An Interview with Ernst Mayr
- From: "Horst Veckner" <is_dat_right_Im_russian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Mar 2006 23:25:27 -0800
the introduction, here:
http://skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2004/04-07-05.html
The Interview with Skeptic Magazine
Skeptic:
Historians are interested in the influence of family background on the
development of a scientist's ideas, so we thought we might start by
asking you to reflect on your own family and upbringing.
Mayr:
I was a very lucky boy. I was the middle of three brothers, and my
parents were very much interested in nature. My father was a judge, my
mother was a housewife, as was the norm in those days, and both were
very intelligent and thoughtful people. Every Sunday we went on a
nature hike from our little German town, Würzburg. My parents knew the
flora and fauna of the area-they knew every mushroom in the woods,
where the heron colony lived, and so on. So I was raised as a young
naturalist, and this is very important because when you look at the
people usually mentioned as the architects of the original synthesis
[the evolutionary synthesis of paleontology and genetics]-Theodosius
Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley, G. Ledyard Stebbins, myself, and so
forth-we all started out as young naturalists, or as Darwin said of
himself, were "born a naturalist." The one exception was George
Gaylord Simpson, who didn't take an interest in nature until he was a
senior in college. He was an English literature major before he
switched to science. As a result, he never really understood the
species concept because he didn't have a personal acquaintance with
nature.
Skeptic:
So you feel that in order to really understand evolution on a deep
level you have to have a passion for nature from having been involved
in it directly-it's not something you can pick up in a textbook.
Mayr:
Very few people succeed in picking it up later, and if they do it is
only one side of nature. Birdwatchers, for example, know a handful of
species very well but they may not know the surrounding ecosystem.
Skeptic:
Darwin once wrote: "About thirty years ago there was much talk that
geologists ought only to observe and not theorize. I well remember
someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a
gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it
is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or
against some view if it is to be of any service!" How does one make
the transition from being a pebble counter to a theoretician?
Mayr:
The transition happens automatically as you get older and develops from
years of experience. You get a "feel" for nature. For example,
I'll be reading a paper in which the author makes some observation
and I'll think "no, that can't be," and that comes from
experience.
Skeptic:
Why do some scientists, like yourself, have a bent for the theoretical
and others do not?
Mayr:
I'm not sure, but in my case it came from my education. I went to a
German Gymnasium , which was much more demanding than American high
schools, and they train students to ask critical questions instead of
just accumulating knowledge.
Skeptic:
They taught you how to think?
Mayr:
Yes, the emphasis was on principles laid down by Wilhelm von Humboldt
when he founded the University of Berlin in 1810-the whole idea was
that our culture ultimately goes back to the Greeks and that deep
thinking comes from dealing with the most fundamental questions about
nature. I have always said that my achievements are due to this
heritage of the culture of the German Gymnasium.
Skeptic:
Research shows that when children lose a parent early in life that loss
influences the way they develop as thinkers; and oftentimes elder
siblings become surrogate parents to their younger siblings. How did
the loss of your father when you were 12 affect you and change the
relationship with your older brother?
Mayr:
The minute my father died my older brother felt it was his duty to
become the father of the family. But this was the last thing I
wanted-I wasn't going to let him tell me what to do and what not to
do. And, of course, I wanted to excel over him, so even though he was
three years older I worked very hard as a student and even finished
before him, earning my Ph.D. at the age of 21.
Skeptic:
How did those field expeditions supplement your education?
Mayr:
For two years I was in New Guinea, and I was in the Solomon Islands for
nine months, and I became a specialist in ornithology. In fact, I came
to the United States of America because the Natural History Museum in
New York had these fantastic collections from the South Sea islands,
but no specialist to work them up. When they looked around for someone
to hire, they found out that I was the most qualified. That's how I
came to be in America.
Skeptic:
Were there social reasons to emigrate to America as well?
Mayr:
Oh yes. The Communists and the Nazis were fighting, the Weimar Republic
was trying to hang on, and there was a lot of turmoil. I came to
America in January of 1931 and although my position at the American
Museum of Natural History was a temporary one, I was very anti-Nazi. So
there was no way I could return. Fortunately, the museum bought the
greatest bird collection in the world from Lord Rothschild in
England-280,000 bird skins-and they needed a curator, so it
immediately dropped into my lap.
Skeptic:
In many ways your life and career have paralleled those of Darwin and
Wallace, particularly with regard to your three collecting expeditions.
For you, were these explorations what the Galápagos Islands were for
Darwin and the Malay Archipelago was for Wallace? Did you experience a
scientific epiphany, or did your scientific ideas develop gradually?
Mayr:
In New Guinea I could really study evolutionary biology's two major
problems. First the origin of adaptation-why do we have eyes and why
do species interact as they do? The second is the origin of
diversity-why do we have tiny bacteria and giant sequoias, elephants
and hummingbirds? When you work in islands you can see the changes from
island to island. In New Guinea you see this from mountain to mountain.
Every mountain had about the same number of bird species, but they
differed from range to range. And these two problems of adaptation and
diversity lead to solving the problem of the process of speciation.
This has been the major focus throughout my career, from my first book,
Systematics and the Origin of Species, to the present. And that book
has just been reprinted after 54 years, which tells us that it is a
classic.
Skeptic:
What you are saying is that in order to properly study evolution you
need an intuitive feel for organisms and ecosystems, and to acquire
that you have to go there and see it.
Mayr:
Correct. Geneticists studying guinea pigs in cages cannot see the
evolutionary process. To truly understand species as independent
separate reproductive communities you need to see them in nature. These
field experiences led me to produce a definition of a biological
species in 1945 which is still accepted today.
Skeptic:
In fact, one of us (MS) had to memorize that definition in a course on
evolutionary biology: "A species is a group of actually or
potentially interbreeding natural populations reproductively isolated
from other such populations." But this brings up the question of
whether the species level of classification represents something that
actually exists in nature. When you went to New Guinea you recruited
the assistance of indigenous peoples in capturing birds. In the
process, you learned a great deal from them about their knowledge of
the various species living in their local environment. Did the fact
that they classified the birds in a remarkably similar fashion to that
of a professional ornithologist convince you that "species" really
do exist in nature and are not just arbitrary units in the minds of
biologists?
Mayr:
Yes, that is what I mean about going out into the field.
Skeptic:
In his book Dinosaur Lives, the paleontologist Jack Horner argues that
the Linnaean classification system, which was constructed with a
creationist model in mind, is a significant inhibitor to a deep
understanding of evolution because these Linnaean "kinds" imply a
reproductively isolated fixity from other "kinds," thus making it
difficult to grasp species change over deep time. Horner argues that we
should think of organisms as variations, like ever-evolving computer
software programs: Hominid 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and so on, where 7.1 = Homo
erectus, 7.2 = Homo neanderthalensis, 7.3 = Homo sapiens . Is
cladistics a good solution to the Linnaean anti-evolutionary system?
Mayr:
Let's not get into cladistics. Cladistic claims lead to all sorts of
conclusions that are misleading. If we want to find out if a group of
organisms is a species, we have to have a method. We can divide them by
common characteristics, which is sound. When we classify we make
classes, and classes are groups that have features similar to each
other. Cladism is a good system for determining phylogeny and descent,
but it is not a good classification of living organisms. I accept
cladistic analysis, which is a very good method to determine whether
the characteristics of a group were derived from a common ancestor, but
you cannot arrange things merely by descent without coming into total
conflict with degrees of similarity, which is the whole meaning of
classification.
Skeptic:
You were born in 1904 when the grand old man of biology was Alfred
Russel Wallace, who was 84 (and who would live to be 91). Evolutionary
biology was still largely pursued by naturalists and was mostly an
observational enterprise. The theory was still struggling for
acceptance as a serious science. Looking back on the century, give us
your opinion on the most significant contributions to evolutionary
biology that have helped to elevate it to the status it holds today.
Mayr:
The first one was the great debate that led to the evolutionary
synthesis. Dobzhansky's book in 1937, Genetics and the Origin of
Species, was very crucial because he was a "born naturalist,"
became a beetle specialist and so forth.Then at the age of 27 he came
to America, worked for 10 years in Morgan's lab where he learned all
about the genetic aspects of organisms, then combined the two.
Skeptic:
Did Dobzhansky's book influence your work significantly?
Mayr:
It didn't change it, but it filled in the gaps in my knowledge of
genetics. Dobzhansky's book was still weak in the diversity aspects.
He made a good start on defining the isolating mechanisms, but he erred
by including geographic barriers among them. At the time, however,
everyone thought that now all the problems were solved. And it was
almost true. But there was still one major problem and that was the
relative role of the gene versus the individual. I accepted the
individual as the target of selection. Geneticists said that evolution
is a change in gene frequencies among populations. But this is
nonsense. Changes in gene frequencies are the result of evolution, not
the mechanism . By about 1970s the majority of evolutionary biologists
agreed that the individual was the primary target of selection.
SSkeptic:
What about group selection?
Mayr:
George Williams and Richard Dawkins have made a mistake, in my opinion,
in completely rejecting group selection. But we have to be careful here
to define what we mean by a group. There are different kinds of groups.
There is one type of group that is a target of selection, and that is
the social group. Darwin knew this and identified it very clearly in
1871 in The Descent of Man. Hominid groups of hunter-gatherers were
constantly competing with other hominid groups; some were superior and
succeeded and others were not. It becomes quite clear that those groups
who had highly cooperative and altruistic individuals were more
successful than the ones torn apart by internal strife and egotism.
Skeptic:
The social environment is as important as the physical environment?
Mayr:
The essential point is that if you are altruistic and make your group
more successful, you thereby also increase the fitness of the
altruistic individual (yourself)!
Skeptic:
But isn't it still the individual being selected for these
characteristics, not the group?
Mayr:
There is no question that the groups that were most successful had
these individuals that were cooperative and altruistic, and those
traits are genetic. But the group itself was the unit that was
selected.
Skeptic:
You developed your theory of allopatric speciation in the 1940s and
1950s. In the 1970s Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould applied that
to the fossil record and called it punctuated equilibrium. Was this
just a spinoff from what you had already done? What was new in
punctuated equilibrium?
Mayr:
I published that theory in a 1954 paper ("Change of Genetic
Environment and Evolution," in Huxley, J., A.C. Hardy, and E. B.
Ford, Eds., Evolution as a Process, London: Allen and Unwin), and I
clearly related it to paleontology. Darwin argued that the fossil
record is very incomplete because some species fossilize better than
others. But what I derived from my research in the South Sea Islands is
that in these isolated little populations it is much easier to make a
genetic restructuring because when the numbers are small it takes
rather few steps to become a new species. A small local population that
changes very rapidly. I noted that you are never going to find evidence
of a small local population that changed very rapidly in the fossil
record. My essential point was that gradual populational shifts in
founder populations appear in the fossil record as gaps.
Skeptic:
Isn't that what Eldredge and Gould argued in their 1972 paper, citing
your 1963 book Animal Species and Evolution several times?
Mayr:
Gould was my course assistant at Harvard where I presented this theory
again and again for three years. So he knew it thoroughly. So did
Eldredge. In fact, in his 1971 paper Eldredge credited me with it. But
that was lost over time.
Skeptic:
Okay, but since you are also a historian and philosopher of science
surely you recognize that there is a social factor here-the marketing
and selling of an idea to a community of scientists.
Mayr:
There are two kinds of scientists: media scientists and scientists'
scientists. Gould, Dawkins and E.O. Wilson are media scientists (in the
sense of publishing for the public).
Skeptic:
Hasn't Wilson taken your early philosophy of biology distinction
between how and why questions to the nth degree in Consilience in
looking for the ultimate causes of human behavior?
Mayr:
Wilson is difficult to evaluate. To give him justice, he is a
tremendous enthusiast. He is always euphoric. The future is always
beautiful. He's an evangelist, a scientific evangelist.
Skeptic:
You are smiling when you say that.
Mayr:
He's such a nice guy and so optimistic. Maybe because I grew up in
Germany where things always went wrong, and I lost my father at a young
age, I grew up to be a realist, maybe even a pessimist. I can't make
all these enormous predictions as Wilson does in his books.
Skeptic:
How does evolution as a historical science differ from experimental
sciences?
Mayr:
If you go to the literature in the philosophy of science you read about
how experiment is the key to science. Hell no! Experiment in
evolutionary biology is not useful at all except in certain cases.
Darwin's method of asking "why" questions, then developing
historical analogies, is how we "test" evolutionary hypotheses. If
you want to explain why the dinosaurs became extinct you cannot run an
experiment. You construct a scenario and see how well it explains the
data. Could it have been microbes that wiped them out? Gradual
environmental changes? A meteor? You see which of these different
scenarios best explains all the data.
If Wilson has taken anything of mine without giving sufficient credit
it would be the theory of island biogeography. You will find papers by
me in 1939 and 1941 about continuous colonization and extinction.Wilson
and MacArthur have even used figures that I published in those papers,
but nowhere do they say that this theory of theirs was similar to mine.
And the irony is that they may have never noticed the similarity.
Skeptic:
Now wait a moment. Are you talking about Robert MacArthur and E. O.
Wilson's theory of island biogeography? Are you saying that it is a
derivative of your own ideas?
Mayr:
I published the fundamental principles of that theory in 1939 and 1941.
Others have pointed this out as well. It's not just my claim. But
MacArthur and Wilson probably didn't think they were the same ideas
because they believe something isn't scientific until it has been
translated into mathematics, which they did.
Skeptic:
You mean the equilibrium model?
Mayr:
Yes, but they didn't realize that this is dangerous because there are
too many exceptions and, of course, you can be proven wrong. For
example, they were wrong in their predictions about bird colonization
of Krakatoa and Hawaii. So Olson wrote this paper that said that island
biogeography is dead. But because I did not make my ideas mathematical
they are still viable science.
Skeptic:
Are you saying that they were wrong because they gave incorrect
figures, or that they were wrong to even be making such specific
predictions?
Mayr:
The mistake is in thinking that through mathematical formulae, you can
arrive at the truth. That's wrong. I used the naturalist's way of
thinking and predicted that there should be, say, 73 species colonizing
or whatever. I didn't use any formula or mathematics. I just used the
empirical evidence. I find that this invariably gives you better
figures. The problem is the belief that mathematics is the royal road
to truth.
Skeptic:
Is this a problem of physics envy or reductionism?
Mayr:
Wilson is just full of physics envy. Wilson was always trying to get
mathematicians into the department. He's entitled to that, and he
might have been right, but it turns out that he was not right.
Skeptic:
In 20th century philosophy and history of science, the publication of
Thomas Kuhn's classic work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(1962) appears to mark a watershed. One could almost say there was a
paradigm shift in this field, from science as progressivism to science
as social constructivism. How would you characterize this shift and,
indeed, is this the watershed that many think it is?
Mayr:
Kuhn's description of how scientific revolutions happen does not
apply to any biological revolution. To be very frank, I cannot
understand how this book could have been such a success. The general
thesis was not new, and when he did assert specific claims he was
almost always wrong!
Kuhn's book mainly appealed to historians and social scientists. It
was they who built it up into a big thing. It was vague, and vagueness
always appeals to historians and social scientists.
Skeptic:
Do the biological sciences need a different explanation for how they
developed?
Mayr:
My recent book, This Is Biology, if I say so myself, is in many ways
quite revolutionary. I don't think anyone before me has said quite so
strongly, and documented so carefully, the differences between the
physical and biological sciences. The physical sciences have
characteristics to them that do not help us understand the biological
sciences, and the biological sciences have characteristics to them that
are not applicable to inanimate objects. This Is Biology should have
had a much greater impact than Kuhn's book. I get letters from
scientists saying that This Is Biology has changed their whole way of
thinking about these problems, but the general public doesn't even
know about the book.
Skeptic:
How has your personal study of the history and philosophy of biology
influenced the way you do science, and how has the way you do science
affected your interpretation of the history of biology?
Mayr:
The problem with the history of science profession today is that
historians have little training in the sciences so they don't really
understand the importance of the development of scientific ideas. They
give you all these different social and cultural influences on a
scientist's thoughts, but not enough on the ideas themselves. These
historians need to take courses in biology so that they really
understand how these historical ideas fit into the larger picture of
the science.
Michael Ruse, for example, is not trained as a biologist so his
knowledge of biology is limited. He says rather questionable things and
he does not realize that he is not fully qualified. Richard Lewontin is
brilliant, but his theorizing is affected by his Marxist political
beliefs. This is the problem with philosophy of science today. There
needs to be more science and less philosophy.
Skeptic:
Do you acknowledge that social influences do shape the development of a
scientists' ideas? It seems fairly clear, for example, that
Darwin's idea of natural selection was indirectly influenced by Adam
Smith's concept of the invisible hand. Natural selection is, in fact,
the invisible hand of nature. But I suspect you would say that it
doesn't matter because it is a correct interpretation of nature.
Mayr:
Well, actually, Darwin's metaphor of selection turned out to be
wrong. Natural selection is not a process of selection, it is a process
of elimination. Herbert Spencer, who was otherwise usually wrong, had
the right idea of the "survival of the fittest," defined as those
individuals that have certain characteristics that prevent them from
being eliminated. Nothing is being selected. Nature is just eliminating
the less fit.
Skeptic:
Um, that's a debatable point. Is nature selecting for certain traits
or selecting against other traits? It's not just eliminating, it is
also selecting for certain characteristics, such as bigger brains. Or
are you saying there was simply a selection against smaller brains?
Mayr:
We have to be careful here to use the right words. You have to make a
distinction between selection of and selection for. Certain individuals
survived because they had certain characteristics, but they weren't
selected. The process consists of eliminating all the others. There is
also an important distinction between natural selection and sexual
selection. In sexual selection the female is actually selecting males
for certain traits, and this is different from natural selection.
Skeptic:
To you, all these debates about selfish genes and group selection and
punctuated equilibrium must seem like minor variations on Darwin's
grand idea.
Mayr:
I've said this many times. All these discussions over the years
haven't affected Darwin's basic ideas one bit. The only change I
make is that I consider the production of variation as part of natural
selection. They are inseparable. Each is meaningless without the other.
Natural selection is a two-step process: (1) variations produced, and
(2) variations sorted, with the elimination of the less fit so that you
end up with a "selection" of the best.
Skeptic:
Looking forward as well as back, what's important now in evolutionary
theory, and what do you anticipate on the horizon?
Mayr:
The basic theory has not really changed in the last 30-50 years, and I
have a very strong feeling that it isn't going to change much in the
next 30-50 years. We are fine-tuning the theory, for example, gaining a
deeper understanding of the genetics of evolutionary change. If you
look through the most prestigious scientific journals in evolutionary
biology today, just about every paper is devoted to some aspect of DNA.
Skeptic:
Outside of evolutionary theory, what are some of the great mysteries
remaining to be solved?
Mayr:
Where are the greatest gaps in our knowledge? Three:
The brain. We understand neurons remarkably well. What we don't
understand is their interactions. Just how do the billions of neurons
in my brain remember my childhood experiences? What constellation of
connections between neurons triggered some memory that was previously
hidden? This business of the interaction of the components of complex
systems is a field with an exciting future.
In a similar way there are still problems to solve in understanding
embryonic development and how genes code for cellular differentiation.
And how does the environment of the surrounding tissues affect that
development? There is much work here still to be done.
Ecosystems: How do different species interact in a complex ecosystem to
produce equilibrium and change?
Skeptic:
Let's shift to another hot topic in the field-sociobiology and
evolutionary psychology. Are these just spin-offs from Darwin?
Mayr:
I don't use the word sociobiology. Neither do people like William
Hamilton, Richard Alexander, or Robert Trivers. I think Wilson was
envious, in fact, that others had contributed to the evolutionary
synthesis, so he wanted to create another great synthesis. So he
nominated social behavior as a candidate and called it a synthesis.
Skeptic:
Surely you don't object to the principle of applying Darwinian
thinking to studying social behavior?
Mayr:
Lots of people were already doing that. And, furthermore, look at his
sociobiology - most of that was already done before by ethologists.
And he left out a lot. He neglected the establishment and maintenance
of social rank order. He completely ignored the study of social
migrations, which had been done for decades-this is the study of
social behavior. So he singled out portions, what I call selection for
reproductive success, and calls it sociobiology.
Mayr:
I'm sure there are areas where you can still make major
contributions, but they just happened not to pick the right areas!
Gould, for example, has this big volume on evolution soon to come out.
So over the years he has launched these trial balloons to see how they
float. For example, his original punctuated equilibrium paper largely
followed my 1954 paper. But then in 1980 he came out with another
version that was very saltational, and deemed that it completely
refuted the evolutionary synthesis, and that we need to revive
Goldschmidt, and all that. This was total nonsense. Then five years
later he revised it again and you don't see a word about Goldschmidt
and saltation in his recent writing. That's what makes people like
Gould unpopular. He should understand that. As for his fight with the
British about contingency, well, they are both right if you look at it
in the light of the two-step process of natural selection of variation
produced and variation selected; there is an element of predictability
and randomness in both. I fully endorse adaptation, but like Gould I
strongly endorse the frequency of contingency.
Skeptic:
It seems like ego and personality can sometimes get in the way of
resolving these great debates.
Mayr:
That's why I spoke of the media scientists. That's a problem. On
the occasion of my 94th birthday a German newspaper, the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, which is the New York Times of Germany, wrote an
article about me. When he interviewed scientists in the field he got
comments of the highest praise, such as "one of the leading
scientists in the world," but when the author talked to the man in
the street they never heard of me.
Skeptic:
So you feel you have not gotten the recognition your ideas deserve.
Mayr:
Of course I have received enormous recognition by peers. Just look at
the list of my honors, but I don't write for recognition. I've
often been asked to write popular books, or my autobiography, but these
would only interfere with what I see as more important scientific
research. I'm not after that kind of recognition. I have been
disappointed that the public isn't more discriminating.
Skeptic:
Looking back, who were the two or three most influential people on your
career and your thinking as a scientist? Who were your heroes?
Mayr:
As a student, ornithologist Erwin Stresemann was my hero. Later on
Dobzhansky. Now? I would have to say Darwin.
Skeptic:
To what do you attribute Darwin's greatness?
Mayr:
First, he was a brilliant observer. Everything he saw he asked
questions about. He wanted to know why things were a certain way. He
was always asking questions. Then he let the facts speak for
themselves. Plus, of course, he was very intelligent.
Skeptic:
But why Darwin and not Lyell or Huxley or one of the other brilliant
men of the age?
Mayr:
Because they were unable to see the data in a new light. Lyell was
never quite able to accept the idea of evolution even in the face of
the overwhelming evidence. Darwin was able to give up his preconceived
ideas in the face of new evidence. Most people cannot do that. Then he
had this incredible curiosity. Read the Voyage of the Beagle again. On
every page he asks questions. With every new place they visited he
asked questions. He was not a narrow specialist. He was interested in
everything. In that respect I am very similar to Darwin. All my life I
have been interested in a wide variety of ideas and subjects.
Skeptic:
What is the proper relation between science and religion? Where do they
intersect, if at all, and where are they in conflict?
Mayr:
Well, I have a different definition of religion. All my atheist friends
are deeply religious. They don't believe in God or anything
supernatural, but they believe that they don't live in this world
just to have a good time, but to improve mankind.
Skeptic:
Do you consider yourself a humanist?
Mayr:
Yes, I do.
Skeptic:
You don't believe in God, but are you an agnostic or an atheist?
Mayr:
I have the honesty to say I'm an atheist. There is nothing that
supports the idea of a personal God. On the other hand, famous
evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God.
He would work as a scientist all week and then on Sunday get down on
his knees and pray to God.
Skeptic:
What accounts for this style of thinking?
Mayr:
Frankly I've never been able to understand it because you would need
two totally different compartments in your brain, one that deals with
religion and the other with everything else.
Skeptic:
What can we expect from your pen next?
Mayr:
I'm working on three more books. I've got one coming out soon with
Jared Diamond on the birds of northern Melanesia. Then I've written a
short book, entitled simply Evolution, that will be for general
readers. And I'm doing a hermeneutics-a type of content
analysis-of every sentence Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species, to
see where he changed his mind and how he developed his ideas.
Skeptic:
Someday someone is going to write your biography. How would you most
like to be remembered as a scientist?
Mayr:
One of the things that most people don't see is that basically I'm
a modest person. They think I'm a great egotist and pusher of my own
ideas. But I'm a humble man. I just want to understand nature and
make a contribution to the body of knowledge about the natural world.
And nothing else.
I will add that except for losing my father when I was 12, and my wife
a few years ago, I've been an extraordinarily lucky person.
Skeptic:
As has science for the contributions of Ernst Mayr. Thank you.
.
- Prev by Date: The Question of God
- Next by Date: usa, uk & israel
- Previous by thread: The Question of God
- Next by thread: usa, uk & israel
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
