CARL WOESE ȘI MOARTEA DARWINISMULUI

Foto: Carl Richard Woese (1912-2012)

Publicăm a șasea și ultima parte a recenziei cărții lui A.N. Wilson, publicată anul trecut, Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker (“Charles Darwin, făuritor de mit”). Părțile anterioare pot fi accesate pe situl web AFR: http://www.alianta-familiilor.ro/charles-darwin-adio-teorie/.

Comentariul de astăzi se axează în mod special pe ultimele capitole ale cărții care explică influența darwinismului și a evoluționismului asupra marxismului, ateismului si miscările nehiliste si totalitare ale Secolelor XIX si XX. Începem comentariul de astazi însă cu un mic rezumat a unui vast articol publicat în luna august de New York Times care sprijină una din temele majore ale cărții lui Wilson si pe care am redat-o deja de mai multe ori in comentariile noastre precedente: evoluționismul e in derivă, își modifică tezele incipiente de la zi la zi pentru a le face compatibile cu noile descoperiri stiintifice care in loc de a confirma evolutionismul il dovedesc a fi fals. In alte cuvinte e vorba de o incercare sustinută a adeptilor darwinismului de a mentine relevantă teoriei evolutioniste a lui Darwin pentru zilele in care trăim iar evolutionismul compatibil cu noile descoperiri din domeniul geneticii si biologiei. O temă fundamentală a cartii lui Wilson este că evolutionismul in forma lui clasică e pe moarte. Unul din oamenii de stiință care i-au dat o lovitura de moarte este putin cunoscutul om de stiință american Carl Richard Woese.

 

Carl Woese încurcă ițele darwinismului

Pe 13 august New York Times a publicat un articol de peste 20 de pagini care confirma lipsa de viabilitate a darwinismului la inceputul Mileniului III si incercarile disperate ale adeptilor darwinismului sa-i mentina relevanta. Articolul discuta viata si descoperirile in domeniul biologiei moleculare ale lui Carl Woese, microbiolog la Universitatea din Illinois, pe care autorul il numeste The Scientist who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of Life (“Omul de stiinta care a modificat pomul vietii a lui Darwin”).Subtitlul articolului e “How the microbiologist Carl Woese fundamentally changed the way we think about evolution and the origins of life”  (“Cum microbiologul Carl Woese a schimbat in mod fundamental felul in care gandim despre evolutionism si originea vietii”) Articolul poate fi citit aici: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/magazine/evolution-gene-microbiology.html.
Woese a inceput sa puna darwinismul si evolutionismul la indoiala inca din 1977. New York Times il numeste “the most important biologist of the 20th century that you’ve never heard of” (“cel mai important biolog al Secolului XX de care nimeni nu a auzit”). Motivul este deoarece Woese a descoperit aspecte ale compozitiei noastre moleculare care “fundamentally reshaped what we think we know about life’s history, the process of evolution and the functional parts of living beings, including ourselves” (“au redefinit in mod fundamental ce credem ca stim despre istoria vietii, procesul evolutiei si partile functionale ale fiintelor vii, inclusiv noi”). In anii 90 Woese a facut niste descoperiri importante care au dovedid ca gindirea darwinista clasica “was inadequate” (“a fost inadecvata”). De fapt, New York Timesil considera pe Woese atit de important in modificarea gindirii evolutioniste cum a fost Martin Luther in domeniul crestinismului si teologiei, adaugind la crestinism o a treia ramura principala, protestantismul. Woese, afirma New York Times, “was the foremost challenger and modifier of Darwinian orthodoxy” (Woese “a fost cel mai important provocator si modificator al ortodoxiei darwiniste”)
Woese a demonstrat, zice autorul, ca “we are not precisely who we thought we were. We are composite creatures, and our ancestry seems to arise from a dark zone of the living world a group of creatures about which science, until recent decades, was ignorant. Evolution is trickier, far more complicated than we realized.” (“Nu suntem exact ceea ce am crezut ca suntem. Suntem creaturi complexe, si originea noastra pare sa se traga dintr-o zona obscura a lumii vietatilor, un grup de creaturi despre care stiinta, pina acum citeva decenii, nu stia nimic7. Evolutia e mult mai complicata si insalatoare decit am crezut”) De fapt, in opinia lui Woese, contrar darwinismului, fiinta umana isi trage origininea nu din maimute ci din alte surse.
Spre anii tirzii ai vietii, Woese a inceput sa-l dispretuiasca pe Darwin gasindu-i teoriile si rationamentele stranii si invalidate de descoperirile din domeniul microbiologiei si biologiei moleculare. In cuvintele autorului, “as Woese got older … he harbored an increasing disdain for Charles Darwin, distinct from but alongside his disdain for microbiology.” (“In masura in care a imbatrinit Woese a tinut simtaminte de dispret fata de Charles Darwin, distincte de, dar simultan cu dispretul pentru microbiologie”) De ce? Pentru ca, in opinia lui Woese “Darwin himself, and the neo-Darwinian synthesis of ideas that became orthodoxy during the 20th century, saw evolutionary change as inherintly incremental and gave litttle attention to the processes of inheritance, variation and reproduction as they occur among microbes, as opposed to animals and plants.” (“Darwin insusi, si sincretismul ideilor neo-darwiniste care au devenit dogma in Secolul XX, au vazut schimbarile evolutive ca fiind relativ mici si nu au acordat atentia necesara proceselor ereditare, varietii si reproductive care se produc in microbi, spre deosebire de animale si plante”).
Asta insa nu inseamna ca Woese este teist ori ca a promulgat o teorie creationista a originii speciei umane. Discutam pozitiile lui doar pentru a demonstra una din temele principale ale articolelor noastre si ale cartii lui Wilson: evolutionismul darwinist e in deriva, se mentine tot mai greu pe linia de plutire si descoperirile stiintifice din ultimele decenii contrazic evolutionismul darwinist in formele lui originale si clasice. In alte cuvinte, Darwin devine tot mai irelevant teoriei darwiniste si tezele lui tot mai marginalizate.
 

Nihilismul lui Darwin

In multe privinte Darwin nu a practicat ce a propovaduit. O formula centrala in teoria evolutionismului a fost procrearea, proces care in opinia lui Darwin elimina speciile slabe si le perpetueaza pe cele mai putermice si bine adaptate mediului. Darwin a fost, insa, perplexat de faptul ca, spre deosebire de lumea animalelor, societatea civila isi protejaza membrii vulnerabili si cauta sa le pastreze viata. In Orginea Omului Darwin lamenteaza faptul ca fiintele umane au abrogat procesul natural de eliminare a elementelor slabe din societate, ceea ce duce la slabirea vitalitatii rasei umane. Eliminarea speciilor slabe e o regula la animale, dar la fiintele umane ea nu e aplicata ceea ce, in opinia lui Darwin este “highly injurious to the race of man” (“dauneaza grav rasei umane”) (Pagina 311) Din aceasta perspectiva, Darwin a sugerat ca fiintele umane inteligente sa nu se casatoreasca cu cele mai putin inteligente, iar societatea civila sa interzica saracilor si celor needucati sa aduca copii pe lume.
Aceasta doctrina a lui Darwin, zice Wilson, a generat eugenismul modern. Ideile eugeniste ale lui Darwin au devenit foarte populare in Germania, fiind promovate in special de Ernst Haeckel (1934-1919). Haeckel a construit piramida raselor umane, asezind rasa negroida la baza piramidei si rasa aryana in virful ei. Darwin a corespondat cu Haeckel. In septembrie 1874 Haeckle i-a scris lui Darwin ca “darwinismul a facut progres mare in Germania in ultimii ani, in mod special printre filosofi”. Haeckel promova idea ca selectia naturala, aplicata in lumea animalelor, trebuia aplicata si in domeniul raselor umane. Haeckel e creditat de darwinisti pentru ca a “transformat evolutionismul intr-o religie a germanilor, o religie fara creatie, Dumnezeu, rai sau iad”. (Pagina 319)
Darwin a devenit, de fapt, ateu. Asta e convingerea si concluzia finala a lui Wilson. Wilson respinge notiunea ca Darwin ar fi re-descoperit credinta in divinitate spre sfirsitul vietii. Wilson reda citeva fraze dintr-o scrisoare trimisa de Darwin unui nobil rus, Nicolai Aleksandrovich Mengden,  care l-a intrebat daca crede in Dumnezeu. Darwin ii raspunde: “sunt ocupat si inaintat in virsta si cu sanatatea subreda. Stiinta nu are nimic de a face cu Hristos. .. Cit despre mine, nu cred ca vreodata a existat revelatie” divina. (Pagina 320) Cu adevarat Darwin era batrin, daca nu in ani, in suflet. La 62 de ani afirma despre sine insusi: “ma simt atit de batrin ca Metusala”. Iar la 72 de ani, Darwin re-confirma din nou ca nu crede in Divinitate, intr-o scrisoare adresata avocatului britanic Francis McDermott. Intrebat de acesta daca crede in Noul Testament, Darwin raspunde la subiect: “Noiembrie 24, 1880: Stimate Domn, regret sa va informez ca nu cred in Biblie ca fiind o carte de revelatie divina si deci nu cred in Iisus Hristos ca Fiu a lui Dumnezeu.” (Pagina 352) Ironic, in 2015 aceasta scurta scrisoare trimisa de Darwin lui McDermott a fost vinduta la licitatie cu 197.000 de lire sterline.
Au fost anii in care Darwin a lucra la a sasea si ultima editie a Originii Speciilor, modificind treptat ideile evolutioniste originale ale primei editii atit de mult incit, in opinia lui Wilson, ultima editie “almost … contradicted … the original sunny confidence of evolutionism” (“aproape ca a contrazis confidenta naiva originara a evolutionismului”). Tot in acei ani Darwin scrie si ultimul manuscris al vietii lui in care incearca sa explice de ce fiintele umane sunt atit de diferite de animale. De ce oamenii vorbesc dar maimutele nu? De ce fiintele umane cred intr-o Divinitate si se inchina unei Fiinte Supreme dar animalele nu? De ce fiintele umane se gindesc la viata dupa moarte si vesnicie dar animalele nu? Acestor intrebari relevante, scrie Wilson, nici Darwin nici adeptii lui nu le-au putut da raspunsuri cit de cit convingatoare.
 
Darwin si Marx
Darwin a fost si un simpatizant a lui Karl Marx, un lucru care se reliefeaza in corespondenta lui cu Marx si gindurile pe care cei doi si le-au impartasit. Karl Marx i-a trimis lui Darwin editia a doua a lui Das Kapital (1873) iar Darwin i-a trimis o nota de apreciere, confimind ca cei doi, cu toate ca au avut pasiuni intelectuale diferite, au “extins cunostinta … si vor aduce fericire si bunastare omenirii”. (Pagina 328) Cercetatorii, insa, au descoperit ca Darwin nici macar nu a deschis exemplarul lui Das Kapital trimis lui de Marx. Engels, insa, i-a contopit pe cei doi, afirmind in eulogia facuta de el cu prilejul mortii lui Marx, ca “asa dupa cum Darwin a descoperit legile evolutiei in natura umana, Marx a descoperit legile evolutiei in istoria omenirii”. (Pagina 328) Fara indioala in afirmatia lui Engles exista un simbure de adevar. Darwin si Marx au propovaduit eliminarea unui grup de fiinte de catre altele, Darwin a speciilor slabe de catre cele tari prin selectie naturala, iar Marx a asupritorilor de catre cei asupriti prin lupta de clasa.
Ideile au consecinte, iar ideile gresite cauzeaza victime. Acest adevar se aplica cu multa acuratete si lui Darwin. Ideile lui au fost imbratisate de Hitler si de alti tirani ai Secolului XX. Asta e una din concluziile finale ale lui Wilson: “Este corect sa afirmam ca Darwin a avut o influenta directa si dezastruoasa nu doar asupra lui Hitler ci in intregime asupra intregii gindiri politice de la mijlocul Secolului XX” (“It remains fair, however, to say that Darwin was a direct and disastruous influence, not only on Hitler, but on the whole mid-twentieth-century political mindset”) (Pagina 346)
Ironic, Marx si Darwin au murit in acelasi deceniu al Secolului XIX si in aceasi tara, Marea Britanie, Darwin in 1882 si Marx in 1883. Impactul lor, iar mai tirziu a lui Freud, insa, a fost imens. In doar citiva zeci de ani inainte de moartea celor doi si dupa moartea lor s-a produs in Marea Britanie o decrestinizare in masa a clasei intelectuale britanice fara precedent. Cei doi, impreuna cu Freud, au construit o platforma stiintifica materialista, care, insa, devine tot mai subreda de la zi la zi. Intelectualii britanici au devenit infometati dupa o “religie noua”. Una pe care au gasit-o in religia secularismului, o religie de care Occidentul inca sufere si al carei sfarsit inca nu se vede pe orizont. In final, insa, e posibil ca adevarul sa fie acela exprimat de Lord Salisbury in 1894 vorbind despre evolutionism: “we live in a small bright oasis of knowledge surrounded on all sides by a vast unexplored region of impenetrable mystery” (“traim intr-o oaza stralucitoare si mica de cunostinte dar care e imprejurata din toate partile de o regiune vasta si neexplorata a misterului”) Cuvintele lui Lord Salisbury ne amintesc de cele scrise acum 2000 de ani pentru noi de Apostolul Pavel: cunoastem in parte si stim in parte, dar intr-o zi, cind vom fi cu Dumnezeu vom sti totul. Acesta este adevarul. Pina atunci ramine sa avem credinta ca lucrurile sunt asa cum ne-au fost date in Sfintele Scripturi.
 
ROMANIA’S MARRIAGE REFERENDUM – A PRIMER FOR OUR ENGLISH READERS
Some of our readers are English speakers and we have prepared an explanatory note for them showing why last month’s marriage referendum in Romania failed. We publish a few paragraphs from our note and the complete commentary can be accessed here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-costea/the-blood-bath-that-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-romanias-marriage-amendment/1450733001696758/
 
The Blood Bath that Wasn’t Supposed to Happen: Romania’s Marriage Amendment
In less than three (3) weeks, at the end of September and the beginning of October, the European Union, Romania’s main political parties, politicians, mass media and social media trolls succeeded in annihilating the greatest democratic endeavor in Romania’s post-communist era: the defeat of the citizens-initiated constitutional amendment to enact natural marriage in Article 48 of Romania’s Constitution. I was there for the last two (2) weeks of the campaign crisscrossing the country, campaigning in earnest and witnessing for myself the collapse of democratic intercourse and the blood bath left behind by the concerted attacks against the referendum by the European Union and its lackeys in Romania. How did this come to be and what motivated the aggressiveness of the opponents?
By way of background, in November 2015 a group of Romanian citizens initiated a constitutional amendment to enact the institution of natural marriage between a man and a woman in Romania’s Constitution. They needed the backing of half a million valid signatures for this purpose but instead got 3 million in the required six (6) months. In the summer of 2016 the amendment was ruled constitutional by Romania’s Constitutional Court, and it was then voted and approved by a large margin in Romania’s lower chamber of Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, in May 2017. Bickering among Romania’s political parties over the amendment led to repeated and frivolous appeals to Romania’s Constitutional Court, and the country’s President, Mr. Klaus Iohannis, who is to take up the Presidency of the European Union for six (6) months in the first half of next year, also positioned himself against the proposed amendment. All appeals were exhausted by late spring 2018 and on September 11, 2018 Romania’s Senate adopted the amendment with a vote of 107 to 13.
By law, the amendment was to be put to a vote in a national referendum within thirty (30) days of its adoption in the Senate. The Government scheduled the referendum for the weekend of October 6 and 7, giving the citizens only a little over three (3) weeks, 24 days to be precise, to campaign in favor or against the constitutional proposal. However, this time period was further reduced by a week because, according to Romanian law, the Constitutional Court had to validate the amendment a second time. The second validation, by a vote of 7 to 2, came down on September 17, but the Court’s ruling only became effective upon its publication on September 18 in the Government’s official legal publication. Only on September 17 was it entirely clear that the referendum would actually take place, allowing the citizens only nineteen (19) days of effective campaigning, not even three (3) full weeks. Citizens scrambled to mobilize the public for the referendum, draw up posters, flyers, banners, and obtain permits from city halls to place and disseminate campaign materials in public forae.
Another major challenge was the requirement of a voter turnout threshold to validate the amendment, which required that at least 30% of all of Romania’s eligible voters actually vote. This turned out to be an immense challenge because millions of Romanians live abroad, mainly in Western Europe and in the Republic of Moldova. According to Romania’s official records, there are nearly 19 million Romanian citizens with the right to vote around the globe, of whom nearly 6 million had to vote to validate the amendment. In contrast, most Western democracies do not impose a turnout threshold, the Irish referendum of 2015 on gay marriage being validated by the vote of only 1.2 million votes.
The wording of the amendment on the ballot was also confusing. It merely asked citizens to vote “yes” or “no” in response to the question “do you agree with the law adopted by the Parliament for the revision of the Constitution?” It did not state, as one would expect, “do you agree with defining marriage in Article 48 of the Constitution as the union between a man and a woman?” Unlike the United States, Romania’s laws do not allow citizens to challenge the wording of a ballot initiative. The wording is a template written into law, not by government officials, and cannot be attacked in courts. People were confused and concerned that the amendment was an underhanded scheme of sorts of the ruling socialist government which to this day remains the most unpopular government in Romania since December 1989. For this reason disinformation spread online like wildfire that the referendum was a “socialist scheme” designed to mislead honest and well-intended citizens.
In the end, however, 3,857,308 eligible Romanian voters voted around the world, of whom 3,531,732 voted in favor of the amendment, or 93.40% of the total. This equaled 21.1% of all eligible voters. By way of comparison, the highest adoption rate of any marriage amendments in the United States was in Tennessee with slightly over 81%. Had there been no threshold required, the marriage amendment today would be part of Romania’s Constitution backed by an adoption rate unprecedented anywhere in the world. But when one considers the challenges, in retrospect it seems extraordinary that even one in five eligible Romanian voters voted.
But for the concerted efforts of the European Union, Romania’s political parties, politicians, and the mass media, Romania would have become the fifteenth state in the Council of Europe to define marriage in its natural sense as the union between a man and a woman in its Constitution.
Europe’s socialists railed against the referendum and, in their typical arrogant fashion, lectured Romania’s socialist government to do everything it could to ensure the referendum would not pass. Back in late September, Euractiv reported that on September 26 leaders of the socialist group in the European Parliament met with Romania’s Prime Minister, whose socialist democratic party is the ruling party in Romania, asking Romania’s socialists to stand up “against the constitutional change to ban same-sex marriage.” Discussions were heated and shouts were heard even by those standing outside the chambers where the conversations occurred, as socialist leaders raised their voices at their Romanian counterparts. The raised voices had an impact. Before the meeting, Romania’s socialists pushed all along for the referendum but, upon returning home, announced they would no longer campaign in favor of the amendment.
Romania’s other political parties fell in line as well, including those who consider themselves politically on the right. More egregiously even, during the actual campaign, politicians aligned with conservative parties filed complaints against nongovernmental and civic organizations which put up billboards in support of the amendment, claiming that they violated applicable campaign laws. City halls around Romania moved in earnest to compel the removal of the banners deemed to violate the laws. Curiously, the same city halls previously approved the display of the same banners and in the same venues. One extreme example involved a church which draped its frontispiece with a huge banner asking people to vote for the amendment. City hall compelled the church to take down the banner, but after sustained public outcry, the mayor’s office backed down. No due process or avenues to challenge the ad hoc decrees of city halls and mayors were available to the public. Banners were ordered removed on a whim upon the filing of a mere citizen’s complaint. In the western city of Timisoara, City Hall decreed the halting of dissemination in public of flyers who were deemed offensive to same sex couples which noted that same-sex marriage would hurt children. These are just some of the many examples which back up the notion of an entirely chaotic campaign.
Courts were impotent and seemed unable to discern between campaign laws applicable to routine elections and those applicable to referenda, especially citizens’ initiated campaigns. This referendum was the first citizens-initiated referendum in Romania’s history.
The psychological war against the referendum was also fueled by a dissenting opinion appended to the September 17, 2018 Constitutional Court ruling where the dissenting judge portrayed Romania’s citizens who subscribe to the “traditional view of marriage” as owing their views to a “retrograde vision” which was seemingly in conflict with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
Many of Romania’s politicians encouraged the citizens to boycott the referendum. This would be unthinkable for citizens of the American republic where no politician would dare encourage citizens not to vote. On the contrary, in most democracies citizens are encouraged to vote and in some, like Australia, they are penalized, albeit nominally, if they do not.
Romania’s mass media coverage of the referendum was also a complete failure. It seldom invited supporters of the referendum to appear on shows, and it focused on largely irrelevant issues, such as “discrimination against sexual minorities” and the high cost of the referendum, around $50 million, which, the critics said, could have been put to better use, such as building schools or hospitals. Not on a few occasions the only guests to appear on shows were trolls who delivered diatribes for minutes on end without being interrupted.
The Romanian marriage referendum failed and it is uncertain that it will ever be put to a vote again. Nevertheless, the positive outcomes must be noted as well: 3.5 million citizens battled confusion, threats, the politicians’ opprobrium, the scorn of Europe’s left and the relentless attacks of social media trolls, and voted for natural marriage. The referendum was free, no doubt. But also it was not fair. Had all citizens voted, very likely 90% or more of all eligible voters would have voted in favor of the amendment. But the 30% threshold, undemocratic in my opinion, doomed it to fail. Nevertheless, even though the referendum failed, one can say that this exercise in democracy was an unofficial plebiscite of sorts, similar to the one held in Australia in 2017, where citizens expressed their view on marriage very clearly. In the Australian plebiscite a little over 38% of the citizens supported keeping natural marriage as the normative family institution in Australia. In this respect the Romanian outcome was certainly crushing. The votes in favor of the amendment were also unusually high among the Romanian’s living in Western Europe where more than 100,000 of them voted. This shows they were well aware of the consequences of same sex marriage in the countries where they work wanting to ensure that they do not replicate in Romania.
For now, same sex marriage in Romania remains forbidden by explicit legislation and marriage continues to be defined in the country’s Civil Code as the union of a man and a woman. Changing the law will be challenging because it requires a vote of 60% or more of the Parliament. It is doubtful this will happen in the near future or even in midterm. When 3.5 million Romanians tell politicians they want to preserve natural marriage as the norm in their country it would be foolish for those who represent them in the Parliament to legislate otherwise. At least for now. [Link: https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-costea/the-blood-bath-that-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-romanias-marriage-amendment/1450733001696758/]
 
ARTICOLUL 16 DIN DECLARATIA UNIVERSALA A DREPTURILOR OMULUI
Articolul 16 din Declaratia Universala a Drepturilor Omului afirma: “Cu incepere de la implinirea virstei legale, barbatul si femeia, fara nici o restrictie in ce priveste rasa, nationalitatea sau religia, au dreptul de a se casatori si de a intemeia o familie. … Familia constituie elementul natural si fundamental al societatii si are dreptul la ocrotire din partea societatii si a statului“. Familia romana isi cere drepturile. Aceste drepturi le pledam, le-am pledat din 2006 incoace, si vom continua sa le pledam. Sunt cele mai pretioase dintre drepturi dar si cele mai abuzate azi. Pretuiti-le!
 
JOIN US ON FACEBOOK / URMARITI-NE SI PE FACEBOOK!
Publicam comentariile noastre de joi si pe Facebook. Va rugam sa ne urmariti si sa deveniti prietenii nostri pe Facebook: https://ro-ro.facebook.com/Alianta.Familiilor/
 
VRETI SA FITI INFORMATI?
Buletinul informativ AFR apare in fiecare Marti si e dedicat mai mult stirilor de ultima ora, iar publicatia AFR online apare in fiecare Joi si e dedicata mai mult comentariilor si opiniilor. Cei care doriti sa primiti saptaminal stiri si comentarii la zi privind valorile si evenimentele legislative, politice si sociale care va afecteaza familiile si valorile, atit la nivel national cit si la nivel unional si international, sunteti invitati sa va abonati la buletinul informativ saptaminal AFR. Cum? Inregistrindu-va numele si adresa electronica pe pagina home a sitului nostru electronic www.alianta-familiilor.ro.
 
FACETI-NE CUNOSCUTI!
Faceti-ne cunoscuti familiilor si prietenilor d-tra. Dati mai departe mesajele noastre si incurajati-i sa se aboneze. Va multumim.
 
ANUNTURI
Cei care doriti sa faceti anunturi prin intermediul AFR privind evenimente legate de familie si valori va rugam sa ni le transmiteti la office@alianta-familiilor.ro.
Alianta Familiilor din Romania
Advertisements

One thought on “CARL WOESE ȘI MOARTEA DARWINISMULUI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s