In the evening I walked through the town & returned full of admiration at the whole scene - It is a most magnificent testimony of the power of the British nation: here, in a less promising country, scores of years have effected many times over, more than centuries in South America. - My first feeling was to congratulate myself, that I was born an Englishman
I'm so unused to such a positive sense of identity from educated Anglos that this passage jumped out at me. Darwin observed that his own countrymen had in a few decades created a beautiful, well-ordered city in a difficult terrain - and he recognised the accomplishment.
Darwin also recorded his thoughts regarding the Aborigines. He was impressed with their hunting skills:
In their own arts they are admirable; a cap being fixed at 30 yards distance, they transfixed it with the spear ... In tracking animals & men they show a most wonderful sagacity.
However, he also observed that the Aborigines would not make use of opportunities to farm or to live a more settled life:
They will not however cultivate the ground, or even take the trouble of keeping flocks of sheep which have been offered them; or build houses & remain stationary
Nor did they give up their tribal warfare:
I should have mentioned that in addition to their state of independence of the Whites, the different tribes go to war. In an engagement which took place lately, the parties, very singularly, chose the centre of the village of Bathurst as the place of engagement; the conquered party took refuge in the Barracks
Darwin thought the numbers of Aborigines were declining:
The decrease in numbers must be owing to the drinking of Spirits, the European diseases, even the milder ones of which such as the Measles are very destructive, & the gradual extinction of the wild animals.
There's an interesting passage in the book in which Darwin expresses sympathy for families having to employ convict servants. He writes about the male convicts and then notes "The female servants are of course much worse". So perhaps the men of Darwin's generation did not thoughtlessly "white knight" all women as is sometimes claimed.
Although Darwin was unimpressed with certain aspects of the convict system, he nonetheless thought there was a positive larger outcome:
But as a means of making men outwardly honest - of converting vagabonds most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens of another, and thus giving birth to a new and splendid country - a grand centre of civilization - it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history.
25 comments:
Thanks for the post Mark.
It is good to see people proud of their culture.
I went to a wedding today and the minister did not mention Children in the ceremony.
I, being the insulting jerk that I am, went up to him afterwards privately and said that the purpose of marriage was to have children. He said that he did not mention children in the wedding ceremony because he did not want people who chose Not to Have Children or those Unable to Have Children to Feel Bad.
To Feel Bad.
???
I told him that his speech could apply to my best friend or my family. That I didn't need marriage to have that type of relationship.
I told him there was no point for those other couples to get married (not the ones who discover they are unable..but it would take years to find that out)
And even if a couple physically can't have kids....they can still then take Pride in Helping Their Other Family Members Raise Children. (I don't believe in stealing children from africa aka adoption)
Then I told him that his goal was to encourage his congregants to have kids because we are Going Extinct and There won't be any Christians in the world.
Now for the evil part...now remember I read CWNY and I'm a racist :)
I said the children thing to my mother on my way out, which was overheard by the ONE black woman there.
She proudly said "My husband and I can't have kids, you can be married and not have children" [FTR her happiness in her declartion made me think she didn't mind being childless]
So basically the black American woman (aka homo erectus 'who never allows white people to say anything that could offend them') Because of the fear of Offending This One Woman...the preacher has to get rid of all mention of THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE.
I thought it was very apropo that the woman was black. LOL
If this woman cared about her fellow white congregation (HA!), she'd be like "marriage is about children, though I am unable to conceive...I fulfill my marriage duty by taking an active part in helping my brother/sisters raise their children."
Anyways....that's my story...
So perhaps the men of Darwin's generation did not thoughtlessly "white knight" all women as is sometimes claimed.
Many Victorian men were extremely critical of women. To the extent that 'woman hater' was a generally understood adjective ascribed to some men.
Of course those 'woman haters' never wrote 'game' blogs with fictitious tales of their own cynical romantic conquests so this is all forgotten now.
Charles Darwin in Sydney, New South Wales: "My first feeling was to congratulate myself, that I was born an Englishman".
With 21st century Britain now litttle more than an anti-Christian debt-riddled basket-case, we no longer see or read of any, say, English politician publically declaring how pleased they are at being born an Englishman. Nor do we see or read of any British prime minister actually working for the good of the British nation (in the original meaning of the word), or for the good of Englishmen.
""So perhaps the men of Darwin's generation did not thoughtlessly "white knight" all women as is sometimes claimed.""
They did tend to do so to women of their own class I think it is fair to say.
To "all" women? hell no. The women of the underclass were held by polite society to be far the worse of their "dead-eyed" male companions.
""But as a means of making men outwardly honest - of converting vagabonds most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens of another, and thus giving birth to a new and splendid country - a grand centre of civilization - it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history.""
I think I need that as a tattoo. May hurt a little.
""Of course those 'woman haters' never wrote 'game' blogs with fictitious tales of their own cynical romantic conquests so this is all forgotten now.""
Now that is funny.
They did tend to do so to women of their own class I think it is fair to say.
Good point.
"I'm so unused to such a positive sense of identity from educated Anglos that this passage jumped out at me."
It made me laugh instantly when I read this line. Then very soon I began to feel pretty sad and disheartened. I have written an article to specifically criticize Australian's over-victimization of the aborigines and denial of its own Anglo-Saxon roots. People ought to be more proud of their roots and civilization in the developed world. I would argue the same to my own country, which also suffers a twisted raise-up-one-fist-to-punch-one's-own-face symptom.
The success of Australia in the past is a great example of the advancement of modern civilization, kids in Australia ought to take pride in that.
"But as a means of making men outwardly honest - of converting vagabonds most useless in one hemisphere into active citizens of another, and thus giving birth to a new and splendid country - a grand centre of civilization - it has succeeded to a degree perhaps unparalleled in history."
The trouble is, vagabonds ain't what they used to be.
Gilbert Pinfold.
Thanks for the post. I rarely hear about his views on nationalism (the discussion tends to be about evolution and Darwinianism).
Many Victorian men were extremely critical of women. To the extent that 'woman hater' was a generally understood adjective ascribed to some men.
Of course those 'woman haters' never wrote 'game' blogs with fictitious tales of their own cynical romantic conquests so this is all forgotten now.
Thanks for the info.
They (Victorian men) criticised women of their own class, too. Just read some good Victorian literature. Some of those stories were filmed by Hollywood with the misogynist parts being naturally edited out.
For English speaking readers, try some Dickens. In Pikwick club there is a moment when Sam's father tells him if he ever wishes to marry it would be better for him to go home and take a dose of poison immediately, or something to the point. How is this for MGTOW?
Dickens also mocked the feminised church and women who spent the time working for charities to save all the Africans while neglecting their own homes, husbands and children.
I recall Dickens was considered a little bit of a radical in his day though. Despite his popularity I don't know if his works really reflect Victorian attitudes.
He had an almost Romanticist disdain for the "grasping" new money oriented middle classes and they usually get a treatment in his books.
Then again so does everyone else.
"In the evening I walked through the town & returned full of admiration at the whole scene - It is a most magnificent testimony of the power of the British nation: here, in a less promising country, scores of years have effected many times over, more than centuries in South America..."
Indeed. Australia's rapid development from a far-flung penal colony into one of the world's most prosperous, developed, egalitarian societies within the space of a few generations is certainly testament to the resourcefulness, determination, intelligence and cultural prowess of the early British settlers. It was really was a most remarkable achievement.
Tragically, Australian schoolchildren are no longer taught the achievements of the early settlers. Rather, they are told that the British settlement of Australia was illegitimate as it resulted in the displacement of nomadic Aboriginal peoples. Australian history is taught as one long guilt trip, with students being incessantly reminded that Australia were settled atop indigenous skulls, so the land-grabbing descendants of those genocidal white racists have no right to claim this nation as their own, celebrate their nation-building achievements or resent being gradually displaced themselves by non-European newcomers.
A nation ashamed of its past to the point where it questions its own legitimacy is one without a future.
Genesis 2:21-22, "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
Genesis 11:9, "Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth." From Genesis 11:9, it is clear that languages were not diversified prior to the event of Genesis 11:9. Or in other words, human beings spoke one language prior to the event of Genesis 11:9..
Let’s assume that evolution could be true. As all animals and plants could be traced back to a common ancestor, the common ancestor must be one that has to be capable in asexual reproduction. The only living things that could be found to be asexual reproduction are archaea, bacteria, protists, algae and fungi. As all these living things are either micro-organisms or the selected plants instead of any other living things, it implies the common ancestor could be either micro-organism or the selected plants. There are a few queries have to be raised pertaining to the reliability of the source that has been used to support the evolution:
a)Biologists did successfully clone animals in the past and even to use the gene to improve the animals. However, what they clone, it just improves the living thing instead of modifying it into different kind of animals. If they would clone any animals, such as cow, they still produce cow at the end of the experiment without causing it to stream out into different kind of animal, such as giraffe or etc. Has there any experiment been performed in the past that could develop into a more complexity of animals, such as, from micro-organism to worm or fly or etc.? If none of the scientists have done the experiment successfully in converting micro-organism into a worm or fly or etc., other than merely a micro-organism, the evolutionary theory is simply a concept without being tested.
b)As the common ancestor could be micro-organism or a selected plant, it is simply without bone structure or could be one that could have either plant embryo or animal. As this common ancestor could be an algae or fungi or archaea or protists or etc., how could it be able to be developed into both plants and animals with complexity of bone structure? Did biologists perform the experiment successfully to convert any of these living things into a more complexity of animal, such as, worm or fly or etc.? Or else, the evolution theory is just a concept without being tested.
c)As this common ancestor could be either plant embryo or animal, how could it be able to stream out into plants as well as animals? Or in other words, how could this common ancestor be able to produce plant embryo as well as animal despite it was simply either micro-organism or plant? Did the biologists perform the experiment in the past successfully to cause micro-organism to be able to convert into both plants as well as animals with complexity of nature?
Refer to the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant under the sub-title of ‘Evolution’. A proposed phylogenetic tree of Plantae has been drawn. There are a few queries pertaining to the reliability of the evolution tree:
There is a great work done in joining plants from one to another to determine the process of evolution. However, a query has to be raised whether the tree of evolution has been drawn through fixing the plants that ought to be there due to by comparing of feature of plants instead of through testing and observing the nature that these could occur. Let’s give you an illustration: From the chart, it could come to the conclusion that Chlorophyta was the predecessor right before the plants, i.e.Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese. Did any biologists see or did perform experiment that Ulvophyoese could transform into Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese as well as Trebouxiophyoese in the past? If they did not do the experiment and just fixed them into the evolution tree due to the feature and/or the nature of these plants, it implies that there was no eye-witness or experiment did in the past to prove that Ulvophyoese could be able to evolve to Ulvophyoese, Cholrophyoese and Trebouxiophyoese.
Some biologists might comment that evolution tree might be done through thousands and thousands of individual bits of data–observations made in the real world, testable and repeatable by anyone who takes the time to look. Things like the shapes of bones and how they fit together, genetic sequences, behaviors, developmental sequences, shared features with fossil forms and so on. As they did not perform the test whether the plants or animals could be transformed in accordance to the evolution tree that has been drawn, there could be a possibility that the evolution could not be workable as what has been laid out in the evolution tree. Besides, the plants could have been created in the beginning with identical features and they were not the result of evolution.
There are quite a number of sophisticated animals in this world could be able to perform asexual reproduction. Could there be any possibility that a common ancestor could be an animal instead of micro-organism or plant?Let’s assume that this common ancestor could be a sophisticated animal since many of these animals in this world could perform asexual reproduction and these include bees, ants, wasps, scorpions, hammerhead, sharks and the Komodo Dragon. Despite these animals could perform asexual reproduction, it is irrational to assume that the common ancestor of all living things could be an animal for the following reasons: i)It is irrational to assume that the common ancestor could start up with an animal. This is due to the so-called, animal (common ancestor), has to develop backward into micro-organism instead of evolving into a more complexity of living thing. As all living things have been assumed by evolutionists to have a common ancestor, this so-called, animal (common ancestor), would evolve into micro-organism, this certainly contradicts the teaching of evolution theory since this animal (common ancestor) has to be grown backward instead of evolving. ii)If the common ancestor could be an animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to have plant embryo, animal as well as micro-organism? As it is irrational to have such a common ancestor as animal to reproduce offspring to have plant embryo as well as micro-organism, how could the common ancestor be a sophisticated animal? iii)If the common ancestor could be a vertebrate animal, how could this animal be able to turn up to have its offspring to develop into invertebrate offspring and vice versa? iv)According to the evolution’s theory, living things should have been evolved from time to time. It is rational to assume that living things should be started up with micro-organism instead of from the complexity of animal. This is due to it would have started to evolve from the initial living thing to the ultimate complexity of creature.
Awaiting the arrival of my fiance, I listened to bill bryson's book ... I had a great time, and when he mentioned darwin's looks I googled on ... Found the blogs ... Fun stuff guys!
Alas, i'm just a dumb sports writer with no opinions on all the aussie stuff, but I had fun reading your opinions!
Go utesz
I wouldnt do the annony thing, but at 10,000 at the cabin using only my phone it was hard enough!p
Refer to the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1698033/pdf/12952654.pdf, pertaining to the advantages of hair loss. However, there are more reasons that the hair loss among human beings could not bring about the advantages of human beings and this brings the query about why there have to be hair loss among animals and in turn, the query about the reliability of evolution: a)It is mentioned in this website that humans evolved hairlessness to reduce parasite loads, especially ectoparasites that may carry disease. This might seem to be true at a glance. However, this could not be true on our heads since the hair on our heads could keep on growing and this would lead to ultimate parasite loads if it were uncut for more than 30 years. The total mass of the hair that a person would keep for 30 years would be a number of times heavier than the hair that has grown up in apes’ body. The only thing that causes human beings to differ from apes is the hair among the apes has been distributed over their bodies and yet human beings’ hair is concentrated on their heads. When we compare the hair from human beings and apes, human beings could be parasite loads, whether in length or in mass, when the hair was uncut for more than 30 years. Thus, the hair among human beings could not reduce parasite loads. Instead, it might turn up to be the other way round to increase parasite loads on the condition that human beings did not cut their hair for more than 30 years. Thus, the hair loss among human beings and to cause it to grow continuously over the head might increase parasite loads and causes a disadvantage to human beings if their hair were uncut for more than 30 years. The over-concentration of hair growth on heads would not show any advantage in the long run since it would increase parasite loads.
Biologists have used atavisms and ERVs to support evolution theory.
Refer to the website addresses, http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/atavism-embryology-development-and-evolution-843, pertaining to the explanation of atavisms. The following are the extracts:
Humans do not have tails, but do we have “what it takes” for a tail? Hens don’t have teeth, but they have the genes for it. With atavism, it is as if our genomes serve as archives of our evolutionary past.
The following are the possibilities that atavisms might not be the good source to support evolution:
1)The appearance of atavisms among living things in the past might not give the implication that certain animals could be evolved from another due to it might be the result of the poor condition of the genes or DNA or sperms or menses or etc., itself that would have led to the exceptional physical shortfalls or the excessive and extraordinary growth in the physical bodies by accident that have nothing to do with evolution.
Refer to the websites addresses below for abnormal growth of certain parts of their bodies among animals in the past: http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/showthread.php?t=6176, http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kashvet.org/oasis/wp- http://parkviewgallery.com/abnormal-animal-, picturescontent/uploads/2008/11/image099.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kashvet.org/oasis/pathological/bovine-fetal-mummification/&h=398&w=554&sz=65&tbnid=EDw-IFHW0vusMM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=126&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dabnormal%2Banimals%2Bpictures%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=abnormal+animals+pictures&docid=Dm0Lz2oFMRhfvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AmN6TpyoH8jjrAePp8CsDw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAw&dur=703.
From the above pictures of the websites address, could a person come to the conclusion that living things could have their ancestors with more than one head due to pigs and human beings, turtles and etc., could give birth to their offspring with more than a head? Could a person comment that his ancestor could be born with three legs by seeing the horse that has been born with three legs? Could a person mention that his ancestor could be born with eyes balls without eyes pupils just judging that there have been blind men or women that have been born without eyes pupils? Could a person comment that his ancestor could be born with six fingers per hand simply by judging that there are human beings that have been born with six fingers from time to time? Could a person comment that his ancestor, i.e. the animal, could be mentally retarded, by judging that some human beings are born to be so even though their parents are physically healthy? Thus, it is irrational to use the abnormal growth of living thing, such as, fingers, tail, extra bones, and etc., to arrive at a conclusion that this animal should be the ancestor of this or that for the support of evolution. This is due to atavisms might be occurred in accident or as a result of the poor condition as well as malfunction of gene or DNA or sperms or menses that might have led to abnormal growth or the weakness in genes that ultimately might have led to physical shortfalls or the excessive growth of flesh, bones and etc., that would seem to look alike as certain features of other ancestors.
2)Atavisms might also occur as a result of external factors that would influence the genes or DNAs or etc. to cause abnormal growth that would have led to animals with extraordinary feature that could not be found commonly among them, such as, tail from human beings in the past or skeleton that seems to be leg from whale or etc. This might not be able to serve as an evidence if this were merely the cause of flesh and bone that have grown abnormally due to certain bad physical condition of genes and DNA as a result of the influence of external factors, such as, the poor physical bodies of their parents that give rise to poor genes; or the illnesses of their parents that could cause the defect of genes or DNA to the ultimate formation of abnormal living things; or the direct attack and influence of bacteria that could ultimately cause the genes or DNA to be in defect; or etc. This ultimately would lead to animals to have given birth to offspring to have the co-incidence that have the feature that could not be found commonly among their kind of animals instead, from others.
Refer to the website address, http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=3914, pertaining to the evidence that ERVs could be used as an evidence to support evolution theory. The following are the reasons that ERVs might not be suitable to be used as an evidence to support evolution theory:
1)There could be a possibility that a living thing would have been created initially to have the identical feature or ERVs or genes or DNA or pattern or anatomy or genomes or etc., as others co-incidentally instead of by means of evolution. If that could be so during the creation, it is irrational to arrive at the conclusion that this animal could be the ancestor of the others by means of comparing the similarities of genes or DNA; or the similarities of loci in the genomes; or etc.
2)As there are only a few animals in the fossils, such as, dinosaurs fossils, could be dug out by archeologists and yet the population of the animals that are in the fossils in the past should be more than hundred or million especially at the place where the fossils have been dug out, there places a possibility about the missing fossils in which many animals, such as, dinosaurs, would have their bones and skulls to turn into dust and vanished in the ground. If that could be so, the arrangement of animals in the timeline of homo sapiens would be in question. For instance, how could we know that human beings were once alive prior to 15 Ma? Biologists have placed human beings after the apes’ period was due to they could not locate any human skulls prior to 15 Ma. What if human beings did exist prior to 15 Ma and yet their bones and skulls would have been vanished under the ground and this would have resulted that no evidence could prove the existence of human beings prior to 15 Ma. This certainly would turn the timeline upside down that biologists might suggest that human beings would evolve to apes. Thus, the possibility of missing fossils has placed the reliability of timeline of homo sapiens into question.
3)Biologists did not perform experiment to ensure that human beings could be evolved from animals. Besides, nobody in this world did have eye-witness that animals could evolve from one to another. Thus, their theory simply is not tested. This places the reliability of evolution theory to be in question.
4)The irregularity of probabilities of genes as well as DNA in the website address, http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof83.htm, pertaining to DNA sequence in the genome of other organisms has placed the reliability of evolution theory into question.
The probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein are extracted from the website address above as follows: Chimpanzee (100%); Dog (99%); Mouse (99%); Chicken (75%); Fruitfly (60%); and Roundworm (35%). From the list of the probabilities of the human gene sequence that codes for protein, it is obvious that there is an irregularity of human gene among these animals. The probability for roundworm (35%) is lesser than fruitfly (60%) despite the size of the roundworm might be comparatively bigger than the fruitfly. Not only that, mouse should be smaller in size than chicken and yet its probability could be far as high as 99%. In comparison of the capability to adapt the environment or in terms of size, dog could be no much better than chimpanzee and yet the probability of the dog could be as high as 99%. As there is an irregularity of probability of human gene sequence that codes for protein among the animals above, it places the query about the reliability of evolution theory into question. This is due to it is rational to think that the smallest animals could have the lowest probability of human genes than the biggest as a result of evolution. The initial common ancestor might well be small in size. As and when the animals keep on evolving, the creatures would turn up to be bigger in size in each evolution with the improvement in the development of gene. As the probabilities of human gene sequence that codes for protein show irregular genes among animals, it does not seem to provide a clue that existing animals would have been formed from evolution. Why should there be an irregularity of human gene that codes for protein among animals?
The probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes could not code for proteins among different animals are listed below: Chimpanzee (98%); Dog (52%); Mouse (40%); Chicken (4%); Fruitfly (-0%); and Roundworm (-0%). Again, despite the mouse is smaller in size as compared to chicken, yet the probability of human DNA that could be located in mouse is much higher than it. The dog is slightly bigger in size as compared to chicken and yet the probability of human DNA could be as high as 52%. Thus, the probabilities of human random DNA segment between genes among animals are irregular. As there are irregularities of probability of DNA among the animals, it is hard to use these variations to conclude animals would have been evolved from time to time.
Some biologists might comment that the adverse evolution from complexity of animals to simplicity was merely the result of genetic deletion. The following are the website addresses for the proof that biologists did perform successfully in causing the change of feature of animals through genetic deletion or insertion or duplication or even amplification:
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_65878.asp, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5221/230.short,
http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org/content/37/3/249.full, http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/17460913.2.3.309?journalCode=fmb, http://sommeil.univ-lyon1.fr/articles/valatx/jsr_99/print.php
Despite genetic deletion or insertion or amplification or etc. has been performed successfully upon mice or even bacteria, they could only alter the feature of the living thing, such as, changing its characteristics or behaviour or etc. However, they could not transform that living thing, such as, bacteria, into another type, such as, bee or etc. Or in other words, when a genetic deletion or insertion or etc. would be performed on a specific animal, such as, mice, the end result still remains as that animal, i.e. mice, instead of creating a new creature. As they could not transform the more complexity of animals into simplicity through genetic deletion or vice versa, it is irrational to use genetic deletion or insertion or amplification or etc. to support that animals could be evolved from one to another through one of these methods since biologists could only change the feature of animals instead of creating new creatures through these experiments.
There is a shortfall of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory supports that all creatures have its derivation from a single cell in the beginning. However, there would be a number of new cells to be created in the beginning on the condition that the environmental condition at that time could be suitable for the production of new cell. Why should there be only one and only cell to be created when the surrounding condition would seem best for the creation of living thing? If there could be one and only cell to be created at that time, what made it to be so so that there could only be one cell to be formed? If there would be more than a single cell to be created at that time due to the environmental condition, evolutionary theory is in question since how all creatures would have a common ancestor when there might be a number of cells to be created at that time.
If many cells or more complex creatures would be created in the beginning of all living things due to the good environmental factors at that that to ease their creation, there would be one or more identical cells or more complex creatures to be created at that time that would likely be evolved into creatures that have the identical genes or DNA. As there would be likely to have this incidence due to the mass production of new cells or new creatures as a result of the good enviornmental condition that would deem best for the creation of all living things, the tracing of common ancestor of all living things might not be justifiable due to living things might not have come from the same cell or same creature from the beginning of their creation instead, they could be from cells or more complex creatures that would have the identical feature that would have the opportunity to be developed into creatures with identical DNA or genes provided that evolutionary theory is reliable. If that could be true, the tracing of all living things from a common ancestor would be in question since there might not be any link from one creature to another due to the co-incidence of creation of many cells or many more complex creatures with identical feature in the beginning of all living things that would have the opportunity to be developed into creatures with identical DNA or genes but yet their common ancestors might well differ.
Post a Comment