Religious/God Belief = Darwinian Success

edited September 2010 in Religion & Philosophy
Conversely....Atheism = Darwinian Failure

Audio on the link....or read the summary...

Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?

by Alix Spiegel

August 30, 2010

All Things Considered, NPR

God, Through The Lens Of Evolution

For decades, the intellectual descendants of Darwin have pored over ancient bones and bits of fossils, trying to piece together how fish evolved into man, theorizing about the evolutionary advantage conferred by each physical change. And over the past 10 years, a small group of academics have begun to look at religion in the same way: they've started to look at God and the supernatural through the lens of evolution.

In the history of the world, every culture in every location at every point in time has developed some supernatural belief system. And when a human behavior is so universal, scientists often argue that it must be an evolutionary adaptation along the lines of standing upright. That is, something so helpful that the people who had it thrived, and the people who didn't slowly died out until we were all left with the trait. But what could be the evolutionary advantage of believing in God?

Bering is one of the academics who are trying to figure that out. In the years since his mother's death, Bering has done experiments in his lab at Queens University, Belfast, in an attempt to understand how belief in the supernatural might have conferred some advantage and made us into the species we are today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196&ft=1&f=1001
«134

Comments

  • I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things. If you don't know how something works, it's easy to imagine some super-powerful magical humanoid doing it.
  • said:

    I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things. If you don't know how something works, it's easy to imagine some super-powerful magical humanoid doing it.

    I've been thinking that we were overdue for a thread of this nature... :cool:

    To Axe above: Conversely, when we DO know how something works it becomes necessary to see that some super-natural force external to the universe was responsible for the engineering, arrangement, physical constraints, and elements to exist in parameters that make life possible.

    The advent of new studies in cosmology, quantum physics, and micro-biology including our understanding of cellular machines, all point to a First Cause/Creator. Instead of the old "god of the gaps" where science was slowly squeezing out evidence for a Creator, it is now "science of the gaps" where the evidence points to a Creator.

    Oh, and Darwinian evolution is dead. Some of the ones who hold that worldview don't know yet, but it is dead nevertheless.
  • said:

    I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things.

    Do you disagree with the evolutionary advantage posited by the article?
  • said:

    said:

    I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things.

    Do you disagree with the evolutionary advantage posited by the article?
    No, it makes sense. I don't think the study is breaking any new ground at all. It's like saying that societies that organized under a government fared better than individual nomadic families. Religion is just a different banner under which they united.
  • said:


    Oh, and Darwinian evolution is dead. Some of the ones who hold that worldview don't know yet, but it is dead nevertheless.

    I guess you could say it's survival of the fittest.
  • said:

    said:

    I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things. If you don't know how something works, it's easy to imagine some super-powerful magical humanoid doing it.

    I've been thinking that we were overdue for a thread of this nature... :cool:

    To Axe above: Conversely, when we DO know how something works it becomes necessary to see that some super-natural force external to the universe was responsible for the engineering, arrangement, physical constraints, and elements to exist in parameters that make life possible.

    The advent of new studies in cosmology, quantum physics, and micro-biology including our understanding of cellular machines, all point to a First Cause/Creator. Instead of the old "god of the gaps" where science was slowly squeezing out evidence for a Creator, it is now "science of the gaps" where the evidence points to a Creator.

    Oh, and Darwinian evolution is dead. Some of the ones who hold that worldview don't know yet, but it is dead nevertheless.
    'Sup Guy, still waiting for any concrete evidence of the existence of any entity capable of doing anything remotely close to any of the things you suggest. Thanks.
  • said:

    said:

    said:

    I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things. If you don't know how something works, it's easy to imagine some super-powerful magical humanoid doing it.

    I've been thinking that we were overdue for a thread of this nature... :cool:

    To Axe above: Conversely, when we DO know how something works it becomes necessary to see that some super-natural force external to the universe was responsible for the engineering, arrangement, physical constraints, and elements to exist in parameters that make life possible.

    The advent of new studies in cosmology, quantum physics, and micro-biology including our understanding of cellular machines, all point to a First Cause/Creator. Instead of the old "god of the gaps" where science was slowly squeezing out evidence for a Creator, it is now "science of the gaps" where the evidence points to a Creator.

    Oh, and Darwinian evolution is dead. Some of the ones who hold that worldview don't know yet, but it is dead nevertheless.
    'Sup Guy, still waiting for any concrete evidence of the existence of any entity capable of doing anything remotely close to any of the things you suggest. Thanks.
    The evidence is an orderly, fine-tuned (to a level of probability that removes anything except direct cause) universe, which could not come about without the creative efforts of some force apart from that universe's existence.

    If you are looking for a "big foot" video of God, you'll never be satisfied. There will never be one.

    What Darwinian proponents have either failed to realize or danced around if they do realize it, is that they have no (NO) mechanism to explain how life began. All they have -- at best -- is a mechanism that explains micro-evolution, characteristics and traits that vary depending on local environmental factors, but that do not change one entity into another.

    What the other side has is evidence that flies in the face of Hume, Darwin, Gould, and others who have made bold statements about evolution and cosmological beginnings based on a lack of knowledge as to the complexity of the things they described. With the advent of the x-ray scanning microscope, now capable of seeing cell activity down to the atomic level, we KNOW that life is a finely-tuned DESIGNED thing at every level. We also know on a macro-level, as far as cosmology goes, that this universe had a beginning at one set point in time, and from which all the various fine-tuning aspects that allow for life came into being.
  • Given enough time, the probability of pretty much anything approaches 1.
  • said:

    The evidence is an orderly, fine-tuned (to a level of probability that removes anything except direct cause) universe, which could not come about without the creative efforts of some force apart from that universe's existence.

    There are (by what we can detect now) between 10^22 and 10^24 stars in the universe. The fact that life formed around one of them is not proof of a fine-tuned universe, only that it is possible for it to form. Had any of the laws of the universe been different, it could be another type of life makig the same comment.
    said:

    If you are looking for a "big foot" video of God, you'll never be satisfied. There will never be one.

    And conversely you'll never be satisfied with any scientific proof even if it's to the point of undeniable certainty.
  • evidence =/= proof
  • said:

    I don't think it's an evolutionary trait so much as an easy way to explain things. If you don't know how something works, it's easy to imagine some super-powerful magical humanoid doing it.


    Both you and the researcher fail to see the forest for the trees.

    Faith gives people hope when there otherwise would be none. Hope gives people the ability to struggle beyond the point where other animals would give up. Survival is evolutionarily advantageous.


    And of course, it MAY be that human beings are able to sense some part of what we often refer to as "The Divine".

    That's no more unlikely than the "sky ghost" theory.
  • said:


    Faith gives people hope when there otherwise would be none. Hope gives people the ability to struggle beyond the point where other animals would give up. Survival is evolutionarily advantageous.


    Look at those parts of the world where, "God helps those who help themselves" is a common attitude.

    Then look at the ones where it's either, "God is dead," or, "Insh'Allah."

    .
  • said:

    Given enough time, the probability of pretty much anything approaches 1.

    That is one of the points... There has not been "enough time" since the birth of the universe as determined by the current crop of physicists and cosmologists.

    Another point is that the scientific evidence -- as actually observed instead of hypothesized from an un-real set of numbers (i.e., multiple universes, which can never be measured, for they are out of reach because we are bounded by one universe, making that answer equally metaphysical to deism plus violating Occam's razor), indicates that creation by deity IS the prevailing best answer.

    There are now over 35 finely measured parameters required for life to exist that all have probabilities measured in excess of 10*37 power for existing as they do. That probability is akin to a blind man selecting one red-colored dime from a stacks of dimes covering a land masses the size of the United States to the depth of the moon, one million times...

    These measured parameters are things like the balance between strong and weak atomic forces, the level of protons versus electrons, the number, frequency and distances of supernovae, the speed of the expansion of the universe, etc. Unless fine-tuned to their current levels, NO life would be possible in the universe. These "anthropic principles" alone have turned most cosmologists and astrophysicists into deists, and they speak in terms of "creator," "fine-tuning," "fiddling about with the physics that formed the universe," etc.
  • axe
    edited September 2010
    said:

    There are now over 35 finely measured parameters required for life to exist that all have probabilities measured in excess of 10*37 power for existing as they do. That probability is akin to a blind man selecting one red-colored dime from a stacks of dimes covering a land masses the size of the United States to the depth of the moon, one million times...

    No.

    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point. "Life" does not need to be carbon-based and made up of mostly water. That we happened to be that way is purely coincidental. We could just as well have been made out of methane and silicon.
    said:

    These "anthropic principles" alone have turned most cosmologists and astrophysicists into deists, and they speak in terms of "creator," "fine-tuning," "fiddling about with the physics that formed the universe," etc.

    [Citation Needed]
  • said:

    These measured parameters are things like the balance between strong and weak atomic forces, the level of protons versus electrons, the number, frequency and distances of supernovae, the speed of the expansion of the universe, etc. Unless fine-tuned to their current levels, NO life would be possible in the universe. These "anthropic principles" alone have turned most cosmologists and astrophysicists into deists, and they speak in terms of "creator," "fine-tuning," "fiddling about with the physics that formed the universe," etc.

    Okay, now you're just being silly. The "fine-tuned aspects" you're talking about vary over time and different values could just as likely produce a different type of life. All you can say is for our type of life to exist they have to be at levels around what they are now. Furthermore, the statement that most cosmologists and astrophysicists are deists is just wrong. At best you can say some are religious and some are agnostic, but most are atheists.
    said:

    there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?

  • said:

    there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?

    I am not impressed by Hawking's new position. The question he asks has an obvious answer, and one he must have entertained.
  • I don't agree with Hawking, but as the "most public" example of an astrophysicist, his lack of religious belief goes against Guy's claim. Neil deGrasse Tyson is another public astrophysicist who doesn't believe in God. Even amongst the scientists who are religious, they keep their faith out of their work. They'd be laughed out of (almost) any university if they tried to claim that science proved that God exists. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and I'm content in both my faith and my knowledge of science.
  • said:


    That is one of the points... There has not been "enough time" since the birth of the universe as determined by the current crop of physicists and cosmologists.


    Wait, what? Who said there hasn't been enough time for what?
  • said:



    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point.



    No, that's not his problem, at least not in this case. It's an "ego-centric" issue. Which is not to say that he has a huge ego (he does of course, but then so do the rest of us), it's that he's making the same error in viewpoint that led humans throughout the ages to assume that we're the center of the universe.


    He's correct in one the sense that we live in a "Goldilocks" universe where the way matter interacts on a sub-atomic level allows not just life but EVERYTHING from the molecular level on up to exist.


    But like the lottery winner who looks back and see's a long chain of events that led to him buying that ticket with those numbers at precisely that moment; he fails to realize that all the other outcomes were not only possible but may have already been played out in other universes or times.


    Where people see good fortune or divine providence, physicists and cosmologists realize that our particular universe was no more likely to form than any other possibility. The only MEANINGFUL difference is that we're here to ask the question, and that in itself makes us "feel" more special than we are.
  • said:

    Which is not to say that he has a huge ego (he does of course, but then so do the rest of us), ...

    If you consider how generally spectacular I am, my modesty may be my most improbable virtue.
  • said:

    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point.

    said:

    No, that's not his problem

    said:

    it's that he's making the same error [...] that led humans[...] to assume that we're the center of the universe.

    image
  • OK, I know you're hot for Mr Johnson (The puns just write themselves sometimes), but what are you trying to convey there?
  • said:

    I don't agree with Hawking, but as the "most public" example of an astrophysicist, his lack of religious belief goes against Guy's claim. Neil deGrasse Tyson is another public astrophysicist who doesn't believe in God. Even amongst the scientists who are religious, they keep their faith out of their work. They'd be laughed out of (almost) any university if they tried to claim that science proved that God exists. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and I'm content in both my faith and my knowledge of science.

    That is the problem... The laughing out of universities is a noted issue.

    But, I still content that the tide is turning. Let me get some time and I'll bring in a few citations...
  • said:

    said:



    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point.



    No, that's not his problem, at least not in this case. It's an "ego-centric" issue. Which is not to say that he has a huge ego (he does of course, but then so do the rest of us), it's that he's making the same error in viewpoint that led humans throughout the ages to assume that we're the center of the universe.


    He's correct in one the sense that we live in a "Goldilocks" universe where the way matter interacts on a sub-atomic level allows not just life but EVERYTHING from the molecular level on up to exist.


    But like the lottery winner who looks back and see's a long chain of events that led to him buying that ticket with those numbers at precisely that moment; he fails to realize that all the other outcomes were not only possible but may have already been played out in other universes or times.


    Where people see good fortune or divine providence, physicists and cosmologists realize that our particular universe was no more likely to form than any other possibility. The only MEANINGFUL difference is that we're here to ask the question, and that in itself makes us "feel" more special than we are.
    Which other universes? And, how do you know? Do you have some means of transcending the space-time manifold of this universe to find empirical data about another? If so, where is your Nobel prize?

    You realize, of course, (well probably not considering your post) that you are dabbling in metaphysics not science, right?
  • said:

    said:

    There are now over 35 finely measured parameters required for life to exist that all have probabilities measured in excess of 10*37 power for existing as they do. That probability is akin to a blind man selecting one red-colored dime from a stacks of dimes covering a land masses the size of the United States to the depth of the moon, one million times...

    No.

    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point. "Life" does not need to be carbon-based and made up of mostly water. That we happened to be that way is purely coincidental. We could just as well have been made out of methane and silicon.
    said:

    These "anthropic principles" alone have turned most cosmologists and astrophysicists into deists, and they speak in terms of "creator," "fine-tuning," "fiddling about with the physics that formed the universe," etc.

    [Citation Needed]
    I look at life the way it exists. We currently have a set of one form to examine. While speculation exists about methane and silicon (plus a few other examples) life forms, the truth is that only carbon has the capacity for long-chain complex molecules that lead to life in any recognizable form, i.e., possessing the capacity to store some form of self-replication machinery.

    I believe that you have fallen for a fallacy of imagination along with a few scientists, who are now proposing some of the weirdest stuff imaginable to "explain" how life arose on Earth. They have exhausted the potential that it arose naturally by chance on this planet and so fish for some other means (that ultimately pushes the issue to a place where it can probably never be studied -- at least not in our lifetimes, nor the lifetimes of the next 10+ generations).



    For example:
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/03/red-rain-space-hold-alien-life/
    For more reading of the same:
    http://www.panspermia.org/
    said:

    When one calculates the likelihood of life's origin, one finds that it is extremely low. Originating by chance, life anywhere in the universe should be rare. Actually, Darwinists are not sure how unlikely extraterrestrial life is. They agree it's probably rare, but if it is too rare, that weakens the case for its by-chance origin on Earth. Richard Dawkins allows three possibilities: life is likely to arise only 1) once per universe, 2) once per galaxy, or 3) once per solar system (2). Others such as John Barrow and Frank Tipler in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle say firmly, "...the universe has to be as big as it is in order to support just one lonely outpost of life" (3). "...The consensus of modern evolutionists is that the evolution of life on Earth ...is so improbable that it is most unlikely to occur elsewhere in our galaxy" (4). Common sense says that if life begins by chance, it's rare.

    said:


    How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet we have no idea how life began in the first place. Science is nowhere near the answer to this question. In fact, the question may be flawed. Maybe there was no beginning. This possibility cannot be logically ruled out.
    ...
    By any mathematical analysis, life is unlikely to have arisen by chance from nonliving chemicals here on Earth. The likelihood is so tiny that it remains negligible even if we expand the range of possible origination sites to include the entire known universe. It seems unlikely that life would originate in any universe. Fewer miracles are required if life has always existed. Alternating between long quiescent periods of waiting in space as mere wispy potential, and eventual emergence on planets everywhere, life may have always been.

    If the physical universe begins with a cosmological big bang, the potential for the big bang had to exist already. If many universes are created continually by many big bangs, how can that process have a beginning? With or without a beginning, the physical world is a miracle. Life seems the same way. How could we possibly explain its origin? Life is a miracle, too.

    Actually, they are wrong... The universe has a beginning. That possibility HAS been ruled out. But they are correct about the rest of their speculation. Life did not arise on earth spontaneously.
  • Few more interesting quotes:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
    (Yes, Carl Sagan's Nova...)

    People's ideas on the circumstances under which life might emerge have really changed and developed over the last 30 or 40 years. I think it's fair to say that when I was a boy those few people who thought about the origin of life thought that it probably was a set of improbable reactions that just happened to get going over the fullness of time. And I think it's fair to say that most of those people probably thought that we would find out what those reactions were, that somehow we would nail it in a test tube at some point.

    Now I think, curiously enough, both of those attitudes have changed. I think that there's less confidence that we're really going to be able to identify a specific historical route by which life emerged, but at the same time there's increasing confidence that when life did arise on this planet, it was not a protracted process using a chemistry that is pretty unlikely but rather is a chemistry that, when you get the recipe right, it goes, and it goes fairly quickly.
    ...
    There are still some great mysteries. People sometimes think that science really takes away mystery, but I think there are great scientific mysteries and causes for wonder and, most importantly, things that will, I hope, stimulate biologists for years to come. We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances.
    ...
    Will we ever solve the problem?
    I don't know. I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying that it's a great mystery, but that they will understand that mystery at a level that would be incomprehensible to us today.


    http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-1/Did-life-on-Earth-begin-in-the-little-warm-pond.html

    The origin of life on Earth is one of the most important, and elusive, problems in science. Efforts to understand the origin of life have been frustrated by lack of evidence. In the face of this fundamental difficulty, the search for a scientific explanation for the origin of life has relied upon speculative hypotheses, observations from present conditions on Earth and elsewhere in our solar system, and laboratory experiments that seek to simulate the conditions of the earliest period of Earth's history.
    ...
    Scientists who believe that ancient Earth did not provide conditions similar to those of the Urey-Miller experiments have looked elsewhere to try to find alternative scenarios to explain the origin of life. Observations of the Moon and other planets in the solar system have suggested that during the first billion years or so of Earth's history, the surface of our planet was extremely volatile and even hostile, bombarded by meteorites and intense solar radiation. These conditions make the formation of stable, warm, shallow ponds unlikely, but they suggest other interesting possibilities to explain the origin of life on Earth.

    For example, the constant bombardment of ancient Earth by meteorites and comets may itself explain the source of amino acids—perhaps they formed elsewhere in the solar system and were carried here by these interplanetary travelers. Hypothetically, amino acids and other organic compounds could survive a trip from Mars or another planet to Earth, and although no undisputed evidence of such a transfer has been identified, scientists continue to study meteorites and comets to better understand the effect of these impacts on the formation of life.

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/bigquestions.html?pg=3

    What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint.

    If anything, the mystery has deepened over time. After all, if life began unaided under primordial conditions in a natural system containing zero knowledge, then it should be possible - it should be easy - to create life in a laboratory today. But determined attempts have failed. International fame, a likely Nobel Prize, and $1 million from the Gene Emergence Project await the researcher who makes life on a lab bench. Still, no one has come close.

    And a hypothesis that I've been suggesting for several years based in theology and philosophy, plus a smattering of particle theory and quantum mechanics...

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/bigquestions.html?pg=3

    The quantum pioneer John Archibald Wheeler, perhaps the last surviving collaborator of both Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, poses this conundrum in oracular monosyllables: “It from bit.” For Wheeler, it is both an unanswered question and a working hypothesis, the idea that information gives rise, as he writes, to “every it - every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself.” This is another way of fathoming the role of the observer, the quantum discovery that the outcome of an experiment is affected, or even determined, when it is observed. “What we call reality,” Wheeler writes coyly, “arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions.” He adds, “All things physical are information-theoretic in origin, and this is a participatory universe.”

    If the universe is indeed made up of "information" (at the core of what makes the atomic structure) then it is both logical and simplistic to acknowledge the First Cause or Creator point of view. Biblical cosmology states emphatically that God "spoke" the universe into being from nothing.
  • said:

    No.

    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point. "Life" does not need to be carbon-based and made up of mostly water. That we happened to be that way is purely coincidental. We could just as well have been made out of methane and silicon.

    No. Xenobiologists have entertained these questions and have concluded that silicone, while sounding good in speculation, turns out to not be very good as a basis of life. What they're finding more and more is that life must look a lot like what we have here on Earth: carbon, water, amino acids, etc.
    said:

    While speculation exists about methane and silicon (plus a few other examples) life forms, the truth is that only carbon has the capacity for long-chain complex molecules...

    I was a silicone fan before they found this out.
    said:

    Okay, now you're just being silly. The "fine-tuned aspects" you're talking about vary over time and different values could just as likely produce a different type of life.

    If one of the constants were different by an infinitesimal amount, electrons would not orbit nuclei and matter would not form. It's not a matter of life being different, it's a matter of life being existent.
    said:

    like the lottery winner who looks back and see's a long chain of events that led to him buying that ticket with those numbers at precisely that moment; he fails to realize that all the other outcomes were not only possible but may have already been played out in other universes or times.

    People who espouse this "wish-upon-a-star" fantasy need to evaluate what science is finding. Science is finding there are no other numbers that could have won.
    said:

    Where people see good fortune or divine providence, physicists and cosmologists realize that our particular universe was no more likely to form than any other possibility.

    When you write "physicists and cosmologists realize," you're just making a statement about the philosophical positions of respected authorities. They haven't conducted a scientific test that necessitates that conclusion. Modern science could easily support the position that we seem to be more and more unique and special.
    said:

    I believe that you have fallen for a fallacy of imagination along with a few scientists, who are now proposing some of the weirdest stuff imaginable to "explain" how life arose on Earth.

    That's worth stressing. Ideas used to be simple: "primordial soup." As each idea is falsified, the ideas just get weirder and weirder, to the point where they are postulating incredible ad-hoc just-so conditions that start to resemble intelligent design. I predict this trend will only intensify in the coming years.
    said:

    over the past 10 years, a small group of academics have begun to look at religion in the same way: they've started to look at God and the supernatural through the lens of evolution.

    So much for NOMA... :rolleyes:
    image
  • said:

    said:

    No.

    Your problem is that you keep looking at everything from a human-centric point. "Life" does not need to be carbon-based and made up of mostly water. That we happened to be that way is purely coincidental. We could just as well have been made out of methane and silicon.

    No. Xenobiologists have entertained these questions and have concluded that silicone, while sounding good in speculation, turns out to not be very good as a basis of life. What they're finding more and more is that life must look a lot like what we have here on Earth: carbon, water, amino acids, etc.
    Oh OK cool, so scientists are only competent and their results are only valid when they fit your ideology. Also, this quite recent hypothesis MUST be wrong, because God.
  • said:

    Oh OK cool, so scientists are only competent and their results are only valid when they fit your ideology. Also, this quite recent hypothesis MUST be wrong, because God.

    ??? :/ :rolleyes:
  • said:

    said:

    Oh OK cool, so scientists are only competent and their results are only valid when they fit your ideology. Also, this quite recent hypothesis MUST be wrong, because God.

    ??? :/ :rolleyes:
    "Hurr durr scientists are blind, evolution is BS"

    =/=

    "Xenobiologists have a hypothesis so it MUST be true"
Sign In or Register to comment.