Evoluutio-oppi kärsinyt tappion!

"On kuitenkin kiistaton tosiasia, että kehitysoppia ei ole kyetty empiirisesti todistamaan."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


"Tiedeapurahoja ei heru luomisuskon kannattajille."

Kyllä heruu, mutta luomisuskon tutkimiselle ei heru rahaa edes ID-säätiöltä, koska ei ole mitään mitä tutkia.


"Olettamus, että elämä sai alkunsa itsestään elottomasta aineesta, on ristiriidassa sen kokemusperäisen tiedon kanssa, että elämää syntyy vain elämästä."

Tällä logiikalla elämä on ikuista, sillä ei olisi ollut elävää olentoa, joka olisi voinut elämän luoda.


"Olettamus, että lajit ovat syntyneet ja kehittyneet yhteisestä alkumuodosta, on vastoin perinnöllisyysopin selvää todistusta lajien muuttumattomuudesta."

Viite?


"Ei ole havaittu mitään "liukuvaa" siirtymistä, joka todistaisi kehityksestä."

Kyllä on.

Näinhän se on. Totuutta ei yksinkertaisesti voida todistaa vääräksi. Totuus on totuus, ja se ei pala tulessakaan.

Päättyi taas kerran komeaan siltaan... Tule pois sieltä matolta jaakko, siellä on kisat! Huutaa kotiväki....
Pikku vinkkinä voin kertoa että jos joskus kasvat aikuiseksi ja haluat jutuillesi edes pikkuisen uskottavuutta, niin älä huuda joka väliin "Hallelujaa"

kymmeniä luomiskertomuksia joissa kuvataan kuinka jumala luo kaiken.
Mooseksen kirjoittama on suoraa lainausta Egyptin
perinteestä. Taitavana kirjoittajana hän teki siitä uskottavan kansalleen.
Myöhemmät tutkijat ja tiedemiehet ovat olleet tuon Mooseksen antaman uskonnon ja opin vankeja. He eivät ole pystyneet irrottautumaan vanhasta perinteestä jonka lapsesta saakka ovat imeneet.
Vasta viime vuosikymmeninä on alkanut kasvaa tiedemiesjoukko joka ei ole riippuvainen olemattomista uskonnoista vaan he voivat tehdä työtään ilman rasitteita.
Nyt pystytään paneutumaan luonnontieteisiin fakta-pohjalla.
Enää ei joukkoon heitetä fiktiota.
Voidaan sanoa että tiede on vapautunut suurimmasta jarrustaan- uskonnosta.

Evoluutioteoriaa ei voi siis todista. No jaa... Onko sinulla esittää mitään todisteita luomismyytin puolesta? Siis huom. TIETEELLISIÄ TODISTEITA. eI PELKKIÄ USKOMUKSIA.

10 gigaa muistia kännykässä.

Kommentissani pohdin kaiken tarkoitusta ja kyllä se sieltä on luettavissa...

3

Kyllä. Reinikainen murskasi Leikolan väittelyssä ja todisti siten evoluution vääräksi. Reinikaisen häikäisevän viisauden edessä Leikola meni lähestulkoon mykäksi.

Jaakob, olet todellinen kreationismin esitaistelija ja totuuden torvi. (Paino viimeisellä sanalla.) Esittämiesi musertavien todisteiden edessä tunnustan harhaoppisuuteni. Saanko anteeksi?

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentävä_spagettihirviö
löytyy lisää todisteita!

Näitähän ei pitänyt olla, eikös niin?

Sitä paitsi Joosuan, eli Jaakobin höpinät on ammuttu kerta toisensa jälkeen alas Jippiin foorumilla, jossa hän toistelee valheitaan kuukaudesta toiseen. Jokainen hänen väitteensä on todisteiden ja esimerkkien avulla kumottu. Silti hän toistaa samoja ketjuja uudelleen ja uudelleen... Kepu pettää aina ja niin tekevät kreationistitkin.

"Transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays: o Cladoselachians (e.g., Cladoselache). o Hybodonts (e.g. Hybodus) o Heterodonts (e.g. Heterodontus) o Hexanchids (e.g. Chlamydoselache) Transition from primitive bony fish to holostean fish: o Palaeoniscoids (e.g. Cheirolepis); living chondrosteans such as Polypterus and Calamoichthys, and also the living acipenseroid chondrosteans such as sturgeons and paddlefishes. o Primitive holosteans such as Semionotus. Transition from holostean fish to advanced teleost fish: o Leptolepidomorphs, esp. Leptolepis, an excellent holostean-teleost intermediate o Elopomorphs, both fossil and living (tarpons, eels) o Clupeomorphs (e.g. Diplomystus) o Osteoglossomorphs (e.g. Portheus) o Protacanthopterygians Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians: o Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) o Osteolepis -- one of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other group of lobe-finned fish). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of bones, and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. o Eusthenopteron (and other rhipidistian crossopterygian fish) -- intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian-like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet. o Icthyostegids (such as Icthyostega and Icthyostegopsis) -- Terrestrial amphibians with many of Eusthenopteron's fish features (e.g., the fin rays of the tail were retained). Some debate about whether Icthyostega should be considered a fish or an amphibian; it is an excellent transitional fossil. o Labyrinthodonts (e.g., Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) -- still have some icthyostegid features, but have lost many of the fish features (e.g., the fin rays are gone, vertebrae are stronger and interlocking, the nasal passage for air intake is well defined.) Transition from amphibians to reptiles: o Seymouriamorph labyrinthodonts (e.g. Seymouria) -- classic labyrinthodont skull and teeth, with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits; amphibian ankle. o Cotylosaurs (e.g. Hylonomus, Limnoscelis) -- slightly amphibian skull (e.g. with amphibian-type pineal opening), with rest of skeleton classically reptilian. o The cotylosaurs gave rise to many reptile groups of tremendous variety. I won't go into the transitions from cotylosaurs to the advanced anapsid reptiles (turtles and possibly mesosaurs), to the euryapsid reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and others), or to the lepidosaurs (eosuchians, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara), or to most of the dinosaurs, since I don't have infinite time. Instead I'll concentrate on the synapsid reptiles (which gave rise to mammals) and the archosaur reptiles (which gave rise to birds). Transition from reptiles to mammals: o Pelycosaur synapsids -- classic reptilian skeleton, intermediate between the cotylosaurs (the earliest reptiles) and the therapsids (see next) o Therapsids (e.g. Dimetrodon) -- the numerous therapsid fossils show gradual transitions from reptilian features to mammalian features. For example: the hard palate forms, the teeth differentiate, the occipital condyle on the base of the skull doubles, the ribs become restricted to the chest instead of extending down the whole body, the legs become "pulled in" instead of sprawled out, the ilium (major bone of the hip) expands forward. o Cynodont theriodonts (e.g. Cynognathus) -- very mammal-like reptiles. Or is that reptile-like mammals? Highly differentiated teeth (a classic mammalian feature), with accessory cusps on cheek teeth; strongly differentiated vertebral column (with distinct types of vertebrae for the neck, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and tail -- very mammalian), mammalian scapula, mammalian limbs, mammalian digits (e.g. reduction of number of bones in the first digit). But, still has unmistakably reptilian jaw joint. o Tritilodont theriodonts (e.g. Tritylodon, Bienotherium) -- skull even more mammalian (e.g. advanced zygomatic arches). Still has reptilian jaw joint. o Ictidosaur theriodonts (e.g. Diarthrognathus) -- has all the mammalian features of the tritilodonts, and has a double jaw joint; both the reptilian jaw joint and the mammalian jaw joint were present, side-by-side, in Diarthrognathus's skull. A really stunning transitional fossil. o Morganucodonts (e.g. Morganucodon) -- early mammals. Double jaw joint, but now the mammalian joint is dominant (the reptilian joint bones are beginning to move inward; in modern mammals these are the bones of the middle ear). o Eupantotheres (e.g. Amphitherium) -- these mammals begin to show the complex molar cusp patterns characteristic of modern marsupials and eutherians (placental mammals). Mammalian jaw joint. o Proteutherians (e.g. Zalambdalestes) -- small, early insectivores with molars intermediate between eupantothere molars and modern eutherian molars. o Those wondering how egg-laying reptiles could make the transition to placental mammals may wish to study the reproductive biology of the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) and the marsupials. The monotremes in particular could almost be considered "living transitional fossils". [see Peter Lamb's suggested marsupial references at end] Transition from reptiles to birds: o Lisboasaurus estesi and other "troodontid dinosaur-birds" -- a bird-like reptile with very bird-like teeth (that is, teeth very like those of early toothed birds [modern birds have no teeth]). May not have been a direct ancestor; may have been a "cousin" of the birds instead. o Protoavis -- this is a highly controversial fossil that may or may not be an extremely early bird. Not enough of the fossil was recovered to determine if it is definitely related to the birds, or not. I mention it in case people have heard about it recently. o Archeopteryx -- reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, tail, skull, teeth, digits, claws, sternum. Avian furcula (wishbone, for attachment of flight muscles), forelimbs, and lift-producing flight feathers. Archeopteryx could probably fly from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground, since it lacked a keeled breastbone (for attachment of large flight muscles) and had a weak shoulder (relative to modern birds). o "Chinese bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- A fossil dating from 10-15 million years after Archeopteryx. Bird-like claws on the toes, flight-specialized shoulders, fair-sized sternal keel (modern birds usually have large sternal keel); also has reptilian stomach ribs, reptilian unfused hand bones, & reptilian pelvis. This bird has a fused tail ("pygostyle"), but I don't know how long it was, or if it was all fused or just part of it was fused. o "Las Hoyas bird" [I don't know what name was given to this fossil] -- This fossil dates from 20-30 m.y. after Archeopteryx. It still has reptilian pelvis & legs, with bird-like shoulder. Tail is medium-length with a fused tip (Archeopteryx had long, unfused tail; modern birds have short, fused tail). Fossil down feather was found with the Las Hoyas bird. o Toothed Cretaceous birds, e.g. Hesperornis and Ichthyornis. Skeleton further modified for flight (fusion of pelvis bones, fusion of hand bones, short & fused tail). Still had true socketed teeth, which are missing in modern birds. o [note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth.]

Now, on to some of the classes of mammals.

Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to primates: o Early primates -- paromomyids, carpolestids, plesiadapids. Lemur-like clawed primates with generalized nails. o Notharctus, an early Eocene lemur o Parapithecus, a small Old World monkey (Oligocene) o Propliopithecus, a small primate intermediate between Parapithecus and the more recent O.W. monkeys. Has several ape-like characters. o Aegyptopithecus, an early ape. o Limnopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the modern gibbons. o Dryopithecus, a later ape showing similarities to the non-gibbon apes. o Ramapithecus, a dryopithecine-like ape showing similarities to the hominids but now thought to be an orang ancestor. o Australopithecus spp., early hominids. Bipedal. o Homo habilis. o Homo erectus. Numerous fossils across the Old World. o Homo sapiens sapiens. This is us. (NB: "Cro-magnon man" belongs here too. Cro-magnons were a specific population of modern humans.) o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (not on the direct line to H. sapiens sapiens, but worth mentioning). o [I haven't described these fossils in detail because they're fairly well covered in any intro biology text, or in any of several good general- interest books on human evolution.] Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to rodents: o Paramyids, e.g. Paramys -- early "primitive" rodent o Paleocastor -- transitional from paramyids to beavers o [yick. I was going to summarize rodent fossils but Paramys and its friends gave rise to 5 enormous and very diverse groups of rodents, with about ten zillion fossils. Never mind.] Transitional fossils among the cetaceans (whales & dolphins): o Pakicetus -- the oldest fossil whale known. Only the skull was found. It is a distinct whale skull, but with nostrils in the position of a land animal (tip of snout). The ears were partially modified for hearing under water. This fossil was found in association with fossils of land mammals, suggesting this early whale maybe could walk on land. o Basilosaurus isis -- a recently discovered "legged" whale from the Eocene (after Pakicetus). Had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. o Archaeocetes (e.g. Protocetus, Eocetus) -- have lost hind legs entirely, but retain "primitive whale" skull and teeth, with forward nostrils. o Squalodonts (e.g. Prosqualodon) -- whale-like skull with dorsal nostrils (blowhole), still with un-whale-like teeth. o Kentriodon, an early toothed whale with whale-like teeth. o Mesocetus, an early whalebone whale o [note: very rarely a modern whale is found with tiny hind legs, showing that some whales still retain the genes for making hind legs.] Transitional fossils from early eutherian mammals to the carnivores: o Miacids (e.g. Viverravus and Miacis) -- small weasel-like animals with very carnivore-like teeth, esp. the carnassial teeth. o Arctoids (e.g. Cynodictis, Hesperocyon) -- intermediate between miacids and dogs. Limbs have elongated, carnassials are more specialized, braincase is larger. o Cynodesmus, Tomarctus -- transitional fossils between arctoids and the modern dog genus Canis. o Hemicyon, Ursavus -- heavy doglike fossils between the arctoids and the bears. o Indarctos -- early bear. Carnassial teeth have no shearing action, molars are square, short tail, heavy limbs. Transitional to the modern genus Ursus. o Phlaocyon -- a climbing carnivore with non-shearing carnassials, transitional from the arctoids to the procyonids (raccoons et al.) Meanwhile back at the ranch, o Plesictis, transitional between miacids (see above) and mustelids (weasels et al.) o Stenoplesictis and Palaeoprionodon, early civets related to the miacids (see above) o Tunguricits, transitional between early civets and modern civets o Ictitherium, transitional between early civets to hyenas o Proailurus, transitional from early civets to early cats o Dinictis, transitional from early cats to modern "feline" cats o Hoplophoneus, transitional from early cats to "saber-tooth" cats Transitional fossils from early eutherians to hoofed animals: o Arctocyonid condylarths -- insectivore-like small mammals with classic mammalian teeth and clawed feet. o Mesonychid condylarths -- similar to the arctocyonids, but with blunt crushing-type cheek teeth, and flattened nails instead of claws. o Late condylarths, e.g. Phenocodus -- a fair-sized animal with hoofs on each toe (all toes were present), a continuous series of crushing-type cheek teeth with herbivore-type cusps, and no collarbone (like modern hoofed animals). o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to perissodactyls: o [Perissodactyls are animals with an odd number of toes; most of the weight is borne by the central 3rd toe. Horses, rhinos, tapirs.] o Tetraclaeonodon -- a Paleocene condylarth showing perissodactyl-like teeth o Hyracotherium -- the famous "dawn horse", an early perissodactyl, with more elongated digits and interlocking ankle bones, and slightly different tooth cusps, compared to to Tetraclaeonodon. A small, doggish animal with an arched back, short neck, and short snout; had 4 toes in front and 3 behind. Omnivore teeth. o [The rest of horse evolution will be covered in an upcoming "horse fossils" post in a few weeks. To whet your appetite:] o Orohippus -- small, 4/3 toed, developing browser tooth crests o Epihippus -- small, 4/3 toed, good tooth crests, browser o Epihippus (Duchesnehippus) -- a subgenus with Mesohippus-like teeth o Mesohippus -- 3 toed on all feet, browser, slightly larger o Miohippus -- 3 toed browser, slightly larger [gave rise to lots of successful three-toed browsers] o Parahippus -- 3 toed browser/grazer, developing "spring foot" o 'Parahippus' leonensis -- a Merychippus-like species of Parahippus o 'Merychippus' gunteri -- a Parahippus-like species of Merychippus o 'Merychippus' primus -- a more typical Merychippus, but still very like Parahippus. o Merychippus -- 3 toed grazer, spring-footed, size of small pony (gave rise to tons of successful three-toed grazers) o Merychippus (Protohippus) -- a subgenus of Merychippus developing Pliohippus-like teeth. o Pliohippus & Dinohippus -- one-toed grazers, spring-footed o Equus (Plesippus) -- like modern equines but teeth slightly simpler. o Equus (Hippotigris), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing zebras. o Equus (Equus), the modern 1-toed spring-footed grazing horses & donkeys. [note: very rarely a horse is born with small visible side toes, indicating that some horses retain the genes for side toes.] o Hyrachyids -- transitional from perissodactyl-like condylarths to tapirs o Heptodonts, e.g. Lophiodont -- a small horse-like tapir, transitional to modern tapirs o Protapirus -- a probable descendent of Lophiodont, much like modern tapirs but without the flexible snout. o Miotapirus -- an almost-modern tapir with a flexible snout, transitional between Protapirus and the modern Tapirus. o Hyracodonts -- early "running rhinoceroses", transitional to modern rhinos o Caenopus, a large, hornless, generalized rhino transitional between the hyracodonts and the various later groups of modern & extinct rhinos. o Transitional fossils from early hoofed animals to some of the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals): o Dichobunoids, e.g. Diacodexis, transitional between condylarths and all the artiodactyls (cloven-hoofed animals). Very condylarth-like but with a notably artiodactyl-like ankle. o Propalaeochoerus, an early pig, transitional between Diacodexis and modern pigs. o Protylopus, a small, short-necked, four-toed animal, transitional between dichobunoids and early camels. From here the camel lineage goes through Protomeryx, Procamelus, Pleauchenia, Lama (which are still alive; these are the llamas) and finally Camelus, the modern camels. o Archeomeryx, a rabbit-sized, four-toed animal, transitional between the dichobunoids and the early deer. From here the deer lineage goes through Eumeryx, Paleomeryx and Blastomeryx, Dicrocerus (with antlers) and then a shmoo of successful groups that survive today as modern deer -- muntjacs, cervines, white-tail relatives, moose, reindeer, etc., etc. o Palaeotragus, transitional between early artiodactyls and the okapi & giraffe. Actually the okapi hasn't changed much since Palaeotragus and is essentially a living Miocene giraffe. After Palaeotragus came Giraffa, with elongated legs & neck, and Sivatherium, large ox-like giraffes that almost survived to the present.

So, there's a partial list of transitional fossils.

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

>On kuitenkin kiistaton tosiasia, että kehitysoppia ei ole kyetty empiirisesti todistamaan. Tämän tietävät evoluutiotiedemiehet itsekin, mutta koska heidän oma elämänsä on ristiriidassa Jumalan Sanan kanssa, he eivät halua tunnustaa, että Jumala on olemassa, ja siitä syystä he eivät voi myöskään tunnustaa, että Jumala on kaiken luoja.
Toiseksi, heidän uransa tiedemiehenä vaarantuisi. Tiedeapurahoja ei heru luomisuskon kannattajille.
Siksi heidän on "pakko" olla evoluutio-opin kannattajia.

VASTAUS ASIAAN:

Eräät fundamentalistit tälläkin palstalla valehtelevat ja väittävät, että moni tiedemies olisi 'hylännyt' evoluution ja että todisteet osoittaisivat muka luomisen olevan totta. Katsotaanpa, mitä tiedemaailma on tästä mieltä:

" The ensuing 130 years have seen an enormous growth of the Darwinian heritage. Joined with molecular and cellular biology, that accumulated knowledge is today a large part of modern biology. Its centrality justifies the famous remark made by the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” *In fact, nothing in science as a whole has been more firmly established by interwoven factual documentation, or more illuminating, than the universal occurrence of biological evolution. Further, few natural processes have been more convincingly explained than evolution* by the theory of natural selection or, as it is popularly called, Darwinism.

...

Yet *biologists, particularly those statured by the peer review and publication of substantial personal research on the subject in leading journals of science, are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact.* The evidence they and thousands of others have adduced over 150 years falls together in intricate and interlocking detail. The multitudinous examples range from the small changes in DNA sequences observed as they occur in real time to finely graded sequences within larger evolutionary changes in the fossil record. Further, on the basis of comparably firm evidence, natural selection grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of evolution."

"Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the *intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred in the first place) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs.* This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. *The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame.* He will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible! *Even a combined Nobel Prize and Templeton Prize (the latter designed to encourage search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition.* Every scientist would like to accomplish such an epoch-making advance. But *no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory, and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science. There is only the residue of hoped-for default, which steadily shrinks as the science of biology expands.* "

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html

Toivottavasti minun ei tämän jälkeen tarvi tarvi parin päivän, viikon tai kuukauden jälkeen lukea taas sontaa siitä, miten 'huipputiedemiehet' ovat luopuneet evoluutiosta tjsp.

Jaakob kirjoitti:
'Yksi kehitysopin innokkaimmista esitaistelijoista, englantilainen tiedemies, Sir Arthur Keith (k. 1955) on lausunut: "Kehitysoppia ei ole todistettu, ja sitä on mahdoton todistaa. Uskomme siihen ainoastaan sen tähden, että ainoa toinen mahdollisuus on välitön luominen, ja se puolestaan on ajatuksena mahdoton."'

Tämä alkoi kiinnostamaan. Yritin jäljittää tätä lainausta ja ainoat lähteet moiseen lainaukseen on, yllätys yllätys, kreationistilähteet. Niissä väitetään, että ko. lainaus olisi esipuheesta 100v juhlapainokseen Darwinin The origin of Species. Joka siis on julkaistu 1959. Sir Keith vain sattui olemaan kuolleena jo nelisen vuotta (kuoli 1955) tuohon aikaan.

On toki tätä yrittäneet jäljittää muutkin: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81

Näyttää erittäin paljon siltä, että tämän lainauksen alkuperä on ihan keksitty juttu. Ettei vain kreationistit valehtelisi? Joten Jakkob hyvä, kertoisitko, mistä olet tämän lainauksen kaivanut. Luulisi sinua kiinnostavan totuus eikä kristityn moraaliin luulisi kuuluvan totuuden vääristely.

Faktat eivät ole kohdallaan ja teksti on muutenkin erittäin propagandistinen, ainakin mitä tulee kehitysoppiteorian mielikuvituksen pohjalta kehitykseen. huomaa, että tukeudut jonkun "innokkaan esitaistelijan" sanomisiin joka on ilmeisesti kuollut jo 50 vuotta sitten. Tiede ja kaikki opit sen piirissä ovat saattaneet kehittyä tuon ajan kohdan jälkeen... mistähän on revitty väitös että välitön luominen (älykäs suunnittelija oletan) on ainoa toinen mahdollisuus. Älykäs suunnitelma on teoria, jonka mukaan luonto ja erityisesti molekyylibiologiset mekanismit ovat niin monimutkaisia, että niiden selittämiseksi täytyy olettaa älykäs suunnittelija. Fyysikko Taner Edis on todennut, että ”teoreettisesti hienostunut, empiirisesti perusteltu ID-hypoteesi voi olla vakavasti otettava tieteellinen ehdotus. Mutta ongelmana on sellaisen ehdotuksen löytäminen”. Et ilmeisesti ole perehtynyt yhtään tieteen saloihin, vaan valitset pysyväsi samassa kammiossa, mihin olet varmaan syntynytkin. avaa mielesi ja huomaa että luet 2000 vuotta vanhaa tarinaa jonka tarkoitus on ohjata ihmisen elämää... ei kirjaimellisesti otettavaksi. Ainiin, oliko aatamilla ja eevalla napa?