Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-12-07T18:33:46Z

FRodgers: There is, they are just all extinct.

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is only about 15%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# Evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>

===Maladaptation===

# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.
{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-06T22:59:00Z

FRodgers:

This animation is really really bad. Can't you find a better one? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:13, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::Don't worry, it appears given the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-volunteers-are-joining-our.html expanding volunteer base] of a certain group, soon there will be animations/essays using [[piranha]] or schools of sharks. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:23, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::OK, but in the meantime this animation is terrible. It looks bad and moves even worse. Not a good image. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:29, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Why don't you ask [[Shockofgod]] if he likes it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::is it physically painful for you to respond like a normal human being? The animation is embarrassing and very amateur which makes your campaign look the same. Do you know anything about marketing? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:34, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Max, the evolutionist goal is poorly defended in the biology class stadiums and this is yet another case where biblical Christians are going to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvW5PuAVbmY slam goal after goal] in the atheist/naturalism net. It is going to be glorious! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::That's great. Now about this animation - it looks terribly amateur, is there another one you could use that looks more professional? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. Just imagine how timid teachers will be when students are armed with the 15 questions plus any follow up questions that are developed!

"To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend." - Sun Tzu [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::So this is the best animation you have? You know, if this campaign is to work you need to have a certain amount of polish to it. It needs to be professional, slick and credible. The animation is none of this and, actually, looks stupid. So what image to you want to portray - one of professionalism or one that is amateur? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:00, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::Max, if it is such a pressing concern for you, develop a better animation and I may consider using it. I am moving on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:03, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::: @ Conservative: The present animation is indeed not that well made. I don't know it is just my browser, but the animation gives a recurring black screen for me. I actually don't care that much but since this article is featured on MPL there will be a lot of people coming to this article and might be disappointed and/or confused by the animation. Maybe you could use an animation from [http://netanimations.net/dolphins.htm THIS] site? À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 10:24, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::It's not your browser; I'm getting exactly the same effect. I agree that he should change it, because right now it looks sloppy. One of the animations you suggested would do fine. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:46, 5 December 2011 (EST)

The Question Evolution! Campaign is a shark mindlessly chasing its own tail? [[DGalore]]
:You obviously did not understand it. The shark is Darwin fish, not question evolution campaign.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::No, the essay clearly refers to QE! as the clumsy shark metaphor. [[DGalore]]
:::I think "Darwin fish" refers to Ichthyostega, an early tetrapod which frequented weedy swamps, an environment where a shark would be completely unable to survive. In fact, one of the huge benefits of evolution is the avoidance of archaic, ill adapted predators by adopting new habitats. A shark would just beach itself, since it is so ill prepared to actually try to prey upon Ichthyostega, it would just helplessly flounder about in the shallows, dying a slow, agonizing death. It's actually a rather pathetic image. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 17:57, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Attention atheists, prepare to have your pseudoscience ripped to shreds and devoured ==
[[File:Carcharodon carcharias.jpg|thumbnail|400px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution 15 razor sharp teeth] of the [[Question evolution! campaign]], are going to publicly rip your [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]] to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBRpZhk_vA open water] conditions. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. ]]
Attention atheists, prepare to have your pseudoscience [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_Darwin_fish_meet_the_Question_evolution!_campaign#Attention_atheists:_Prepare_to_have_your_pseudoscience_ripped_to_shreds_and_devoured ripped to shreds and devoured.]

Talk:Essay: Darwin fish meet the Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-06T22:57:41Z

FRodgers:

This animation is really really bad. Can't you find a better one? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:13, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::Don't worry, it appears given the [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-volunteers-are-joining-our.html expanding volunteer base] of a certain group, soon there will be animations/essays using [[piranha]] or schools of sharks. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:23, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::OK, but in the meantime this animation is terrible. It looks bad and moves even worse. Not a good image. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:29, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Why don't you ask [[Shockofgod]] if he likes it. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:32, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::is it physically painful for you to respond like a normal human being? The animation is embarrassing and very amateur which makes your campaign look the same. Do you know anything about marketing? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:34, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::::Max, the evolutionist goal is poorly defended in the biology class stadiums and this is yet another case where biblical Christians are going to [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvW5PuAVbmY slam goal after goal] in the atheist/naturalism net. It is going to be glorious! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:44, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::::That's great. Now about this animation - it looks terribly amateur, is there another one you could use that looks more professional? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:50, 30 November 2011 (EST)
In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. Just imagine how timid teachers will be when students are armed with the 15 questions plus any follow up questions that are developed!

"To be certain to take what you attack, attack where the enemy cannot defend." - Sun Tzu [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:57, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::So this is the best animation you have? You know, if this campaign is to work you need to have a certain amount of polish to it. It needs to be professional, slick and credible. The animation is none of this and, actually, looks stupid. So what image to you want to portray - one of professionalism or one that is amateur? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:00, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::Max, if it is such a pressing concern for you, develop a better animation and I may consider using it. I am moving on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:03, 30 November 2011 (EST)
::::: @ Conservative: The present animation is indeed not that well made. I don't know it is just my browser, but the animation gives a recurring black screen for me. I actually don't care that much but since this article is featured on MPL there will be a lot of people coming to this article and might be disappointed and/or confused by the animation. Maybe you could use an animation from [http://netanimations.net/dolphins.htm THIS] site? À Dieu--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 10:24, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::::It's not your browser; I'm getting exactly the same effect. I agree that he should change it, because right now it looks sloppy. One of the animations you suggested would do fine. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 13:46, 5 December 2011 (EST)

The Question Evolution! Campaign is a shark mindlessly chasing its own tail? [[DGalore]]
:You obviously did not understand it. The shark is Darwin fish, not question evolution campaign.--[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:35, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::No, the essay clearly refers to QE! as the clumsy shark metaphor. [[DGalore]]
:::I think "Darwin fish" refers to Ichthyostega, an early tetrapod which frequented weedy swamps, an environment where a shark would be completely unable to survive. In fact, one of the huge benefits of evolution is the avoidance of archaic, ill adapted predators by adopting new habitats. A shark would just beach itself, since it is so ill prepared to actually try to prey upon Ichthyostega, it would just helplessly flounder about in the shallows, dying a slow, agonizing death. It's actually a rather pathetic image, actually. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 17:57, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Attention atheists, prepare to have your pseudoscience ripped to shreds and devoured ==
[[File:Carcharodon carcharias.jpg|thumbnail|400px|right|The [http://creation.com/question-evolution 15 razor sharp teeth] of the [[Question evolution! campaign]], are going to publicly rip your [[evolution]]ary [[pseudoscience]] to shreds. Evolutionists have a long track record of getting devoured in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBRpZhk_vA open water] conditions. See: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]. ]]
Attention atheists, prepare to have your pseudoscience [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_Darwin_fish_meet_the_Question_evolution!_campaign#Attention_atheists:_Prepare_to_have_your_pseudoscience_ripped_to_shreds_and_devoured ripped to shreds and devoured.]

Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-12-02T23:40:05Z

FRodgers: They're called "nuclear weapons and power"

The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by [[liberals]] who like its encouragement of [[moral relativism|relativism]] and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes Relativity continues to read the [[Bible]], a book that outsells ''New York Times'' bestsellers by a hundred-fold.</ref> Here is a list of 40 counterexamples: any one of them shows that the theory is incorrect.

#Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3781</ref> ''Sound like [[global warming]]?''
#The eccentricity of the [[Moon]]'s orbit is increasing contrary to the theory of relativity.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref>
#Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of Relativity.<ref>http://www.hindustantimes.com/Roll-over-Einstein-Law-of-physics-challenged/Article1-749189.aspx - note that a similar observation of faster-than-light speeds was also made in 2007 (with a larger margin of error).</ref> The Italian lab that "shocked the scientific world" has announced more precise results, confirming their previous announcement.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/18/us-science-neutrinos-light-idUSTRE7AH0T720111118</ref>
#The [[Pioneer anomaly]].
#Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by [[Earth]] ("flybys").<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23410705/</ref>
#Spiral galaxies confound relativity, and unseen "[[dark matter]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1873</ref>
#The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity, and unseen "[[dark energy]]" has been invented to try to retrofit observations to the theory.
#Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by Relativity, well beyond the margin of error.<ref>In a complicated or contrived series of calculations that most physics majors cannot duplicate even after learning them, the theory of general relativity's fundamental formula, <math>G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi K T_{\mu\nu}\,</math>, was conformed to match Mercury's then-observed precession of 5600.0 arc-seconds per century. Subsequently, however, more sophisticated technology has measured a different value of this precession (5599.7 arc-seconds per century, with a margin of error of only 0.01), and leading promoters of Relativity (such as Professor Clifford Will) have omitted this in listing tests confirming Relativity.</ref>
#The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.
#The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?
#The observed lack of curvature in overall space.<ref>If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.</ref>
#The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] of [[quantum entanglement]].<ref>Quantum entanglement has not yet communicated information faster than the speed of light, but has already exhibited action faster than the speed of light.</ref>
#The [[action-at-a-distance]] by [[Jesus]], described in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]], [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 15:28]], and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]].
#The failure to discover [[gravitons]], despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
#Newly observed data reveal that the fine-structure constant, α (alpha), actually varies throughout the universe, demonstrating that all inertial frames of reference do '''not''' experience identical laws of physics as claimed by Relativity.<ref>For a report on the data, see a paper submitted in 2010 by John Webb and Julian King of the University of new South Wales, Australia, to the ''Physical Review Letters''.</ref>
#The double star "W13" weighs "40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a [[black hole]]. So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation [a leading scientist] can think of ... does not make astrophysical sense."<ref>http://www.economist.com/node/17035953</ref>
#The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
#The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.<ref>[[Mystery:Why Is the Kilogram Losing Weight?]]</ref>
#The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.<ref>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html ("A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, and would undermine much of traditional physics. But some physicists believe it would elegantly explain puzzling cosmological phenomena such as the nearly uniform temperature of the universe.")</ref>
#"According to Einstein’s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous" but observations instead show "inexplicable static" greater than "all artificial sources of" possible background noise.<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out. Hunt for gravitational waves discovers unexpected data instead].</ref>
#"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space</ref>
#The theory predicts [[wormholes]] just as it predicts [[black holes]], but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.<ref>http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v61/i13/p1446_1 . The popular science press promotes black holes to a far greater extent than wormholes.</ref>
#The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in [[entropy]] required by the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]].<ref>Contrived explanations have been suggested for this dilemma, such as Stephen Hawking proposing that the entropy of matter in a black hole is somehow stored in the surface area of its event horizon to be released back into its surroundings as the black hole decays by radiation, known as "Hawking radiation."</ref>
#Data from the [[PSR B1913 16|PSR B1913+16]] increasingly diverge from predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]] such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.
#The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.<ref>Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”</ref> This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.
#Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.
#Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.
#Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.<ref>In defense of the theory, it is noted that it mandates conservation of the matter-stress-energy tensor (the only way to get ''real'' conservation, since matter and energy are interchangeable.) This follows from the "contracted Bianchi identity." [http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/chap6/node14.html] Also, the curl of the "gravitational field vector" is exactly zero in the absence of moving sources, due to symmetries of [[Riemann]]'s tensor. It follows, from [[Stokes' Theorem]], that the gravitational field is conservative and has a potential function. Energy is conserved.</ref>
#The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (<math>2 \pi R</math>) is length-contracted. However, since <math>R</math> is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal <math>R</math>, or is it less than <math>R</math>?
#The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because ''both'' twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.<ref>Einstein attempted to explain the paradox based on the acceleration that one twin uniquely undergoes, but the length of travel can simply be extended such that any effect from acceleration would be ''de minimis''.</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth's equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth's shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5255/abs/227270a0.html</ref>
#Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the [[aether (science)|aether]] does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.
#In [[Genesis (ch.1)|Genesis 1:6-8]], we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens. This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous [[aether]].
#[[Minkowski space]] is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is [[time]]. However, one of the properties of a [[vector space]] is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.
#It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of [[faith]].
#Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding."<ref>[http://www.mathunion.org/o/General/Prizes/2006/TaoENG.pdf Statement in awarding the coveted Fields Medal]</ref>
#Experiments in electromagnetic induction contradict Relativity: "Einstein’s Relativity ... can not explain the experiment in graph 2, in which moving magnetic field has not produced electric field."<ref>http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping1.pdf</ref><ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504223</ref>
#Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light.<ref>http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279</ref>

(add to list)

{{Relativity}}

== See also ==
*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:physics]]

Inspiration

2011-12-02T21:28:28Z

FRodgers:

'''Inspiration''' is the term given to a sudden, unconscious increase in creative output, and can be though of as the physical manifestation of creativity, bridging the gap between the unconscious and conscious mind <ref>Thrash, T. M., Maruskin, L. A., Cassidy, S. E., Fryer, J. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Mediating Between the Muse and the Masses: Inspiration and the Actualization of Creative Ideas. Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 98(3), 469-487.</ref>. Creative ideas come before inspiration does, inspiration can be though of as a translation process that allows creativity to be expressed coherently and economically. In modern psychology, inspiration cannot be studied, as it is an internal phenomena, and by definition, cannot be controlled. Thus, there is no scientifically valid means of observing it objectively.

==Notes==
<references />

Inspiration

2011-12-02T21:27:09Z

FRodgers:

'''Inspiration''' is the term given to a sudden, unconscious increase in creative output, and can be though of as the physical manifestation of creativity, bridging the gap between the unconscious and conscious mind <ref>http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=25&sid=97076225-f586-4ed5-be0f-f1cc7a18698c%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=50255041</ref>. Creative ideas come before inspiration does, inspiration can be though of as a translation process that allows creativity to be expressed coherently and economically. In modern psychology, inspiration cannot be studied, as it is an internal phenomena, and by definition, cannot be controlled. Thus, there is no scientifically valid means of observing it objectively.

==Notes==
<references />

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-02T05:25:56Z

FRodgers: /* Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! */

[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]]

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin
:You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. [[Gelatin]]

== Enthusiastic Student Response ==

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. [[DGalore]]
:::If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. [[DGalore]]
:::::::::At the very ''least'', it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. [[DGalore]]
::::::::::::DGalore, setting aside the fact that no true skeptic claims to know my gender, you haven't shown you have done your due diligence. I suggest not giving up you day job and if you have any life long dream of becoming a reporter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Sorry - I was only trying to be respectful, since you're a senior member of the site and I'm very new! I don't use wikis much, so I'm not well-versed in internet etiquette... Anyway, to the point: Do ''you'' have any evidence for the Student Response page? Because if ''I'' don't, and ''you'' don't... who does? [[DGalore]]
:::::::::::::::I suggest getting a book on investigative reporting. I am sure your local library can help you. Thanks once again. I just created [[Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign]]. You input was very helpful. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:04, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::I'm glad to see my suggestion proved helpful, at least. You did a great job, I think it looks a lot better now! If I run across anything to add to the new page, I'll be sure to do so.[[DGalore]]

== Question evolution! campaign axman cometh ==

[[File:Chopping down evolutionary belief.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|[[Question evolution! campaign]] ]]
An advocate of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his [[Question evolution! campaign|Question evolution!]] axe at the rotten tree of [[evolution|evolutionism]] and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer] so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, [[Critical thinking|critical reasoning]] and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/10/question-evolution-campaign-axman.html]

See: [[Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign|Responses to the Question evolution! campaign]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

== "Question Evolution" Link ==

Under the "Notes" section, the first link is supposed to bring the user to the Question Evolution! page on the Creation Ministries website, correct? Currently, the link is broken. It should say, "creation.com/question-evolution," whereas right now it says "creation.com/question-evIolution."

Note the "I" between "v" and "o" in "evolution." I cannot fix this link, so someone with that power may wish to do so. [[User:JHunt1487|JHunt1487]] 14:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)

== Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! ==

The Bible has quite a few dates and talks about lots of old men who supposedly lived for 900 years. Using these dates and records, Christian apologist Bishop Ussher created the most commonly accepted chronology that claims that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Christian Fundamentalists still accept this date or at least a very similar one. Here are seven reasons that they are wrong!
#The Pyramids Everyone knows that they are there. Even Southern Baptist apologists can't deny their existence. So how does their very existence destroy Biblical inerrantism? Because every single one of them was built hundreds of years before the Bible says that the Flood supposedly wiped out humanity. The Great Pyramid of Khufu in Giza was built around 2550 BC according to Egyptian records. That is 200 years before the flood. Embarrassingly, God's miles high flood made no mark on the pyramids or their contents. The mummies and artifacts inside are still dry and in great shape. If there really had been enough water to cover the Earth, it would have exerted a force of at least 1.8 million pounds per square foot on the Pyramids (assuming that the water was high enough to cover the entire Earth and all the mountains as the Bible says). This amount of pressure would have completely destroyed the antiquated architecture and mummies.
#Tree Rings Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, is an interesting and informative science that can tell us much about history. Every year, each tree creates a new growth ring. The size of this ring depends on the conditions of that year. Scientists can take cores of these trees and count the number of tree rings in order to give the age of the tree. Each year has a distinctive pattern depending on the local conditions. Amazingly, we have a species of tree, known as Bristlecone Pines, that provide a record of tree rings that extends back 11,000 years to 9,000 BC. This is an obvious problem for those that believe that the Earth was still "matter unorganized" back then. We even have a tree, known as Methuselah, that has now been alive for 4,842 years and counting as shown by its rings. That means that the tree was born in 2831 BC. This tree (and many others) kept living right on through the Flood that supposedly killed everything in 2350. The lowly Bristlecone Pine has toppled the Holy Bible simply by living when it should have died.
#Carbon Dating Radiometric dating is one of the strongest killers of Biblical literacy and one that creationists love to hate. Basically, radiometric dating measures the amount of an isotope and its decayed products are present in a given sample. It is based on the universally admitted fact that radioactive things decay at a certain rate. Through simple math, one can figure out the age of the sample. Radiometric dating is important because it proves that fossils are much older than a few thousand years old. This data shows that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years which obviously destroys the Ussher Chronology. Creationists often claim that "decay rates may have changed" or "I carbon dated my dead cat and the answer was off, so..." I have heard all kinds of silly attempts to discredit radiometric dating. The fact remains that we have used this method with not only carbon-14, but with more than 50 other isotopes to confirm the dates. Each of these 50 isotopes decays at a different rate. Yet, they all agree that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. This is important. The half-lives for isotopes range from 70*10-18 seconds for Be-8 to 2.28*1024 years for Te-128. This is a huge range of time. That means that God would have had to speed up each of the 50 isotope's half-lives by vastly different factors in order to fool us into thinking that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How ridiculous. My question is: why do creationists make insane claims about basic laws of physics in order to defend a Bronze Age myth?
#Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian Before 2250 BC and the Tower of Babel, according to Biblical mythology, the only language on the planet was Adamic. All of the other languages, including Egyptian and Sumerian, were created by the confusion of tongues. Therefore, it is devastating that we have found hundreds of examples of writing that date to a thousand years before the Tower of Babel. Egyptian writings are also powerful evidence against Biblical literalism. The first known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette which is a collection of writing that dates to 3200 BC. This writing existed 1,000 years before the Tower of Babel when the Egyptian language was supposedly created. The first examples of Sumerian Cuneiform date to 3300 BC. Obviously, two completely different languages existed long before the Tower of Babel "created" them all and neither of them was Adamic.
#Egyptian Dynastic Records Thanks to a well-developed system of record keeping and well-preserved papyri (which oddly enough, survived the Flood), we know an amazing amount about the Egyptian dynasties of the Old Kingdom. We know the exact years that each pharoah rose to power and then was replaced beginning with the Pharoah Zanakht, who rose to power in 2649. This line continues unbroken until the Pharoah Unas (2356-2323 BC) who obviously survived the "Global Flood" in 2349. This line continues until Nemtyenmzaf (2255-2246 BC) who reigned while God was changing everyone's language. Luckily, God forgot Egypt existed and no major disruptive linguistic change occurred during those few centuries when the Tower of Babel suppposedly happened.
#Kangaroos, Lemurs, Frogs, and Emus Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of the more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450 foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah's Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most Marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline for Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the Lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.
#Oil and Coal Every time a creationist drives he is benefitting from the fact that he is wrong. Petroleum only exists because the Earth is billions of years old. As most know, it is formed when the remains of phytoplankton and zooplankton settle to the bottom of the sea and are compressed and decomposed in anaerobic conditions. There is no other way to make petroleum. Enormous amounts of heat, pressure, and time are require to create petroleum. Only geologic time could do it. The gas in your car is great proof that Christian Fundamentalists are wrong when they said that the Earth was 6,000 years old.

Unless all 7 of these questions can be answered, Creationism must be dismissed as pseudoscience. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 23:20, 1 December 2011 (EST)
::FRodgers, I see the evolutionists are getting desperate because they still can't the 15 questions. Second, the fluff you put forth certainly should not be taken seriously. For example, "Peter Clayton remarked that “it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology” (1994, p. 12, emp. added). Sir Alan Gardiner, the foremost Egyptologist of the twentieth century, spoke of “lamentable gaps” and “many a doubtful attribution,” finally exclaiming: “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters” (1961, p. 48, emp. added). Noting that our present knowledge of Egyptian chronology is “far from satisfactory,” Olaf Toffteen, curator of the Hibbard Egyptian Library in Chicago, explained that the deficiency can be attributed “not to the scarcity of material, but rather to its abundance. This material...exhibits so many contradictions that Egyptologists and historians differ radically in their theories on Egyptian chronology” (1907, 1:149). This indefiniteness does not remove all validity from the chronology, but it must be recognized that the ancient chronology of Egypt, though well established, is far from infallible."[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:38, 1 December 2011 (EST)
Here is some addition information: "The uncertainty to which these scholars refer, results from the shaky foundation upon which Egyptian chronology is built. Manetho, the source of “the basic structure or skeleton of Egyptian chronology that we use today” (Clayton, p. 9), is unreliable and inaccurate. In the introduction to his translation of that historian, W.G. Waddell suggested “there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning” (1997, p. xxv). Further indicting this ancient source, Breasted confessed: “Wherever he can be controlled, Manetho is generally wrong in his figures, and any chronology based on his data is hopelessly astray” (1927, 1:32). Whatever the reason for Manetho’s untrustworthiness, one immediately sees the unreliability of a system whose “basic structure” is “hopelessly astray.”"[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=92] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)
:::And the Question Evolution! campaign relies entirely on quote mining, misrepresentation of science, extremely flawed assumption, critical misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, and outright lies. I don't see your point. While there is some dissent about dates regarding Egypt, the consensus is that Egypt formed pre-flood and survived until the Greeks moved in. You can't explain that. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 00:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
:Don't you have any recent references? You can find some good stuff at my YouTube video, "More analysis of the Flood myth" or on my channel, voiceoftruth2006. I'm happy to debate you, by the way. --[[User:VOT2011|VOT2011]] 23:48, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-02T04:20:54Z

FRodgers:

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-12-02T04:20:30Z

FRodgers: /* Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer! */ new section

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-12-01T18:01:19Z

FRodgers: /* Clearly Invalid Counterexamples */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

===Cavemen and wolves===
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

===Basic logic?===
''"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic."'' Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
::And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (''Canis latrans''), the Ethiopian wolf (''Canis simensis''), and the golden jackal (''Canis aureus''), as well as several other members of ''Canis''. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::::And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
:::::::Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - ''Canis lupus''. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Do you have any evidence that it didn't '''and''' couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson Despommier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Kidney donor ==

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

::The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.

::Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)

== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''

"3. Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.[2] Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
'''

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''

== Clearly Invalid Counterexamples ==

''If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.''
:No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
::The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
:::Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.

''There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.''
:In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
::Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
:::Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are '''very''' few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years.

''Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human genome. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.''
:The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
::Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
:::The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)

--[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)

"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."
They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== wisdom teeth ==

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

:For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)

::Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After [[the fall]], mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)

Video games

2011-12-01T02:29:25Z

FRodgers:

A '''video game''' is any electronic game, played by means of a video screen on a computer or console, often emphasising fast action <ref>Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Video Game http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video+game?show=0&t=1322499353</ref>. The nature of video games varies, ranging from educational games for children, electronic versions of classic board and card games (such as online poker), through to more violent to war and fighting games. The [[video game industry]] is an important part of the [[knowledge economy]] and actually grew during the late-2000s recession.

Recently, some video games have been linked to murders and other [[violence]], stress-induced health problems (including unexpected heart attacks), [[atheism]], [[obesity]],<ref>[http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/child_obesity/ Childhood Obesity] Department of Health and Human Services, retrieved Sept 18th 2011</ref> and [[sexual immorality]]. Several prominent murderers in recent years were inspired by video games, for example.

== Nature of Video games ==

The games vary greatly in type and complexity, but all games are alike in that they translate player input (from a controller, mouse, keyboard or motion sensor) into onscreen actions. Games are usually stored on some sort of digital media - ROM cartridge, [[CD]], [[DVD]], or even cassette tape for early computer games - though older or more inexpensive games may have dedicated chips which are pre-programmed to play certain games only. In recent years, game developers have moved to digital distribution, allowing anyone with a credit card or [[Paypal]] account to purchase games online.

Home consoles are classified by ''generation'' to indicate their relative power and date of release. The current major consoles (XBox360, PS3, Wii) are considered ''seventh generation''. Handheld consoles are not generally put into generations due to their more irregular release schedules.

Video games have also been shown to help people to become more attuned to their surroundings and increase coordination, and in the future may be used to treat people with visual problems and to train soldiers. <ref> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0528_030528_videogames.html </ref>

== Various genres ==

Video games in the course of their existence have grown from the simple arcade style games, and have become more detailed and separated from one another. Genres can now include [[first person shooters]], [[racing]], [[Simulation game|simulation]], [[role-playing]], [[sports]], [[action]] and many others. Even then, games can combine genres, such as ''Mass Effect'' (Role Playing and Third Person Shooting), or not fit nicely into any genre, like ''The Mystery of the Druids''.

== Popularity & Controversy ==

Games have risen in popularity over the years, as is shown in the rise of video games sales from the 1980s until today. This has brought with it a various amount of controversy as the video game industry continues to grow with its original player base.

Video games are addictive activities targeted at teenagers, sometimes with tragic results.<ref>Some claim that 2/3rds of videogamers are over 18 years old, but far more people are over that age and a much higher percentage of minors are videogamers.[http://www.pan-o-matic.com/blog/?p=45 Only a third of videogamers are under 18]</ref> Certain genres of games are becoming increasingly violent and offensive, attracting the attention of legislators in many states to protect the exploitation of children by them. Games such as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' are very violent, sexually explicit, and feature [[criminal]] behavior. These games are rated "M 17+" for "Mature," but courts have stricken down laws preventing retailers from selling them to children, under an interpretation that the First Amendment protects offensive video games even for children.<ref>http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/148962.html</ref> After a ''Conservapedian'' filed an [[amicus brief]] with the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider this issue, it surprised [[liberal]]s by granting ''[[certiorari]]''.

However, in 2011, the Supreme Court denied a ban on the sale of violent video games in California, claiming they were protected as they "qualify for First Amendment Protection" and pointing out that there has historically been no shortage of violent imagery in children's fairytales, classical literature, and comics. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia pointed out that "disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression", and continued that any effects of violent video games on children "are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media".<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION ET AL.]</ref>

It has also been suggested that it is the role of parents to regulate what their children play, and that laws restricting video game vendors are an effort to replace parents' decisions with the government's decisions.<ref> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/45083/ </ref> <ref> http://www.gameculture.com/2010/11/10/editorial-parental-responsibility-and-today039s-media </ref> <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-games28-2009feb28,0,1556900.story </ref>

<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-316491/Teenager-gets-life-Manhunt-murder.html</ref>
{{cquote|A number of Norway stores have pulled violent video games from sale - including several Call of Duty games and World of Warcraft - in the wake of the massacre carried out by Anders Behring Breivik on July 22.}}<ref>http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/871121-norway-stores-pull-violent-video-games-including-call-of-duty-after-massacre#ixzz1erUdaLo5</ref>

===Violence===

Most of the controversy comes from the rising trend toward violence in video games, as pioneered by ''[[Doom (video game series)|Doom]]'', ''[[Quake]]'', and the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series.

Some people point out that violent video games cause violent behavior in some children. The effects of violent video games on the developing psyche of children and adolescents vary greatly and of course have much to do with the mental stability of the subject in question.
Serious crimes have often been associated with video games. For example, a 14-year-old brutally murdered a video arcade employee one morning and his cousin stands trial for murdering the store manager when he entered the store shortly thereafter.<ref>http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1212467732102240.xml&coll=1</ref>
In the [[United States|USA]], all retail games carry ratings from the [[ESRB]], a video game ratings organization.

Some claim that kids who don't play video games at all seem to show more violent tendencies. Of course, as expected, those who played violent video games for large amounts of time also showed violent tendencies, however the study claims that this is a "risk marker", not an actual cause.<ref>http://wii.qj.net/New-research-reveals-kids-who-don-t-play-videogames-at-all-are-more-at-risk-of-violent-tendencies/pg/49/aid/118505 New research reveals kids who don't play video games at all are more at risk of violent tendencies</ref>

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence, caused by playing some of the aforementioned video games.<ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>

===Sexuality===

Although nudity is not prominent in [[western]] video games, there are various products containing sexually-suggestive material. One reason for the relative lack of explicitly sexual material in western games may be the refusal of retailers including [[Wal-Mart]]<ref>http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=440903</ref> (the leading distributor of video games in the United States) and [[Toys R Us]]<ref>[http://www.toysrusinc.com/safety/practices/ See Toys "R" Us's video games policy]</ref> (the world's largest toy themed retailer) to sell games carrying an "Adults-Only" rating. One notable target of controversy is the ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]'' series after a third-party mod was released that allowed the player to engage in a mini-game containing explicit sexual material. Mods are, as "third-party" would imply, fan-made and are not the responsibility of the game's developer. Other sources of this criticism relate to the game ''[[Tomb Raider]]'' as it was one of the first games where a female character (the protagonist) is depicted and advertised as a sex symbol.<ref>Ashley, Robert. "The Secret History of Videogame Sex." Official Playstation Magazine Feb. 2006: 96-99.</ref>

== Video Games and Society ==

As video games become more popular, their impact on society becomes ever more present. A prime example of this is the massive ad campaigns for the ''Halo'' series, as well as ''[[Grand Theft Auto]]''. Advertising, merchandising, and even social pressures have changed in the ever-growing influence of video gaming.

Due to their popularity, various corporations have begun placing advertisements for their products within the context of the game. ''Second Life'', an Internet-based virtual world, has attempted to blur the lines between real-world and virtual world, and companies such as Adidas, Reebok, and Dell have set up virtual stores selling real-world products within the game. [[Reuters]] also operates a news bureau reporting news in the game.

== Education in Video Games ==

While most popular video games are experiencing an increase in violence, language, and sexuality, other gamers and game developers are beginning to view video games as an educational opportunity. Firaxis Games, a noteworthy video game development company, has been creating a video game series called ''Civilization'' for nearly a decade. <ref> http://www.firaxis.com/company/ </ref> Civilization is a simulation game that allows the player to lead a nation from ancient times to modern day. It features a dynamic military system, politics, trading, and historical content. It has been recognized for its unintentional educational properties. <ref> http://www.firaxis.com/community/teacher.php </ref>

Microsoft Flight Simulator is another example of a video game being recognized for its unique educational properties. <ref> http://www.microsoft.com/Products/Games/FSInsider/product/Pages/InfoEducators.aspx </ref>

The popularity of several of the favourite sports video games has led to an uptake in children wishing to take part in them. If an adult plays video games with their children, they can learn about their child's personality and interests.

== Faith in Video Games ==

Faith in Video Gaming has, as a rule, either led to the creation of new and dynamic antagonists, or video games that are mediocre, such as ''Spiritual Warfare'' and ''Bible Adventure'' for the Nintendo, or ''The Bible Game'' for various systems. ''Bible Adventure'' in particular is infamous for its poor design and playability.

The Bible, or other such religious texts, tell a story spanning many different viewpoints. Turning these ideas into a video game, however, most often leads to games that tend to bore most video game audiences.

Religion has, however, taken a prominent place amongst the various heroes and villains in video games. The ''Breath of Fire'' series and the ''Shin Megami Tensei'' games, in particular, use a god as a main antagonist in many of its incarnations. Other games to use religion in some way include the ''Final Fantasy'' series, ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]'', ''Black and White'', ''Heaven and Hell'', ''Xenogears'', ''Okami'', and the ''Tales'' series, particularly ''Tales of Symphonia''. Unfortunately, many (not all) of the aforementioned games (And nearly any Role Playing game from East Asia) present religion (or it's respective church and followers) as evil, fake, or having ulterior and nefarious motives.

The computer game ''Civilization IV'' has a religion element that enables players to spread their civilization's culture through religion. Available religions include Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism and Hinduism.<ref>http://guides.gamepressure.com/sidmeierscivilization4/guide.asp?ID=599</ref>

Games may include a fictional religion as part of the setting if the use of a real religion may invite undesirable controversy.

Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where real-world religion plays a notable role. One of the most prominent examples of this is the game ''[[Left Behind: Eternal Forces]]''.<ref>http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/left_behind</ref>.

==Video Games as Art==

Recently, video games have gained the legal protections of any other art form due to an official ruling by the supreme court<ref>http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/tech/supreme.court.video.game.art_1_sale-of-violent-video-video-games-hansel-and-gretel?_s=PM:TECH</ref>, ruling that video games are as protected as any other art form by the [[First Amendment]]. Video games are fully capable of communicating moral and social views through tropes universal in other mediums, such as characters, dialog, and symbolism, in addition to it's unique characteristic, interactivity. A Smithsonian exhibit on art in video games is planned for 2012.

==See Also==
*[[Video game controversy]]
*[[Jack Thompson]]
*[[Video game industry]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.whattheyplay.com/ What They Play - the parent's guide to video games]
*[http://www.leftbehindgames.com/index.php Left Behind Games - a Christian, family friendly video game company]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Entertainment]]
[[Category:Video Games]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Crude oil

2011-12-01T01:01:16Z

FRodgers: minor terminology corrections

'''Oil''' is a [[viscosity|viscous]] [[liquid]] that is not [[solubility|soluble]] in [[water]] and which is used for mainly for lubrication and [[fuel]].

There are two main types of oil. Organic oils are derived from from plants and other types of organic matter, such as [[olive]]s. Mineral oils, such as [[petroleum]], are obtained from geological sources. The latter is not formed by decayed matter, as that contradicts the Creationist worldview, but instead during a ''[[theobaric]]'' process. This oil existed in pristine state before the Flood, and moved during the Flood into the reservoirs where Noah emerged from the Ark, and where we now find it.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/origin-of-oil Origin of Oil], Answers in Genesis</ref> Consequently much of the oil is found in the Middle East, in addition to massive deposits in Canada<ref>http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm</ref> and Venezuela<ref>http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm</ref>.

== Uses ==
Uses of oil include the following:
* [[Heat]]ing, by [[burn]]ing the oil
* Illumination, in oil lamps
* Generation of [[electricity]], by burning the oil to turn water to steam used to run generators
* Lubrication
* Anointing
* Manufacture of perfumes
* [[Cooking]], to add [[flavor]], and to improve [[heat transfer]]

== Where does Oil Come From? ==

According to a [[Young Earth Creationist]] model, a ''theobaric'' process produced the oil supply. During the Creation Week, God created a mature earth, and in the Garden of Eden, everything was ready for its first occupants. There must have been mature plants and trees to supply food for immediate consumption, and oil for various uses (e.g., anointing, lubrication - see [[oil#uses]]). It remained relatively undisturbed until the Noachian Flood.

This oil, created in deep primordial repositories during the Creation Week migrated upwards into present-day reservoirs during the Noachian Flood. During the Flood, intense geological activity occurred whilst the “fountains of the great deep” described in Genesis were active, though after day 150 of the Flood God said that the fountains were closed, so we would expect a sharp cut-off in hydraulic activity. During the Flood, the primordial repositories containing the hydrocarbons will have been breached and fluids released.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/origin-of-oil Origin of Oil], Answers in Genesis</ref>

== Oil in the Bible ==

Oil, probably usually referring to olive oil, appears over two hundred times in the [[Bible]].
* Oil, particularly olive oil, is used in drink offerings to God, but not in sin offerings.<ref>{{Bible ref|Genesis|28|18}}, {{Bible ref|Genesis|35|14}}, {{Bible ref|Leviticus|2}}, {{Bible ref|Leviticus|14}}, {{Bible ref|Numbers|7}}</ref>
* Oil is used for anointing the priests of God by pouring it on their heads. This sanctifies them and makes them holy<ref>{{Bible ref|Exodus|29|2,7,21}}, {{Bible ref|Exodus|30|25}}, {{Bible ref|Leviticus|8}}</ref>. It was also used for anointing the kings of Israel.<ref>{{Bible ref|I_Samuel|10|1}}, {{Bible ref|I_Kings|1|39}}</ref>
* Oil is used for lighting lamps.<ref>{{Bible ref|Exodus|27|20}}</ref>
* In a miracle, [[Elisha]] caused a poor widow's little bit of oil to be enough to fill all her jars, and her neighbor's jars, with oil that she could sell it to pay her debts.<ref>{{Bible ref|II_Kings|4|1-7}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Petroleum]]
* [[Gasoline]]
*[[Fossil fuel]]
*[[Peak oil]]
*[[Abiotic oil]]

== References ==

<references />

[[category:geology]]
[[category:food and Drink]]

Shark

2011-12-01T00:52:34Z

FRodgers:

'''Sharks''' (suborder Odontoceti) are a large group of predatory cartilaginous [[fish]]es, including the largest fish species in the world, the [[whale shark]]. As well as the familiar fierce types of shark, the family also includes various [[dogfish]] and the bottom-living [[wobbegong]].

A shark's most notable characteristics include a prominent dorsal fin, fully replaceable teeth (with the exception of the whale and basking sharks) and a cartilaginous skeleton.

=== Species of shark ===

*[[Whale shark]].
*[[Basking shark]].
*[[Great white shark]].
*[[Mako]].
*[[Porbeagle]].
*[[Tope]].
*[[Whitetip reef shark]].
*[[Oceanic whitetip]].
*[[Blue shark]].
*[[Tiger shark]].
*[[Greenland shark]].
*[[Megamouth shark]].
*[[Nurse shark]].
*[[Hammerhead shark]].
*[[Bull shark]].
*[[Ganges shark]].
*[[Leopard shark]].
*[[Wobbegong]].
*[[Port Jackson shark]].
*[[Cookie-cutter shark]].
*[[Goblin shark]].
*[[Dogfish]].
and many others. 

== Behavior ==

Many species of sharks give birth to a few dozen live young, others lay a similarly small number of eggs; these are often washed ashore and are known as [[mermaid]]'s purses.

Sharks are reputed to be able to detect minute amounts of blood in water, and to be able to follow blood trails for miles. In fact, although sharks can detect blood at concentrations of as little as a few parts per billion, a very considerable quantity must be spilt before it is detectable amongst billions of gallons of seawater. Sharks actually use sounds and vibrations to locate most of their prey.

==Classification==
Sharks belong to the [[holobaramin]] that also includes skates and rays.

==Environmental Concerns==
Worldwide, sharks suffer threats from over-fishing, mercury poisoning, ocean acidification, and habitat disruption. <ref>http://www.ceibahamas.org/shark-ecology.aspx</ref>. Many individual shark species are currently threatened or endangered, often because of human activities such as careless fishing practices and coal fired plants dumping tones of toxic mercury into the oceans.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Sharks]]

Shark

2011-11-30T19:16:00Z

FRodgers:

'''Sharks''' (suborder Odontoceti) are a large group of predatory cartilaginous [[fish]]es, including the largest fish species in the world, the [[whale shark]]. As well as the familiar fierce types of shark, the family also includes various [[dogfish]] and the bottom-living [[wobbegong]].

A shark's most notable characteristics include a prominent dorsal fin, fully replaceable teeth (with the exception of the whale and basking sharks) and a cartilaginous skeleton.

=== Species of shark ===

*[[Whale shark]].
*[[Basking shark]].
*[[Great white shark]].
*[[Mako]].
*[[Porbeagle]].
*[[Tope]].
*[[Whitetip reef shark]].
*[[Oceanic whitetip]].
*[[Blue shark]].
*[[Tiger shark]].
*[[Greenland shark]].
*[[Megamouth shark]].
*[[Nurse shark]].
*[[Hammerhead shark]].
*[[Bull shark]].
*[[Ganges shark]].
*[[Leopard shark]].
*[[Wobbegong]].
*[[Port Jackson shark]].
*[[Cookie-cutter shark]].
*[[Goblin shark]].
*[[Dogfish]].
and many others. 

== Behavior ==

Many species of sharks give birth to a few dozen live young, others lay a similarly small number of eggs; these are often washed ashore and are known as [[mermaid]]'s purses.

Sharks are reputed to be able to detect minute amounts of blood in water, and to be able to follow blood trails for miles. In fact, although sharks can detect blood at concentrations of as little as a few parts per billion, a very considerable quantity must be spilt before it is detectable amongst billions of gallons of seawater. Sharks actually use sounds and vibrations to locate most of their prey.

==Classification==
Sharks belong to the [[holobaramin]] that also includes skates and rays.

==Environmental Concerns==
Worldwide, sharks suffer threats from over-fishing, mercury poisoning, and disturbances due to [Climate change]<ref>http://www.ceibahamas.org/shark-ecology.aspx</ref>. Many individual shark species are currently threatened or endangered, often because of human activities such as careless fishing practices and coal fired plants dumping tones of toxic mercury into the oceans.

</references>
[[Category:Sharks]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-28T16:44:00Z

FRodgers: Just because something is unclear does not make it impossible.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 36 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Schizophrenia is a disorder that causes a person to be unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. It is an inherited disorder and affects nearly 1 in 100 people. Scientists still have yet to explain what causes it, but one this is for certain, if evolution were true, it should have eliminated such an obvious disability long ago.
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-human species, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-14T01:38:09Z

FRodgers: Answering the questions is what makes him a biologist, regardless of pervious qualifications.

[[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]]

== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Punctuation of the article title==

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Something is Fishy ==

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a [[Creationary Scientific breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a [[Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
==A Biologist's Answers to the "15 Questions"==

1. '''How did life originate?'''

:Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
:Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
:This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. '''How did the DNA code originate?'''

:The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
:In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
:As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
:Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. '''How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?'''

:They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. '''Why is natural selection taught as evolution?'''

:It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
:Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. '''How did biochemical pathways originate?'''

:In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. '''Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?'''

:Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. '''How did multicellular life originate?'''

:Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. '''How did sex originate?'''

:Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
:As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. '''Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?'''

:They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. '''How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?'''

:They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. '''How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?'''

:It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
:Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
:We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
:As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
:A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. '''Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?'''

:It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
:Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
:Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. '''Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?'''

:Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been ''selectively'' breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!

14. '''Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?'''

:Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must ''observe'' the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
:The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. '''Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?'''

:Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Coal

2011-09-13T00:09:30Z

FRodgers:

[[Image:Yallourn_open_cut.jpg|thumb|400px|Open-cut brown coal mine at Yallourn, [[Victoria]]]]
'''Coal''' is a combustible material which was formed by decomposing plant and animal material placed under intense pressure.

[[Coal mining]] is the extraction of coal for use as a [[fuel]]. It became important after 1800 as coal fueled railroads of the [[Industrial Revolution]], and (where cheap water power was not available), the factories. Coal is now the chief method of generating [[electricity]], along with burning natural gas, using water power in dams, and using nuclear energy.

Laboratory experiments show that coal can be formed in a matter of months, and with temperatures in the range of 100 to 150 degrees Celsius (210-300 degrees Fahrenheit) for brown coal and 400 degrees Celsius (750 degrees Fahrenheit) for black coal.<ref>Quoted by Walker, 2001</ref>

== Types of coal ==

Four types of coal are:
* [[Anthracite]] - the cleanest burning coal, found in such regions as south [[Wales]] and northeast [[Pennsylvania]].

* [[Bituminous coal]] - widely found in [[Appalachia]] and widely used, and does not burn as cleanly as anthracite.

* [[Subbituminous coal]] - of a lower grade than bituminous and a higher grade than lignite, and is widely mined in the Powder River Basin region of [[Wyoming]].

* [[Lignite]] - also known as "brown coal", is the dirtiest burning, and is mainly used in power generation. The top two locations for lignite mining are [[Germany]] and [[Russia]].

[[Graphite]], used in [[pencil]]s and as an electrical conductor, is technically a type of coal of an even higher grade than anthracite, but is not used as a fuel as it is hard to ignite.

== Origins ==
[[Image:Coal_contact_line.jpg|thumb|coal sitting on clay, with no evidence of soil]]
[[Young earth creationists]] believe that most coal was formed during the [[Great Flood]] <ref>Jackson, 2006</ref>.
In support of this, they point out:<ref>Walker, 2001</ref>
* The time required to turn plant material into coal is small enough that the biblical timescale is quite sufficient. The vast amounts of time suggested by uniformitarian geologists is not actually required.
* [[Polystrate fossils]] indicate that successive layers have formed quickly.
* There is often no evidence of the soil that the plant material grew in, suggesting that the plant material was washed into place.
* Trees found in coal beds often turn out to be types that do not grow in swamps, as proposed by uniformitarian explanations.

Secular scientists propose that coal formation took long periods of time, with the most recently-formed coal being formed a million years ago.<ref name="ACF">[http://www.ket.org/Trips/Coal/AGSMM/agsmmhow.html How Coal Is Formed] American Coal foundation.</ref>
They generally propose that the plant material accumulated in swamps<ref name="ACF" />

== Environmental Impact==

The burning of coal has lead to serious environmental consequences, such as the increase of coal-originating [[mercury]] in ocean fish such as tuna, or the release of chemicals that lead to acid rain. Acid rain is caused by the release of sulfur dioxide from fossil fuels, which dissolves to form sulfuric acid in rain clouds <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210660,00.html </ref>. Acid rain can have serious impacts on local ecosystems, agriculture, and many structures, as the acid can eat away at building materials sensitive to acid, such as limestone.

==see also==
* [[Coal mining]]
== Bibliography ==
* Freese, Barbara. ''Coal: A Human History'' (2003)
* Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_record_buried_in_coal The Record Buried in Coal], Christian Courier, December 12, 2006.
* Jeffrey, E. C. ''Coal and Civilization'' 1925.
* Walker, Tas, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/328 Coal: memorial to the Flood] ''Creation'' 23(2):22–27, March 2001.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:energy]]
[[Category:geology]]
[[Category:Mining]]
[[Category:Coal mining]]

Green

2011-09-11T23:33:41Z

FRodgers:

'''Green''' is a color made by combining [[yellow]] and [[blue]] pigment. It is a [[primary color]] in light. Green is the color of many plants and other organisms, due to the presence of [[chlorophyll]].

In the poem "Nothing Gold Can Stay", [[Robert Frost]] wrote:

<blockquote>''Nature's first green is gold, her hardest hue to hold.''<ref>http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/a_f/frost/gold.htm</ref></blockquote>

Green is also a term used to refer to environmentally friendly products and services, such as [[hydroelectric]] energy from dams, or paper towels made from recycled paper products. Green sources of power are seen as a method of securing energy independence for the United States, and as a way of protecting the environment from the negative impacts of burning fossil fuels.

The color green corresponds to [[wavelength|wavelengths]] of 520 nanometers to 565 nanometers in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]].<ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/specol.html#c1</ref>

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

[[Category: Colors]]
[[category:Environmentalism]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-09T01:36:38Z

FRodgers: /* Something is Fishy */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-09T01:36:19Z

FRodgers: /* Something is Fishy */ new section