just as it was being attacked, and a weak reaction happened.  It scared the predator enough to let it get away.

Again no idea was needed.

Once it discovered it could do this, then like anything else it could practice.

Maybe the chemicals were a by product of another part of its system. 

If it was already there, then obviously the body would adapt to the strength of the chemical.

Really though you might as well ask why humans can carry one of the strongest acids known in their stomachs, than focus on a beetle.

View Post


And your examples here of defending it are just like Dawkins example. You are making the evidence (the beetle's ability) "conform" only to evolution. With zero possibility of any other way. That's "forced conformity" which means truth has already been decided because an "implied absolute" already exists, So therefore no other idea is even pondered, or given a chance. If this were a horse race, evolution would be the only horse allowed to run it, and therefore would be the only horse allowed to win it.

Challengers to evolution are allowed to be in the gate before the race. But when the gate opens to run the race, the only gate that opens is for evolution. Everybody else's stays closed. And it's basically been this way for over 100 years.

When is the last time any theory has been given the same amount of time evolution has to prove itself? Never.

Which means all evidence either conforms to the theory, or is rejected. And this happens everyday. I wonder how much a competing theory could build upon itself if it were given 150 years to prove itself?

If science were really after what the truth was no matter what it was. Every idea would be given the chance evolution has been given, And I'm not referring to creation. But what happens to any idea that challenges evolution? If it cannot come up with 150 years of evidence finding right off the bat, it gets rejected.

Evolutionists have invested to much time, written to many books and papers, made to many movies, etc... To allow evolution to ever be proven wrong. So to protect their investment, every challenger most be eliminated even before the race for truth begins. So that every time the gate opens, evolution is the only one allowed to run it.

So the day I see science allow other ideas to have as much chance as evolution has had to be proven, is the day I'll quit calling evolution bias, and evolutionists prejudice. And that gesture will stop evolution from producing people like Dawkins who push the worst of what evolution teaches which is social Darwinism. Because if evolution were not designed to hate Christians, it could not be used as a tool to do just that. And if evolutionists were even worried in the slightest about it, they would make rules not allowing it. But that is not what we see is it. In fact, people like Dawkins, and his followers, take pleasure in it. This is why they form hate groups so that other evolutionists who think like them can come together and support and promote their hate. And even though they try and separate evolution from this hate by just saying they are atheists, everyone of them believe in evolution which makes it the common denominator of that hate.

Because atheism does not really promote that much hate and prejudice, social Darwinism does. And that's been proven in history.

Romans 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 April 2010 - 05:21 AM

It would seem that his videos need to be seen in order to understand...


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yx3XmlR7XKA&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yx3XmlR7XKA&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The thing about what this videos shows and demonstrates. is that evolution cannot be proven unless all of those who oppose it are belittled, or demonized. Is that science? Nope. But it shows how weak evolution is, and proves more to the point what the movie Expelled was about.

Now to address the age dating Dawkins talks about as an example of how evolutionists leaves out things to make what they want to be true, sound more true. Is that there is such a thing called cross contamination. If you took a fossil that dated 4000 years old, and buried it in a layer that dated 400 million years old. What would happen? The dating markers in the layer would end up on the fossil making the fossil date to the age of the layer. Now if you ask any person who specializes in dating, they will tell you that this is true. But if you try to inject the idea that the fossils are not as old as they date because of this process. They will make excuses and ignore these facts in favor of "conforming" to the implied absolute theory. Even when the logic is sound.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LEl4QfcAK2o&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LEl4QfcAK2o&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Dawkins, is like a lot of evolutionists I meet on the web. To keep what they really think from sticking to them, they have to quote someone who says it so they can always back peddle out of it. Dawkins demonstrates this as he quotes someone else whom he agrees with so that people cannot quote him actually saying it. Basically. if you don't like science (evolution) you can F*** off. And notice how everyone laughingly agrees.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4tRpbkpNpgw&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4tRpbkpNpgw&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

About 3/4 the way through this one, Dawkins admits to evangelizing for evolution. Evolution does not need converts, unless it's a religion. Also notice, just like religion, Dawkins has a "testimony" section to his website. I find this very ironic to all of those who constantly claim evolution is not a religion.

#9 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 21 April 2010 - 05:05 AM

I think Dawkins in the first video is merely showing that over time, it is possible for the beetle to evolve over time gradually the ability to withstand the harsh chemicals. Unfortunately with Dawkins its the way in which he goes about his arguments, he likes to mock anyone that might oppose his arguments. The video however, does not show or prove how a random mutation might produce the sequence involved in this defense mechanism.

#10 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 21 April 2010 - 10:19 PM

When you use time as your answer, you are using a God did it excuse because you don't have a scientific one.

Example: You ask me to show you God. I claim that it takes 300 million years to do so. Are you going to accept that and believe that God exists anyway?

No more than I will accept time as an answer for processes claimed but cannot be observed. Why? Is science about faith or observable evidence? If you believe time did it, then you have faith. If you demand observable evidence, then you demand science.

So which do you accept?

1) Time as the excuse for all unobservable processes?
2) Observable processes because that is what a scientific theory is supposed to have?

The other part of the equation is odds. If you are going to imply time and possibility, then you also have to ponder the odds. But because the odds do not support any part of evolution happening, odds are ignored. And mathematicians are no longer allowed in evolution circles. Because through math, evolution can be proven impossible.

How do I know this? I know a mathematician who is not welcome in evo circles. This is because he can rattle off several odds impossibilities, from the top of his head, and prove evolution is impossible. So no evo wants to even talk to him.

If he were not so busy, I'd have him join this forum. I wish he did have the time, it would bring some perspective to this debate on E vs C. He works over 100 hours a week. I don't know how he does that.

#11 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 22 April 2010 - 01:23 AM

When you use time as your answer, you are using a God did it excuse because you don't have a scientific one.

Example: You ask me to show you God. I claim that it takes 300 million years to do so. Are you going to accept that and believe that God exists anyway?

No more than I will accept time as an answer for processes claimed but cannot be observed. Why? Is science about faith or observable evidence? If you believe time did it, then you have faith. If you demand observable evidence, then you demand science.

So which do you accept?

1) Time as the excuse for all unobservable processes?
2) Observable processes because that is what a scientific theory is supposed to have?

The other part of the equation is odds. If you are going to imply time and possibility, then you also have to ponder the odds. But because the odds do not support any part of evolution happening, odds are ignored. And mathematicians are no longer allowed in evolution circles. Because through math, evolution can be proven impossible.

How do I know this? I know a mathematician who is not welcome in evo circles. This is because he can rattle off several odds impossibilities, from the top of his head, and prove evolution is impossible. So no evo wants to even talk to him.

If he were not so busy, I'd have him join this forum. I wish he did have the time, it would bring some perspective to this debate on E vs C. He works over 100 hours a week. I don't know how he does that.

View Post


I agree with what your saying ikester7579, but my main point is that in the video, Dawkins is alluding to that over time the Beetle could have built up a resistance to the chemical getting stronger and stronger, Dawkins is merely trying to refute Creationists argument that the Beetle would have exploded if such chemicals were to suddenly appear in the Beetle. And like I said in my original post, the video does not show how a mutation caused the mechanism, so no, the video is not factual, it is philosophical.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 April 2010 - 02:50 AM

I agree with what your saying ikester7579, but my main point is that in the video, Dawkins is alluding to that over time the Beetle could have built up a resistance to the chemical getting stronger and stronger, Dawkins is merely trying to refute Creationists argument that the Beetle would have exploded if such chemicals were to suddenly appear in the Beetle. And like I said in my original post, the video does not show how a mutation caused the mechanism, so no, the video is not factual, it is philosophical.

View Post


What you did not get from that video that Dawkins hid was that those chemicals have to be mixed a certain way.

Example: If you pour acid into water you won't get a chemical reaction. If you pour water into pure acid you will get a chemical reaction very similar to a small explosion. Which will splash the acid all over the person doing it. How do I know? I made that mistake once and had acid all in my face. Luckily I had a hose running next to me and was able to run it in my face and eyes. I was later told that there is only one way to introduce water and acid to one another.

That is what Dawkins did not tell you. If you reverse which chemical is being poured into the other, you will get an reaction that would kill the beetle. So his deception was not telling you the full story. That is how we creationists often find many things about evolution. The evidence looks good because the bad part is not being told to you.

Like the 3% difference between chimps and humans. Do you know how many differences there are in 3 %? You won't find that number written in any school text book because people would figure out that we are not really close at all. And you will have problem finding the answer on the internet as well.

#13 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 22 April 2010 - 04:45 AM

What you did not get from that video that Dawkins hid was that those chemicals have to be mixed a certain way.

Example: If you pour acid into water you won't get a chemical reaction. If you pour water into pure acid you will get a chemical reaction very similar to a small explosion. Which will splash the acid all over the person doing it. How do I know? I made that mistake once and had acid all in my face. Luckily I had a hose running next to me and was able to run it in my face and eyes. I was later told that there is only one way to introduce water and acid to one another.

That is what Dawkins did not tell you. If you reverse which chemical is being poured into the other, you will get an reaction that would kill the beetle. So his deception was not telling you the full story. That is how we creationists often find many things about evolution. The evidence looks good because the bad part is not being told to you.


Indeed, it needs a catalyst for the reaction to be effective, but the main point of the video and Dawkins presentation is that he believes that over gradual time and with the necessary change, it could be possible for the Beetle to evolve this defense mechanism in weak concentrations building up to more heavy concentrations.

In regards to getting acid on your face, a better option would have been to neutralize the burns, vinegar would have been ideal for this. But I'm guessing you wouldn't have any of this handy at the time and water was the best option at the time.

Like the 3% difference between chimps and humans. Do you know how many differences there are in 3 %? You won't find that number written in any school text book because people would figure out that we are not really close at all. And you will have problem finding the answer on the internet as well.

View Post


The difference between the Human and Chimpanzee genome has been put back even further than the traditional belief of the 99% figure with research in recent years, one geneticists has put the figure closer to 70-75%, this figure of course could change + or -. Fruit flys share around 60% with Humans and the humble Banana shares around 50% with Humans. We actually share a lot with worms and insects.

#14 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 22 April 2010 - 11:16 AM

In regards to getting acid on your face, a better option would have been to neutralize the burns, vinegar would have been ideal for this. But I'm guessing you wouldn't have any of this handy at the time and water was the best option at the time.

View Post


Vinegar is acid! Water (and lots of it) irrigated over the affected area is the best way to treat an acid burn.

#15 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 23 April 2010 - 07:10 AM

Vinegar is acid!  Water (and lots of it) irrigated over the affected area is the best way to treat an acid burn.

View Post


Correct. But I should have been more specific I was taught that vinegar will neuatralise a burn, but it's more the sensation relief it provides and it is more useful with stings, especially with blue bottle jellyfish stings, which we get a lot of at our beaches. Don't use vinegar on acid burns people!!, I apologise for the misinformation.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2010 - 10:26 PM

Ummm Mr Dawkins didn't show the PROCESS that occured.. Just his own interpretation...

Umm as far as I knew, opinions aren't Science....lol

#17 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 24 April 2010 - 11:41 PM

Ummm Mr Dawkins didn't show the PROCESS that occured.. Just his own interpretation...

Umm as far as I knew, opinions aren't Science....lol

View Post


Don't think anyone said it was science? It was just a demonstration in response to a newspaper article.

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 April 2010 - 12:17 AM

Yeah, and that doesn't prove anything...

People in mental wards think they can fly... Just because they think it, doesn't make it true...

So what did Dawkins actually hope to prove by this???

#19 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 25 April 2010 - 04:02 AM

Yeah, and that doesn't prove anything...

People in mental wards think they can fly... Just because they think it, doesn't make it true...

So what did Dawkins actually hope to prove by this???

View Post


Don't get me wrong, I agree, he does not prove much in the video, I just think some people misinterpret what the video is about. Dawkins, as a staunch, Darwinist defender is trying to debunk a newspaper article that reports on the Bombardier Beetle as an evolution flaw, which I agree is.

#20 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2010 - 07:37 AM

Ikester, is this thread about Dawkins or about the bombardier beetle?
If it's about the bombardier beetle, I have some information which I would like to post.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users