Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko

2008-07-01T00:14:18Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Trofim Denisovich Lysenko''' was a soviet scientist and founder of [[Lysenkoism]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[category:Russian People]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich}}

Immanuel Velikovsky

2008-07-01T00:11:35Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Immanuel Velikovsky''' (1895-1979) was a [[Jewish]] [[cosmologist]], [[historian]] and [[psychologist]] who in the 1950s proposed a radical new interpretation of [[ancient history]] and the evolution of the [[solar system]] in order to reconcile [[Biblical]] accounts with observed fact. In particular, he hypothesised that the planet [[Venus]] was originally a comet ejected from [[Jupiter]] around 1450 BC, and went careering around the solar system disrupting the orbits of both [[Mars]] and [[Earth]] before settling into its present orbit. These disruptions, he believed, could account for all the apparent impossible things described in the Bible, from the parting of the [[Red Sea]] to the sun standing still. To accompany his astronomical theories he devised a totally new chronology for [[Ancient Egypt]], moving the end of the Middle Kingdom to 1450 BC and making it coincide with the [[Exodus]].

Some problems with his theory include the fact that Velikovsky offered no mechanism to explain how Jupiter could have expelled Venus without disrupting the complex system of rings and moons, where the energy for such a massive expulsion came from, and why a gas planet like Jupiter would expel a rocky planet like Venus.

[[Category:Jewish People]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Historians]]
[[Category:Psychologists]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Velikovsky, Immanuel}}

Georg Simon Ohm

2008-07-01T00:10:48Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Georg Simon Ohm''' is best known for his work in [[electricity]]; see [[Ohm's Law]].

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Electricity]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ohm, Georg Simon}}

Arthur Pierson Kelley

2008-07-01T00:09:41Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Arthur Pierson Kelley''' (1897 - 1979) was a notable [[German]] [[American]] professor of [[Botany]] and the founder of the [[The Creationist Society|Creationist Society]] in [[America]]. He is also noted for having edited the widely used genealogical encyclopedia [[200 Years in the Shenandoah Valley: the Settlers and their Pine Church]].

== Early Life and Academics ==

Born 15th October 1897 in [[Chester County]], [[Pennsylvania]], Arthur Pierson Kelley was the son of Sarah Rebecca Beaver [[Groff]] and Albanis Ashmun Kelley. His mother was of [[Pennsylvania Dutch|Pennsylvania German]] and [[Jewish]] ancestry and his father of [[Irish]] descent. Arthur was first privately tutored and then attended public schools in Chester County.

He attended the [[University of Pennsylvania]], graduating at the top of his class around 1922. His major field was Organic Sciences, specifically [[Botany]] and his areas of specialization included Mycorrhizae, plant soil typology and the survival of blight by various plant species. He would become an internationally renowned researcher in his field, conducting research in [[Pennsylvania]], [[Iowa]], [[Maryland]] and [[Virginia]]. Many of his works
were considered classics in the field at the time and are still actively consulted by researchers around the world today.

== Anti-evolution and the Creationist Society ==

As an academic and in particular being involved in the [[Natural Sciences]], Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley was in a unique position to observe the 'evolution' of scientific theories. As in previous centuries, the body of scientific theory continued a pattern of development in which new theories would become established truths and at times even develop into a form of unquestionable orthodoxy in a particular field, only to be replaced at a later time or ultimately abandoned.

During the 1930's Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley became increasingly concerned with what he regarded as the "fundamentalism" of the [[Theory of Evolution]] in the scientific community. He compared this fundamentalism to that which can be found in numerous religions and felt that [[creationism]] could be reconciled with current scientific facts. He also saw the spiritual aspect of human thought as an essential tool for interpreting the world and as being equally important and beneficial as the scientific method. His view was not so much that science and spirituality are in conflict; but that they are both equally necessary and complement each other.

From the 1930's the [[Evolution Protest Movement]] had become more vocal and visible in the [[United Kingdom]], in particular [[England]]. Prof. Kelley saw in this movement a possible answer to his concern about the balance of debate in [[America]]. Largely inspired by the British anti-evolution movement, Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelly founded and later became the principle ideologue of the [[The Creationist Society|Creationist Society]] of the [[United States]].

During the period when the culture of the United States was moving away from the moral and ethical restraints of the 1940's and 1950's and toward the ''laissez faire'' attitudes of the 1960's and 1970's, Prof. Kelley's attempts to transplant the anti-evolution movement to American soil were not fruitful. Though the [[United States]] would later become fertile soil for this ideology, Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley would not live to see it for himself.

Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley died in Frederick County, [[Virginia]] at his mansion in October 1979.

== Major Works by Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley ==

* Kelley, Arthur Pierson. 1929. Catalogue of the vascular plants of the Okoboji region, Dickinson County, Iowa.

* Kelley, Arthur Pierson. 1937. Literature of Mycorrhizae. Landenberg, Pa: Landenberg Laboratory.

* Kelley, Arthur Pierson. 1921. Plant indicators of soil types. (University of Pennsylvania)

* Kelley, Arthur Pierson, Chestnut Treas Surviving Blight Science 26 September 1924: 292-293.

* Kelley, Arthur Pierson. 1976. 200 years in the Shenandoah Valley: the settlers and their Pine Church, with records made by Paul Henkel. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Tree Pub.

== References and Further Reading ==

* Everest, F. Alton, "The American Scientific Affiliation - The First Decade " JASA 3 (September 1951): 33-38
* The Cleland mss., 1911-1946, are the papers of Ralph Erskine Cleland, 1892-1971, botanist. They consist chiefly of correspondence with prominent scientists on Oenothera, evening primrose. Among the correspondents in the collection are... Arthur Pierson Kelley...
* New York Botanical Garden, The Robert Statham Williams Records. The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the library's online public access catalog. Persons: Kelley, Arthur Pierson, 1897-, Williams, R.S. (Robert Statham), 1859-1945.

== Related ==

* [[The Creationist Society]] Evolution Protest movement founded and led by Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley in the United States.

* [[George G. Groff]] Professor of Natural Sciences, President (1888-89), [[Bucknell University]]. Uncle of Prof. Arthur Pierson Kelley

[[category:groff family]]
[[category:evolution]]
[[category:creationism]]
[[category:scientists]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Kelley, Arthur Pierson}}

Talk:Alfred Kinsey

2008-07-01T00:07:59Z

Encinocathy: fix the default sort

{{protect|RobS}}
==“He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” ==

The following is a source by source explanation for my removal of the sentence ““He used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” from this article.

I removed the source “Felicity Barringer, "Sex Survey of American Men Finds 1% Are Gay," The New York Times, April 15, 1993, p. A- 1.” because the source did not say anything about “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” It did say the numbers were lower than those reported by Kinsey, but not that his methods were in any way flawed. Did not support the claim it claimed to support, so removed.

I removed the source “Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?," The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1.” because the source contradicts the first sentence of the article (it says that Kinsey estimated the percentage at 4%), and because source does not claim that he “used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” – it does say “Kinsey's numbers were not based on a statistically valid sample.” But that is a much weaker claim than the article here makes. Additionally, the full title of the article should be given, it is “How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay? Estimates Vary By Millions” not “How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?”

I removed the source “Barbara Vobejda, "Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid," Washington Post, October 7, 1994, p. A-1.” because it like the previous source does not accuse Kinsey of trying to baffle the unsophisticated, it simply says, “While studies of Americans' sexual practices date back to the work of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, much research in the field has focused on fertility, teenage sex or behavior related to AIDS. Many of the studies, including Kinsey's, were not based on a representative sample of the population.” (Very week criticism, if criticism at al,l compared to what the article claims.) Additionally the full title is “Survey Finds Most Adults Sexually Staid; Americans' Average Is Once Per Week”.

I removed the source “Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme” because it does not contain the accusation that Kinsey intended to “baffle the unsophisticated” with his statistics—it does not support the claim it is used to support. Additionally Dr. Reisman has a degree in Communications, not statistics, biology, human behavior, or any relevant field and so is not really an appropriate source for this article at all. (She is also the major proponent of “erototoxins” a theory that has no science to support it—not even any she has produced—which pushes her views so far to the fringe that even if her background were in a relevant field—which, I repeat, it isn’t—she shouldn’t be used as a source here).

I removed the source “Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 1991, p. 104.” because it does not even mention Kinsey – it mentions his institute and a 1970 study conducted by it, but does not even touch on the issue of the statistics used in Kinsey’s major studies. It does not support the claim it allegedly supported, and so was removed.

I removed the source “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16.” because it contains the 4% number not the 10% number, and because it does not criticize Kinsy’s statistical methods. It does not support the claim it allegedly supported, and so needed to be removed.

I removed the source “Stuart N. Seidman and Ronald O. Rieder, "A Review of Sexual Behavior in the United States," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 151, March 1994, p. 339.” because it notes that the Kinsey studies had “severe methodological limitations” but not the stronger claim that “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated.” This source goes on to use the Kinsey data to make some evaluations of behavior, while noting the limitations of the data.

None of the 7 sources listed to support the claim, “He [Kinsey] used faulty statistical sampling methods to baffle the unsophisticated,” in fact support that claim. Since after seven tries no good source to support the claim was provided I removed the claim all together as it will likely not be supported.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:I removed these again, sine the revert seemed targeted at the 10% number not this claim.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::Is there a reason this edit was reverted again? I’ve explained in great detail why each and every single one of these sources does not support the claim it is being used to support and why it was removed. Is there a problem with any of my explanation or is there a quote from one of these sources I’m missing? If the revert could be explained I would greatly appreciate it. I’ve seen no objection to this edit (the only objection I’ve seen to any of my edits to this page is that “everyone knows” the 10% which this edit did not touch—see below for why I made that edit), could the problem with it be explained?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I’ve seen a lot of discussion on this page by the reverting sysop, but only about the other edit I made that was reverted, nothing about this edit. I assume that this means that this edit was inadvertently reverted and if I see no objections I will make it again shortly.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Ok, seeing no objection. I will remove this material again.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I see that my edit has been reverted and the page is now locked because of an “Edit war”. I’ve still seen no reason why this edit is not ok, please explain.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reisman ==

For the reasons stated above, I would advocate removing Reisman (and especially the reference here [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html] )from this article. I also want to add a few additional reasons here. First, she is not the first person to point out the statistical flaws with Kinsey’s methodology—so she can hardly be said to have “debunked” him. Second, Kinsey’s data, when the limitations of it are recognized, is still valuable and used in scientific papers – one of the sources above used it. Third, her quote stops short of the conclusion it seems to be used to support, in context she goes on to say:
<blockquote> Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.[3] </blockquote>
<blockquote>But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.”</blockquote>
Fourth, she questions his results on homosexuality because:
<blockquote> However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.</blockquote>
That is, she finds some of his subject area distasteful and therefore we should reject all his data. This is (at best) a moral critique of the study of sex research, it is far from a scientific critique. Fifth, her “evidence” of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Kinsey and his associates is minimal at best—I see lots of hand waving and hysteria, but no actual evidence—and even if Kinsey were guilty of encouraging the sexual abuse of children (a fact I highly doubt, but am open to the possibility of being wrong on) that doesn’t invalidate his other numbers.

I would suggest immediate removal of this section from the article for all of these reasons.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:I’m seeing no objections to removing this information. I plan to act on it in the next day or so if I see none.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unreliable source? ==

The referenced article 'The re-whitewashing of pedophile Alfred Kinsey' seems to be quite suspect. Its published by Renew America, who have political disputes with Kinsey's work, and seems to be concerned mainly not with criticisms of his research but a combination of personal accusations and claims that Kinsey was and still is destroying society. Look at some of these:

''This collection comprised nudist magazines that contained pictures and drawings of nude men and boys, and Kinsey would show them to his young male charges in his tent — alone — late at night.''

Source, perhaps? No? Was Kinsey ever charged with any type of sex crime? Nope. Are there any witnesses or accounts of these late-night showings? Nope.

''Kinsey is without a doubt one of the most vile, destructive and perverted individuals I have ever had the displeasure of studying.''

Could it be that the writer is just the tiniest bit biased against Kinsey?

A lot of the claims made are also dubious. The entire section on Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, for example - the Nazi Pedophile who the article claims Kinsey protected and encouraged. If you do a bit of research on that, just a little googling, it seems that this claim was pulled out of the blue by a British TV program called 'Kinsey's Pedophiles' - which based its claims on 'newspaper findings' without nameing any specific newspaper. A claim which it appears to have in turn pulled from the claims of one Dr. Judith Reisman - who the author of the re-whitewashing article seems to hold in high estem.

This Reisman is also reaponsible for many of the other claims repeated - most, if not all. Yet her own credability is pathetic. She appears to be on an anti-Kinsey crusade, publishing a series of books and a website attacking him, and making numerous claims which I can see at a glance to be nonsense. For example, the ''Kinsey's 'research' alleged that 10% of American males were homosexual'' line, which is actually just a misreading of his definition (The research actually claimed that 10% of males had homosexual tendencies, which could include bisexuality, or even heterosexuals who had recurring homosexual thoughts or fantasies even if not acted upon). And she makes some very dubious claims - once stateing that watching pornography caused the formation of toxic chemicals in the brain.

The re-whitewashing writer seems to have a bit of a nazi obcession, comparing Kinsey to them no less than five times. Including one time where he argues that Kinsey must be like the Nazis because they both supported eugenics - well, eugenics was hugely popular at that time, quite a few US states passed eugenics laws and yet noone calls those representatives Nazis. It was in fashion.

I just dont think we should refer to this collection of unfounded accusations and lies, written by a peddler of unfounded accusations and lies, in turn repeated by the creator of unfounded accusations and lies and without a spec of credability at any chain. I advise that it be removed, and never refered to here again, in the name of retaining what little credability Conservapedia has.

I have not seen such an appallingly bad source used on Conservapedia since the article that claimed the Nazi Party encouraged homosexuality.

Suricou, the annoyed raven.

== 10% or 4% ==

Two of the references use on the original version of this page show that Kinsey claimed that 4% not 10% of the American public was homosexual—no references have been provided supporting the 10% claim—I think that if my addition is going to be reverted, at least some sources should be provided. The articles make a point of saying the Kinsey was misunderstood to be claiming the 10% number, so a reference to “everybody knows” Kinsey said it is not sufficient here.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:04, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's common knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::The sources point out that common knowledge is wrong.
::And I didn’t change the 10% number so the revert you just did put back the bad sources discussed above not here.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Waht we need is the GAO report from here. [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.2749:] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:37, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::This link says nothing about the 10% number. It says that Congress considered a bill to have the GAO look into whether or not Kinsey did anything wrong—that has nothing to do with what number he reported.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::If you look here [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR02749:@@@X], you will see that the bill was never voted on (it went to a subcommittee where the Republican controlled House let it die) so no GAO report was ever made.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The report was ordered because the 10% made is way into federally funded school texts for 30 odd years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::::First, the report was never ordered—see the link I provided. Second, the report was considered because of the child sexuality information not the homosexuality information—see section 2 of the bill. Third, the number is not in the link you provided.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No one said the number was in the link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Ok. Then how is it relevant? It is not about homosexuality at all, it doesn’t talk about homosexuality, and the bill was never passed—so no report was ever made. How is this at all relevant to the subject under debate here (whether Kinsey claimed that 10% of American men were homosexual or whether he claimed 4% were).?
::::::Also, Please do not forget to address my points numbered 1 and 2 above.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
(<--) There is no debate. Kinsey made the claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:I provided two sources that clearly say he did not make the claim, but that people commonly misunderstand him to have made the claim. (They were “Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?, Estimates Vary By Millions" The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1.” and “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16.”) You have asserted that “It’s common knowledge.” I have explained that the common knowledge is false and provided two reputable sources to back this up. You have responded by linking to a bill that was never passed suggesting that Kinsey be investigated for sexually abusing children (a bit of a non sequitur, apparently since you have stopped talking about it). You have not suggested that my sources are unreliable, you have not suggested that you have a more reliable source, you have not provided any source (let alone a reliable one) supporting the 10% you have repeated that everyone knows it to be true—despite the fact that I have explained why common knowledge is not to be trusted in this case. The 10% is a misrepresentation of Kinsey’s work.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:Not supported by the evidence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:24, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
::What evidence? You have provided no evidence for me to look at. Simply asserting a thing to be true, especially when the evidence I have provided says that what most people believe is false, is not evidence.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
:The discussion has moved on to [[User:Conservative/socialeffectevolution]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::There is no need to move the discussion—especially to the page of a user rather than to the appropriate article (I’ve not been invited to post on that user’s page, and will not violate the rule that a user’s page is his castle to pursue this discussion with you)—or to a page that is tangentially related at best—we are discussing what number Kinsey gave on a page about Kinsey, we are not discussing anything about Darwin and so I think talking about this on a page about the impact on society of Darwin’s theory is inappropriate. I will therefore respond here, as this is the relevant location.
::Most of the “evidence” posted on the page you linked to comes from Dr. Reisman, who for all the reasons I listed above is not a reliable source—and I still see no reason to trust her. The other “evidence” you post pertains to the bill we have discussed at length here—which for all the reasons discussed above is still not relevant to this discussion—the Eagle Forum piece on the bill reemphasizes that it deals with child sexuality not homosexuality—that is it is not. So the evidence offered is 1 untrustworthy source and the discussion of an bill never passed (or voted on) that deals with a separate issue. Compared to the two reliable sources (remember they were and are both used in the version of the article you have twice reverted back to) that I have provided for the 4% number—including 1 from a peer reviewed journal in a relevant field, psychiatry.
::To attempt to forestall further misunderstanding let me quote the relevant sources.
::From “Franklin D. Jones and Ronald J. Koshes, "Homosexuality and the Military," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 152, No. 1, January 1995, pp. 16 (citing to Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.):
::<blockquote>Kinsey et al. found that 4% of men are exclusively homosexual past adolescence. </blockquote>
::There it is in plain English, from a peer reviewed article in a journal on psychiatry - Kinsey gave the 4% number.
::From Boyce Rensberger, "How Many Men in U.S. Are Gay?, Estimates Vary By Millions" The Washington Post, April 17, 1993, p. A-1:
::<blockquote> Although that figure is so much a part of conventional wisdom that a year-old San Francisco gay magazine is called Ten Percent, Kinsey never intended it as a measure of the proportion of homosexual men. The pioneering sexologist recognized that human sexuality encompasses a range of behaviors shading from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual.</blockquote>
::<blockquote>Kinsey estimated that just 4 percent of men were purely homosexual (that extrapolates to 5 million men in the United States), but said the population could be as high as 10 percent (12.5 million) if men were included who had been "more or less exclusively homosexual" for at least three years out of a lifetime that was otherwise heterosexual. </blockquote>
::There, from a reliable newspaper you have the 4% number given again and an explanation of where the 10% mythos comes from. Kinsey was interested not just in behavior over a life time, but in snapshots of behavior as well—the additional 6% comes from misunderstanding what Kinsey said. He said that 6% of the people he surveyed went through, what we might now call, a homosexual phase, they were not homosexual, they engaged in heterosexual behavior for most of their lives, but they experienced a prolonged period of exclusively homosexual behavior at some point in time. In modern parlance we would call these people bisexual.
::So you can see the reliable sources on this, and how the 10% figure came to be the dominant one in the popular imagination.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 22:45, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Additions ==

Perhaps some information on when Kinsey was born and died and what he did for a living would be appropriate as well. A brief discussion of his overall work might be beneficial. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:12, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:His overall work was to justify and legitimize sexual perversion. He was a homosexual sadomasochist. I don't think any part of his 'overall work' has been beneficial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have not seen anything to point towards homosexuality, and he was married to Clara McMillen and they had four children. If you could show me a document that proves he was homosexual I would appriciate it. --[[User:Be not dismayed|Be not dismayed]]

:You didn't follow the CWA link I supplied? Maybe <s>you</s> we need to make it more prominent - once you find it - so that other readers can find it too. <s>Would you do that for me, please? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:57, 22 June 2007 (EDT)</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 20:58, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Here's the source the CWA used- ''James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company,1997), pp. 81-85 and 603-604.'', though it would be factual if you mentioned that he was married and had 4 children [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kinsey/peopleevents/p_mac.html]

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:48, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== More Info ==

I like this article as it is, but I think it would also help to have some more info on the historical person. For example, he wrote/edited "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" which was a huge seller. He taught at a University, was married, those sorts of biographical details that make the article flow a little better. It is locked so I can't edit any of this. Thanks! [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:40, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
:It was locked by [[user:RobSmith|RobSmith]], so I suggest that you leave him a message on his talk page asking him to unlock it for you. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== Could somebody de-link the dates and years? ==

What the headline says. Article is locked, so I can't do it myself. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 23:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Default Sort needs to be added ==

Sysops, could one of you please add the following line:

<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Kinsey, Alfred}}</nowiki>

Having the categories sort by first name looks unprofessional. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 20:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Alexander King

2008-07-01T00:03:05Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Alexander King''' is a [[scientist]] and founder of the [[Club of Rome]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/alexander-king/ What Liberals Say - Alexander King], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Scientists]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:King, Alexander}}

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-06-30T22:11:45Z

Encinocathy: move E Coli paper discussion to new page(s)

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==

It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Lenski

2008-06-30T22:09:25Z

Encinocathy: move E Coli paper discussion to new page(s)

==Formatting==
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Looks great. Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule. Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Listing fields ==

I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.

== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==

Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here? It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:09, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.

I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:

No list of degrees: 2
List with fields: 3
List without fields: 12

Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

==Template / formatting==
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Really, "Henry8th"??? That's an amazing coincidence you describe: you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work". Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work". I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==

I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==

It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== This man is nothing but a farce ==

Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==

This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==

The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well. I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:John McCain

2008-06-30T22:05:43Z

Encinocathy: Undo revision 484635 by Rawkandroll12 (Talk)

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</font></sup> 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Oh wow, more conservative retards ==

With their spout mouths open ready to recieve the load emanating from McCain's grizzled old swizzle stick.

What a bunch of kcum guzzling pieces of human waste.

I hope your child's private school burns down.

Go to hell, all of you, you're not worthy of my fecal matter.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

2008-06-30T21:59:12Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

[[Image:Pierre Grasse.jpg|thumb|120px|right|[[Pierre Grasse]]]]
'''Pierre Grasse''' (1895 - 1985) was a [[France|French]] [[Zoology|zoologist]] who served as Chair of [[Theory of evolution|Evolution]] at [[Sorbonne University]] for thirty years and was ex-president of the [[French Academy of Sciences]].<ref>http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/09/pierre-grasse-and-irreducible.html</ref><ref>http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm</ref> Pierre Grasse was also editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie".<ref>http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm</ref>

Pierre Grasse stated the following: "Some contemporary [[biology|biologists]], as soon as they observe a [[mutation]], talk about [[theory of evolution|evolution]]. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grasse pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists and are organisms which produce the most mutants are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!".<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre Grasse regarding mutations]</ref> Grasse regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre Grasse regarding mutations]</ref>

Grasse also wrote the following:
{{cquote|Through use and abuse of hidden [[postulate]]s, of bold, often ill-founded [[extrapolation]]s, a [[pseudoscience]] has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.6

Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.8

It follows that any explanation of the mechanism in creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formation of pure conjectures as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct. - Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.31<ref>http://bevets.com/equotesg3.htm</ref>}}

[[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote regarding Pierre Grasse:
{{cquote|Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378, p.376).<ref>http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/09/pierre-grasse-and-irreducible.html</ref>}}
==References==
<references/>

[[category:evolution]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Grasse, Pierre}}

Kenneth R. Miller

2008-06-30T21:57:30Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Ken Miller''' is a Roman Catholic biology professor at [[Brown University]] known for arguing against many forms of [[creationism]] such as [[Young Earth Creationism]] and [[Intelligent Design]]. Miller gives lectures around the country and testified in both the Cobb County case (as a witness) as well as [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]] (as an expert witness). <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am.html#day1am110</ref>
==References==
{{reflist}}

[[category:evolution]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Miller, Ken}}

Ernst Haeckel

2008-06-30T21:56:25Z

Encinocathy: added category : scientists

[[Image:Haeckel.jpg|right|175px|thumb|[[Ernst Haeckel]]]]
'''Ernst Haeckel''' was a [[German]] scientist and [[evolutionist]], one of the chief proponents of [[Darwinism]]. He stated in 1876: "If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of [[evolution]] we must have recourse to the miracle of a [[supernatural creation]]." [http://www.truenews.org/creation/origin.html] In addition to Ernst Haeckel being a very influential proponent of the evolutionary position, Haeckel was an advocate of atheism.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref> Ernst Haeckel attempted to portray himself as an ethical proponent of [[atheism]], however, history shows he was a [[deceit|deceitful]] individual.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm "Another Evolution Fraud Exposed"] - Creationism.org, INVESTIGATING GENESIS SERIES.</ref><ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1180</ref>
<ref>http://www.iconsofevolution.com/Icons of Evolution</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf</ref>
The March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism."<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03EFDD123EE033A2575AC0A9659C946697D6CF</ref>

==Embryo pictures==

Haeckel is famous for producing faked photographs showing a series of minievolutions occurring in [[human]] [[embryo]]s.

Noted evolutionist [[Stephen Gould]] wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of ''Natural History'':
{{cquote|"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. [[Haeckel diagrams|Haeckel’s drawings]], despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"<ref name="corg">http://www.creationism.org/caesar/haeckel.htm</ref>}}

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".<ref name="corg" />

Creationists have written regarding the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's work and how a prestigious German science journal published his dubious work.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747</ref>
==References==

<References/>

==Also See==

[[Haeckel diagrams]]

[[category:evolution]]
[[category:scientists]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Haeckel, Ernst}}

Ernst Haeckel

2008-06-30T21:55:38Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

Charles Darwin

2008-06-30T21:54:39Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
'''Charles Darwin''' (12 February 1809 - 19 April 1883) was a famous naturalist born in England. Charles Darwin is best known for the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] by [[Natural selection|natural selection]]. The concept is that organisms are modified over vast amounts of time by naturally occurring processes, originating from common ancestors that lived tens of millions of years ago. Outside the area of evolutionary theory in particular, Charles Darwin was regarded as an expert on barnacles, as well as being credited with discovering how coral [[atoll]]s were formed.

==General Biography Of Charles Darwin==
Charles Darwin was born in [[Shrewsbury]], [[England]] in 1809 to his parents Dr. Robert Darwin and Susannah Wedgewood. Darwin's mother was a religious woman but his father was, for the most part, a weak deist. Despite his lack of theistic religious belief, the Darwin's father allowed Charles to be baptized into the Anglican Church and encouraged him to become a clergyman. Darwin's mother died in 1817. In 1825 Charles Darwin went on to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh. There, he became horrified with the brutality of surgery before anesthesia was invented and quit his medical studies.

In 1831 Charles Darwin graduated from Christ's College at Cambridge with a BA degree in the classics and theology. On December 27 of the same year Charles Darwin departed on the ''HMS Beagle'' for a five year voyage of exploration. The ''Beagle'' returned to English shores on October 2 1836. In 1837, Charles Darwin drew his now famous depiction of [[common ancestry]] in the form of a branching tree.<ref>Charles Darwin, Transmutation Notebook B 1837:36</ref> The following year he discovered the concept of ''[[natural selection]].'' Darwin insists that naturally occurring phenomena and factors working together in blind tandem have produced nature and eventually mankind.

However, Charles Darwin originally based the idea of human evolution on a racist assumption<ref>Milton, Richard ''Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'' 1997:186,287 says "Darwin [was] openly racist"</ref>, [after God was rejected as Creator], made in the late 1830s<ref>Barlow, Nora (editor) ''The Autobiography of Charles Darwin'' 1958:130</ref>, that Fuegians (natives of Tierra del Fuego) resembled primates that he had observed in the London zoo.<ref>Larson, Edward J. ''Evolution: The Remarkable History Of A Scientific Theory'' 2004:66,67</ref> In 1842 he wrote out a ''sketch'' of his theory but did not publish it. Again, in 1844 Charles Darwin produced what is known today as an ''essay'' of the same theory more developed but he still chose not to publish.

Finally, in 1859, Charles Darwin published his famous theory about how the species may have been produced without any aid from a Divine Creator. He titled his book ''On [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]], or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''. In 1871, well after his theory enjoyed widespread success, Darwin published his ideas on human evolution in a two-volume book titled ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]].''

==Religious Views fo Charles Darwin==


[[Image:CharlesDarwin.jpg|thumb|150px|left|Charles Darwin in 1880 at the age of 71.]]
Charles Darwin likely abandoned Christianity as a student when he disappointed his father by refusing to become a minister. In his autobiography Charles Darwin wrote about the diminishment of his religious faith and Darwin stated that he was an [[agnostic]].<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> However, Darwin was being [[deceit|deceitful]] as he stated in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]], which is a type of [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref>
<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref><ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref> Darwin wrote the following: "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."<ref>http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm</ref> In the 1996 ''British Journal for the Philosophy of Science'' Kim Sterelny wrote in a book review the following: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a [[Materialism|materialist]] and a mechanist..."<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 47, 1996, page 641</ref> [[Creation Ministries International]] states the following regarding why it is maintained that Charles Darwin was privately a materialist:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Mayr]]’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of [[brain]], more wonderful than [[gravity]] as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref>}}

Scholars refer to the private notebook in which Charles Darwin stated he was a materialist as the "M" notebook of 1838.<ref>Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276</ref> [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote that "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of [[Robert Malthus|Malthus]]. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' (more or less = atheist)". <ref>''American Scientist'' May 1977:323</ref>

According to Charles Darwin the "manifestly false history of the world" <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85.</ref> as recorded in the Old Testament and New Testament miracles led him to reject Biblical veracity <ref>ibid. Barlow 1958:85-87.</ref>. Eminent Darwin biographer, Professor Janet Browne, sums up Darwin's views concerning religion: Darwin "mapped out a comparative evolution of the religious sense, proposing that religious belief was ultimately nothing more than a primitive urge to bestow a cause on otherwise inexplicable natural events...In short, he made no secret of his view that he did not believe religion to have any rational foundation at all" <ref>Browne, Janet ''Charles Darwin The Power of Place'' 2002:341</ref>. When he died in 1882 at the age of seventy-three, Darwin was buried at Westminster Abbey next to Sir [[Isaac Newton]].

However, the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] states the following regarding Charles Darwin:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

There exists in hostile Darwin literature a story about a Christian called Lady Hope who visited and spoke with a dying Charles Darwin. This appears to be merely a legend, and there is no evidence that Lady Hope ever converted or even visited Darwin on his deathbed. <ref>http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm</ref>

== Darwin's Sickness and Controversy Regarding His Sickness ==

For more on this topic see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]

For most of his adult life Charles Darwin suffered from very poor health.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> The 1992 ''New Encyclopaedia Britannica '' stated that Darwin's illness was [[psychogenic]] in origin (A psychogenic illness is one that originates in the mind or in mental condition). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref> A 1997 article in the [[Journal of the American Medical Association]] entitled "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" states that the "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was [[Psychiatry|psychiatric]]." <ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 [[Journal of the American Medical Association]]</ref> In regards to illness associated with evolutionary ideas a journal article in the [[American Journal of Medicine]] states that Darwin suffered from "[[psychoneurosis]] provoked and exaggerated by his [[theory of evolution|evolutionary]] ideas".<ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> The American Journal of Medicine article also stated that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facsimile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment". <ref>"The Illness of Charles Darwin", William B. Bean, September 1978, American Journal of Medicine</ref> According to the abstract for a 1997 journal article in the [[Notes and Records of the Royal Society]] the psychogenic hypothesis for the origin of Darwin's illness "holds the field" but the article questions the validity of this diagnoses and mentions the work of [[Ralph Colp Jr.]] MD, a physician and psychiatrist (For details see: [[Darwin's Sickness]]). <ref>http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/c5la8dhfh8v7tbx8/</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>

Given Darwin's likely psychogenic or [[psychobiological]] illness various [[Creationism|creationists]] have stated that Darwin's illness was the result of guilt and/or fear. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/darwins_illness.asp</ref><ref>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist06.htm</ref>
==Criticism of the Work of Charles Darwin by Cliff Lillo==

Cliff Lillo wrote:
{{quotebox|Darwin was wrong when he says that science has not yet proved [[Lamarck]] in error about [[spontaneous generation]], wrong when he says that changes in habit can be [[inherited]], and wrong when he says that use or disuse of an organ can be passed along from parent to child, etc. [http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/OriginofSpecies.html]}}

== Reaction of Charles Darwin to Criticism of His Work ==
Charles Darwin closely followed the general public's reaction to his evolutionary ideas. In 2002, [[Richard Milner]] wrote an article entitled ''Putting Darwin in his Place'' and stated that Darwin ''"clipped, catalogued and indexed hundreds of offprints, about 350 reviews and 1,600 articles, as well as satires, parodies and Punch caricatures, with which he filled hefty scrapbooks..."''<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref> Criticisms of his work troubled Darwin. Milner wrote that after [[Charles Lyell]] published a weak endorsement of Darwin's work in Lyell's Antiquity of Man, "''Darwin's disappointment brought on 10 days of vomiting, faintness and stomach distress''". <ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref> In addition, Milner states when anatomist St. [[George Mivart]] made a negative review of Darwin's work The Descent of Man, it "triggered two months of "giddiness" and inability to work..." ''<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B62D6-7E63-1D7E-90FB809EC5880000#</ref>
== Family Life ==
Author Peter Brent wrote of Darwin's relationship with his wife Emma and stated that "Their ties to each other were linked to childhood and the very beginnings of memory. They had a common history, a joint tradition. It is hard to think their relationship a passionate one, but it was happy, and the happiness had deep roots."<ref>Peter Brent, "Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity", page 316</ref> Charles Darwin displayed a dependency on his wife that was childlike. Darwin wrote a letter to his wife in 1848 that said, "My dearest old Mammy ... Without you, when sick I feel most desolate .. Oh Mammy I do long to be with you and under your protection for then I feel safe."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> Peter Brent states that it is hard to imagine that the letter was from thirty-nine year old man writing to his wife rather than a young child writing to its mother.<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar9.html</ref> In their article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled Charles Darwin and Panic stated that Darwin felt "nervousness when Emma leaves me".<ref>''Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder''" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr., January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association</ref> Darwin had ten children with his wife Emma. <ref>http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Browne_EmmaDiaries.html</ref>

==Darwin's Racism==
Charles Darwin wrote in his work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' the following:
{{cquote|At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.<ref name="DoM6">[http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt The Descent of Man], chapter VI</ref>}}

==Darwin's Belief in Male Superiority==
In Darwin's work ''[[The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]]'' he wrote the following:
{{cquote|... a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/08/24/feedback-female-inferiority</ref>}}

==Charles Darwin and the Cult of Personality==
There is a cult of personality and type of religiousity currently surrounding Charles Darwin. [[Stephen Jay Gould]] wrote the following in 1978: ""... all theories [of natural selection] cite God in their support, and ... Darwin comes close to this status among evolutionary biologists ...".<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref> In 2002, Michael White similarly wrote: "Of course today, for biologists, Darwin is second only to God, and for many he may rank still higher."<ref>http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Charles Galton Darwin]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/charles-darwin/ What Liberals Say - Charles Darwin], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Darwin, Charles}}

Richard Sternberg

2008-06-30T21:53:48Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Richard Sternberg''' is a scholar who holds two PhDs in the area of evolutionary biology.<ref>Dr. Sternberg holds one PhD in molecular (DNA) evolution and the other in systems theory and theoretical biology.</ref> He has also published more than 30 articles in peer-reviewed scientific publications and books.

Dr. Sternberg became the victim of retaliation by [[evolutionists]] after he allowed the publication as managing editor of an article by an advocate of [[Intelligent Design]] in a scientific publication,<ref>The article was by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories."</ref> despite the fact that Dr. Sternberg followed all the standard peer review procedures for publication in the journal, the "Proceedings of the Biological Society."<ref>http://www.rsternberg.net</ref> Three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions, approved the paper. The journal never formally withdrew or retracted it, although the review process for the paper was deemed to have been "contrary to typical editorial practices".<ref>http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sternberg, Richard}}

Richard Lenski

2008-06-30T21:52:52Z

Encinocathy: last name first for categories!

'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State University. He holds a doctorate from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College but, oddly, does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch. <ref>https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/</ref>

Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination. His 2008 paper asserting his claims was [[peer review]]ed in a mere 14 days, sparking questions from the [[user:Aschlafly|owner]] of this site<ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].</ref> about the thoroughness of the review.

When challenged, Lenski thrice referred to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no lawsuit charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel.

When Lenski received a public request for the data underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded.

Undisclosed data from the central claims in Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):

For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from the Professor's site.

<includeonly>
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}
</includeonly>
__NOTOC__
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10 cellpadding=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Undisclosed Data</font>
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center><font color="#f6f7ff" size="+2">Our Questions about the missing data</font></TD></TR></table>

===Visual inspection===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?

The data are available in the first figure in the paper, and indicate a strong spike in turbidity around generation 33000.
</TD></TR></table>

===Study Omissions===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium...
<br>
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ON SPECIFIC CONCENTRATIONS USED?<br>
From the first page of the paper in question (Blount, Z. D., C. Z. Borland, and R. E. Lenski. 2008. Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 105:7899-7906).:
<br>"To
address the repeatability of evolutionary trajectories and outcomes,
the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) with Escherichia
coli was started in 1988 with the founding of 12 populations
from the same clone (2). These populations were initially
identical except for a neutral marker that distinguished six lines
from six others. They have since been propagated by daily 1:100
serial transfer in DM25, a minimal medium containing <b>25
mg/liter glucose</b> as the limiting resource (2, 22)."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
</TD></TR></table>

===Turbidity===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? WHEN AND HOW MANY?
</TD></TR></table>

===Contaminants???===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED, AND HOW OFTEN?

If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data. Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.
</TD></TR></table>

===The Numbers Please?===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE NOT PROVIDED DESPITE REQUEST
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing Numbers===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
A number...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? HOW MANY? STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
</TD></TR></table>

===We're Professional Scientists===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA? HOW MANY? STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
</TD></TR></table>

===Missing Characteristics===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?

Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics. It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.
</TD></TR></table>

===DNA===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
DNA sequencing also showed...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA??

The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.
</TD></TR></table>

===More missing data===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all...
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?

Available in other publications,
pykF <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html "IHOP-pykF"]</ref> and
nadR <ref>[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html "IHOP-nadR"]</ref>.

See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.<ref>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1</ref>. The supplementary information containing the reference sequences are also available on the PNAS web pages.
</TD></TR></table>

===Fast Tracked===
<TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10>
<TR><TD width=50% valign=top>
...of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.
</TD><TD width=50% valign=top>
THE 14 DAY PEER REVIEW PERIOD WAS UNUSUALLY SHORT!
</TD></TR></table>

== ==
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]].

Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also. In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled "The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features," he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology. In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:

:"Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ...."

Dr. William Dembski explained, "In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality."<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf</ref>

The importance of the simulation is to show that complex patterns can grow from simple inputs, which was demonstrated by the results of this simulation. Although Lenski freely disclaims the use of true biology in the simulation, his result is nevertheless quite important. The validity is not contigent, as is claimed above, upon the specific biological system.

==See Also==

*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy<ref>See [[Liberal style]] point 1</ref>)
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}

Richard Lenski

2008-06-30T21:49:59Z

Encinocathy: added categories: Evolution and Biology