Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Michael Bloomberg

2010-12-30T21:43:24Z

Alphanumeric1:

{{Officeholder
|name=Michael Bloomberg
|image=Bloomberg.jpg
|office=Mayor
|party=[[Democrat]] (until 2001) [[Republican]] (2001-2007) [[Independent]] (2007-Present)
|spouse=Susan Brown (div.)
|religion=Jewish
|offices=
{{Officeholder/mayor
|number=108th
|city=New York City
|terms=January 1, 2002-Present
|preceded=[[Rudolph Giuliani]]
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Michael Rubens Bloomberg''' (born February 14, 1942, in Boston, Massachusetts<ref>http://www.mikebloomberg.com/en/about_mike_bloomberg</ref>) is the [[liberal]] Mayor of [[New York City]] and the owner of Bloomberg, L.P., which licenses computer systems for real-time stock quotes to Wall Street and has news-related businesses. Even though he was a life-long registered [[Democrat]], Michael Bloomberg successfully ran for mayor as a [[Republican]] in 2001 due in large part to the support of popular outgoing mayor [[Rudy Giuliani]], and was reelected in 2005. He then switched to be an Independent and spent record-breaking sums to be reelected in 2009, paying the equivalent of $174.53 per vote (more than ten times his competitor).<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/11/28/2009-11-28_mayor_bloomberg_spends_102m_to_win_third_term__or_175_per_vote_.html</ref> Michael Bloomberg is also one of the richest people in the world according to ''Forbes'' magazine, with an estimated net worth of $17 billion. Michael Bloomberg is currently divorced and has 2 children.

Bloomberg dropped his Republican Party affiliation on June 19, 2007, stating "I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11203856</ref> Bloomberg is traditionally known as a fiscal [[conservative]] with social liberal tendencies. He was frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the [[2008 Presidential Election]].

==Education==
Michael Bloomberg holds a Bachelor of Arts & Science from Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard University. In 2001, Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism established the Bloomberg Chair in Journalism with a gift of $1.5 million from Bloomberg L.P.<ref>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/05/bloomberg.html</ref>

==Political views and Mayoralty==
Bloomberg has enforced a strengthened cell-phone ban in city schools. Under Mayor Bloomberg, the high school graduation rate in New York City has gone up 18% since he took office. He supports [[abortion]] and [[gay]] marriage. Bloomberg was also the most prominent Republican to oppose President [[George W. Bush]]'s nomination to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] of Chief Justice [[John Roberts]].

Bloomberg is a supporter of illegal immigration, saying that [[New York City]] would "collapse" if they didn't have illegal aliens.

His crime-fighting tactics have been criticized by the NRA and other Second Amendment advocates for his position on handguns, having founded the organization, "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." His gun policies have continued those implemented by his predecessor, Giuliani, and crime statistics for 2007 are the lowest ever recorded for the city. As of December 2007, compared to 2001 figures (the year before Bloomberg took office), shootings are down 11%, murder is down 25%, auto theft is down 55% and major crime overall is down 26%.<ref>http://www.nyc.gov:80/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%3A80%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2007b%2Fpr473-07.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1</ref>

Bloomberg took office as mayor in January 2002, just four months after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Upon taking office, he inherited the largest fiscal crisis in recent New York history. Giuliani spent lavishly during his final year in office, increasing capital spending by 60%. Not anticipating the dot-com bubble burst and the unforeseen attacks of September 11th, Giuliani left office passing on a $4 billion city budget gap, where city law mandates a balanced budget.<ref>http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_05/b3768089.htm</ref> A large portion of New York City's budget are fixed costs. This created a predicament for the fiscally conservative new mayor. Bloomberg made some very unpopular budget cuts in the portions of the budget under his control, even closing many redundant fire-houses, a subject of severe public outcry so soon after September 11th. These cuts however, had only marginal effect on the city's budget gap, which was ultimately addressed with the largest property tax increase in the city's history. Later in his second term, Bloomberg lowered property taxes, but not enough to completely remove the increases of his first term. On the subject of taxes, Bloomberg has effectively used tax breaks as an incentive to lure companies to the city. When Bloomberg first took office, the city's budget crisis brought threats from Albany that the state may step in and take over the city's finances. By June 2007 S&P (Standard and Poor's) raised New York City's bond rating to AA, the highest bond rating in the city's history.<ref>http://home2.nyc.gov:80/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fhome2.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2007a%2Fpr174-07.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1</ref>

Bloomberg has also been criticized by [[libertarian]]s for pushing for New York City's unprecedented ban on trans fats on restaurants.

Although he has remained mostly silent on foreign policy, Bloomberg is a supporter of the [[War in Iraq]]. In March, 2007, during a news conference in Staten Island, he said about legislation proposed in Congress calling for a clear timetable for troop withdrawal, "we ask our young men and women to go over and to fight, and if you have a deadline knowing they're pulling out, how can you expect them to defend this country? How can you expect them to go out and put their lives at risk? I just think that's untenable and that this is not a responsible piece of legislation. It is totally separate of how we're conducting the war. It's totally separate of whether we should have been there. The issue that you asked about is plain and simple: Should the Congress pass a law forcing the president to withdraw troops at a given point in time? I think that is not something that is in the country's interest or in the military's interest."

==2008 Presidential Election==
Though Bloomberg suggested that he might run for President in 2008, he never did.

==References==
<references/>
[http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Michael-Rubens-Bloomberg_C610.html The 400 Richest Americans], ''Forbes magazine'', September 21, 2006.

[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Business People]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bloomberg, Michael}}
[[Category:New York City]]
[[Category:Third Party Politicians]]
[[category:Media]]

Talk:World History Lecture Twelve

2010-12-30T05:23:28Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Mistakes */

The paragraph "Victory" reads like the USA won the 2.WW all on theire own.
The US armed forces only lost about 170.000 men in europe. If you compare that to the 13.000.000 soldiers, who died fighting for the soviet union, this is hardly anything.
The USA might have done a big chunk of the work, when it comes to financial help for the the allies, but claiming that American soldiers defeated Germany without mentioning all the other nations lossing millions of lives in the struggle against the third reich, is just wrong! - [[User:MolotoK|MolotoK]] 14:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Italy ==
'' In October 1922, the Fascists or “Black Shirts” protested in Rome, demanding that King Victor Emmanuel abdicate in favor of Mussolini. The king did step down and Mussolini became Il Duce, the leader of Italy.''

This is incorrect. The March on Rome did not seek the abdication of Victor Emmanuel, nor did he abdicate; but he did makle Mussolini head of government. VEII was still on the throne and dismissed Mussolini in 1943. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== China ==

''In 1937, Japan invaded China, and Japan invaded northern and central China. It sacked the Chinese capital of Nanjing, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians. Jiang Jieshi fled to the west while Mao Zedong’s guerilla fighters stayed to combat the Japanese.''

Tut, tut, tut. I'm surprised at you of all people peddling this line. That the CCP stood and fought the Japanese while the Nationalists either fled or held back waiting for the post-war conflict is a staplke of Communist historiography. Objective assessments have found that both Communist and Nationalist forces fought bravely against the Japanese (there were Nationalist guerillas as well as 'conventional' forces), with successes and failures, but that the Nationalists were more successful and more active than the 'conventional wisdom' has it and the Communists less so. The Communists were just better at getting their message across. There was also an element of both sides holding back forces to face each other rather than the Japanese - ''vide'' the New Fourth Army incident of 1941. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Britain not England==
We live in the United Kingdom. Occasionally, it is called Britain. "England" however, is merely one part of the union, and is incorrect. I don't refer to the US as Texas, although sometimes it seems like it. [[User:KarlJaeger|KarlJaeger]] 06:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

==George Orwell==
While George Orwell WAS fighting on the side of the republican government, he wasn't fighting for them. He was a member of the socialist POUM (Workers' Party for Marxist unification) militia. the Communists who had power in the Republican government were Stalinists and were therefore against the POUM who was more aligned with Trotsky. the fighting referred to here was between the Republican government and the communists on one side, and the anarchists and anti-stalin POUM on the other. so while Orwell did fight against the Communists, it was not on the side of the government.

--[[User:DaveClark|Dave Clark]]

== WWII and Korean War ==
Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around.

I agree with MolotoK - you say "just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again," but hardly mention the four straight years of fighting on the Eastern front, where most of the German army was. You make it seem as if George Patton single-handedly won World War II.

"General MacArthur wanted to defeat them also, but President Truman refused and fired MacArthur." This should probably be clarified to point out that MacArthur wanted to expand the war into a general nuclear confrontation, and then was publicly insubordinate, it's a bit misleading.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 22:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Mistakes ==

*You seem to suggest that the Soviet Union conquered Finland, in fact they annexed just a few border regions.
*The British did not fortify the Maginot Line, that was solely the job of the French.
*You should specify that the Vichy regime controlled only part of France that was not directly occupied by Germany.
*The Free French continued to fight beyond the liberation of Paris, your wording implies they simply stopped at this point.
*Operation Sea lion was the name of the proposed invasion of Britain, not the bombing beforehand, and it was of course never put into action.
*I think you oversimplify the invasions of the Balkans and Greece when you say that Germany ‘simply invaded them and conquered them’
*You call the Soviet Army the ‘most vicious’ without anything to support such an assertion.
*You say ‘Russians never surrender’, whilst of course in the Leningrad case in particular they showed extreme resilience, masses of Russian POWs were taken during the war.
*Mengele’s Ph.D was not based on Darwinian Evolution.
*You fail to mention some of the key events in the intelligence war, the capture of Enigma machines and codes of which there are several examples.
*Your claims about Peral Harbour being known about have only some truth to them. Certainly there were many signs that should have been picked up on, but they were not. This was largely due to mistakes lower down the chain of command. If I remember rightly the raid was picked up on radar but was wrongly assumed by some/someone to have been a group of US planes.
*I think your claim about the Coral Sea is slightly wrong. It was the first naval battle when the opposing ships never sighted each other, but carrier planes had been used in earlier months.
*You also fail to mention a key intelligence trick the US used in order to determine that an attack on Midway was about to take place.
*You seem to imply that the US forces were involved in the Battle of El Alamein, which is incorrect.
*You seem to have some rather dubious criticisms of Truman, the fact that he enjoyed playing cards is completely irrelevant to anything else in the lecture, and to say he ws out of his depth seems to be more your personal opinion than the general consensus amongst historians.
*Your statement “Just as the American soldiers had defeated Germany in World War I, the Americans did it again” seems to omit any reference to the huge sacrifices made by the other Allies, especially the Soviet Union.
*Operation Overlord was the name for the invasion of Normandy and the establishment of a foothold, not a catch-all term for liberating the whole of continental Europe.
*D-Day was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, but not the largest ever invasion.
*”There were so many ships and people in the ocean that it obscured the water below” is more a poetic description than a fact, as should be clarified.
*You also clearly state that the Americans overpowerd the D-day defenders, without mentioning that of the 5 landing beaches 2 were taken by the British and 1 by the Canadians.
*You fail to mention the distinctive tactics used by Patton which played the greatest role in his success.
*You very much oversimplify the German resistance by saying they were simply routed everywhere.
*Patton did not simply ‘roll through France, Belgium, Luxembourg etc’, especially since his line of advance was south of that. It was only with the Battle of the Bulge that he moved north.
*You completely fail to mention any other commanders, and omit massive operations such as Marketgarden.
*It was the Free French forces who originally entered the city, not the Americans.
*You vastly oversimplify the implications of allowing Patton to continue, which would have essentially led to war with the Soviet Union.
*The Enola Gay was the name of one specific plane that dropped the 1st atomic bomb, not the name of all the planes involved.
*Josef Mengele did not simply flee to Brazil, in fact he did not do so until 1949.
*You fail to mention the US opposition to Soviet help against Japan, and imply Roosevelt was completely for it.
*The Berlin airlift began in June 1948 and ran into 1949, not 1949 – 1950 as you claim.
*You seem to imply that Kennedy was somehow lazy or negligent regarding the building of the wall. Although nothing practical was done, it was not really feasible for the US to actively oppose the wall’s construction, with actual intervention surely leading to war.
*You seem to suggest the development of ICBMs somehow helped the development of spying, which makes little sense.
*The U2 spy plane was shot down and did not simply ‘fall to earth’.
*You fail to mention that the pilot was released as part of a prisoner swap.
*You seem to imply that Truman stopped MacArthur from achieving victory in the Korean War. MacArthur was fired because he wanted to use nuclear weapons against China!
*Your statement that China is completely communist is not true, China is actually quite open to the free market these days and becoming more so. It is almost certainly true that there is no such thing as a ‘true communist’ country since none have ever lived up to Marx’s actual aims.

*I would also add that 'England' should read 'UK', through normally Britain will suffice. To simply refer to England downplays the contribution of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish.

These are just the ones where I could actually identify factual errors, and there may be others. In general you seem to oversimplify non-American activities, particularly in WWII. Although I respect the fact that this is predominantly a US resource it is a World History course. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 17:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I particularly agree with the statement regarding the Soviet Union. Consider the number of troops that the Soviet Union lost, something along the lines of 13 million! From the perspective of a World History course, yes, the United States' role in World War II was very significant in bolstering Western European nations' morale, but in terms of actual combat World War II as a whole was primarily a battle between Germany and the Soviet Union. This idea of a World History course could be very helpful to many people, but not if it distorts history through a pro-America lens. I love this country, too, but I love it enough that I can consider it great without overstating its influence. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 00:23, 30 December 2010 (EST)

== Specific Factual Errors ==

Specific Factual Errors with no room for interpretation:

-The Italian Conquest of Ethiopia took until 1936 (war began in 35, continued through beginning of next year).

-The discussion of the formation of the Axis Powers is a bit off. Germany/Italy signed a treaty in Oct. 1936 and Germany/Japan in November 1936, but the three were not joined as one until Nov. 1937.

-The Russians only took some border territory from Finland, not the entire country.

-The Germans took control of northern France, and ''Southern France'' became the Vichy government.

-Operation Sea Lion was the plan to invade England. Operation Eagle was the aerial campaign.

-Operation Overlord refers merely to the invasion of Europe, not the entire retaking.

-Hitler killed himself on April 30, 1945. May 7 was the signing of the Surrender, and May 8 was the end of operations, or what is celebrated as V-E day.

-Yugoslavia was thrown out of the Comintern by Stalin in 1948; it was not "controlled by the Soviet Union"

-The Berlin Airlift was from June 25, 1948 to September 30, 1949.

--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 18:54, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Gary Burton

2010-12-04T23:23:32Z

Alphanumeric1:

Gary Burton (b. January 23, 1943) is a famous vibraphonist whose work in the jazz and fusion industries have made him one of the most recognizable names in the percussion world today. He has collaborated with artists such as Chick Corea, with whom he has released some of his best selling albums. <ref>http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=33871</ref> His work has won 6 Grammy awards and 11 other nominations where he did not win.

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

Gary Burton

2010-12-04T23:17:30Z

Alphanumeric1: Created page with "Gary Burton (b. January 23, 1943) is a famous vibraphonist whose work in the jazz and fusion industries have made him one of the most recognizable names in the percussion world t..."

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-12-04T23:10:30Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Logical Example 8 */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]

== My plans for this article ==

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.

:I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)
I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

{{quotebox|Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No other animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in '''point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section''' there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.

::All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.

:Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:"I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|an openmindedness test]]. Please let us know what your test score is.

:::MalP, please do post your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
::::Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.

::::The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an '''even longer''' neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.

::::At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
::::The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a ''valve'' is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.

::::If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.

:::::Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.

::::::On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?'' Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

:::::::::Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

== Chipmunks on Devil's tower? ==

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

: By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the [[global flood]]) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::: I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
::::::However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9i30Mwjo4 here] is a video of a red-tailed hawk ([http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r6/devil.htm which is fairly common to the area]) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Turkish Angoras ==

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that ''all'' cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

== Logical Example 8 ==

There has actually been a great deal of research amongst the evolutionists regarding why 'bad' behavior exists. I know his name is taboo, but before Richard Dawkins became the poster child for the New Atheist movement, he was a reputable biologist. One of his greatest books was The Selfish Gene, which describes in great detail how 'nasty' behavior actually could be construed as an evolutionary advantage to the individual. Before some haughty evolution supporter tries to come in here with a lengthy, indignant protest to that specific counterexample, I'd suggest we remove it. There are plenty of other logical counterexamples. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 20:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)

:Example 8 entails highly self-destructive behavior. I don't think that's what Dawkins meant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)

::If indeed Example 8 refers to '''self-destructive''' behavior, then it does make sense as an example. However, it should be clearly stated that we're referring to behavior that is damaging to the person doing the action. Right now the example suggests that lying and murdering could not have evolutionary benefits; they could - such is the mindset of a Darwinist, but it's the truth. Both of them are mentioned by Dawkins in his book directly. I can give quotes if you'd like. Perhaps we should switch out liars, murderers, and psycopaths with examples like...oh, say, drug addicts, people who purposefully injure themselves, and suicidal people. These self-destructive tendencies are not accounted for by evolution.[[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 18:10, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Joseph Brodsky

2010-12-01T01:44:56Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Famous Quotes */

A famous Russian poet, Joseph Brodsky defected to the United States from the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War. He was initially exiled to an estate by trial for 'social parasitism'. After his return from exile, he left for the United States, where he wrote much famous American literature, and became the United States' Poet Laureate.

== Famous Quotes ==

During his trial, Brodsky was asked by a judge:

Judge: And what is your profession, in general?

Brodsky: I am a poet and a literary translator.

Judge: Who recognizes you as a poet? Who enrolled you in the ranks of poets?

Brodsky: No one. Who enrolled me in the ranks of humankind?

Judge: Did you study this?

Brodsky: This?

Judge: How to become a poet. You did not even try to finish high school where they prepare, where they teach?

Brodsky: I didn’t think you could get this from school.

Judge: How then?

'''Brodsky: I think that it ... comes from God'''

Joseph Brodsky

2010-12-01T01:44:42Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Famous Quotes */

Joseph Brodsky

2010-12-01T01:44:28Z

Alphanumeric1: Created page with "A famous Russian poet, Joseph Brodsky defected to the United States from the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War. He was initially exiled to an estate by trial for 'social ..."

A famous Russian poet, Joseph Brodsky defected to the United States from the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War. He was initially exiled to an estate by trial for 'social parasitism'. After his return from exile, he left for the United States, where he wrote much famous American literature, and became the United States' Poet Laureate.

== Famous Quotes ==

During his trial, Brodsky was asked by a judge:

Judge: And what is your profession, in general?
Brodsky: I am a poet and a literary translator.
Judge: Who recognizes you as a poet? Who enrolled you in the ranks of poets?
Brodsky: No one. Who enrolled me in the ranks of humankind?
Judge: Did you study this?
Brodsky: This?
Judge: How to become a poet. You did not even try to finish high school where they prepare, where they teach?
Brodsky: I didn’t think you could get this from school.
Judge: How then?
Brodsky: I think that it ... comes from God

Alexander Pushkin

2010-12-01T01:38:59Z

Alphanumeric1:

'''Alexander Pushkin''' was a [[Russian]] author during the [[Romantic era]]. Commonly referred to as the Father of Russian Literature, Pushkin was exiled to Siberia by Tsar Alexander I, but due to his growing popularity as a poet and a writer of books-in-verse, was permitted to return to the capital by Tsar Nicholas I. Dissatisfaction with his life there contributed to the anxiety that led Pushkin to challenge one of his lover's suitors to a duel, where he lost his life before the age of forty.

==References==
*http://www.alexanderpushkin.com/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pushkin, Alexander}}
[[Category:Authors]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-12-01T01:34:03Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Logical Example 8 */ new section

Percussion

2010-12-01T01:29:51Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Basic Percussion Strokes */

[[Image:Percussion_Instruments1.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A varied array of percussion instruments, including [[bell]]s, [[cymbal]]s of different sizes, various kinds of [[drum]], a [[triangle (instrument)|triangle]], octobans, and even improvised items such as a pail. (Pic: Ottmar Liebert)]]

'''Percussion''' is one of the main categories of [[musical instrument]], which includes all instruments that produce a sound when struck or shaken. This encompasses a wide variety of [[drum]]s, as well as ethnic percussion items such as [[cajons]], accessory items like [[cymbals]], and the standard array of keyboard instruments, including [[xylophone]]s, [[glockenspiel]]s and technically, the [[piano]], since the sound is produced by a [[hammer]] striking a [[string]].

== Classification ==

The instruments of the percussion family may be placed into one of four categories:<ref>Blatter, A. 1997. pg. 201. ''Instrumentation and Orchestration'', 2nd edition. Schirmer Thomson Learning. California, USA</ref>

# Wooden instruments (called woods or keyboard instruments (excluding the vibraphone))
# Metal instruments (called metals)
# Skin-covered instruments (called hand drums)
# Other sound sources

=== List of percussion instruments ===

==== Wooden ====

* marimba
* [[xylophone]]
* xylorimba ''or'' xylomarimba

==== Metals ====

* orchestral bells
* [[vibraphone]]
* tubular chimes
* [[celesta]]
* button gong
* [[gong]]
* crotales
* steel drum
* [[bell|handbells]]
* almglocken
* anvil
* musical saw
* flexatone
* tubaphone

==== Skin-Covered ====

* [[timpani]]
* roto-tom

==== Other Sound Sources ====

* slide whistle
* musical glasses

== Basic Percussion Strokes ==

The fundamental sound-producing gesture in percussion music is the single stroke. This consists simply of striking a sound-producing object once with something capable of setting the object into vibration <ref>Blatter, A. 1997. pg. 191. ''Instrumentation and Orchestration'', 2nd edition. Schirmer Thomson Learning. California, USA</ref>. Other common rhymthic patterns are called [[rudiments]], and make up the basics of concert and military style drumming. Some basic rudiments include:

* Flam - A single stroke accompanied by another, quieter, grace note played by the other hand just before the main stroke. Played in fast combination with other rudiments, the flam adds density and power to the rhythm.

* Drag (or ruff) - Similar to the flam, the drag is a single stroke preceded by two grace notes. Both grace notes are usually played by the same hand, with the other hand playing the primary stroke. The drag, like the flam, adds density and can be manipulated to sound more appropriate for a concert band setting (in which case the grace notes are very open and heavy) or a military setting (in which case the grace notes are tight and quick).

* Open Roll - A drum roll comprised of alternating bounces of two right and two left strokes. Quite simply, it would be written: RRLLRRLL... The open roll is precise; each stroke is intended to be heard individually, as opposed to a closed roll, where the strokes blend together. Often, an open roll will be begun by a flam or ruff. Different length open rolls (five stroke, seven stroke, nine stroke, thirteen stroke, etc.) are among the most common of rudiments.

* Closed Roll - A drum roll where each individual stroke is not meant to be heard. The strokes blend together and are played in no particular pattern. The drummer applied pressure to the stick as it strikes the head, so that when played together, both sticks create a wall of snare sound, rather than the precise alternations of the open roll.

* Paradiddle - A very common sticking pattern. It is: RLRR. To play a paradiddle, the drummer plays one stroke with the right hand, then one with the left hand, then two with the right hand. This pattern can be reversed for a 'left paradiddle', which has the exact opposite pattern. Paradiddles allow drummers to begin musical phrases on whichever hand they wish. For example, playing a right paradiddle (RLRR) leaves the drummer on the left hand for the next beat. Playing a left paradiddle (LRLL) leaves the drummer on their right hand.

Percussion instruments are used in most forms of music, providing a [[rhythm]] for the other instruments to keep to, as well as dramatic sounds that can punctuate important passages of the music. In the modern [[orchestra]], the percussion section often includes [[timpani]] and a range of smaller instruments such as triangles, [[bell]]s and [[woodblock]]s.

Percussion is particularly important in types of music, such as most [[Latin America]]n and [[Africa]]n styles, that place a strong emphasis on rhythm; these genres often use an array of traditional percussive instruments such as [[bongos]] and [[guiro]]s. In recent years, some genres of [[popular music]] have abandoned 'real' percussion altogether in favor of [[drum machine]]s, but the sounds these produce still have their roots in traditional drums and [[cymbal]]s for the most part.

Recently, the percussion keyboard instruments have gained popularity in band and orchestral settings. Marimbas and vibraphones act similarly to the piano. The percussionist can use four mallets to play chords as a piano player might, or provide additional volume to a melodic line by playing it on the keyboard along with the band.

Percussion instruments are one of the oldest types of music-making device. Cymbals are often mentioned in the [[Bible]], eg in Psalm 150:5.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Musical Instruments]]

Percussion

2010-12-01T01:23:01Z

Alphanumeric1: /* Basic Percussion Strokes */

[[Image:Percussion_Instruments1.jpg|thumb|right|350px|A varied array of percussion instruments, including [[bell]]s, [[cymbal]]s of different sizes, various kinds of [[drum]], a [[triangle (instrument)|triangle]], octobans, and even improvised items such as a pail. (Pic: Ottmar Liebert)]]

'''Percussion''' is one of the main categories of [[musical instrument]], which includes all instruments that produce a sound when struck or shaken. This encompasses a wide variety of [[drum]]s, as well as ethnic percussion items such as [[cajons]], accessory items like [[cymbals]], and the standard array of keyboard instruments, including [[xylophone]]s, [[glockenspiel]]s and technically, the [[piano]], since the sound is produced by a [[hammer]] striking a [[string]].

== Classification ==

The instruments of the percussion family may be placed into one of four categories:<ref>Blatter, A. 1997. pg. 201. ''Instrumentation and Orchestration'', 2nd edition. Schirmer Thomson Learning. California, USA</ref>

# Wooden instruments (called woods or keyboard instruments (excluding the vibraphone))
# Metal instruments (called metals)
# Skin-covered instruments (called hand drums)
# Other sound sources

=== List of percussion instruments ===

==== Wooden ====

* marimba
* [[xylophone]]
* xylorimba ''or'' xylomarimba

==== Metals ====

* orchestral bells
* [[vibraphone]]
* tubular chimes
* [[celesta]]
* button gong
* [[gong]]
* crotales
* steel drum
* [[bell|handbells]]
* almglocken
* anvil
* musical saw
* flexatone
* tubaphone

==== Skin-Covered ====

* [[timpani]]
* roto-tom

==== Other Sound Sources ====

* slide whistle
* musical glasses

== Basic Percussion Strokes ==

The fundamental sound-producing gesture in percussion music is the single stroke. This consists simply of striking a sound-producing object once with something capable of setting the object into vibration <ref>Blatter, A. 1997. pg. 191. ''Instrumentation and Orchestration'', 2nd edition. Schirmer Thomson Learning. California, USA</ref>. Other common rhymthic patterns are called rudiments, and make up the basics of concert and military style drumming. Some basic rudiments include:

* Flam - A single stroke accompanied by another, quieter, grace note played by the other hand just before the main stroke. Played in fast combination with other rudiments, the flam adds density and power to the rhythm.

* Drag (or ruff) - Similar to the flam, the drag is a single stroke preceded by two grace notes. Both grace notes are usually played by the same hand, with the other hand playing the primary stroke. The drag, like the flam, adds density and can be manipulated to sound more appropriate for a concert band setting (in which case the grace notes are very open and heavy) or a military setting (in which case the grace notes are tight and quick).

* Open Roll - A drum roll comprised of alternating bounces of two right and two left strokes. Quite simply, it would be written: RRLLRRLL... The open roll is precise; each stroke is intended to be heard individually, as opposed to a closed roll, where the strokes blend together. Often, an open roll will be begun by a flam or ruff. Different length open rolls (five stroke, seven stroke, nine stroke, thirteen stroke, etc.) are among the most common of rudiments.

* Closed Roll - A drum roll where each individual stroke is not meant to be heard. The strokes blend together and are played in no particular pattern. The drummer applied pressure to the stick as it strikes the head, so that when played together, both sticks create a wall of snare sound, rather than the precise alternations of the open roll.

* Paradiddle - A very common sticking pattern. It is: RLRR. To play a paradiddle, the drummer plays one stroke with the right hand, then one with the left hand, then two with the right hand. This pattern can be reversed for a 'left paradiddle', which has the exact opposite pattern. Paradiddles allow drummers to begin musical phrases on whichever hand they wish. For example, playing a right paradiddle (RLRR) leaves the drummer on the left hand for the next beat. Playing a left paradiddle (LRLL) leaves the drummer on their right hand.

Percussion instruments are used in most forms of music, providing a [[rhythm]] for the other instruments to keep to, as well as dramatic sounds that can punctuate important passages of the music. In the modern [[orchestra]], the percussion section often includes [[timpani]] and a range of smaller instruments such as triangles, [[bell]]s and [[woodblock]]s.

Percussion is particularly important in types of music, such as most [[Latin America]]n and [[Africa]]n styles, that place a strong emphasis on rhythm; these genres often use an array of traditional percussive instruments such as [[bongos]] and [[guiro]]s. In recent years, some genres of [[popular music]] have abandoned 'real' percussion altogether in favor of [[drum machine]]s, but the sounds these produce still have their roots in traditional drums and [[cymbal]]s for the most part.

Recently, the percussion keyboard instruments have gained popularity in band and orchestral settings. Marimbas and vibraphones act similarly to the piano. The percussionist can use four mallets to play chords as a piano player might, or provide additional volume to a melodic line by playing it on the keyboard along with the band.

Percussion instruments are one of the oldest types of music-making device. Cymbals are often mentioned in the [[Bible]], eg in Psalm 150:5.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Musical Instruments]]

Percussion

2010-12-01T01:10:42Z

Alphanumeric1: I didn't realize that triangles would link to the geometric shape, not an article regarding the musical instrument. Changed example to cymbals.

Percussion

2010-12-01T01:09:47Z

Alphanumeric1: The xylophone, glockenspiel, marimba, vibraphone, etc. ARE keyboard instruments. I edited the introduction to reflect this fact.