Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T23:28:30Z

SamF: /* My plans for this article */

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

== My plans for this article ==

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

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

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

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

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T23:19:42Z

SamF: /* Wrong prediction */

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]]. To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]
A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Based on statistics===
* 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.{{fact}}
* ''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.{{fact}}
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html] Palaeoblog; Early evolution of feathers.</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>

===Lack of mechanism===
* 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>
* Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.{{fact}}
* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.{{fact}}
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>{{fact}}
* Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.{{fact}}
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day.{{fact}}
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* 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 X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.{{fact}}
* Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.{{fact}}

===Maladaptation===
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* 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, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* 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>

===Wrong prediction===
* "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</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.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.<ref>[http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/6/1437 Oxford journal of human reproduction, Poor semen quality may contribute to recent decline in fertility rates] "During past decades, we have witnessed a remarkable decline in fertility rates (number of births per 1000 women of reproductive age) in the industrialized world"</ref>

===Missing fossils===
* The mammalian whale lacks plausible ancestors along points of a proposed evolutinary pathway. {{fact}}
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, forward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>
* the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species between kinds in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.{{fact}}
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.{{fact}}
* 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>
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.{{fact}}

===Paradoxical fossils===
* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.{{fact}}

=== Irreducible Complexity===
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.{{fact}}
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.{{fact}}
* 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>

===Uncategorized===
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* 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.{{fact}}
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.{{fact}}
*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>

== 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 ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T23:15:52Z

SamF: /* Maladaptation */ We have actually disprove that one, if you look at the history of Durham wheat you will see that ploidy is flexible in some organisms.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]]. To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]
A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Based on statistics===
* 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.{{fact}}
* ''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.{{fact}}
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html] Palaeoblog; Early evolution of feathers.</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>

===Lack of mechanism===
* 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>
* Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.{{fact}}
* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.{{fact}}
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>{{fact}}
* Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.{{fact}}
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day.{{fact}}
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* 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 X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.{{fact}}
* Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.{{fact}}

===Maladaptation===
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* 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, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* 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>

===Wrong prediction===
* "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</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.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.{{fact}}

===Missing fossils===
* The mammalian whale lacks plausible ancestors along points of a proposed evolutinary pathway. {{fact}}
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, forward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>
* the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species between kinds in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.{{fact}}
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.{{fact}}
* 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>
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.{{fact}}

===Paradoxical fossils===
* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.{{fact}}

=== Irreducible Complexity===
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.{{fact}}
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.{{fact}}
* 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>

===Uncategorized===
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* 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.{{fact}}
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.{{fact}}
*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>

== 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 ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T23:08:34Z

SamF: /* Based on statistics */ fixing ref up a bit, still need to read them

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]]. To date, no fossils of ''H. darwinicus orangutanishicus'' have been found.]]
A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Based on statistics===
* 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.{{fact}}
* ''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.{{fact}}
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html] Palaeoblog; Early evolution of feathers.</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>

===Lack of mechanism===
* 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>
* Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.{{fact}}
* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.{{fact}}
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>{{fact}}
* Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.{{fact}}
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day.{{fact}}
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* 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 X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.{{fact}}
* Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.{{fact}}

===Maladaptation===
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.{{fact}}
* 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, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* 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>

===Wrong prediction===
* "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</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.{{fact}}
* 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.{{fact}}
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.{{fact}}

===Missing fossils===
* The mammalian whale lacks plausible ancestors along points of a proposed evolutinary pathway. {{fact}}
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, forward to the 150th anniversary edition of On the Origin of Species</ref>
* the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species between kinds in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.{{fact}}
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.{{fact}}
* 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>
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.{{fact}}

===Paradoxical fossils===
* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.{{fact}}

=== Irreducible Complexity===
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.{{fact}}
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.{{fact}}
* 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>

===Uncategorized===
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* 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.{{fact}}
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.{{fact}}
*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>

== 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 ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

2010-01-22T20:44:57Z

SamF: /* Chapter 9 */ done with the book, editing needs to happen then it will be complete.

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
|What follows are the words of the Preacher, Son of David, and King of Jerusalem
|
|-
|2
|Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
|Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher, vanity of vanities; vanity is everywhere
|Depending on how you interpret the word Vanity this book can be seen as very Nihilistic, I took it to mean vainglory but I think that someone else should make that decision final
|-
|3
|What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
|What does man have to show for all of his earthly work?
|I assume earthly is what under the sun means
|-
|4
|One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
|One generation follows another; the Earth outlasts them, unchanging and for ever.
| Capitalized earth, maybe I should not have, perhaps it meant dirt
|-
|5
|The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
|The sun also rises, and the sun sets, and hastens to where it arose from.
|
|-
|6
|The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
|The wind blows to the South, then turns to the North; it whirls about continually, returning on its own time, in its own way.
|
|-
|7
|All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
|All rivers flow into the oceans; yet the oceans are not full; back to the headwaters of the rivers, the water returns.
|
|-
|8
|All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
|All things work in harmony; but we cannot adequately express this: our eyes do not find fulfillment in merely seeing; our ears are not fulfilled by hearing.
|The first section of this line needs work, I don't understand what it means.
|-
|9
|The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
|The way things were in the past will be the way things are in the future; what has been done before will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
|I kept it "nothing new under the sun" rather than changing it to earthly, primarily because it is such an iconic quote.
|-
|10
|Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
|Is there anything of which we can say, "Look, this is new"? All things are old, all was done before us.
|
|-
|11
|There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
|We do not clearly remember the past; neither shall our future be remembered by those born after those times.
|
|-
|12
|I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
|I am the Preacher, I was the King of Israel in Jerusalem.
|
|-
|13
|And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.
|I was passionate about seeking out wisdom concerning all things that are done in the earthly realm: God has given this obligation to the sons of men to be done as His will.
|
|-
|14
|I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|I have seen everything that is done here on earth; and see, it has amounted to nothing but vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|I took vexation to mean an attempt to confuse and satisfy the cravings of the spirit, but did not know how to write that with out the language becoming stilted and awkward
|-
|15
|That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
|That which is crooked cannot be straightened; the things which are wanting cannot be counted.
|
|-
|16
|I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.
|I searched within my own heart, and considered that I have amassed great wealth, and have gained wisdom beyond any who lived in Jerusalem before me: yes, my heart has experienced great wisdom and insight.
|
|-
|17
|And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.
|I spent the passions of my heart on seeking wisdom and understanding madness and folly: I realize now that this is also a vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|18
|For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
|I have found grief in my wisdom; as one's knowledge grows so does one's sorrow.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.
|I thought to myself "I will seek out laughter and joy, and enjoy such pleasure": This too was done in vain.
|
|-
|2
|I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?
|I realized that laughter is madness, and I realized that earthly pleasures are futile in the end.
|
|-
|3
|I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.
|I tried to give myself over to drunkeness, while seeking wisdom. I tried to hold off the feeling of sadness until I could see what is good for men, to see what they should do with their time here on Earth.
|
|-
|4
|I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:
|I did many great things, I built grand homes, I planted vast vineyards.
|
|-
|5
|I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits:
|I had gardens and orchards planted, and they contained trees bearing many kinds of fruit.
|
|-
|6
|I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:
|I had ponds constructed, and wooden bridges.
|
|-
|7
|I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:
|I acquired many servants and maidens, and many servants were born in my house; I had heards of cattle that were larger than all of those in Jerusalem before me.
|
|-
|8
|I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
|I amassed a great fortune in silver and gold, and other kingly treasures. I hired men and women to sing for me, and sought out all of the things that men have made for pleasure, things like musical instruments.
|
|-
|9
|So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.
|I was great, and amassed more treasure than all those who came before me in Jerusalem; throught this I remained wise.
|
|-
|10
|And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.
|I met ever desire of my heart, and I enjoyed the results of my labor;
|I don't know how to do the last part of this verse
|-
|11
|Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.
|Then I stopped to look at what I had done; it was all vanity and vexation of the spirit, and I had nothing truely significant to show for it.
|
|-
|12
|And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for what can the man do that cometh after the king? even that which hath been already done.
|I looked at myself and what I saw was wisdom, madness, and folly: What can those in the next generation do? More of what I have done?
|
|-
|13
|Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
|Then I realised that wisdom displaces folly, like light displaces the darkness.
|
|-
|14
|The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.
|The wise man looks about and keeps an open mind; the fool plunges forward without knowing what is going on; my personal insight revieals that one event happens to them all.
|
|-
|15
|Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.
|I realized that it happens to the fool just as it happens to me; so what makes me the wiser? This also is vanity.
|
|-
|16
|For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
|The fool and the wiseman will both be forgotten eventually. The wise man dies the same as a fool.
|
|-
|17
|Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|I came to hate life; I came to loath the work done here on Earth; Because it is all Vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|18
|Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.
|I came to hate all of my labor; regretting that I did not leave it for those who came after me.
|
|-
|19
|And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity.
|Who knows if he is to be a wise man or a fool? He will rule over all of my work, benefit from all of my wisdom. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|20
|Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.
|This made me despair, in all the earthly labor I had done.
|
|-
|21
|For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil.
|A Man can labor is search of wisdom and knowledge, but sometimes a lesser man will inherit his position. This too is vanity and a great evil.
|
|-
|22
|For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?
|What does man have to show for all her has done, all the vexation of his heart, in the end?
|
|-
|23
|For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity.
|All of mans days are sorrows, and the trying ordeals bring only grief; mans heart does not rest at night. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|24
|There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.
|There is nothing more satisfying for man than to eat and drink and enjoy his work; God showed me this.
|
|-
|25
|For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?
|Who can eat or bring more to himself than I can?
|
|-
|26
|For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|God gave Wisdom, Insight, and Joy to men who are good in his sight; to the sinner he has given trying ordeals, to gather and heap, to give offerings to God. This too is vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
|There is a season and a time for everything in the earthly realm.
|
|-
|2
|A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
|A time to be born, and another to die: a time to plant, and another to harvest;
|
|-
|3
|A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
|A time to Kill, and another to heal; a time to destroy, and another to build up;
|
|-
|4
|A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
|A time to weep, and another to laugh; a time to mourn, and another to rejoyce;
|
|-
|5
|A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
|A time to throw out stones, and another to gather them together; a time to embrace, and another to abstain;
|
|-
|6
|A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
|A time to get, and another to loose: a time to keep, and another to discard;
|
|-
|7
|A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
|A time to tear, and another to sew; a time to be silent, and another to speak;
|
|-
|8
|A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
|A time to love, and another to hate: A time for war, and another for peace.
|
|-
|9
|What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
|What profit does man make from his labor?
|
|-
|10
|I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
|I have seen the trying ordeal that God gave to the sons of men to make them work.
|
|-
|11
|He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
|He made everything beautiful before he gave the Earth to man, he set this world in mans heart, so that man could discover the work that God did to make it beautiful.
|
|-
|12
|I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
|I know that they are no good at all, except for making men rejoice, and doing so all their lives.
|
|-
|13
|And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
|Every man should labor and every man that labors should eat and drink and enjoy those fruits, enjoying the fruits of your labor is a gift from God.
|Considerably changed this passage, but I think I delivered the point
|-
|14
|I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
|I know that what God does is done forever. Nothing can be added to or taken away from God's works. God does this so that man should fear him.
|I do not know if I quite got hold of this one
|-
|15
|That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
|The way things were is the way things are now. The future will be like the past too, God requires things to stay as they were.
|
|-
|16
|And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.
|I saw an earthly place of judgement, were wickedness could be found, and a place of righteousness where Gross injustice could be seen.
|No stock can be put in earthly things, even those which appear to be most just can and do harbor wickedness
|-
|17
|I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
|I realized that God will judge the righteous and the wicked, there is a time there for every purpose and every work.
|
|-
|18
|I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
|I realized that to wealth of the sons of men, that God might give it to them, so that they might see that they are just another of God's animals.
|I changed beasts to God's animals because beast has picked up a connotation of brutishness since the time of the KJV. I didn't want to just say animal because that might give the wrong impression, I also figured I could get away with adding an extra "God" to the CBP.
|-
|19
|For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
|For the sons of men will meet the same fate as all of God's animal, even one thing happens to them, as one dies so does the other. They all breath, Man has no prestige over the rest of God's animals. All is vanity.
|I took preeminence to mean prestige because God gave man dominion over the animals in Genesis.
|-
|20
|All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
|All of them go to one place, All of them are made from dust and all of them will become dust.
|
|-
|21
|Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
|Who knows that the Spirit of man returns to God while the spirit of God's animals goes down to the earth?
|"Who knows" is a little weak
|-
|22
|Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
|At this I realized that there is nothing better than for a man to rejoice in his own work, for that is what he gets from it. No one can guarantee to bring him back to see what will become of them after he is gone.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
|So I returned and considered all of the oppression that takes place on earth. Those who were oppressed shed tears but were not comforted. Their oppressors had power, and they had no comforters.
|
|-
|2
|Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
|At this I praised the dead for being dead, more than the living for being alive.
|
|-
|3
|Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
|You are better off having not been born and seeing no evil than either the living or the dead.
|
|-
|4
|Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit.
|I considered the trying ordeals again, and every correct action, and how men envy their neighbors for them. This too is vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|5
|The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh.
|The fool does no work and lives be eating what he already has.
|
|-
|6
|Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.
|Better is a little with quietness than a lot with trying ordeals and vexation.
|
|-
|7
|Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.
|When I returned I saw vanity.
|
|-
|8
|There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail.
|There is one alone, with no second. He has neither child nor brother. There is no end to his labor. His eyes are not satisfied with riches, and he does not ask for whom he is laboring, for whom is he denying himself pleasure? This is also vanity, it is a sore and trying ordeal.
|
|-
|9
|Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
|Two are better than one, they have a better reward for their labor.
|
|-
|10
|For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.
|If one falls his partner can lift him up. If one sets out alone it is great trouble to fall, and have no one there to pick you up.
|
|-
|11
|Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
|If two lie together then they will be warm in their bed, but how can you be warm alone?
|
|-
|12
|And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
|If a man can defeat him two will be able to stand against this man. A rope of many chords is not quickly broken.
|
|-
|13
|Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.
|A poor and wise child is better than and old and foolish king who will no longer be admonished.
|
|-
|14
|For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.
|Out of prison he comes to reign, and those who are born in his kingdom will become poor.
|
|-
|15
|I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the second child that shall stand up in his stead.
|I think of all those living on earth, which the second child who shall stand up to take the kings place.
|we were drifting a bit far so I reanchored.
|-
|16
|There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|The people stretch on endlessly, Both after and before him. Those who come after will not rejoice in him. Surely this too is vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
|Keep on your feet when you enter the house of God, and keep an open mind but do not give sacrifice to fools. They do not pay attention to the fact that they are doing evil deeds.
|
|-
|2
|Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
|Do not speak rashly, and do not hastily speak to God. God is in heaven and you are here on earth, so let your words be few.
|I don't know what to make of this.
|-
|3
|For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.
|Just like a dream comes with many things going on, a fool may be known by their high word to substance ratio.
|Is this what you want?
|-
|4
|When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
|When you promise to give something to God then give it to him. God does not take pleasure in fools. Pay what you said that you would.
|
|-
|5
|Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
|It is better not to promise anything than to promise and not deliver.
|
|-
|6
|Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
|Do not talk yourself into a position where you will sin. Do not tell the angels that your vow was an error. If you do God will anger at the sound of your voice and may destroy the work that you have done.
|
|-
|7
|For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.
|In many dreams and many words there are many kinds of vanities, Fear God.
|
|-
|8
|If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.
|If you see oppression of the poor and a violent miscarriage of justice don't marvel at it. For God is higher than the highest power on earth, and he is there.
|
|-
|9
|Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field.
|The profits from the earth are good for everyone. The King himself benefits from the resources from the field.
|This line could be used to convey a truth about the economy, namely that manufacturing and resource production is the key to economic progress, not the spinning wheels of a service economy.
|-
|10
|He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.
|The man that loves silver will not be satisfied with silver. He will not love it when his silver is in abundance and increases. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|11
|When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes?
|When a resource is in abundance those that utilize it multiply. What good does it do the owners of the resource, except that they get to see them.
|There may be something here about politicians multiplying and consuming our hard work.
|-
|12
|The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.
|A laboring man enjoys his sleep, even if he has had little to eat. The abundance of a rich man will keep him from sleeping.
|
|-
|13
|There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.
|I have noticed another earthly evil. Namely, when the rich hold onto their wealth to their own detriment.
|
|-
|14
|But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand.
|That wealth will be lost to evil and trying ordeals. If such a man has a son he will have nothing to give him.
|
|-
|15
|As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.
|Just like you are naked when you come from the womb you will go away naked. You can't take your wealth with you when you die.
|
|-
|16
|And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind?
|It is an evil that man will leave this world exactly as he came to it. What profit does he have? He might as well have been laboring for the wind.
|
|-
|17
|All his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness.
|All of his life he will eat in the dark, with sorrow and anger over his decisions.
|
|-
|18
|Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
|I have seen that it is good to eat and drink and enjoy your labor here on earth, for all of the days that God gave you. That is your portion here on earth.
|
|-
|19
|Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.
|To every man that God has given wealth and power he has given the means to enjoy them, and take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor. This is the gift of God.
|
|-
|20
|For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.
|He will not remember the days of his life well, God will have answered him in the joy he feels in his heart.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men:
|There is an earthy evil that I have seen to be common among men.
|
|-
|2
|A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.
|When God gives a man a surplus of wealth, Treasure, and honor, so much that he wants for nothing, and God denies him the ability to enjoy it; strangers enjoy it in his stead. This is vanity, and is a great evil.
|
|-
|3
|If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.
|If a man has a hundred children, and lives many years, his years may be laboriously long, his heart may lack gratitude, and he may not be buried. An still birth is better than such a man.
|
|-
|4
|For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.
|It comes in vanity and leaves in darkness, and its name shall be covered in darkness.
|
|-
|5
|Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.
|It has not seen the sun, and does not know of such a thing. It has more rest than the man.
|
|-
|6
|Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?
|A man may live two thousand years, but what use is it if he never knows happiness. Don't we all go into the ground after we die?
|This reflects a missing concept, namely heaven and hell. Hell denial?
|-
|7
|All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.
|All of mans work is to feed himself, but he still grows hungry.
|
|-
|8
|For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?
|What has a wise man got that a fool lacks? What does a poor man have if he knows to walk before the living?
|
|-
|9
|Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.
|What I see in the world is better than what my heart desires. This too is Vanity and Vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|10
|That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.
|Whatever exists already has a name, and man is one such thing. Man cannot contend with forces mightier than he is.
|
|-
|11
|Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better?
|There is so much that increases vanity. Does any of it make man better?
|
|-
|12
|For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?
|Who really knows what is best for man, during the vain life that he spends like a shadow? Who can tell a man what will follow him here on earth?
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
|A good name is better than precious medicine; and the day of your death better than the day of your birth.
|
|-
|2
|It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
|It is better to go to a funeral than a feast. That is how all men end, and the living will take this to heart.
|
|-
|3
|Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
|Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of one's appearance the heart is made better.
|I take this to mean that expressing sorrow and sympathy for others in pain helps them to heal
|-
|4
|The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
|The heart of the wise man is as if he was at a funeral; but the heart of fools is partying.
|
|-
|5
|It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
|It is better to hear criticism from the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
|
|-
|6
|For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.
|The laughter of the fool is like the crackling of thorns beneath a pot. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|7
|Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth the heart.
|Surely oppression makes a wise man mad; a gift can destroy the heart.
|
|-
|8
|Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.
|It is better to be at the end of something than at the beginning: and the patient man is better than the proud man.
|
|-
|9
|Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
|Do not be quick to anger, because anger rests in the heart of fools.
|
|-
|10
|Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.
|Do not ask why things were better in the past. Because it is unwise to do so.
|
|-
|11
|Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them that see the sun.
|With an inheritance wisdom can be helpful, and it will bring profit to those who live on earth.
|
|-
|12
|For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.
|Wisdom is a defense, and money is a defense, the insight that comes with wisdom gives much to those who have it.
|
|-
|13
|Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?
|Consider the work of God. Who can straighten something that he has made crooked?
|
|-
|14
|In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
|When you have prosperity be joyful, but when you find adversity remember that God put it there so that man would not find anything after himself.
|
|-
|15
|All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.
|I saw everything in the days of my vanity. Just men died in righteousness and wicked men lived in wickedness.
|
|-
|16
|Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
|Don't be righteous over much, and do not make yourself too wise, it will destroy you.
|
|-
|17
|Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
|Do not be wicked, or foolish, why should you die before your time?
|
|-
|18
|It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.
|It would be a good idea to listen to me. Don't pull back, following my advice will make you someone who fears God.
|
|-
|19
|Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.
|Wisdom makes the wise man worth more than ten strong men from the city.
|
|-
|20
|For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
|Every man on earth sins, and no man does only good.
|
|-
|21
|Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee:
|Do not listen to everything that is said, or you will hear your servants cursing you.
|
|-
|22
|For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others.
|You will know in your heart that you have cursed others.
|
|-
|23
|All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.
|I have proven all I have said with wisdom, I decided to be wise when it was beyond my power to become wise.
|
|-
|24
|That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?
|Who can find out what is far away and buried deep?
|
|-
|25
|I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:
|I resolved to know, to search, to seek out wisdom, understand the reason for things, to know the wickedness of folly and foolishness and madness.
|
|-
|26
|And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.
|I found that death is a bitter woman with a heart of snares and nets and hands like bands. Those who please God can escape her but she shall have the sinner.
|
|-
|27
|Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:
|Counting one by one , to find the account, I found this out, said the preacher
|
|-
|28
|Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.
|Looking for what my heart seeks I found one man in a thousand, but a woman among them all I have not.
|
|-
|29
|Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
|I have found that God mad man upright, but that man has sought out many inventions.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.
|Who is like the wise man? And who knows how to interpret a thing? Wisdom makes a mans face shine like the sun, and changes the boldness of it.
|Added like the sun because it means shining as in glowing or beaming, not shining like and oily forehead.
|-
|2
|I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.
|I suggest that you keep the king's commandment, and do it in regard to the oath of God.
|
|-
|3
|Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him.
|Do not rush to get out of his sight. Do not do any evil. He does whatever he pleases.
|-
|4
|Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
|When a king speaks there is power behind his words. Who may say to him, What have you done?
|
|-
|5
|Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment.
|Those who keep his commandments will feel no evil. A wise mans heart discerns both time and judgement.
|
|-
|6
|Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him.
|To every purpose there is time and judgement, therefor a man's misery is great upon him.
|
|-
|7
|For he knoweth not that which shall be: for who can tell him when it shall be?
|He does not know what will come: Who can tell him when it will be?
|
|-
|8
|There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.
|There is no man with enough power over the spirit to retain it; He does not have power over the day of his death: There is no discharge in that war; and wickedness will not deliver those that are given to it either.
|
|-
|9
|All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt.
|I have seen all this, and applied my heart to every work that is done here on earth: there is a time when one mans rule over another hurts him.
|
|-
|10
|And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.
|I saw the wicked who came and went from holy places buried, and forgotten in the city where they did this: This too is vanity.
|
|-
|11
|Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
|The hearts of the sons of men are fully set to do evil, because justice is not delivered for evil works rapidly enough.
|These two parts of the KJV make no sense together, tremendous grammatical ambiguity.
|-
|12
|Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:
|A sinner may commit evil acts hundreds of times, and he may live a long time, but I absolutely know that those who show fear before God will be well.
|
|-
|13
|But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.
|The wicked will not be well, however, nor will he prolong his days, which are like a shadow; because he does not fear God.
|
|-
|14
|There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity.
|There is a vanity done here on earth; Something that the wicked do to just men; and righteous men do to the wicked too: This too is vanity.
|
|-
|15
|Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.
|I commended mirth, because men have nothing better here on earth than to ear, drink, and be merry: that will allow him to tollerate the days of work in the life that God has given him here.
|
|-
|16
|When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)
|When I applied my mind to seeking wisdom, and to see what is done on earth, because days and night do not sleep with their eyes.
|word analysis said mind needed to be used more often to stress the intellectual side of the bible
|-
|17
|Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
|Then I noticed all the work of God, so great that man cannot discover th extent of work done here on earth: A man may labor to seek it out, but he will not find it; even more, while a wise man might think he knows it he will not be able to find it.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 9==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.
|I decided in my hear to say all of this because this is true; I The righteous, the wise, and their works are in the hands of God: no man knows love or hatred from all of those who came before him.
|Please don't just change this back, the old way doesn't really work in modern English.
|-
|2
|All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.
|All things come in the same way to all: one even occurs to the righteous and the wicked both; to the good, the clean, and the unclean; to the man that sacrifices, and the man who does not sacrifice; to the good, and to the sinner; to the man who swears, and the man who fears an oath.
|
|-
|3
|This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
|It is evil that there is one event on earth that happens to all: the heart of sons of men is full of evil, madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they are dead.
|
|-
|4
|For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
|For the man that is still living there is still hope: a living dog is better than a dead lion.
|
|-
|5
|For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
|The living know that they will die: but the dead know nothing, and they will receive no more rewards; their memory is forgotten.
|we remember solomon and he is dead, I think this refers to the memory that the dead possess, i.e. the dead do not remember anything.
|-
|6
|Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
|Their love, their hatred, and their envy perishes with them; and they will never again receive a portion of the work done here on earth.
|
|-
|7
|Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
|Go your way, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; because right now God is accepting your works.
|
|-
|8
|Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
|Wear white garments; and anoint your head.
|
|-
|9
|Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
|Live joyfully with your wife, whom you love, all the days of the life of your vanity, He gave this to you here on earth, all the days of your vanity: that is your portion in this life, and in the labor you do here on earth.
|
|-
|10
|Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
|Whatever your hands find to do, do it with all of your strength. There is no work, no device, no insight, nor any wisdom in the grave, where you are going.
|"What every you are be a good one" (I think that was Abe Lincoln)
|-
|11
|I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
|I returned, and saw that the race is not to the swift, and that the battle is not to the strong, bread does not go to the wise, riches do not find the man of understanding, and favor does not go the the man of skill; time and chance happen to them all.
|
|-
|12
|For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.
|A man doesn't know his time: just like the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when suddenly it falls upon them.
|
|-
|13
|This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me:
|I have seen this wisdom here on earth, and it seems great to me.
|
|-
|14
|There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:
|There was a little city with a few men living in it; A great king came against it, besieging it, he built great bulwarks against it.
|
|-
|15
|Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.
|Found there was a poor but wise man, who delivered the city with his wisdom; na man remembered the poor man though.
|
|-
|16
|Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
|Then I said, Wisdom is better than strength; However, A poor mans wisdom is ignored, his words are not heard.
|Best of the public reference?
|-
|17
|The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.
|When it is quiet the words of wise men are heard more than the Cry of one who rules among fools.
|
|-
|18
|Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.
|Wisdom is better than the weapons of war: One sinner can destroy much good.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 10==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.
|Dead flies make the apothecaries ointment send forth a foul aroma, so does a little folly in a man who has a reputation for wisdom and honor.
|
|-
|2
|A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
|A wise man's heart is at his right hand, a fool's at his left.
|serve from the right clear from the left?
|-
|3
|Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
|When a fool comes by, and says something foolish, he tells everyone that he is a fool.
|
|-
|4
|If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.
|If a someone tries to force you out, stand your ground. Giving in pacifies great offenses.
|
|-
|5
|There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:
|There is an evil on earth, an error that comes from a ruler.
|
|-
|6
|Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
|Folly is sat at the head of the table while the rich sit at the foot.
|
|-
|7
|I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.
|I have seen servants on horses, and princess walking like servants.
|
|-
|8
|He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.
|If you dig a pit you might fall into it, and if you break into a hedge a snake might bite you.
|
|-
|9
|Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby.
|Removing stones may get you caught in a rockfall, and chopping wood may result in a tree falling on your head.
|
|-
|10
|If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.
|If your tools are blunt and you do not sharpen them then you will have to work harder; wisdom helps you profit from your work.
|
|-
|11
|Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.
|If a serpent bites before it is enchanted then what good is it for the enchanter?
|I think that is what this means
|-
|12
|The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.
|The words of a wise man are worth much, but the fools will suffer at his own words.
|
|-
|13
|The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.
|From the start his words are foolish, and in the end they are mischievous madness.
|
|-
|14
|A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?
|A fool always has plenty to say, but no man can tell what will be, and who can tell him what will come after him?
|
|-
|15
|The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city.
|The Labor of the foolish makes them all tired, they do not know how to seek help.
|
|-
|16
|Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!
|It is a horrible thing for a land to have a King who is only a child and have princes who eat before the work has been done.
|
|-
|17
|Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!
|It is a blessing for a land to have a King who is the son of noble men, and princes who wait for the right time to eat, and then eat for strength not for drunkenness.
|
|-
|18
|By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.
|It is only with a lot of neglect that a building decays, with idle hands the house will collapse.
|
|-
|19
|A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.
|A feast brings laughter, and wine brings merriment, but money brings all things.
|
|-
|20
|Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.
|Do not curse the King, don't even think about it. When you go to bed do not curse the rich. Because a bird in the air will sing out, and the bird with out wings will not.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 11==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
|Throw your bread on the water, you will find it after many days.
|
|-
|2
|Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.
|Give some to seven, and to eight, because you do not know what evil is in the world.
|
|-
|3
|If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.
|If the clouds are full of rain they will rain upon the earth. If the tree falls to the south, or north, the tree will be where it fell.
|
|-
|4
|He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.
|If you spend your time observing the wind you will not sow, and if you focus on the clouds you will not reap.
|
|-
|5
|As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
|Just like you don't know the way the spirit works, you don't how the bones of a child grow in the mothers womb. You certainly do not know the works of God who made them all.
|Spirit used here as an improper noun I think
|-
|6
|In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.
|Sow your seeds in the morning, and in the evening sow some more. You do not know which seeds will prosper, if it is one, or the other, or both that will do well.
|
|-
|7
|Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:
|The light is beautiful to behold, the sun is a pleasure to see.
|
|-
|8
|But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity.
|If a man lives many years and enjoys them all he should still remember the days of darkness, there will be many of them. All that comes is vanity.
|
|-
|9
|Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.
|Rejoyce young man, be greatful for your youth. Let your heart cheer for you in your youth, and follow your hear, and do what you see that there is to be done. But always remember that God will judge you for what you do during this time.
|
|-
|10
|Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity.
|Do not harbor sadness in your heart, and do not sin with your body. Childhood and youth are vanity.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 12==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
|Keep your ming on God, your creator, in your youth; before the evil days come, before the years draw on, before you loose pleasure in life.
|
|-
|2
|While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
|Before the sun, the light, the moon, and the stars begin to dim, and the clouds return after the rain.
|
|-
|3
|In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
|In the days when housekeepers will tremble, strong men shall bow down, When Grinders cease because they are few, and those who look out into the world grow dim.
|I do not know what kind of grinder, perhaps it is a grain mill, I never made a study of the point.
|-
|4
|And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
|The people will bar their doors, the sound of grinding will be low, When men awaken to the sounds of birds but their songs grow faint.
|
|-
|5
|Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
|When they will be afraid of high things and places, and of the streets. The almond tree will flourish, and grasshoppers will descend, but loose his desire. The Man will die, and mourners will pass through the streets.
|
|-
|6
|Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
|Act before the silver cord is broken, before the golden bowl is broken, before the pitcher is smashed at the spring, or the wheel is broken at the well.
|
|-
|7
|Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
|Then the dust will fall back to the earth and the spirit will return to God, who gave it.
|
|-
|8
|Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
|Vanity of vanities, said the preacher; all is vanity.
|
|-
|9
|And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.
|The Preacher still taught the people and shared his insight, because he was wise; He thought about, searched for, and gave many proverbs.
|
|-
|10
|The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
|The Preacher searched carefully for the right words to convey his meaning. What he wrote was righteous and true, showing great veracity.
|
|-
|11
|The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
|A wise mans words are like goads, their masters drive them like nails, they are given by the shepherd.
|
|-
|12
|And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
|Take this as a warning my son, writing many books is endless, and too much study weakens your body.
|
|-
|13
|Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
|To conclude the matter: Fear God and obey his commandment, this is your duty as a man.
|
|-
|14
|For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
|God will Judge every work, every secret this, both good and evil.
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

User talk:SamF

2010-01-22T20:13:21Z

SamF: linking to my notepad, so I can find it

User:SamF/notepad

2010-01-22T20:12:28Z

SamF:

Ecclesiastes 4:6 |6
|Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.
|Better is a little with quietness than a lot with trying ordeals and vexation.

Tiny house movement

Ecc 5:11
Ecc 7:10
Ecc 9:11

User:SamF

2010-01-22T04:39:08Z

SamF: a bit about me

I edit from work, so I will only be available during the week.

Ecclesiastes (Translated)

2010-01-22T04:37:43Z

SamF: /* Chapter 9 */ Forgot Ch 9!

{{ConservativeBible}}

==Chapter 1==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
|What follows are the words of the Preacher, Son of David, and King of Jerusalem
|
|-
|2
|Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
|Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher, vanity of vanities; vanity is everywhere
|Depending on how you interpret the word Vanity this book can be seen as very Nihilistic, I took it to mean vainglory but I think that someone else should make that decision final
|-
|3
|What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
|What does man have to show for all of his earthly work?
|I assume earthly is what under the sun means
|-
|4
|One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
|One generation follows another; the Earth outlasts them, unchanging and for ever.
| Capitalized earth, maybe I should not have, perhaps it meant dirt
|-
|5
|The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
|The sun also rises, and the sun sets, and hastens to where it arose from.
|
|-
|6
|The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
|The wind blows to the South, then turns to the North; it whirls about continually, returning on its own time, in its own way.
|
|-
|7
|All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
|All rivers flow into the oceans; yet the oceans are not full; back to the headwaters of the rivers, the water returns.
|
|-
|8
|All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
|All things work in harmony; but we cannot adequately express this: our eyes do not find fulfillment in merely seeing; our ears are not fulfilled by hearing.
|The first section of this line needs work, I don't understand what it means.
|-
|9
|The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
|The way things were in the past will be the way things are in the future; what has been done before will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
|I kept it "nothing new under the sun" rather than changing it to earthly, primarily because it is such an iconic quote.
|-
|10
|Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
|Is there anything of which we can say, "Look, this is new"? All things are old, all was done before us.
|
|-
|11
|There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
|We do not clearly remember the past; neither shall our future be remembered by those born after those times.
|
|-
|12
|I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
|I am the Preacher, I was the King of Israel in Jerusalem.
|
|-
|13
|And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.
|I was passionate about seeking out wisdom concerning all things that are done in the earthly realm: God has given this obligation to the sons of men to be done as His will.
|
|-
|14
|I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|I have seen everything that is done here on earth; and see, it has amounted to nothing but vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|I took vexation to mean an attempt to confuse and satisfy the cravings of the spirit, but did not know how to write that with out the language becoming stilted and awkward
|-
|15
|That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
|That which is crooked cannot be straightened; the things which are wanting cannot be counted.
|
|-
|16
|I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.
|I searched within my own heart, and considered that I have amassed great wealth, and have gained wisdom beyond any who lived in Jerusalem before me: yes, my heart has experienced great wisdom and insight.
|
|-
|17
|And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.
|I spent the passions of my heart on seeking wisdom and understanding madness and folly: I realize now that this is also a vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|18
|For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
|I have found grief in my wisdom; as one's knowledge grows so does one's sorrow.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 2==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|I said in mine heart, Go to now, I will prove thee with mirth, therefore enjoy pleasure: and, behold, this also is vanity.
|I thought to myself "I will seek out laughter and joy, and enjoy such pleasure": This too was done in vain.
|
|-
|2
|I said of laughter, It is mad: and of mirth, What doeth it?
|I realized that laughter is madness, and I realized that earthly pleasures are futile in the end.
|
|-
|3
|I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom; and to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was that good for the sons of men, which they should do under the heaven all the days of their life.
|I tried to give myself over to drunkeness, while seeking wisdom. I tried to hold off the feeling of sadness until I could see what is good for men, to see what they should do with their time here on Earth.
|
|-
|4
|I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards:
|I did many great things, I built grand homes, I planted vast vineyards.
|
|-
|5
|I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits:
|I had gardens and orchards planted, and they contained trees bearing many kinds of fruit.
|
|-
|6
|I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees:
|I had ponds constructed, and wooden bridges.
|
|-
|7
|I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me:
|I acquired many servants and maidens, and many servants were born in my house; I had heards of cattle that were larger than all of those in Jerusalem before me.
|
|-
|8
|I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts.
|I amassed a great fortune in silver and gold, and other kingly treasures. I hired men and women to sing for me, and sought out all of the things that men have made for pleasure, things like musical instruments.
|
|-
|9
|So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me.
|I was great, and amassed more treasure than all those who came before me in Jerusalem; throught this I remained wise.
|
|-
|10
|And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labour: and this was my portion of all my labour.
|I met ever desire of my heart, and I enjoyed the results of my labor;
|I don't know how to do the last part of this verse
|-
|11
|Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.
|Then I stopped to look at what I had done; it was all vanity and vexation of the spirit, and I had nothing truely significant to show for it.
|
|-
|12
|And I turned myself to behold wisdom, and madness, and folly: for what can the man do that cometh after the king? even that which hath been already done.
|I looked at myself and what I saw was wisdom, madness, and folly: What can those in the next generation do? More of what I have done?
|
|-
|13
|Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
|Then I realised that wisdom displaces folly, like light displaces the darkness.
|
|-
|14
|The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one event happeneth to them all.
|The wise man looks about and keeps an open mind; the fool plunges forward without knowing what is going on; my personal insight revieals that one event happens to them all.
|
|-
|15
|Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.
|I realized that it happens to the fool just as it happens to me; so what makes me the wiser? This also is vanity.
|
|-
|16
|For there is no remembrance of the wise more than of the fool for ever; seeing that which now is in the days to come shall all be forgotten. And how dieth the wise man? as the fool.
|The fool and the wiseman will both be forgotten eventually. The wise man dies the same as a fool.
|
|-
|17
|Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|I came to hate life; I came to loath the work done here on Earth; Because it is all Vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|18
|Yea, I hated all my labour which I had taken under the sun: because I should leave it unto the man that shall be after me.
|I came to hate all of my labor; regretting that I did not leave it for those who came after me.
|
|-
|19
|And who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? yet shall he have rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have shewed myself wise under the sun. This is also vanity.
|Who knows if he is to be a wise man or a fool? He will rule over all of my work, benefit from all of my wisdom. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|20
|Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.
|This made me despair, in all the earthly labor I had done.
|
|-
|21
|For there is a man whose labour is in wisdom, and in knowledge, and in equity; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil.
|A Man can labor is search of wisdom and knowledge, but sometimes a lesser man will inherit his position. This too is vanity and a great evil.
|
|-
|22
|For what hath man of all his labour, and of the vexation of his heart, wherein he hath laboured under the sun?
|What does man have to show for all her has done, all the vexation of his heart, in the end?
|
|-
|23
|For all his days are sorrows, and his travail grief; yea, his heart taketh not rest in the night. This is also vanity.
|All of mans days are sorrows, and the trying ordeals bring only grief; mans heart does not rest at night. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|24
|There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.
|There is nothing more satisfying for man than to eat and drink and enjoy his work; God showed me this.
|
|-
|25
|For who can eat, or who else can hasten hereunto, more than I?
|Who can eat or bring more to himself than I can?
|
|-
|26
|For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|God gave Wisdom, Insight, and Joy to men who are good in his sight; to the sinner he has given trying ordeals, to gather and heap, to give offerings to God. This too is vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 3==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
|There is a season and a time for everything in the earthly realm.
|
|-
|2
|A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
|A time to be born, and another to die: a time to plant, and another to harvest;
|
|-
|3
|A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
|A time to Kill, and another to heal; a time to destroy, and another to build up;
|
|-
|4
|A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
|A time to weep, and another to laugh; a time to mourn, and another to rejoyce;
|
|-
|5
|A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
|A time to throw out stones, and another to gather them together; a time to embrace, and another to abstain;
|
|-
|6
|A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
|A time to get, and another to loose: a time to keep, and another to discard;
|
|-
|7
|A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
|A time to tear, and another to sew; a time to be silent, and another to speak;
|
|-
|8
|A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
|A time to love, and another to hate: A time for war, and another for peace.
|
|-
|9
|What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
|What profit does man make from his labor?
|
|-
|10
|I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
|I have seen the trying ordeal that God gave to the sons of men to make them work.
|
|-
|11
|He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
|He made everything beautiful before he gave the Earth to man, he set this world in mans heart, so that man could discover the work that God did to make it beautiful.
|
|-
|12
|I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
|I know that they are no good at all, except for making men rejoice, and doing so all their lives.
|
|-
|13
|And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
|Every man should labor and every man that labors should eat and drink and enjoy those fruits, enjoying the fruits of your labor is a gift from God.
|Considerably changed this passage, but I think I delivered the point
|-
|14
|I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
|I know that what God does is done forever. Nothing can be added to or taken away from God's works. God does this so that man should fear him.
|I do not know if I quite got hold of this one
|-
|15
|That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.
|The way things were is the way things are now. The future will be like the past too, God requires things to stay as they were.
|
|-
|16
|And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.
|I saw an earthly place of judgement, were wickedness could be found, and a place of righteousness where Gross injustice could be seen.
|No stock can be put in earthly things, even those which appear to be most just can and do harbor wickedness
|-
|17
|I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.
|I realized that God will judge the righteous and the wicked, there is a time there for every purpose and every work.
|
|-
|18
|I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
|I realized that to wealth of the sons of men, that God might give it to them, so that they might see that they are just another of God's animals.
|I changed beasts to God's animals because beast has picked up a connotation of brutishness since the time of the KJV. I didn't want to just say animal because that might give the wrong impression, I also figured I could get away with adding an extra "God" to the CBP.
|-
|19
|For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
|For the sons of men will meet the same fate as all of God's animal, even one thing happens to them, as one dies so does the other. They all breath, Man has no prestige over the rest of God's animals. All is vanity.
|I took preeminence to mean prestige because God gave man dominion over the animals in Genesis.
|-
|20
|All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
|All of them go to one place, All of them are made from dust and all of them will become dust.
|
|-
|21
|Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
|Who knows that the Spirit of man returns to God while the spirit of God's animals goes down to the earth?
|"Who knows" is a little weak
|-
|22
|Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
|At this I realized that there is nothing better than for a man to rejoice in his own work, for that is what he gets from it. No one can guarantee to bring him back to see what will become of them after he is gone.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 4==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
|So I returned and considered all of the oppression that takes place on earth. Those who were oppressed shed tears but were not comforted. Their oppressors had power, and they had no comforters.
|
|-
|2
|Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
|At this I praised the dead for being dead, more than the living for being alive.
|
|-
|3
|Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.
|You are better off having not been born and seeing no evil than either the living or the dead.
|
|-
|4
|Again, I considered all travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour. This is also vanity and vexation of spirit.
|I considered the trying ordeals again, and every correct action, and how men envy their neighbors for them. This too is vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|5
|The fool foldeth his hands together, and eateth his own flesh.
|The fool does no work and lives be eating what he already has.
|
|-
|6
|Better is an handful with quietness, than both the hands full with travail and vexation of spirit.
|Better is a little with quietness than a lot with trying ordeals and vexation.
|
|-
|7
|Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun.
|When I returned I saw vanity.
|
|-
|8
|There is one alone, and there is not a second; yea, he hath neither child nor brother: yet is there no end of all his labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither saith he, For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This is also vanity, yea, it is a sore travail.
|There is one alone, with no second. He has neither child nor brother. There is no end to his labor. His eyes are not satisfied with riches, and he does not ask for whom he is laboring, for whom is he denying himself pleasure? This is also vanity, it is a sore and trying ordeal.
|
|-
|9
|Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
|Two are better than one, they have a better reward for their labor.
|
|-
|10
|For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.
|If one falls his partner can lift him up. If one sets out alone it is great trouble to fall, and have no one there to pick you up.
|
|-
|11
|Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
|If two lie together then they will be warm in their bed, but how can you be warm alone?
|
|-
|12
|And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
|If a man can defeat him two will be able to stand against this man. A rope of many chords is not quickly broken.
|
|-
|13
|Better is a poor and a wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.
|A poor and wise child is better than and old and foolish king who will no longer be admonished.
|
|-
|14
|For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.
|Out of prison he comes to reign, and those who are born in his kingdom will become poor.
|
|-
|15
|I considered all the living which walk under the sun, with the second child that shall stand up in his stead.
|I think of all those living on earth, which the second child who shall stand up to take the kings place.
|we were drifting a bit far so I reanchored.
|-
|16
|There is no end of all the people, even of all that have been before them: they also that come after shall not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and vexation of spirit.
|The people stretch on endlessly, Both after and before him. Those who come after will not rejoice in him. Surely this too is vanity and vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 5==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
|Keep on your feet when you enter the house of God, and keep an open mind but do not give sacrifice to fools. They do not pay attention to the fact that they are doing evil deeds.
|
|-
|2
|Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
|Do not speak rashly, and do not hastily speak to God. God is in heaven and you are here on earth, so let your words be few.
|I don't know what to make of this.
|-
|3
|For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.
|Just like a dream comes with many things going on, a fool may be known by their high word to substance ratio.
|Is this what you want?
|-
|4
|When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
|When you promise to give something to God then give it to him. God does not take pleasure in fools. Pay what you said that you would.
|
|-
|5
|Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.
|It is better not to promise anything than to promise and not deliver.
|
|-
|6
|Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?
|Do not talk yourself into a position where you will sin. Do not tell the angels that your vow was an error. If you do God will anger at the sound of your voice and may destroy the work that you have done.
|
|-
|7
|For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.
|In many dreams and many words there are many kinds of vanities, Fear God.
|
|-
|8
|If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.
|If you see oppression of the poor and a violent miscarriage of justice don't marvel at it. For God is higher than the highest power on earth, and he is there.
|
|-
|9
|Moreover the profit of the earth is for all: the king himself is served by the field.
|The profits from the earth are good for everyone. The King himself benefits from the resources from the field.
|This line could be used to convey a truth about the economy, namely that manufacturing and resource production is the key to economic progress, not the spinning wheels of a service economy.
|-
|10
|He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.
|The man that loves silver will not be satisfied with silver. He will not love it when his silver is in abundance and increases. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|11
|When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes?
|When a resource is in abundance those that utilize it multiply. What good does it do the owners of the resource, except that they get to see them.
|There may be something here about politicians multiplying and consuming our hard work.
|-
|12
|The sleep of a labouring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep.
|A laboring man enjoys his sleep, even if he has had little to eat. The abundance of a rich man will keep him from sleeping.
|
|-
|13
|There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt.
|I have noticed another earthly evil. Namely, when the rich hold onto their wealth to their own detriment.
|
|-
|14
|But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in his hand.
|That wealth will be lost to evil and trying ordeals. If such a man has a son he will have nothing to give him.
|
|-
|15
|As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall he return to go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand.
|Just like you are naked when you come from the womb you will go away naked. You can't take your wealth with you when you die.
|
|-
|16
|And this also is a sore evil, that in all points as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath laboured for the wind?
|It is an evil that man will leave this world exactly as he came to it. What profit does he have? He might as well have been laboring for the wind.
|
|-
|17
|All his days also he eateth in darkness, and he hath much sorrow and wrath with his sickness.
|All of his life he will eat in the dark, with sorrow and anger over his decisions.
|
|-
|18
|Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.
|I have seen that it is good to eat and drink and enjoy your labor here on earth, for all of the days that God gave you. That is your portion here on earth.
|
|-
|19
|Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.
|To every man that God has given wealth and power he has given the means to enjoy them, and take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor. This is the gift of God.
|
|-
|20
|For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.
|He will not remember the days of his life well, God will have answered him in the joy he feels in his heart.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 6==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men:
|There is an earthy evil that I have seen to be common among men.
|
|-
|2
|A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.
|When God gives a man a surplus of wealth, Treasure, and honor, so much that he wants for nothing, and God denies him the ability to enjoy it; strangers enjoy it in his stead. This is vanity, and is a great evil.
|
|-
|3
|If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.
|If a man has a hundred children, and lives many years, his years may be laboriously long, his heart may lack gratitude, and he may not be buried. An still birth is better than such a man.
|
|-
|4
|For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness.
|It comes in vanity and leaves in darkness, and its name shall be covered in darkness.
|
|-
|5
|Moreover he hath not seen the sun, nor known any thing: this hath more rest than the other.
|It has not seen the sun, and does not know of such a thing. It has more rest than the man.
|
|-
|6
|Yea, though he live a thousand years twice told, yet hath he seen no good: do not all go to one place?
|A man may live two thousand years, but what use is it if he never knows happiness. Don't we all go into the ground after we die?
|This reflects a missing concept, namely heaven and hell. Hell denial?
|-
|7
|All the labour of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.
|All of mans work is to feed himself, but he still grows hungry.
|
|-
|8
|For what hath the wise more than the fool? what hath the poor, that knoweth to walk before the living?
|What has a wise man got that a fool lacks? What does a poor man have if he knows to walk before the living?
|
|-
|9
|Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of the desire: this is also vanity and vexation of spirit.
|What I see in the world is better than what my heart desires. This too is Vanity and Vexation of the spirit.
|
|-
|10
|That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.
|Whatever exists already has a name, and man is one such thing. Man cannot contend with forces mightier than he is.
|
|-
|11
|Seeing there be many things that increase vanity, what is man the better?
|There is so much that increases vanity. Does any of it make man better?
|
|-
|12
|For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?
|Who really knows what is best for man, during the vain life that he spends like a shadow? Who can tell a man what will follow him here on earth?
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 7==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
|A good name is better than precious medicine; and the day of your death better than the day of your birth.
|
|-
|2
|It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
|It is better to go to a funeral than a feast. That is how all men end, and the living will take this to heart.
|
|-
|3
|Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
|Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of one's appearance the heart is made better.
|I take this to mean that expressing sorrow and sympathy for others in pain helps them to heal
|-
|4
|The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
|The heart of the wise man is as if he was at a funeral; but the heart of fools is partying.
|
|-
|5
|It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
|It is better to hear criticism from the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
|
|-
|6
|For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.
|The laughter of the fool is like the crackling of thorns beneath a pot. This too is vanity.
|
|-
|7
|Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and a gift destroyeth the heart.
|Surely oppression makes a wise man mad; a gift can destroy the heart.
|
|-
|8
|Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof: and the patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit.
|It is better to be at the end of something than at the beginning: and the patient man is better than the proud man.
|
|-
|9
|Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
|Do not be quick to anger, because anger rests in the heart of fools.
|
|-
|10
|Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.
|Do not ask why things were better in the past. Because it is unwise to do so.
|
|-
|11
|Wisdom is good with an inheritance: and by it there is profit to them that see the sun.
|With an inheritance wisdom can be helpful, and it will bring profit to those who live on earth.
|
|-
|12
|For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it.
|Wisdom is a defense, and money is a defense, the insight that comes with wisdom gives much to those who have it.
|
|-
|13
|Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?
|Consider the work of God. Who can straighten something that he has made crooked?
|
|-
|14
|In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
|When you have prosperity be joyful, but when you find adversity remember that God put it there so that man would not find anything after himself.
|
|-
|15
|All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.
|I saw everything in the days of my vanity. Just men died in righteousness and wicked men lived in wickedness.
|
|-
|16
|Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
|Don't be righteous over much, and do not make yourself too wise, it will destroy you.
|
|-
|17
|Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
|Do not be wicked, or foolish, why should you die before your time?
|
|-
|18
|It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.
|It would be a good idea to listen to me. Don't pull back, following my advice will make you someone who fears God.
|
|-
|19
|Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city.
|Wisdom makes the wise man worth more than ten strong men from the city.
|
|-
|20
|For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
|Every man on earth sins, and no man does only good.
|
|-
|21
|Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee:
|Do not listen to everything that is said, or you will hear your servants cursing you.
|
|-
|22
|For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others.
|You will know in your heart that you have cursed others.
|
|-
|23
|All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me.
|I have proven all I have said with wisdom, I decided to be wise when it was beyond my power to become wise.
|
|-
|24
|That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out?
|Who can find out what is far away and buried deep?
|
|-
|25
|I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:
|I resolved to know, to search, to seek out wisdom, understand the reason for things, to know the wickedness of folly and foolishness and madness.
|
|-
|26
|And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.
|I found that death is a bitter woman with a heart of snares and nets and hands like bands. Those who please God can escape her but she shall have the sinner.
|
|-
|27
|Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:
|Counting one by one , to find the account, I found this out, said the preacher
|
|-
|28
|Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.
|Looking for what my heart seeks I found one man in a thousand, but a woman among them all I have not.
|
|-
|29
|Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
|I have found that God mad man upright, but that man has sought out many inventions.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 8==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed.
|Who is like the wise man? And who knows how to interpret a thing? Wisdom makes a mans face shine like the sun, and changes the boldness of it.
|Added like the sun because it means shining as in glowing or beaming, not shining like and oily forehead.
|-
|2
|I counsel thee to keep the king's commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.
|I suggest that you keep the king's commandment, and do it in regard to the oath of God.
|
|-
|3
|Be not hasty to go out of his sight: stand not in an evil thing; for he doeth whatsoever pleaseth him.
|Do not rush to get out of his sight. Do not do any evil. He does whatever he pleases.
|-
|4
|Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
|When a king speaks there is power behind his words. Who may say to him, What have you done?
|
|-
|5
|Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment.
|Those who keep his commandments will feel no evil. A wise mans heart discerns both time and judgement.
|
|-
|6
|Because to every purpose there is time and judgment, therefore the misery of man is great upon him.
|To every purpose there is time and judgement, therefor a man's misery is great upon him.
|
|-
|7
|For he knoweth not that which shall be: for who can tell him when it shall be?
|He does not know what will come: Who can tell him when it will be?
|
|-
|8
|There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.
|There is no man with enough power over the spirit to retain it; He does not have power over the day of his death: There is no discharge in that war; and wickedness will not deliver those that are given to it either.
|
|-
|9
|All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt.
|I have seen all this, and applied my heart to every work that is done here on earth: there is a time when one mans rule over another hurts him.
|
|-
|10
|And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.
|I saw the wicked who came and went from holy places buried, and forgotten in the city where they did this: This too is vanity.
|
|-
|11
|Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
|The hearts of the sons of men are fully set to do evil, because justice is not delivered for evil works rapidly enough.
|These two parts of the KJV make no sense together, tremendous grammatical ambiguity.
|-
|12
|Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:
|A sinner may commit evil acts hundreds of times, and he may live a long time, but I absolutely know that those who show fear before God will be well.
|
|-
|13
|But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.
|The wicked will not be well, however, nor will he prolong his days, which are like a shadow; because he does not fear God.
|
|-
|14
|There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous: I said that this also is vanity.
|There is a vanity done here on earth; Something that the wicked do to just men; and righteous men do to the wicked too: This too is vanity.
|
|-
|15
|Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.
|I commended mirth, because men have nothing better here on earth than to ear, drink, and be merry: that will allow him to tollerate the days of work in the life that God has given him here.
|
|-
|16
|When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: (for also there is that neither day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)
|When I applied my mind to seeking wisdom, and to see what is done on earth, because days and night do not sleep with their eyes.
|word analysis said mind needed to be used more often to stress the intellectual side of the bible
|-
|17
|Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
|Then I noticed all the work of God, so great that man cannot discover th extent of work done here on earth: A man may labor to seek it out, but he will not find it; even more, while a wise man might think he knows it he will not be able to find it.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 9==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.
|
|
|-
|2
|All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.
|
|
|-
|3
|This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
|
|
|-
|4
|For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
|
|
|-
|5
|For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
|
|
|-
|6
|Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
|
|
|-
|7
|Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
|
|
|-
|8
|Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
|
|
|-
|9
|Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
|
|
|-
|10
|Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
|
|
|-
|11
|I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
|
|
|-
|12
|For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.
|
|
|-
|13
|This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me:
|
|
|-
|14
|There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it:
|
|
|-
|15
|Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man.
|Found there was a poor but wise man, who delivered the city with his wisdom; na man remembered the poor man though.
|
|-
|16
|Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
|Then I said, Wisdom is better than strength; However, A poor mans wisdom is ignored, his words are not heard.
|Best of the public reference?
|-
|17
|The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools.
|When it is quiet the words of wise men are heard more than the Cry of one who rules among fools.
|
|-
|18
|Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.
|Wisdom is better than the weapons of war: One sinner can destroy much good.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 10==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.
|Dead flies make the apothecaries ointment send forth a foul aroma, so does a little folly in a man who has a reputation for wisdom and honor.
|
|-
|2
|A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.
|A wise man's heart is at his right hand, a fool's at his left.
|serve from the right clear from the left?
|-
|3
|Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.
|When a fool comes by, and says something foolish, he tells everyone that he is a fool.
|
|-
|4
|If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.
|If a someone tries to force you out, stand your ground. Giving in pacifies great offenses.
|
|-
|5
|There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:
|There is an evil on earth, an error that comes from a ruler.
|
|-
|6
|Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.
|Folly is sat at the head of the table while the rich sit at the foot.
|
|-
|7
|I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.
|I have seen servants on horses, and princess walking like servants.
|
|-
|8
|He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.
|If you dig a pit you might fall into it, and if you break into a hedge a snake might bite you.
|
|-
|9
|Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby.
|Removing stones may get you caught in a rockfall, and chopping wood may result in a tree falling on your head.
|
|-
|10
|If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.
|If your tools are blunt and you do not sharpen them then you will have to work harder; wisdom helps you profit from your work.
|
|-
|11
|Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.
|If a serpent bites before it is enchanted then what good is it for the enchanter?
|I think that is what this means
|-
|12
|The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself.
|The words of a wise man are worth much, but the fools will suffer at his own words.
|
|-
|13
|The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness.
|From the start his words are foolish, and in the end they are mischievous madness.
|
|-
|14
|A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?
|A fool always has plenty to say, but no man can tell what will be, and who can tell him what will come after him?
|
|-
|15
|The labour of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city.
|The Labor of the foolish makes them all tired, they do not know how to seek help.
|
|-
|16
|Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!
|It is a horrible thing for a land to have a King who is only a child and have princes who eat before the work has been done.
|
|-
|17
|Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!
|It is a blessing for a land to have a King who is the son of noble men, and princes who wait for the right time to eat, and then eat for strength not for drunkenness.
|
|-
|18
|By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through.
|It is only with a lot of neglect that a building decays, with idle hands the house will collapse.
|
|-
|19
|A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.
|A feast brings laughter, and wine brings merriment, but money brings all things.
|
|-
|20
|Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.
|Do not curse the King, don't even think about it. When you go to bed do not curse the rich. Because a bird in the air will sing out, and the bird with out wings will not.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 11==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
|Throw your bread on the water, you will find it after many days.
|
|-
|2
|Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.
|Give some to seven, and to eight, because you do not know what evil is in the world.
|
|-
|3
|If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.
|If the clouds are full of rain they will rain upon the earth. If the tree falls to the south, or north, the tree will be where it fell.
|
|-
|4
|He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.
|If you spend your time observing the wind you will not sow, and if you focus on the clouds you will not reap.
|
|-
|5
|As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
|Just like you don't know the way the spirit works, you don't how the bones of a child grow in the mothers womb. You certainly do not know the works of God who made them all.
|Spirit used here as an improper noun I think
|-
|6
|In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.
|Sow your seeds in the morning, and in the evening sow some more. You do not know which seeds will prosper, if it is one, or the other, or both that will do well.
|
|-
|7
|Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:
|The light is beautiful to behold, the sun is a pleasure to see.
|
|-
|8
|But if a man live many years, and rejoice in them all; yet let him remember the days of darkness; for they shall be many. All that cometh is vanity.
|If a man lives many years and enjoys them all he should still remember the days of darkness, there will be many of them. All that comes is vanity.
|
|-
|9
|Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.
|Rejoyce young man, be greatful for your youth. Let your heart cheer for you in your youth, and follow your hear, and do what you see that there is to be done. But always remember that God will judge you for what you do during this time.
|
|-
|10
|Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity.
|Do not harbor sadness in your heart, and do not sin with your body. Childhood and youth are vanity.
|
|-
|}

==Chapter 12==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Verse
!King James Version
!Proposed Conservative Translation
!Analysis
|-
|1
|Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them;
|Keep your ming on God, your creator, in your youth; before the evil days come, before the years draw on, before you loose pleasure in life.
|
|-
|2
|While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
|Before the sun, the light, the moon, and the stars begin to dim, and the clouds return after the rain.
|
|-
|3
|In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,
|In the days when housekeepers will tremble, strong men shall bow down, When Grinders cease because they are few, and those who look out into the world grow dim.
|I do not know what kind of grinder, perhaps it is a grain mill, I never made a study of the point.
|-
|4
|And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
|The people will bar their doors, the sound of grinding will be low, When men awaken to the sounds of birds but their songs grow faint.
|
|-
|5
|Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:
|When they will be afraid of high things and places, and of the streets. The almond tree will flourish, and grasshoppers will descend, but loose his desire. The Man will die, and mourners will pass through the streets.
|
|-
|6
|Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.
|Act before the silver cord is broken, before the golden bowl is broken, before the pitcher is smashed at the spring, or the wheel is broken at the well.
|
|-
|7
|Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
|Then the dust will fall back to the earth and the spirit will return to God, who gave it.
|
|-
|8
|Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
|Vanity of vanities, said the preacher; all is vanity.
|
|-
|9
|And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs.
|The Preacher still taught the people and shared his insight, because he was wise; He thought about, searched for, and gave many proverbs.
|
|-
|10
|The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
|The Preacher searched carefully for the right words to convey his meaning. What he wrote was righteous and true, showing great veracity.
|
|-
|11
|The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
|A wise mans words are like goads, their masters drive them like nails, they are given by the shepherd.
|
|-
|12
|And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
|Take this as a warning my son, writing many books is endless, and too much study weakens your body.
|
|-
|13
|Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
|To conclude the matter: Fear God and obey his commandment, this is your duty as a man.
|
|-
|14
|For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
|God will Judge every work, every secret this, both good and evil.
|
|-
|}

[[Category:Conservative Bible]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2010-01-22T04:30:10Z

SamF: Each hedge fund doesn't have 1.7 trillion USD

The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''', continuing into 2009, is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. Drastic measures to confront seemingly insurmountable financial calamity resulted in the creation of '''TARP''' (Troubled Assets Relief Program), $700 billion safety net by the U.S. Government. The National Bureau of Economic Research<ref>NBER is a private organization that follows its own standards as set by eminent economists such as [[Milton Friedman]]; its dating of business cycles is widely accepted by conservatives.</ref> has identified the peak of the last expansion in December 2007; the U.S. economy has been in decline ever since.<ref>See "Text of the NBER's statement on the recession and FAQ's" [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-01-recession-nber-statement_N.htm ''USA Today'' Dec 1, 2008]. "The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said," at [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> [[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|330px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]] The crisis has caused the [[Recession of 2008]], which reached bottom in summer 2009, causing a worldwide economic decline that is the most severe since the 1930s.

The [[International Monetary Fund]] (IMF) calculates that the global financial crisis will produce $3.4 trillion in losses for financial institutions around the world between 2007 and 2010.<ref> Peter Dattels and Laura Kodres, "Global Financial System Shows Signs of Recovery, IMF Says," [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/RES093009A.htm ''IMF Survey Magazine'' Sept. 30, 2009]</ref>

==Overview==
Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, office buildings, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and vitually every other sector of the economy. Consumer spending has plunged, and banks have been very reluctant to loan money. Major banks and corporations have gone bankrupt.

The recession is worldwide. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, but thus far the results have been inconclusive and the declines continue. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year in the U.S.). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else. Rush Limbaugh, for example, blames Obama.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide, especially in September 2008. The negative effects by October 2008 began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere. For the effects on the broader economy (outside of finance and autos) see [[Recession of 2008]].
The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.
[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed [[bridge to nowhere]], Dec. 1, 2008]]
Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Both the Bush and Clinton administrations made it a national priority to encourage more people to buy houses, assuming this social engineering would be good for everyone. In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and its expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; but President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans to poor neighborhoods comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

"Option adjustable rate mortgages" (nick-named "Pick-A-Pay") allowed borrowers to vary their monthly payments; they could be so so small they did not cover their interest charges. That meant the total principal grows over time, compared to normal mortgages where the debt owed shrinks over 30 years to zero and the borrower owns the house free and clear. By 2008 banks sold these dangerous "option adjustable rate" mortgages to two million customers. They made sense if and only if the price of houses kept going up and the borrower could sell it in a year ot two at a huge profit. But if house prices declined, the borrower could stop paying and the bank was left with the loss.

Timeline video showing Democrats opposing regulating housing market financing. President Bush, Senator McCain and Alan Greenspan all predicting financial collapse and offering regulation. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1 See video]

The [[NYTimes]] says Senator [[Charles Schumer]] D-NY, is the most responsible for Wall Street's collapse. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14schumer.html A Champion of Wall Street Reaps Benefits] NYTimes, December 13, 2008</ref> Schumer as a member of the Banking and Finance Committees, led efforts to regulate credit-rating agencies, shield financial institutions from government oversight and tougher regulations, and saved key industry players billions of dollars in taxes and fees.

===Selling mortgage packages to big investors===
Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declined in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. The CDOs were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

The speculative real estate bubble went far beyond individual homes, it infected as well as kinds of commercial real estate, such as office buildings, shopping centers, apartment complexes, hotels, casinos and even and empty lots. People bought high expecting to sell higher, and were stunned when the market collapsed. People who loaned money to real estate firms were confident of a 20% return, but more likely lost 25%. The value of office buildings plunged 43% after the peak in Nov. 2007. Most investors who bought in 2007 probably lost all their investment.

===Misuse of Credit Default Swaps===
Another key contributing factor to the credit market meltdown was the misuse of Credit Default Swaps, or CDSs, which are contracts between entities designed to mitigate against risk of a credit default. A CDS is essentially an insurance policy designed to protect the insured party against excessive losses in a separate financial transaction. However, by structuring the contract as a derivative swap instead of a traditional insurance policy, companies other than regulated insurers could offer them. This created two critical risk exposures to the insured companies, and collectively to the overall market. First, traditional insurers are required to maintain a sufficient level of capital to pay on losses, while companies issuing CDSs were not. Since investments in pooled mortgages were viewed as unlikely to devalue or fail, major issuers of CDSs like AIG and Lehman Brothers found themselves over-exposed to losses. The second risk was that CDSs issued by one firm were typically hedged, or backed up financially, by CDSs with other companies. The strategy of minimizing risk by dividing it into collections of smaller exposures with other companies is a sound practice, but when the original risk is overexposed that overexposure is then spread across the companies that participate in the secondary risk markets.

[[AIG]], the world's largest insurance company, was a major player in the financial crisis because it sold $441 billion in unhedged and undercapitalized insurance on securitized debt, much of it tied to mortgage values. Normally an insurance company "lays off" some of the risk by taking out insurance with another company. AIG neglected to do this because it never expected the securities to turn toxic, which they did. Either someone paid the insurance or the nation's financial system would colapse, so the government stepped in, seized AIG, and paid the insurance.

The effect of these risks manifested themselves in two key ways. First, when major players in the CDS market like Bear Sterns and AIG were found to be insolvent, or failed outright like Lehman Brothers, the default conditions that were tied to the risk-spreading CDS's were triggered, and many companies found themselves obligated to pay out on contracts they never expected to. These sudden exposures led to capital and liquidity shortages at scores of firms involved in the secondary credit markets, and the default pattern started repeating on itself in an echo-like manner. Since the complex, interdependent nature of the CDS market made it difficult for firms to assess their true exposure to loss in this unprecedented market, they refrained from both short-term and long-term lending to guard against further losses. This essentially led to a freezing up of credit in the marketplace, as lenders refusing to give credit to other lenders translated into businesses and consumers being unable to get short-term operating loans, or borrow for homes, autos, student loans or credit-card accounts as before.

This freezing of the markets to avoid loss was the primary incentive for the U.S. government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which injected billions of dollars of government-backed funds into the credit markets to restore trust and liquidity.

==Bubble bursts==
[[File:Houses$.jpg|thumb|300px|Left|Crash of U.S. housing prices in 2007-09]]
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.
[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]
By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

In mid-December Bush announced that $17.4 billion of TARP funds would be given to the automobile industry in the form of bridge loans<ref name=bushremarksautobailout>http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2008/12/19/bushs-remarks-on-the-auto-rescue-plan/ Wall Street Journal, "Bush’s Remarks on the Auto Rescue Plan", December 19, 2008</ref>, just enough to prevent the companies from going bankrupt for a few weeks<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Throws Lifeline to Detroit", December 20, 2008</ref>. Bush defended the move by saying "if we were to allow the [[free market]] to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers."<ref name=bushremarksautobailout />

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker [[Timothy Geithner]] to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with a combined $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

By the end of 2009 most big banks were in much better shape and the Treasury expects to recover all but $42 billion of the $370 billion it lent to ailing companies, with the portion lent to banks actually showing a slight profit. Meanwhile over 120 small and medium banks have been shut as insolvent; in most cases the FDIC picks up the losses and another bank takes over the operations and branches.<ref>Jackie Calmes, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/business/07tarp.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1260187849-MV96Nnjzom3OwAchzjIqrg "U.S. Forecasts Smaller Loss From Bailout of Banks," ''New York Times'' Dec. 6, 2009] </ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to use the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the House but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensions and medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama administration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM took place in the second quarter of 2009. Chrysler's sale to Italian automaker Fiat has been finalized. GM received billions more dollars to prevent bankruptcy but fell none-the-less. In addition, GM will require $30 billion in the first stage of bankruptcy. The Obama Administration is the single largest shareholder with the UAW second at 17% ownership. Also, many auto dealerships have been shuttered, thousands of workers have been [[laidoff]], assembly plants closed, and product lines dissolved or sold.

==Obama Administration==
[[Image:Geithner1.jpg|thumb|330px|Critics feared Geithner's vague plans would crash]]

The [[Obama Administration]], taking office on Jan. 20, 2009, moved to handle the crisis on two fronts. Working with Democrats in Congress (and three moderate Republican Senators), it passed the "[[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]]", calling for $500 billion of new spending and nearly $300 billion in new tax cuts. The new law began operations in mid-February, 2009, and supporters hoped it would slow and turn around the nosediving economy. Conservative critics feared it would be ineffective in the short run and add to the national debt and tax burdens in the long run. As of late March no results are visible.

With major banks on the verge of failure, Treasury Secretary [[Timothy Geithner]] unveiled yet another massive bailout program in mid-February. Trillions would be spent to move toxic assets out of the banks, but few details were provided. The widespread reaction was very negative, and Geithner lost more of his credibility as a problem solver. Geither finally came back with a plan on March 23 that will not need additional funding or approval by Congress. The Treasury will use $100 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as new capital from private investors, in order to generate $500 billion in purchasing power to buy toxic loans and assets. The program could potentially expand to $1 trillion over time.

===Criticisms===
:The nations banks now lend 25% less than when the financial bailout was announced.

: The USA relies on China to buy our U.S. Treasury bonds to fund the increased spending.

:America is a debtor nation, we spend more than we save. The dollars value has plummeted against world currencies. Gold prices remain at record levels.The money that we don't have, but spend, will be a debt that future generations will have to worry about. This has brought rise to the term 'Generational Theft' in describing Obama policies.

:"It's time to terminate the TARP program," Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told reporters on Monday. "TARP is increasingly not being a vehicle for economic stability and taxpayer protection but is evolving into 700 billion dollar revolving slush fund that the administration can use to advance economic, social and political agenda items far and apart from what Tarp was ever designed to do." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/08/house-republican-moves-terminate-tarp/ House Republican Moves to 'Terminate the TARP'] Fox News, June 08, 2009</ref>

In the view of 51 mostly conservative economists polled by the ''Wall Street Journal'' in July 2009, the Obama administration's performance is problematic. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner both got an average grade of 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely. Former President Bush and ex-Treasury chief Paulson got average grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office. By contrast, Fed chairman Bernanke scores much better, with an average grade of 85; in addition 93% of respondents said he should be reappointed by Obama when Bernanke's term expires early next year.<ref>Phil Izzo, "Few Economists Favor More Stimulus," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html ''Wall Street Journal'' July 10, 2009] </ref>

==See also==
*[[Recession of 2008]]
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]
*[http://ow.ly/3klF The Bailout In Images]
==Further reading==
* Posner, Richard. ''A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent into Depression'' (2009), by a leading conservative
* Taylor, John B. ''Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis'' (2009), 92pp; by a leading conservative
====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T04:19:35Z

SamF: Categorized!!

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px]]
A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Based on statistics===
* 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.
* ''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.
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<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>

===Lack of mechanism===
* 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>
* Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.
* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
* 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
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.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, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
* 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 X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
* Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.

===Maladaptation===
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
* 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, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* 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>

===Wrong prediction===
* "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</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.
* 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.
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

===Missing fossils===
* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, 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.
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
* 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>
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

===Paradoxical fossils===
* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
* 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>

===Uncategorized===
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* 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.
* 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>

== 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 ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T04:04:59Z

SamF: /* Counterexamples */ I couldn't figure out where to put a few of them There are sooooo many! saving again

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px]]
A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Based on statistics===
* 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.
* ''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.
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<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>

===Lack of mechanism===
* Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.
* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
* 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
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.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, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
* 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 X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.

===Maladaptation===
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
* 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, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)

===Wrong prediction===
* "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</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.
* 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.
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.

===Missing fossils===
* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, 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.
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
* 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>
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.

===Paradoxical fossils===

=== Irreducible Complexity===
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
* 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>

===Uncategorized===
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* 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.
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.

* 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>

* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* 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>
*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>
* 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>
* Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.

== 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 ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T03:55:15Z

SamF: Saving halfway through

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px]]
A scientific theory proven by the logical principal of deduction cannot permit any counterexamples. In order to be true, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of '''''all''''' living things in terms of a purely naturalistic view. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''.
==Counterexamples==
===Based on statistics===
* 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.
* ''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.
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<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>

===Lack of mechanism===
* Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Similarly, entropy (disorder) increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own.
* "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely ornate caste systems. Where an insect fits is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that both the genetics for the various castes, the genetics for caste determination, and the genetics for ''behavior'' allowing caste determination all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance.
* 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
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
* 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.

===Maladaptation===
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
* 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, atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism (See especially [[Richard Dawkins]]' ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'', which denies altruism without providing any evidence to back up his enormous claim)

===Wrong prediction===
* "the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps" even though "the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA--from an evolutionary perspective--appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?"<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/4624/</ref>

===Missing fossils===
* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
* No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different horse like animals appear in the fossil record distinct<ref>Ray comfort, 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.
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.

===Paradoxical fossils===

=== Irreducible Complexity===
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employ a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.

* 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.
* Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
* 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>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</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.
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
* 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>
* 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>
* 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.
* 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>
* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.
* A lack of any evolution from prehistoric forms has been demonstrated for many species.
* Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
* The fact that new discoveries, such as ''[[Raptorex]],'' routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.
* Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
* 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>
*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>
* 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>
* Several species of fish in the Arctic ocean have chemicals in their blood that essentially act as anti-freeze. Evolution requires gradual change, leaving no plausible explanation as to how the fish survived before developing this trait.

== 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 ==

*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]

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

[[category:Evolution]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T03:38:14Z

SamF: messed up archive, hope this works

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution/archive1

2010-01-22T03:32:58Z

SamF: Out with the old, in with the new

== Giraffe neck ==
The neck of the giraffe is a great counterexample, BrianCo!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:How so? I don't get it. In what way does the giraffe's neck say anything one way or the other about evolution? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 04:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

If anything the giraffes neck is an example supporting evolution, as the animals with longer necks (caused from a genetic mutation) would have survived to reproduction as there is less competition for the food from the high branches. [[User:SSSmith|SSSmith]] 19:10, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: If the giraffes with shorter necks couldn't survive, then how did the young ones survive to become adults and reproduce?
: Also, I've already answered this point lower down the page:
{{QuoteBox|"It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Refutations==

Ummm...this is a dangerous topic to take up, but it's my area of expertise, so what the hey. Most, if not all of the examples in the article can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint.

1) Beautiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months. They actually resorb energy during fall, so the cost-benefit analysis works in their favor. This is one reason there is no seasonal loss of foliage in the tropics, which have a near-constant energy pool.

2) Molecular evidence places whales and dolphins in the same clade as cows (Artiodactyla). The presence of vestigal limbs is very strong evidence for this theory, as well.

3) There is a plausible pathway to the development of the eye, including numerous intermediate structures that were much simpler and less effective. Indeed, the vertebrate eye is quite flawed (blind spot, image inversion), as one of the tenets of evolution would predict (the idea that natural selection can function only on existing structures).

4) I would be willing to bet that there is an explanation for the evolution of blood clotting, but I need to do some book work first. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, so in the interest of vigorous science, I concede that point for now.

5) The swarming of jellyfish is a response to an influx of planktonic life brought on by the full moon...the predators follow the prey.

6) The timing of cicada species has to do with the availability of reliable energy sources and reliable mates. The somewhat arbitrary time periods highlight the underlying randomness of mutations.

7) I'm not sure whether point seven is referring to the ability of birds and butterflies to navigate, or their migrative lifestyle, but there is an explanation for both. Migration is an adaptive trait to allow exploitation of otherwise inhospitable regions, and the navigative abilities evolved as a response. Humans and other mammals actually possess a rudimentary ability to detect the magnetic field...a holdover from our own migratory days.

8) The neck of giraffes is a textbook example of sexual selection.

9) The gaps in the fossil record can be explained by the sheer difficulty of creating fossils. Probability argues against having fossils of everything.

10) Feathers could have evolved from scales, and there is molecular evidence for this.

11) Point eleven simply makes no sense...I have never heard anything like this concept in my years of studying biology. I think it may just be poorly written, but I can't understand the point well enough to refute it.

I have sources (often many) for all of the above, but I have to rush to rehearsal now, so I'll add those later.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 16:47, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

: I think lists like this are simplistic, but here's some responses.
:# "''Beatiful autumn foliage is an adaptive response of plants to conserve energy during relatively low-production months''" is story-telling. It doesn't explain ''how'' evolution could have come up with the idea. The rest of your point applies equally well to creation: God designed it to have a good cost-benefit ratio.
:# Being in the same clade does not mean that there is an identifiable ancestor. Vestigial organs are due to a ''degradation'', whereas microbes-to-man evolution requires ''innovation''.
:# The "plausible pathway" explanations are not plausible at all, taking great leaps in complexity (e.g. starting off with an extremely complex "light-sensitive spot". The vertebrate eye is not a flawed design at all. What's wrong with image inversion? That's a natural consequence of using a lens. As for the blind spot...{{QuoteBox|Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney gives a detailed response to the question ‘Is the inverted retina really “bad design”?’ He addresses the claim that the blind spot is bad design, by pointing out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, and is far (15°) from the visual axis so that the visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/]}}
:# No comment.
:# That makes sense. When you back that up with a source, I'll remove that one.
:# The first part about energy and mates doesn't appear to explain it at all. The second part about mutations is story-telling.
:# As for No. 1.
:# Selection only selects from something that is already there. The question evolution has to answer is, how did it get there in the first place?
:# That's an ''ad hoc'' rationalisation. It doesn't explain why the gaps are so systematic between different basic kinds of creatures.
:# What molecular evidence? Molecularly, they are quite different.
:# I agree that it makes no sense. I'll remove that one.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: P.S. you had a typo in your first point. I wouldn't mention it except that I know you are fussy about such things!

Before responding, let me establish one thing that I should have said much earlier. '''My refutation of these points is not intended to prove evolution or disprove any "competing" theory.''' My goal is only to show that evolution can explain how these things came to be, and thus that they cannot be used as examples of failures in evolutionary theory.

Another related disclaimer: my claims are made from a background of evolutionary biology, so the reader should feel free to mentally insert "according to evolutionary theory" when appropriate.

I would first like to take these point by point as concisely as possible.

1) '''All origins theory is story-telling.''' The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible, and the different camps go about this in different ways. Evolutionary biologists do so by establishing a possible mechanism and doing controlled field studies to see if that mechanism actually works in the way we expect it to. If it does, then it's plausible enough to serve as an explanation, and more importantly, it can be used as a predictive tool. And that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability. The fossil record (ie history) comes into play only when something is unexpected, because it shows us that our tool may be flawed and we need to fix it, or maybe get a new one (if you pardon the analogy).

2) Being in the same clade ''does'' imply a common ancestor in the same way that being in the same human family implies a relationship. To continue the analogy, assume for a minute that we have two siblings separated at birth. They think they are related, and a DNA test shows that they are, but they have no proof of a common parent without their actual living parents. However, the chance of common ancestry is high enough that there is no reason to reject the assumption (by the way, the analogy is flawed, but it captures the essence of scientific proof: '''assumptions based on plausible possibilities, based on past research and questioned more intensively when contrary evidence comes to light''' there is no such thing as certainty in science).

3) I will try to find a good copy of the proposed pathway for the development of the eye, but I know that there is no implausible leap in complexity over the hundred or so proposed structures in the lineage. But keep in mind, as I mentioned in 1, just because evolution can explain something a certain way doesn't mean it happened that way...biologists are constantly redoing our own version of history. Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology. This one will have to wait until Monday, when the library is unlocked.

4) Is outside my area of expertise, and I will not mock those who know what they're talking about by bungling up an explanation here.

5) Sources for 5:a) Hickman et. al., Integrated Principles of Zoology, 13th ed. 2006. McGraw-Hill publishing, Boston, MA
b) Solomon et al., Biology, 6th ed. 2005, Thomson-Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA
c) numerous lectures and individual observation...not a source per se, but they at least serve to tell that I'm not making it up.

The fact that those are all biology texts should give a critical thinker pause, but again remember that I merely want to refute these points as evidence against evolution, not prove evolution itself.

6) I actually recieved another explanation from another CP member that does a better job explaining it, so I'm going to use that one and throw out my own esoteric and very involved explanation. Many predators reproduce in regular intervals. 13 and 17 are prime numbers, and so are not divisible by any other number. This means that the predators are not able to sync their reproductive cycle with that of their prey. It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.

7) Once again, I assert that all origins theories are story-telling and that that argument doesn't hold weight when applied across the board. The fact is that the explanation I provided is plausible and there is evidence to support that it happened (just to name one: Larkin et. al. "Evidence for widely dispersed birds migrating together at night", Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:1)

8) The neck of the giraffe was already there as part of the basic chordate body plan (the origin of that plan is still hotly debated in comparative biology, and there are three or four very good theories that can explain the evidence). All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks. Male giraffes compete for mates, and those with longer necks are more effective competitors (they win more fights), thus sexual selection selected those individuals with longer necks, resulting in a textbook example of sexual directional selection (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006). Evolution would be in trouble if giraffes didn't have the same number of neck bones as all other chordates...it couldn't explain that.

9) Let me change my tack, then, because my previous argument does seem rather ad hoc. Instead, I will refer to my analogy from 2: lack of an ancestor in the records does not imply that one didn't exist if such existence is highly likely. Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates. I will also say that the gaps in the record are constantly being filled in: a fossil called ''Diplognathus'' was recently discovered which confirmed a somewhat odd explanation for the derivation of ear bones (that's just one example). (Kardong et al. Vertebrates, 4th ed. McGraw Hill publishing, Boston, MA, 2006)

10) The molecular evidence of which I speak refers to the nuclear material found within the cells creating scales and feathers, and within the proteins which make up the scales and feathers themselves. For starters, they are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin. Furthermore, all versions of a different protein have very slight variations, both in terms of the protein themselves and in the DNA which codes for them. The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry (similar to the "twins separated at birth" analogy). The variations in keratin are very similar between birds and reptiles, implying a common descent (Glenn et. al. "Evolutionary relationships among copies of beta keratin genes from several avian and reptilian orders" Journal of Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48:4)

And I think that is more than enough talk on that for now...I need a break. All I will do is close with saying once again that I do not claim these are proofs of evolution or "disproofs" of other theories. I merely claim that the specific points in the article can be explained plausibly by evolutionary theory and thus can't be used as counterexamples. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:34, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: Your comments above range from concepts like "there must be an evolutionary explanation" to "the burden of proof is on someone else."

: The point here is simple: one counterexample disproves the theory of evolution. Accept that logical truth, or go no further and admit that you will adhere to evolution no matter what logic dictates.

: It only takes one counterexample. Number one in the list -- beautiful autumn foliage -- is enough. The foliage existed before man does, and beauty does not help the trees in the slightest. The theory of evolution is confounded by the beauty, and the best it can say is it happened by chance. But such beauty does not happen by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
::: In ''principle'' it only takes one counterexample. In ''practice'', it's not that simple. Suppose that we have a hypothesis that water always boils at 100 degrees Celsius. We run 100 tests to see if that's true. One test shows water boiling at 97 degrees. Does that one counterexample disprove the hypothesis, or do we accept that perhaps that particular test has another explanation (e.g. somebody botched the test, or it was the only one of the hundred tests not performed at sea level)? And that was for a very specific hypothesis. Evolution is not a specific hypothesis, but, at best, a whole series of hypotheses. Finding a counterexample to one hypothesis does not mean that the whole idea of evolution needs to be discarded. At worst, evolution is a conceptual framework, not actually a series of hypotheses at all. Again, a single counterexample is not justification for rejecting that conceptual framework. Of course there are ''plenty'' of counterexamples to evolution, so we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket and say that one is enough. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::It does take only one counterexample...and my point is that ''none of the proposed points actually follow through'' as counterexamples.

::The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic...it just so happens that the pigments in plants reflect certain photons which trigger specific neurons in our brains. Such beauty can happen by chance, and nature abounds with examples (the collection of specific coral species into a visually appealing reef, for example, is almost totally random). So no, evolution is not confounded by beauty.

::And also, the idea that the cooperation of two or more entities implies co-evolution is simply not true. First of all, the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change, and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures. Additionally, irreducible complexity assumes a goal, which is itself a logical fallacy. What I mean by that is that IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role''. But that assumes that there is a goal in mind! If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles. And that is why, from the evolutionary perspective, points 11 and 13 are not legitimate counterexamples. Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis. But evolution favored and led to them '''because they work well enough'''.

::A specific point of number 13 can be addressed in more detail: the symbiosis of complex plants and nitrogen-fixing bacteria allowed the rapid dispersal of these plants, because it conferred on them a massive evolutionary advantage. Primitive plants, such as mosses, do not have these bacteria, but they are still able to survive. They are simply not as effective at it, which is why they are not the dominant plant form.

::As for the evolution of consciousness, I'm glad that was brought up, because it's a very interesting topic on its own. The current evolutionary standpoint is that consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation allowing an organism to better predict its environment. This is in response to pressures related to the massive and very rapid dispersal of humans across a number of different environments. This is an elegant solution because it explains why humans are the only animal to definitively display consciousness: only humans displayed such a rapid dispersal across varied environments. From the perspective of the gene, this was an evolutionary mistake (and the evolutionary model predicts it can make mistakes), because now their "survival machines" have the capacity to rebel against their own genes (after Dawkins, 1976).

::Again, I completely accept that one counterexample is sufficient for a falsification, we just have not yet presented a point that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. And on that line of falsification, anyone practicing physics is practicing a debunked field, because there are many things that physics can't explain, such as mass. Hmm...that statement makes me a little uncomfortable...perhaps there's a problem with my logic. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 17:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

::: You write that "beauty can happen by chance." That's plainly false. You won't be able to identify anything strikingly beautiful, such as autumn foliage, that is known to happen by chance. Indeed, chance is the antithesis of beauty.

::: When presented with a counterexample, it's unsatisfactory for you to shrug your shoulders and say the equivalent of "it must have just happened by chance." If you're going to do that, then Jesus Himself could appear to you this evening and you could respond the same way and try to brush it off. Rather, you should admit beautiful autumn foliage cannot be explained by evolution, and admit that remarkable beauty is not the product of pure chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Responding to Thinker...

"''All origins theory is story-telling''": In making that claim, you've just asserted, without foundation, that the biblical account, ''which claims to be the eyewitness account of creation by the Creator'', is just a made-up story.

"''The burden of proof is then upon the story teller to show that their explanation is plausible''": True. Which is where evolution hopelessly fails. It comes up with superficially-plausible-sounding stories, which are often simply not at all plausible when looked at closely.

"''...that's all evolution really cares about...whether or not it happened is really irrelevant to our predictive capability.''": Huh? Evolution is a claim about what ''actually happened''. Atheists use evolution to argue that the Bible is wrong (because ''they'' can see the contradiction). Whether or not it happened ''is'' very relevant.

"''Being in the same clade does imply a common ancestor...''": But the claim was that it doesn't ''identify'' a common ancestor, which would be some sort of test that the implication is true. Further, being in the same clade only implies a common ancestor ''if evolution is true''. If life was created by God, it implies no such thing. So the argument is circular, because it assumes evolution in order to support evolution.

"''Rather, I intend merely to show that these points are not evidence against biology.''": Perhaps this was a mis-type on your part, but I've seen it before, so in case you meant it that way, these are arguments against ''evolution'', not ''biology''. The two are not synonymous.

Regarding No. 5, could you provide quotes from those sources, please?

"''It's an adaptive function, but that explanation serves equally well for both evolution and ID. It does, however, show that evolution is able to explain that point.''": No, it doesn't serve well. Evidence of things working well is evidence of good ''design''. Evolution's job is not to explain why things are the way they are, but how they came to be the way they are. You are providing evidence of why cicadas have reproduction cycles based on prime numbers, not of how evolution would produce that. The same applies to your response to No. 7.

"''All traits exist in a normal distribution; that is, among the ancestral giraffe population, some individuals had longer necks.''": It's not a simple matter of the length of the neck bones. The neck of a giraffe comes complete with valves to stop massive fluctuations in blood pressure when it lowers its head to drink and raise it up again. Where did those valves come from to get selected? Furthermore there is no fossil evidence of giraffes with short necks.

"''Moreover, one of the ways to test evolution is the prediction of intermediate forms, and these hypotheses are confirmed with the discovery of said intermediates.''": Except that these [[intermediate forms]] are almost entirely lacking.

"''scales and feathers ... are molecularly identical, both being composed primarily of keratin.''": Two different types of keratin. And from [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/909 this article]:{{QuoteBox|‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.}}

"''The sheer size of both molecules mean that the chance of a similar variation occuring by chance is negligible, so similarities in variation imply common ancestry''": Or a common designer.

"''The idea of beauty being a derived characteristic has no place in evolution, because '''beauty is not a biological characteristic'''; beauty is a human aesthetic.''": Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't explain beauty, because it's not a biological characteristic. However, I think that autumn leaves are a poor example, as the reason for their colour can be explained as simply being a natural consequence of them dying. A better example is the beauty of a peacock's tail[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5714/].

"''...the example of the flagellum as irreducible complexity (and any similar examples) rely on the idea of gross change...''": No, they don't. They rely on there being no feasible intermediates that can produce the structure.

"''...and ignore the gradual improvement of existing structures.''": No, they don't ''ignore'' such gradual development; they argue against it.

"''IC assumes that without missing parts, something will not work ''in that role.": No, it ''argues'' that without the missing part, it will not work in ''any'' role.

"''If we remove that assumption (which doesn't agree with evolutionary theory), then evolution can give rise to structures like the eye and flagellum by modifying existing structures that work fine in other roles.''": Hand-waving story telling.

"''Furthermore, the eye, flagellum, and many symbiotic relationships are far from ideal if you do an ecological cost-benefit analysis.''": Oh? The eye can detect a single photon. How do you get any better than that?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:17, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Rayment again brings up excellent points, and I'm actually going to let many of them stand unanswered (largely because to do so would start a cycle of the same arguments over and over again). I think this talk page could be very useful to someone questioning evolution as it is now, and there's not much more I can add without getting needlessly technical.

::But before I leave it, I want to address three specific points:
::1) Evolution should not be used by anyone to try and "disprove" creation. Something should be proved or disproved only on terms of its own merit, independent of other theories.

::2)I did mean to say "evolution" rather than "biology". However, as evolution is one of the core tenets of modern biology, underminging evolution would be just as damaging to science as undermining Genesis would be to Biblical inerrancy (I am referring here to another debate in which Mr. Rayment and I have been involved). Perhaps this sheds light on why many biologists, myself included, are so staunch in our defense of the theory.

::3) In regard to your final point. a) The chordate eye cannot detect a single photon, and in fact needs many photons to be activated. But that is just nitpicking. b) The cephalopod eye is far better in terms of capability and "logical design". In fact, the cephalopod eye is often considered to be one of the best in nature. Furthermore, many other organisms, such as mantis shrimp (which have many times the visual acuity of vertebrates) have eyes which are arguably superior to ours.

::And unfortunately, I think that is as much as I will be able to add before I must return to work. However, I think I have at least clarified some of the points of evolutionary biology, and hopefully this talk page will be helpful to anyone trying to get more information on the debate.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::But what if some evidence proved that the bible is in fact, not infallible? Would you disregard that, Mr. Schlafly, as you suggest we do with the theory of evolution? I dont mean to judge, just please don't say that someone is closed-minded because they may not change their views because one part of the theory may appear to be faulty.

::Arguing about this seems to be pointless anyways, since it is possible that one counterexample could prove the theory impossible, and it is possible that this counterexample could be overlooking something that neither side can see. --[[User:Ekeegan|Ekeegan]] 21:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Thinker, evolution ''is'' used to disprove creation, whether it should be or not. And in a sense it should be, as (depending on how you define them), there are really only two options: a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. If one is correct, the other is wrong.
:: I reject that evolution is a core tenet of biology. Biology existed before Darwin published his idea, and the two are different concepts anyway. Biology is the study of living things (e.g. how they work), evolution is the study (if you like, I would say story) of how living things came to be.
:: [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342 This source] says that the eye ''can'' detect a single photon, and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3275/ this source] says that the cephalopod eye can't see as well as the human eye. In any case, you are comparing eyes for different environments and that therefore have different purposes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to throw something out there regarding number 1. It appears to be a "tree falls in the forest"-type statement. It appears to say that beautiful phenomenon are designed (divinely) for human pleasure and thus they could not precede humanity. Ah.... what?
[[User:Inspector]] 11:58, 1 June, 2009 (MST)

== Consciousness ==

Excellent new point!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

== Bat counterexample ==

Superb again!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:31, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

You appear to be unaware of the greater than 150 species of bats that do not echolocate: the megachiroptera, which represent two subfamilies and 41 genera. Even one counterexample would disprove the theory that bats cannot fly without sonar. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:15, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

The article stated: "A bat can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore the bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight."
1) Bats do not require sonar to fly; the existence of 150 species of non-echolocating bats proves this.
2) Even ignoring the sonar of toothed whales and the echolocation of oilbirds and swiftlets, there are nonflying land animals that use echolocation: two genera (multiple species) of shrews and the tenrecs. Thus the statement that "an animal that can't fly doesn't need it" is also disproven.
3) Since mammalian flight and mammalian echolocation both exist in isolation, the flight-echolocation combination is not irreducibly complex and therefore does not disprove evolution.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: It was poorly worded, but the point was valid, that a certain group of creatures do need the sonar to fly, even if that was only some bats and not all. I've reinstated and improved the entry. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It's clearly a waste of time to remove it again, but the point is most definitely not valid. To approach validity, there would have to be no current non-echolocating bats and no non-bat echolocators. There would also have to be no fossil evidence of non-echolocating bats and no fossil non-bat echolocators. In reality, none of these four conditions are met. Therefore there is no theoretical impediment to an echolocator evolving flight or a flyer evolving echolocation, since the two traits are entirely separable and need not have arisen simultaneously. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:07, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Thinker", please take your own name to heart: there is no such thing as "relative truth," and hence the reversion of your edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:My point was merely that the same logical reasoning can and should be applied to all origins theories. To do otherwise would be inconsistent and scientifically unsound.

:And the claim that there is no relative truth is just that, a claim: an initial assumption that serves as a jumping-off point for further debate. It itself must be justified, has not been justified to an extent that satisfies me, and is a debate that belongs elsewhere, so I will again leave it. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 15:29, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Some Comments ==

Just a brief comment - Aschlafly, you seem to suggest that autumn foliage is designed to be beautiful. That is totally subjective and personally I dont find autumn foliage particularly striking. One mans beauty is another's ugly. Secondly, in regards to consciousness, many species of chimps use tools and show morality also parrots have self awareness also and can recognise themselves in mirrors. I dont think wearing clothes has anything to do with self awareness either [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:12, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: No, PatWills, autumn foliage ''is'' beautiful. Maybe you deny that 2+2=4 too. You do have free will. But you're not going to persuade anyone here by insisting that autumn foliage is not beautiful. It is, and it disproves evolution.

: As to animals, they don't dress themselves. They really don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes fine, you think foliage is beautiful. I dont, so its subjective. Its that simple. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:22, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: OK, maybe you don't think 2+2=4 either. You're not persuading anyone. In fact, your position simply reinforces that the beauty of autumn foliage is a counterexample to evolution, because you can't reconcile that beauty with the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:31, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Maths is not a subjective experience. Maths is objective. There is a difference. I am sure there are many people out there who dislike autumn foliage and their position is just as valid as yours. Personally I think bright green summer foliage is far more aesthetically pleasing. Back to the animals again, I am aware that animals do not wear clothes but that does not answer my point about other animals that use tools and are self aware. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::PatWills, give it up. You're just restating your absurd denial of beauty in nature, in order to salvage your belief in the theory of evolution. I'm with the other 99.99% of the population that honestly admits that autumn foliage is beautiful. And that single counterexample to the theory of evolution disproves it.

:::::Your denial of beauty does illustrate, however, how depressed people can become after they fall for the theory of evolution. Life without admitting beauty is very depressing indeed. Do yourself a favor and look again with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Is just told you I thought green summer foliage was beautiful, I dont like autumn foliage because it reminds me of winter. I have a friend who works at a university studying fungi and he thinks fungi is beautiful. Do you find molds and fungi beautiful? As to an open mind, well, you're the one denying that other people may have different ideas of what constitutes beauty. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 15:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Abstract judgements like "beauty" have no place in proving or disproving a scientific theory. They are unmeasurable & unprovable by scientific methods. Besides which, even if we accept that autumn leaves are pretty, how can that possibly disprove the evolution of plants & animals? It says absolutely nothing about the biological origin of that foliage; it only relates to our own perception of it. It has a lot to do with human views of nature, which have changed considerable throughout history, and vary from culture to culture. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that animals find that autumn foliage to be beautiful, or even have an appreciation of beauty at all. The perception of beauty is generally believed to be unique to humans, and whether you believe it to be a human construct or a gift from God, it cannot prove or disprove anything about the nature of the thing that we perceive to be beautiful or how it came to be. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:34, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Sideways, while you're at it, why stop at beauty? Go on to say that truth, mathematics, morality and everything else is all relative and devoid of anything absolute. In some cultures the counting is "1, 2, 3, infinity". So maybe 2+2 does not equal 4 in those cultures, right?

: Autumn foliage is beautiful, and the theory of evolution depends on denying it. And those who fall for the theory are destined to a life without real beauty. It's a depressing fate. Open your mind and reject its absurdity while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::Yes things are beautiful, but it is SUBJECTIVE! A person who is colour-blind might not find foliage so beautiful. Have you never heard the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, since you've barely addressed any of my points, and have instead put words in my mouth on completely different subjects, let me reiterate:
:::1. Truth and beauty are not equivalent. [[Facts]] are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. Can we say the same about beauty? If nobody believes something to be beautiful, then it is not beautiful. What makes it beautiful is a perception. You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples of things that people disagree about whether they are beautiful or ugly.
:::2. Beauty is neither measurable nor testable by scientific methods. Therefore it cannot be accepted as evidence in proving or disproving a scientific theory.
:::3. You say that the theory of evolution depends on denying that autumn foliage is beautiful, when in fact this theme plays no role in the theory of evolution whatsoever. So this whole issue of whether or not we accept autumn leaves to be attractive is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the truth of what causes the trees to change this time of year.
:::[[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 20:51, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: Sideways, your comment is not responsive. I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with until you do, except to reiterate the following. Evolutionists ''must'' deny the existence of beauty, and you can see examples on this page. Suit yourself, but I'm going to spend my time with the 99.99% of the population that admits that beauty exists, and enjoys it. Depression awaits those who deny the existence of beauty, and you have free will to choose your own path.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:30, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Consciousness (2) ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Be careful not to confuse ''consciousness'' with ''self awareness''. They are not the same, and I was talking bout the latter. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah I see, I'll be more careful. However, I still think the point is flawed though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:07, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: Evolution, if it is anything at all, is an ''incremental'' process. Something intermediate between man and real animals should reflect that incrementalism with respect to self-awareness and other features.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::I would think the intelligence of some chimps and also parrots is somewhere inbetween. [[User:PatWills|PatWills]] 20:40, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::Regarding the point on symbiosis. The point relies on both grass and the fungus coming into existence as they are today being the correct view. As such the point relies on evolution not occurring. Since the point assumes that evolution did not occur, it cannot be used in an argument against evolution.
::Regarding the point on the Flagellum, and the transition between uni- and multi-cellular creatures, The theory of Symbiogenesis attempts to cover this. While still in it's infancy as a scientific theory, It has already been able to explain accurately both the chloroplast's and the mitochondria's involvement in multi-cellular creatures. Symbiogenesis regarding cilia and flagellum is currently being researched.
::Regarding animals and self-sacrifice. Other animals do exhibit altruism. A good example of this is the ''U. stansburiana'', or the Side-blotched lizard.
::Regarding intermediate fossils... This argument has been used a lot by people trying to disprove evolution however it is (for lack of a better term) a cop out argument. Scientists have discovered intermediate fossils, The Tiktaalik is often cited as one, Ambulocetus is another. People who do not accept evolution however will not accept these fossils as intermediate fossils. Hence why I call it a cop out argument. There is no fossil evidence that hard core dis-believers of evolution will accept as intermediate so it's rather pointless to continue to ask for them as an argument.
::Other than that Kallium is quite accurate in his statements.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 21:10, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Self-awareness and clothing have little if anything to do with each other, I agree there.
::: Whether morality is subjective or not depends on whether or not you believe that it comes from God.
::: I'm not sure that it's true that tool use is "most often" found in primates, but otherwise I agree with this point.
::: I agree that animals do exhibit self-sacrifice. Stories of a hen dying whilst protecting her chicks are legion, for example. Admittedly, though, I don't know if any animals exhibit self-sacrifice for anything other than their own offspring.
::: Sorry, but evolution ''does'' say that "man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish". Well, perhaps not "rats" specifically, but it does the rest. True, it doesn't claim that we evolved from the creatures around today, but it does propose a ''line'' from the simplest creature to man (as well as lines to other creatures, altogether forming a tree). And any common ancestor to modern humans and apes would be referred to as an ape.
::: Yes, man is ''defined'' as an animal, in the taxonomic [[classification system]](<-- read that), but you can also ''define'' man as not an animal by using different criteria (such as the existence of an eternal soul). However, whether or not man is an animal is beside the point for this article.
::: The symbiosis argument does not rely on both "coming into existence as they are today", but on the requirement that both species became dependent on each other at the same time. In theory, that could be after both came into existence.
::: Scientists have discovered what ''they claim'' to be intermediate fossils, but (a) they are often not indisputably so, and (b) they are often not actually intermediate! That is, New Scientist in March this year had an article on supposed fossil transitional forms, and I'm reasonably sure that Tiktaalik was one of its examples, but it said that it was on a side branch. If it's on a side branch, it's not intermediate! For Ambulocetus, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1776 here].
::: Just because creationists have rejected all proposals so far doesn't mean that it's pointless asking for them or that there's any that they wouldn't, in theory, accept.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:35, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Removed "Statistical Approach" ==

It was a joke. These things don't have a 'chance' of being true (they are NOT probabilistic) and the numbers were utterly random. The fact that so many holes exist is clear enough proof that evolution is absurd. Having an argument about odds only confuses the truth. Instead made it into a Logical Conclusion, by adapting some text from the top. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 18:36, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== "The foliage existed before man does" ==

But only by a few days, right? Incidentally, according to Ussher, the creation occurred pretty much at the peak of foliage season (in my latitude of the northern hemisphere, anyway...). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Beauty ==

The argument about the impossibility of evolution creating beauty is a valid one, contrary to Sideways' comment. If beauty objectively exists for no apparent evolutionary reason, then it's fair to ask why it exists, and it's fair to conclude that this argument is one that favours creation. To put it another way, evolution would not predict the existence of beauty, but creation would, so if beauty exists, the creationary prediction has been fulfilled and the evolutionary prediction is falsified.

So does beauty exist? Certainly we humans consider various things to be beautiful or not. Just as certainly, we differ as to what we consider beautiful, which suggests that the whole idea is subjective, not objective. So no, it is most definitely ''not'' like 2+2=4. The saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is quite true.

However, it can be framed in a more objective manner, as I almost do in the first paragraph. That is, are there things that are generally considered beautiful ''for which no apparent evolutionary reason exists''?

Autumn leaves are ''not'' an example of that. Why are autumn leaves the colours they are? Because in dying, they have lost the chlorophyll that makes them green. There is no need to invoke design to explain their colour. (This does not mean that God didn't deliberately design dead tree leaves to be nice colours, but it does mean that we can't invoke God as the only likely cause.)

However, an example is the one I mentioned higher on this page: the peacock's tail. Darwin considered the peacock's tail to be an example of ''sexual selection'', that is, the peahen prefers the more colourful peacock tails, so evolution favours more colourful tails. For a long time this hypothesis has been accepted, but more recently tests have been done to show that peahens ''don't'' favour more colourful tails, so this idea has been put to bed. (See link higher up this page.)

Now it's always possible that some evolutionist will come up with some other evolutionary explanation of the peacock's tail in the future, but at the moment, this evidence favours the creationary view, so is a valid argument. But autumn foilage is not, for reasons I've just explained.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, if you think that beauty is ''completely'' subjective and relative, then do you feel the same way about the term "good" as commonly used? E.g., God created such-and-such, and saw that it was "good".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Exactly. As God created 'goodness,' so too he created 'beauty' on Earth. Psalm 27:4 states "One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple." Likewise, Psalm 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth." [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:58, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. Anyone who claims that beauty is completely subjective and relative is likely to say the same about goodness. God saw that his creation was good, but under this view that is in the eyes of the beholder. It wasn't ''really'' good, it just looked that way to God. For there, of course, it's a small step to saying that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. God said something was wrong, but it wasn't ''really'' wrong, it just seemed that way to God.

::: When 100 out of 100 people say something is beautiful (like autumn foliage), it ''really'' is beautiful. And those who deny it for the sake of evolution can look forward to the depression that life without beauty inevitably entails.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:27, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: It is not true that 100 out of 100 people say autumn foliage is beautiful. Does that then open the possibility that it is not ''really'' beautiful? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 00:46, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

:::: So what are we to make of the old saw that ''Beauty is in the eye of the beholder''? [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:39, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: It's meaningless when the beholder is God. What He sees as beauty IS beauty, as he created it. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::: We are talking about what appears beautiful to ''humans''. But to take your point, how do you determine (apart from explicit references in Scripture) what God considers beautiful? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::: My mother, long passed now, used to hate Autumn - when she saw the leaves turning brown she always used to feel depressed, as to her it signaled the end of summer and the oncoming long dark winter months. I guess not everyone sees the world the same way. [[User:CescF|CescF]] 22:48, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I experience a similar state - while I enjoy the pretty colors, it also means the end of the gardening season, and the onset of the heating season, hunkering down for winter, and the short, dark days. PS, one word I find interesting in other contexts in this "argument": kaleidoscope. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:00, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
I'm not saying that beauty is ''completely'' subjective, nor relative. I believe that it exists, and that God created it (i.e. that's probably why the peacock's tail is like it is). But it doesn't follow from that that everything that we ''consider'' beautiful is that way because God intended it to be so. Do you find a landscape beautiful? Most do, but most landscapes are the result not of God's design, but of God's judgment on the world in the form of Noah's Flood. So in such cases, beauty is actually (a) subjective (i.e. it wasn't intended that way) or (b) ''despite'' the judgment (i.e. God made the world so beautiful that even in a corrupted form we still find much of it beautiful). I'm quite happy to accept (b), but if (b) is correct, what we have to acknowledge is that it ''isn't the way God designed it''. So are autumn leave beautiful because God designed autumn leaves to be beautiful, or simply because they are part of an overall beautiful creation?

'''But all that's rather beside the point'''. The point of the beauty argument is that evolution (i.e. natural processes) can't explain it. But natural processes ''can'' explain why autumn leaves are the colour they are. Therefore it's not an evolution-refuting argument.

As for God pronouncing the creation "good", first, I don't believe that the Bible necessarily uses the word "as commonly used" (in the present day). Rather I see "good" as referring to a range of things, such as impeccable and excellent design, faultlessness, fit for purpose, and such. And yes, beauty would be one aspect of that.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

: Aschlafly already explained it to you clearly, Phil. Beauty cannot result from evolution, as it cannot result from chance. As for Bible's use of the word, yes, it necessarily uses the word "as commonly used." Vague definitions is a favorite method of liberal deceit. God's word is inerrant, and thus does not mislead with vagueries. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 22:55, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That name's "Philip", by the way. And I've explained myself at least as well as Andy's explained it to me, and you've not added anything new to his explanation. Why is the Bible's use of the word ''necessarily'' "as commonly used"? Many Bible words have subtly different meanings than how they are commonly used ''in modern times''. And referring to my use as a "vague definition" is incorrect; I gave a definition that was more detailed than Andy's. Inerrancy is different to clarity. I agree that God's word is clear where it needs to be, but it's not always clear (on less-important matters), although always inerrant. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
The old saw is an atheistic falsehood, which is traced to statements by a young Benjamin Franklin (before he returned to [[faith]]) and by [[David Hume]], an early atheistic philosopher. See [http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/59100.html]. Looks like it has misled many who are unaware of its atheistic roots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
: That's a rather selective interpretation of the link you provided. It actually says that in the wording we've been using it's attributable to a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, although the concept appears earlier, including by Hume, and before him Franklin, and before him Shakespeare, and even he was not the first.
: Nevertheless, the existence of a saying does not mean that it's true. It may not be, but it appears to have a fair bit of truth simply by the ''fact'' that some see beauty where others do not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:12, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:: No, Philip, Shakespeare did not say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That is obviously an atheistic saying that you repeated, as I pointed out. It's time to concede that point.

:: Earlier you seemed to think that evolution could explain the undeniable beauty in autumn foliage, but it plainly can't. The color arrangement arose before man and has no plausible evolutionary purpose. Survival of the fittest to produce such beauty? It's absurd, and thus remains as a counterexample familiar to all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: No, Shakespeare did not say precisely that, but then neither did Hume nor Franklin. Your point?
:::: No, Andy, I did not simply "seem to think" that evolution could explain the beauty in autumn foliage. I explained why your argument was invalid, and you've done nothing to answer that, instead simply stating without any substantiation that "it plainly can't". What was actually wrong with the argument that I put (and which Samd has repeated below)?
:::: And what does "the color arrangement arose before man" have to do with the debate?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
::: I had been under the impression that leaves change color as a result of their chlorophyll dying due to a lack of water. If this is, in fact, true, I do not think that it is impossible to describe how and why the leaves change using a purely naturalistic viewpoint. (To be honest, I haven't really given this much thought before, and your view on it is very interesting. I'll have to dig out my old Wile biology book and see if it covers this. It's so hard to find science books written from a Christian perspective.)
:::With regard to whether there is a set-in-stone definition of beauty, this idea intrigued me, so I searched the King James Version of the Bible for various words and phrases meaning "pretty", "beautiful", and the like, using a software concordance. The Hebrew word used is almost always the same one, "יפה". Here is Strong's definition of it:
:::::H3303
:::::יפה
:::::yâpheh
:::::yaw-feh'
:::::From H3302; beautiful (literally of figuratively): - + beautiful, beauty, comely, fair (-est, one), + goodly, pleasant, well.
:::H3302 is simply a root (and unfortunately, I can't get the Hebrew letters to render correctly. Oh, well...):
:::::H3302
:::::יפה
:::::yâphâh
:::::yaw-faw'
:::::A primitive root; properly to be bright, that is, (by implication) beautiful: - be beautiful, be (make self) fair (-r), deck.
:::Most of the time, the word "beauty" was used in the phrase "the beauty of his [God's] holiness". "Beautiful" and "comely" generally referred to people or things that looked good, or, pretty. "Fair" was often used to describe various women, such as Sarah and Vashti. ("fairest" and "fair one" were only used in the Song of Solomon). "Goodly", "pleasant", and "well" (when it was used in this sense) likewise were used to describe things, but no definition of the ''words'' was offered in the text. In short, I was unable to find any hard-fast definition of what God considers to be beautiful (in a physical sense, at least). Based on this, as well as my own experience, I think that while there are things which practically anyone would agree is beautiful, such as a sunset, beauty is largely subjective. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 23:24, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Sarfati reference ==

The Safarti reference about the prostate doesn't say anything about how natural selection would have changed the design for the worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:11, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
: See the last line of the article. It doesn't say quite what was in this article, but I've improved it now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::It smells of [[straw man|straw]] to me. Sarfati (thanks for the spelling btw!) simply claims that evolutionists say that the prostate is a bad design, but doesn't (a) give any evidence that evolutionists actualy make this agument, <s>(b) give any reasons why evolutionists think the prostate is a bad design,</s> (c) give any reasons why evolutionists would ''admit'' that a bad design would be naturally selected or (d) show that it is necessary to the evolutionist argument for the prostate to have been badly designed. Maybe he has it in his book, but it's certainly not supported by the reference. (In fairness, there is also one line at the beginning of the article, but again this is just an assertion). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I guess he does say why evolutionists allegedly think that it is a bad design, but he then spends the whole article arguing that not only is it ''not'' a bad design, but evolutionists are using fautlty data to come to the conclusion that it is a bad design. Thus, according to Sarfati, if evolutionists knew about these data, they would have to agree that the prostate is a good design, thus counteracting his own argument! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:29, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

==Chromosome example==

The chromosome example, currently #15 on the list, is false. The standard human has 46 chromosomes. A human with Downs Syndrome has has 47. If they were to mate, they would produce viable offspring. However not all instances of having an extra chromosome result is problems such as Downs Syndrome, some have relatively no impact, most are far worse, and some provide benefits. However I cannot recall a situation where it was beneficial in humans, I have read of cases where it has benefited other animals and plants.--[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:13, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

: Random mutations are never beneficial. Please make your point after you have the evidence, not by referring to evidence that you don't have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::They can be, in the right circumstances. Take the SNP responsible for sickle cell anemia. A person homozygous for sickle cell will have a debilitating disease, but a heterozygous person is more resistant to malaria than a non-carrier and is not symptomatic for sickle cell. This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:33, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

:::If we were to assume that I was incorrect on mutations sometimes providing benefits, I was still correct that mates with different numbers of chromosomes can still mate successfully, provided of course that they would have been able to produce viable offspring in the first place. That part alone is enough to disprove the point. As for mutations providing benefits, I am not saying that all mutations are beneficial, in fact most mutations involving extra chromosomes cause serious problems, especially in larger mammals (humans included). However plants tend to make better use of the kinds these kinds of mutations, take the F. chiloensis or the Beach Strawberry, It has 8x the number of chromosomes compared to wild type strawberries. Because of this, it produces larger fruit with more seeds. More seeds and larger fruit being an obvious advantage regarding reproduction. --[[User:ScottA|ScottA]] 23:53, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::(edit conflict) Corry said "''This is why sickle cell anemia is most prominent in ethnicities from malaria-stricken parts of the world.''" Just because the sickle-cell mutation happened to produce a beneficial ''result'' in one case does not mean it is truly beneficial. Natural selection dictates that anything that is beneficial stays, and anything that does not ''immediately'' benefit an organism is thrown out. If there ever was a beneficial mutation, it would very quickly be passed among ''all'' members of a species. Since all of humanity does not have the sickle-cell trait, the mutation is, hands down, not beneficial when applied across a broad spectrum (which is what would have to occur in order for a species to evolve). [[User:Samd|Samd]] 00:02, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::No- mutations in the genome do not spread like computer viruses. And as above, I said that homozygotes are at a disadvantage, while heterozygotes are at an advantage. If a mutation causes an overall reproductive benefit, in this case by heterozygotes being resistant to malaria and more likely to have children, then that mutation will be spread more than one which does not have a reproductive benefit. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:12, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

As Corry said, "random mutations" ''can'' be beneficial, even though that is (usually?) only in specific circumstances/environments. The claim that they can't be is one that leading creationists specifically say is wrong[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#mutations].

Samd is also correct that it is not beneficial ''overall'', but that doesn't make Andy's claim that it is "never" beneficial correct. And by the way, these rare beneficial mutations do not help the argument for evolution, because these beneficial mutations are still information-''losing'' mutations, whereas evolution requires information-''gaining'' mutations.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations. What it requires are information-changing mutations, which are the definition of mutations in the first place. There are massive parts of genetic material in living things that appear to do absolutely nothing. If one of these parts is mutated, there is no loss whatsoever (unless the mutation is worse than what it replaced, as many are). If the mutation makes a creature less likely to reproduce ''in that environment'', that gene will not be passed on to as many offspring, and the gene will become infinitely uncommon. If the mutation does nothing whatsoever, the population of that species is unaffected. If the mutation is beneficial (meaning that it makes that creature more likely to produce more offspring, which is extremely rare, but happens nonetheless), then this gene will be passed onto its offspring, which in turn are more fit to reproduce than competing creatures within that species. Therefore, this beneficial mutation spreads throughout the population as time passes (it does take a while).

:This can happen indefinitely until a species no longer in any way resembles its ancestors. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 20:53, 6 November 2008 (EST)

:: If a bacteria has no ''information'' for hair, eyes, bones, skin, and so on, but it's evolutionary descendants do have this information, then they must have ''gained'' this information! And if mutations didn't supply it, then where did it come from? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::: Mutations did supply it. There are examples of information-gaining mutations as well. And genes are not organized according to body parts. Scientists have discovered that genes interact with each other. The system is very complex. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 10:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)
::::There are? Care to name one, and rock the scientific world? Your last two sentences say nothing that argues for information-increasing mutations. Infact, gene interaction, expression, polyploidy and generally the complexity of the "system" as you call it are all problems for biological evolution by random changes.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:05, 9 November 2008 (EST)

:::: So JArneal, how do you explain these two comments of yours:
::::* "''Evolution does not require information-gaining mutations''":
::::* "''Mutations did supply it.''":
:::: You say that evolution does not require information-gaining mutations, I point out that the information had to come from ''somewhere'', so you respond by saying that it came from ''mutations''!
:::: Yes, please give those example'''s''' of information-gaining mutations. Dawkins was asked for examples, and couldn't supply any. Since then, I know of ''one'' disputed one that is always trotted out, but even if that one is correct, it's ''one'' when there should be ''many'', and you've referred to them in the plural anyway.
:::: And LowKey is quite correct that your comment about the complexity doesn't answer the question about where the information came from. That "genes are not organized according to body parts" doesn't mean that the information for the body parts is not there somewhere.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:31, 10 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I'm sorry I contradicted myself, Philip. What I meant is that evolution is a theory about the adaptation of life, which does not necessarily require information-gaining mutations. What you are talking about is an argument about the progression of life, which is a consequence of people trying to contradict evolution based on creationist beliefs. To you, Lowkey, the complexity of the system is not the issue, so again I apologize. The fact that it is possible to generate the changes through random mutations is the issue. It is possible, no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it out to be. It's the same thing with the information-gaining mutations. As long as there is one example of an information-gaining mutation, it does not make sense to use this argument. I see an information-gaining mutation. That tells me that information-gaining mutations are possible. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:26, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Regardless of whether you label my argument as about the "progression of life", the unavoidable point is that evolution ''requires'' the addition of enormous amounts of new genetic information. I can't see how evolution going from a "simple" cell with no arms, heart, skin, brain, and so on to humans with all those and much more is not a "progression".
:::::: Simply claiming that it's possible to generate the required changes does not make it so. Lowkey specifically asked you for examples, yet you supplied none.
:::::: And no, it's not as simple as claiming that one information-gaining mutation is enough, for several reasons:
::::::* There is no undisputed example.
::::::* Evolution doesn't require ''one'' but very many (probably millions if not billions). Evidence of ''one'' is not evidence that evolution is capable of providing sufficient such mutations.
::::::* What evolution needs is more information-gaining mutations than information-losing ones. If a hamburger seller makes a loss on every sale, but then eventually sells one for a profit, does that mean that his business is viable?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: If you are looking for an example of an undisputed information-gaining mutation, I cannot help you. I don't know if anyone can, because evolution will always be disputed on this basis. Do you want me to give that commonly known example? Fine. Down syndrome. I did not want to bring it up because I did not want to argue about this. It is beside the point. The length of the genome does not need to increase to create organs such as eyes or a heart. It must change, however. An amoeba has a far larger genome than a human, yet an amoeba does not have eyes or a heart. The actual size of the genome is not relevant, and therefore information-gaining mutations are not necessary, even from your viewpoint. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:46, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Down syndrome is caused by a genetic ''defect'', a ''loss'' of information, not an information-''gaining'' mutation.
:::::::: The amount of information is not proportional to the length of the genome. See the section on ''Measuring information'' in [[information#Measuring information|information]]. You are confusing the ''size of the genome'' with the ''amount of information''. That's like comparing chalk and cheese. As I said, the first cell doesn't have the information for things such as hair, skin, and eyes. So this information has to be ''added''. Even if the cell or bacteria loses ''other'' information in the process, the information for those other things has to be generated ''somehow''. That is the problem that microbe-to-man evolution has yet to produce evidence for.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I believe I provided an example of a gain of information with HIV developing an ion channel. An ion channel that requires more than just a single mutation to occur. I believe it can be found [[Mutation|here]] with the gain of function examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 07:41, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Philip, I said I did not want to argue about Down syndrome. But if you really want to, then here: Down syndrome is also scientifically known as "trisomy 21." This is because there is a third copy of chromosome 21 in the cells of a Down syndrome person (there are usually only two.)

The example in the [[information]] article does not have anything to do with our argument. It is pure coincidence that the english word for "vehicle" is longer than the english word for "car." The longer the genome, the more base pairs there are. The more base pairs there are, the more information is present in the genome.

If a creature exists that has, lets say, 10000 base pairs(very simplified example) and only about 5000 actually code for proteins that carry out functions(there are long strands of genomes in animals that have no purpose), then there are still another 5000 that do nothing. If a part of this section of 5000 base pairs is mutated and "turned on" to code proteins as is possible, and this part codes for proteins that create arms, then according to the gene, you have lost information to gain the exact same amount of information (no information gain or loss.) But according to our observation of what the creature actually looks like, it looks exactly the same except it has arms.

I'm sorry if I'm not making any sense right now, but I'm not sure if I understand your argument, either. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:43, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:3 copies of something instead of 2 is no increase in information. I have 3 copies of a couple of books (I lend a lot), but I have no more information than if I only had 1 copy of them. Switching existing information on or off is not gaining or losing information. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:25, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::Hmm. What is your metric for 'information'? Can you represent it formally (i.e. mathematically)? I ask because every well-defined metric for quantity of 'information' (such as used in signal processing), seems require more to encode three copies of a gene than two or one (at a minimum it requires at least an extra bit or two). It's very important to settle on ''specific'' definitions for quantification of 'information' before proceeding with assessments of relative changes. Shifting between specific definitions and metrics cause many problems. That was precisely the trouble that damaged many of Lee Spenter's claims about there being no increase in information from mutations (from his book _Not By Chance_) [http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0178.html American Scientific Association discussion -- Follow links from this post] (an organization of Christian professional scientists and engineers) and [http://home.mira.net/~reynella/debate/spetner.htm Discussion from Ian Musgrave].--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:05, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:: I agree completely. But imagine instead that those books were created the old-fashioned way (copied by hand, this is similar to the way DNA is copied) and there were some errors made in the copying (mutations) in your third copy of the book. What has happened? No information was lost, because you have already stated that the third copy is useless information-wise if it was the exact same as the others. The amount of information did not stay the same, because you now have a book that contains a different bit of information in it, and the information it would have had without copying errors is already in the other 2 books. If information was not lost and information did not stay the same, it must have increased!

:: What I said might be a little confusing, but the above scenario is far more similar to that of DNA. Mutations cause changes in the information, which in this case is an increase in information.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 18:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::That is a false analogy, because in the example you gave the mutation '''is''' the 3rd copy. You are now talking about 2 mutations, the over-copying and then the copying error - but you still have not provided an example of the copying error in which the "copy" has a greater information content than the original. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 23:09, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::: JArneal, the word "vehicle" is not longer than the word "car" due to "pure coincidence". Rather, the example was ''intelligently selected'' to make the point that the amount of information is not the same as the number of letters, bits, or base pairs. When you randomly change a letter or bit, you say that information is not lost, it didn't stay the same, so it must have increased. But why do you say it was not lost? The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''. You've not shown that the ''meaning'' was not lost. Rather, you are continuing to falsely equate the number of bit, letters, or base pairs with ''information''.
::: In your example of the creature gaining the information for arms, what information was lost? According to you, nothing! That is, it has gained the information for arms, but the genes previously did nothing, which means that they had no information for anything, so no information was lost! Similarly, if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Lowkey, you are right about the fact that my analogy did not use just one mutation. It uses two. But the fact that it uses two does not make it a false analogy. Two mutations can easily happen in the same replication. Therefore, the analogy stands because it still represents what can happen in a replication.
::::And to your charge that I "have not provided an example of the copying error in which the 'copy' has a greater information content than the original," you are completely right. But I don't have to provide an example of this, because my analogy still works, and it is an example of how an information-gaining mutation could happen because of a combination of mutations.

::::Philip, that's not what I meant when I said the word "vehicle" was longer than "car" due to coincidence. But I don't know how to say what I did mean. I'll leave it. And your comment that it was ''intelligently selected''...are you implying that because you intelligently selected an example, intelligent selection happens in nature? I don't know ''what'' to say to this.
::::To your comment that I haven't been properly arguing because I have been equating data to information, you may be right. But hopefully this analogy (analogies are going to be the death of me) will work:
:::::''You have three copies of the same book. You want another three of the same, because your copies are getting old, and you want to get rid of them. So you go to a man who will copy the contents of the books for you. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that each book you gave him says only one thing: "The old man walks." Now in the copying, the man you hired makes an error in the third copy, instead making it read: "The old man talks."''
::::What did you know about the old man in your books before the copying? All you knew about him was that he walked. But after the copying, you have 3 new books, two of which say the same, and one that gives you a new piece of information about the old man, that he talks. You now know, after the copying, that the old man walks and that he talks. You have new information about the old man.
::::And about my creature example, the genes that were mutated did not have "meaning" because they did not code for proteins that carry out functions, so according to you, those genes had no information:"The point is that information is data that has ''meaning''." The genes did have data before the mutation, however, so when it gets a mutation that causes it to have "meaning" (code proteins), information is created out of the meaningless data.
::::To your statement that "if bits or base pairs that already have ''meaning'' are mutated, then that ''meaning'' will be lost," you are absolutely right. The meaning will be lost, which brings me back to the very first post I had in this section: If the loss of the previous meaning causes a creature to function improperly, that creature will not reproduce and the mutation will cease to exist. But if it causes the creature to function even better in its environment, its gene will be passed on, and the creature will never miss its previous gene, because it got something even better in exchange. --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 13:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Now I see the light. ''Beautiful autumn foliage'' is a clear, decisive evidence against Evolution. I am sure that most of my fellow colleagues, scientists, will see the light as well. A few militant atheists will stay on their positions no matter what evidence is presented them, but I'm sure the majority will understand. Now, let's spread the news! Answersingenesis, Creationontheweb, but also scientific papers: here we come! --[[User:JulianAdderley|JulianAdderley]] 09:06, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
:Poor sarcasm if a favourite tool of [[liberals]] who have nothing to contribute and no facts to back up their objections. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 21:15, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Right. After a while, the [[liberal]] nonsense is so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it. Watch that user and I bet you never see an insightful edit by him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If the nonsense is "so obvious that we don't even bother commenting on it," why are you commenting on it? --[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:37, 6 November 2008 (EST)

::::Typical liberal deceit. Next time, focus on the facts and follow the logic of the Bible. [[User:Svincent|Svincent]] 22:52, 12 December 2009 (EST)

== 'Chain of being' ==

RodWeathers reinstated the 'consciousness' entry with the edit comment "''Evolution requires a 'chain of being,' including varying consciousness''". I would like to know what this means and how it addresses the concerns with this entry already explained earlier on this page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

==Recent Revisions==

I'm back, taking a much-needed break from research, and I've started out with some relatively minor edits. As promised, here are some explanations.

1) I removed the example of the giraffe's neck because it is very easily explained by the naturalistic theory of evolution. And that's not just from me and the rest of evolutionary biology, that's from Dr. Behe.

2) I removed the example of the whale because it deals with common descent, which is (again citing Behe) accepted by scientific critics of evolutionary theory.

3) I added some clarification to the opening paragraph so that readers can better understand the premise of the article and the limitations of the counter-example argument. It is relatively technical compared to other entries, but as this is a technical subject, this article must unfortunately reflect that. I am not trying to say that the re-wording makes the arguments less legitimate, only that they focus the reader's attention on what exactly is at stake (the power of random mutation, which is the only thing questioned within the scientific field [and as an aside, that's being generous with "scientific", but I digress...]).

4) Finally, some of the examples needed rewording to actually reflect the argument. If anyone wants the technical explanations, I'll be more than happy to provide them, but suffice it to say for now that these arguments have to be worded very specifically to be true.

I think that covers all of them. If any of them are in question, please post here and I'll explain my actions. Please don't blindly revert them without a reason. That's unscientific. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 13:46, 14 November 2008 (EST)

: I've reinstated the whale and giraffe examples. It is nonsense to claim that common descent is not in dispute. And I've explained at the top of this page why evolution can't explain the giraffe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)
::Common descent is not ''scientifically'' in dispute. The only attacks to common descent come from without the scientific realm. That doesn't invalidate those attacks, per se, but in order for this article to use scientific reasons for the "rejection" of evolution, it has to be subject to scientific reasoning. And the fact of the matter is that no reputable scientist who has looked at the evidence rejects common descent.

::The neck of the giraffe is a result of what we would call "runaway sexual selection". If you observe giraffes in their natural environment, you might notice that the neck is far, far longer than any shrubs or trees which they eat. So, the neck is obviously not adaptive in that way, because natural selection dis-favors anything that expends energy without need. However, the ancestral giraffe (which is conjectured to look somthing like the Okapi) had a much shorter neck. Although we cannot quite be sure what the environment looked like millions of years ago when these selections took place, it is not much of a stretch to assume that giraffes with longer necks (and we're not talking about a significant difference here) had a higher fitness, so natural selection favored longer necks. At the same time, however, males were competing for access to receptive females. It should be obvious that better competitors were able to reproduce more, and that they would pass on whatever heritable trait allowed them to compete better. In the case of giraffes (anc yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution. Most importantly, the length comes from increasing the length of individual neck bones, rathering than gaining new structures. It's a perfect example of evolutionary homology!

::Now the next part becomes a little more complicated, and I expect a number of people might not be able to follow it (I'm drawing on some relatively high-level biology). The neck ''valves'' of the giraffe do pose a bit more of an obstacle. The explanation requires accepting common descent, but since I'm sticking to science, I'll go ahead and make that jump. If you know your evolutionary history, you know that all terrestrial chordates are derived from an ancestral fish-like organism. This organism had valves in its ventral aorta for just the same reason as giraffes (prevent back-flow). That's information bit number one. Information bit number two is that the vast majority of our genetic code is inert. It must be "turned on" to work. As the last information bit, remember that natural selection acts against anything which expends unneccessary energy. As the circulatory system of chordates evolved, the original requirement for aortic valves diminished, so natural selection favored those organisms which lost the structure. But wait! '''Losing a structure is not the same as losing the genes for that structure!''' Indeed, the genes were there the whole time: they are part of the ''hox'' complex that controls body plans, and this complex is very heavily conserved. Thus when the need arose for pressure control in the aorta again, it was but a small step to reactivate those genes in the giraffe.

::I can see how that becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem, and I think I may change the point to reflect that. Evolution does a great job of explaining how the neck became long, but people might take issue with the potentiation argument for the valves. I guess it's sort of an irreducible complexity argument.

::Reinstating the whale example shouldn't have been done. The question posed by this article is "can these phenomena be explained in the framework of Darwinian evolution?" The resounding answer for the case of the whale is '''YES!''' That's because one of the main tenets of evolution is common descent, and it's also one very, very strongly supported by evidence. So, scientifically, there is no basis for the inclusion of the whale as a counter-example to evolutionary theory. And please note, when we apply the type of scrutiny we're applying, we must first "pretend," if you will, to accept the theory as a whole and see if it does not provide explanations. That's how speculative science works.

::So with that in mind, I will once again remove the whale example. There's simply no scientific reason to include it. To do so would require attacking common descent first, which has been attempted numerous times and has yet to succeed in empirically-based scientific study.

::If we want to throw out the requirement of scientific scrutiny for a scientific article, that's the perogative of the admins. But we should be honest about the worldview lens through which we're viewing reality. That would save everyone a lot of time, because then we could focus on the source of discord itself.--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:24, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::You said above ''"In the case of giraffes (and yes! we can test this!), males with longer necks are more effective competitors, so they produce more children with long necks, and the end result is a net shift of the population distribution"''. Before you remove anything, I want you to prove to all of us the test. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:29, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::::The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher.

::::My other revisions also need explanation. I removed the peacock's tail as an example from the beauty argument because it is even more easily explained than the neck of the giraffe. It doesn't change the argument itself, it's just an example that doesn't fit there. The variety of marine fish is a more consistent example.

::::I also changed the wording of the opening paragraph because the idea that mutations only destory information is a bogus "sound bite." There are reams of examples of informatio-producing mutations: gene duplication, inversions, and insertions all give rise to radically new coding in simpler life. Genetic recombination and meitoic crossing-over account for even more increases in information (Dawkins, ''The Selfish Gene'', to name just one source). The argument of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that this article is largely based on) merely states that even these mutations cannot account for complexity (and as another aside, I obviously don't agree with that point, but the last time I refuted it, it took up 30 pages...not so keen to repeat that;)).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:43, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Did those scientists who made that observation actualy see the giraffe's neck grow? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 15 November 2008 (EST)
:::Huh? That question doesn't make sense (well it does, but not in a relevant way), and I think you may have misunderstood how we test for fitness correlations and natural selection in general. I was a little brief in my explanation considering that there are entire books on the subject, so let's try something a little more detailed and beginning at the basics.

:::Ok natural selection works on the idea that traits which increase fitness (the number of surviving offspring) will be passed on to the offspring of those parents (assuming it is heritable...no Lamarckian evolution). As long as the conditions remain steady, those offspring will then be able to have more offspring themselves until they make up a significant part of the population. Assuming (as Darwin and Malthus did) that there are more organisms than can be supported, only those who are best able to create offspring in this environment will be successful. "Survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification that spreads more misconceptions than anything else, which is why I hate the phrase.

:::So now we have the idea that natural selection ''favors adaptations which increase fitness''. Therefore, if we want to test whether or not a trait is adaptive, we can observe the number of offspring an organism has (who is in possession of that trait). This works best on traits which exist across a spectrum of phenotypes (say, the neck of a giraffe). The independent variable is the length of the giraffe's neck, and the dependent one is their reproductive success (gauged by number of matings and number of offspring). Such studies have shown a positive correlation between neck length and fitness (remember, "fitness" is just short-hand for "number of viable offspring). Also note that the specific test is one we use to judge the effects of sexual selection (in this case by intrasexual competition, based on qualitative observations of males fighting). To judge the adaptiveness of a trait from a ''natural'' selection standpoint, we simply look at the number of offspring produced (without taking into account mating success). If something is an adaptive trait using these tests, Darwinian evolution can explain it using its framework. If not, then the problem requires further investigation.

:::I hope that explains how we test the adaptive value of a trait. I don't know where the idea of "needing to see it grow" came from, but perhaps my initial explanation was too brief (I am used to teaching science majors at the college level and forget how much I've specialized, at times).--[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 12:12, 15 November 2008 (EST)

The question was "did a scientist see a giraffe's neck grow?" What you said was this: ''"The test is to observe the mating success of giraffes in the wild. Remember that there is still natural variation, even if the entire curve is shifted to one side, which means we can set up a correlation based on intermediate values. Scientists have found that there is a positive correlation between neck length and mating success. (this is called intrasexual selection, and is distinct from selection by female preference). Therefore, the fitness of long-necked males is higher."'' There are all sorts of little words in your explanations (and many, many others) which suggest that scientists just don't know, words like "assuming"; "conjectured"; "plausable"; "scientists believe"; and so forth. Scientists are people, and people anywhere can "assume" that the moon is a lump of cheese, but that of course doesn't change the facts.

With all due respect, the implication of your argument relative to ''Cameleopardus sp.'' has very much to do with scientists stating that mating rituals were responsible for the lengthening of the neck vertebrae, and these scientists implied such as if it were absolute fact. To make such an implication, I'm "assuming" they used the [[Scientific Method]]; the first step of that method demands that a scientist observe the phenomena in question; i.e. ''he has to see the neck actually grow'', and then provide a reasonable explanation for such growth in step two. In step three, the scientist has to do an experiment to see if his hypothesis is correct, and you did say above that "we can test this".

Here is my explanation for the giraffe's neck, which is supported by facts:
*At no time did a scientist of any kind observe a giraffe's neck grow, either in a single animal, or passed down to offspring through successive generations, in accordance with step one of the Scientific Method.
*At no time was testing done pertaining to the hypothesis related to mating; if such was done the results were at best inconclusive, or plain wrong. If the observation instruction of step one cannot be accomplished, then steps two and three could not be done as well.
*At no time in the history of paleontology was the remains of an animal found which could have been declared by science to be the links between the "okapi-like" animal and a giraffe.
That means science is left with two other explantions of the giraffe's neck, of which the familiar one is that it grew in relation to the growing height of the trees. That explantion falls apart for the simple reason that if the animal in question needs to eat and cannot reach the leaves, it either grows the neck immediately, looks for another food source, or starves to death within a few weeks. Two of those facts, by the way, can be observed and tested on any animal.

The third explanation is what I believe in, and there's no testing at all which can refute it: giraffes and their necks were created on the sixth day by an act of God. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:34, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Wow...I'm not sure where to start here. I guess I can start by saying that the above is a very, very twisted version of the scientific method. In fifteen years of intense science, I've never experienced anything like what you described, nor have a I related anything like that to my many students. I would try to explain it for any observers, but I have the feeling that what I say is going to be squelched, anyway.

:First off, science does not require ''direct'' observation. If it did, then we wouldn't have chemistry or phsyics (aside from applied chemistry and Newtonian physics, which are just a small part of those respective branches). It depends on inference based on observed phenomena, followed by predictions based on those inferences. The scientific method would never require direct observation of the neck growing, it would require observation of a long neck and a scientist asking why it's long.

:Second, my "little words" are there for a reason: '''scientists do not know'''. We assume, we test our assumptions, we change them when things don't go as planned. I just finished up a research project in which the results completely refuted the initial hypothesis, and this eventually led to some radical insights into muscle development. Only the most arrogant and mis-informed (or rhetorical) scientists say things like "we know this beyond a doubt." If we knew all the answers there would be no need for science.

:Third, your explanation for the neck of the giraffe is based on incomplete facts. Moreover, its line of logic is based on an incorrect assumption about the scientific method. Science simply does not work the way you described. I don't know who is relaying the sort of information about the scientific method upon which you base your argument, but shame on them. They have either lied or were dead wrong.

:Finally, "belief" in an explanation has absolutely no place in science, because it precludes the possibility of doubt. Without doubt, again, there is no science. I believe nothing in the scientific field...I accept explanations, and I hold mutable opinions...I even make assumptions when doing is so is needed for forward progress. But I never "believe" anything (ever wondered why so many scientists are atheists? There's your answer). That would be a grave threat to scientific thought.

:I simply cannot continue. My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here. I will return my focus to my students who are willing to learn. Good day. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:38, 17 November 2008 (EST)
::Typical evolutionist weaseling. What Karajou has described is fully in line with the scientific method, and naturally you plug your ears and fail to actually answer the objections, since they undermine your entire worldview. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:48, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::Now, now, this is a debate page, and not a page where we can say "typical evolutionist weasaling". The point I made is simple. Science, as stated above in this example, says that the neck of a giraffe got longer as a result of mating choices, and Thinker indicated that testing has in fact been done on that subject. But to contradict what he said, belief is everything in science. In this example, science believes that the neck of a giraffe got longer over time via the mating of certain individuals. They believe it so much that they are willing to test their beliefs (hypothesis) to see if it is a fact. Thinker indicated above that it was tested; I said it never happened. Both statements could be considered beliefs, but the end result states one is a fact and the other is not. In short, show me a successive line of directly-related individuals who had larger and larger neck vertebrae over time exactly as described, and show me that this occurred through mating. It either happened, or it didn't. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::I think that the conflict here is in what Thinker and Karajou are trying to explain - Thinker is assuming that the ancestors of the giraffe did not have long necks, and therefore simple oberving that giraffes now do have long necks is enough to satisfy step 1 of the Scientific Method and he can then continue to propose a hypothesis to explain it. Karajou, on the other hand, believes that giraffes were created in their current form, in which case a net change in neck length over time would have to be observed before a hypothesis would be needed. However, for this change to be observed, the timescale needed would be far greater than the length of time since the ToE was proposed.
[[User:PBowler|PBowler]] 14:17, 2 October 2009 (GMT + 1)

:::::I haven't read the lengthy thread above, but resorting to "more time" to explain things actually raises more questions than it answers. One can add the all the time imaginable and heat will still not flow to a hotter place, water will still not flow uphill, and disorder still will not become more orderly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:37, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

==Some Items to Consider==
I believe it is important to point out a few misunderstandings of this article in relation to scientific thought. First off, subjective statements are not scientific. The term beautiful is subjective and can not be quantified. As such number one is not something that pure science can validate, “Beautiful by what standard?” Number two has been shown it be false as well. During the Dover trial M. Behe was shown a stack of research dealing specifically with the evolution of the immune system. I know personally that in most college level evolution classes immunology is not a common topic, however in graduate level immunology classes the evolution of the immune systems of different species is covered quite extensively. Number 6 is also another area that has been studied substantially. Simmons, R. & Scheepers, L. (1996). Winning By A Neck: Sexual Selection In The Evolution Of Giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148, 772-786. is an excellent paper explaining how sexual selection played the most plausible role in the evolution of the giraffe’s neck. Number 7 is one of those on going arguments; many transitional fossils have been shown however there are transitions between transitions. The best explanation for this is that soft tissue is very rare to find in a fossil and changes from evolution occur at the biochemical level. So it is a matter of morphology which leaves gaps. Number 8 was shown to be false, either last year or the year before, with the finding of Dilong paradoxus. This fossil showed feather precursors and featherlike projectiles with a scaled skin. Number 9 needs a citation, I know of no biologists that make a claim that Pterosaurs did not fly. Number 10, most thoughts on this issue is that wings were selected through sexual pressures and gained functionality at a later state. Number 11 has been recently debunked as well, there has been an established cascade leading to the formation of flagellum. Number 12 was shown to be false on this talk page already. Number 13 is misleading due to the limited understanding of symbiosis. Symbiosis is caused through mutual beneficial partnership. The species involved could survive on their own but over time were able to survive better through the partnership and eventually became dependent on each other. Number 13 does not address this. Number 15 runs into the issue of the soft tissue that was listed above. Another point to make is that there are cases where unicellular organisms do work together to survive, but do not have systems. I am not sure if this would qualify since the difference between unicellular and multicellular organisms is based on the development of specialized function of the cells. Number 16 is misleading. The prostate would only be eliminated through natural selection if it did not influence reproduction, considering the purpose of the prostate this is false. Number 17 is also false. There are many cases of animals using tools to achieve an effect, as well as self-sacrifice for the betterment of their young. Case for the tools would be primates and some marine mammals using rocks and other shaped objects to crack and open objects that they would not normally be accessible to them. Self-sacrifice happens in all kinds of environments from birds to mammals protecting their young to the point of sacrificing themselves. I would say that this mindset that is unique in humans is not a single mutation as much as a buildup of mutations and experiences thus allowing for some to be able to self-sacrifice while others do not. I am unsure how to proceed on fixing these issues in the article so a little advice might help. (Unsure being if I must present a well documented research case disproving the claim or show through logic why it is false then be able to do the deletion) Moreover, I am fine with having some items in this but please let those items be scientific examples.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:39, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Oh sorry, I should have read your comments before adding my 2c below. You've added more detail than me, and seem to be more of an expert in the topic, so I'll let you discuss it with the others. [[User:MattS|MattS]] 11:22, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Discredited Examples==
Although I agree with a lot of the examples here, you should probably consider removing the two examples for irreducable complexity (immune system and bacteria flagellum) as both of these examples have strong counter-arguments, and including them in your list will serve only to discredit the page.
Considering the immune system, the original arguments based on antibodies not working by themselves and the compliment cascade:
1) Antibodies do function by themselves. Opsonisation is only a small part of their function
2) Various mammals have been found which lack portions of the compliment cascade, showing it is possible for the cascade to have 'evolved'.
As far as flagellum is concerned, the actual motor is very close in structure to the bacterial poison pump, which 'squiges' a protein (poison) through itself. This could have 'evolved' into the flagellum by the poison protein becoming affixed, and thereby facilitating movement to a less hostile environment, potentially promoting survival.

As I said, I'm not trying to attack your arguments, I'm just worried that you are flogging a dead horse with these examples which will discredit an otherwise excellent page. There must be tons of other arguments you can use instead. What do you think? [[User:MattS|MattS]] 17:53, 29 November 2008 (EST)

:Typical liberalism. You are attempting to discredit counterexamples under the guise that you are improving the article. Next time, read the Bible and learn what it says about those who do such things.[[User:Svincent|Svincent]] 20:46, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Pterosaurs==

Where did the writer get the idea that they couldn't fly? I have many books that say they could. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 19:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

: I've seen pictures of them pulling Santa's sleigh through the air, so you must be right!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:: Mr. Schlafly, with all due respect, could you please not insult other people's conceptions?--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:04, 1 December 2008 (EST)

As the person who originally added the statement, I shall take all questions. [http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html Here] is a cite, I will put it in the article presently. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 14:03, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks PhilipV for the site. I would point out that it is only one researcher who makes this claim, and the comment section on the site even explains why it was flawed. To state that biologists do not believe that Pterosaurs could not fly is a mischaracterization of a single article. Now if there were several papers supporting the researcher's claim then that would be different. Perhaps saying "That a researcher made a recent claim" since the article is from this year there has not been much time for others to test the claim. Just to point out, there are physicians who still claim that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there will always be fringe interpretations of data.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Phillip, next time remember to site your reference. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 03:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

OK no problemo ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|''Support our Troops!'']] 22:26, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Unicellular to Multicellular Organisms==
What would constitute a clear transitional form? A group of unicellular organisms that work together to accomplish a function to sustain their life, like digestion of an energy source through shared enzymes? If this is the case bacteria order myxobacteria is a prime example of this. These bacteria work together often to achieve results that are not just based on physical manipulation but chemical. They often will converge on food and increase the concentration of their digestive enzymes to digest the food. They have to do this in close proximately of each other due to the enzymes being unstable; being close together allows the bacteria to produce a stabilizing chemical environment to stabilize the enzymes. In other words, by working together they share chemicals to aid in their ability to digest their food source. So would this be considered an example or social behavior by unicellular organisms (which can only be chemically driven)? I will wait for a few days for responses before editing the article.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Altruism==
Actually Rod, I am afraid you are incorrect. Altruism favors evolution because selfless acts that ensure the survivability of the population allow for the continuation of the genes of the population. Evolution is not based on the individual it is based on the population. For example, a father organism gives his life to protect his offspring, a purely altruistic act, thus allows for the genes of the father to be carried on by the offspring. You have to look at genetic shift on the evidence that once the organism reproduces its evolutionary role is not as important as its offspring therefore allowing for the parent organism to function as a protector of its offspring. If a parent performs the act, it does support evolution because it allows the offspring (or population) a better chance of survival.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:10, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:You really have bought into evolutionism hook, line, and sinker. Altruism is not limited to parents caring for their young. Animals adopt orphaned young of other species. Primates share food with unrelated animals in their group, help the injured, etc. None of these things improve individual survivability, and are thus counter-evolutionary. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:20, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::Actually they do provide for evolution. It does not really matter what the act is, just as long as it does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread. You have to think about altruism in terms of gene dispersion, what helps it spread and what helps it survive, thus favoring evolution. If organisms share among each other then the genes will survive and spread at an increased rate than organisms that do not. Another piece of evidence that shows that altruistic behavior falls in line with evolution is the evidence that parallel and convergent evolution are functions of altruistic behavior between two populations (part of the environmental selective pressures). I believe the point you are missing is that a single mutation in an organism is not enough to cause an evolutionary shift, that mutation must spread; therefore evolutionary shift is based on population and not the individual thus supporting altruistic behaviors due to their impact on the population's survivability over the individual. Perhaps you can counter this argument with some explanation as to why altruism can not be beneficial to evolutionary theory. I would agree that if the organism sacrifices itself before producing offspring then the behavior would counter evolution, however when one removes learned social constructs, you will see that the time an organism develops altruistic behaviors is often after the organism is able to reproduce. As for the comment about buying in, I am a biochemist, if I did not understand evolutionary theory then most of what I study would make no sense, such as seeing the similar metabolic pathways in different species with only slight, and progressive, modifications to differentiate them.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:40, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::''All'' unnecessary action reduces the chance of the population having genetic spread, through wasting of energy. And to suggest that evolution is inherently population based undermines your argument. Any genetic change which improves altruism ''reduce'' the altruistic individual's survivability, thus the altruistic changes are lost. Thus altruism should not be seen in nature, as it destroys its own propagation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 09:43, 18 December 2008 (EST)
::::Rod, all I can say is that you are mistaken. I provided you with several instances where altruistic behavior would allow for genetic dispersion (father giving up life for child), provided you with a hypothetical situation where two populations could benefit from altruistic behavior as compared to populations that do not show similar behaviors and explained in detail why you are mistaken due to your understanding of evolution being based on the individual instead of being based on the population. So to answer your point about wasted energy, populations are not closed systems and evolution is not based on the conservation of energy. So when an organism invests energy in an act where no defined outcome will occur it is not against evolutionary theory, nor is it for due to it being based on the individual once again. However if the energy used did happen to encourage a response from the environment that would improve the gene dispersion and chances of the population's survivability then it truly supports evolution. "All" unnecessary action does not reduce the chance of the population having genetic spread, for example reciprocal altruism: Sharing food is a good example. Suppose an animal captures a food source which is so plentiful that it cannot consume it all alone before it goes off. Sharing it with others may entail getting slightly less food now, for the possibility of more food later (when it might be sorely needed) if the recipients reciprocate the altruistic action. Kin Selection: When adult animals risk their life to distract potential predators away from their offspring they are exhibiting this form of altruism. Such behavior is evolutionarily stable since although it decreases an animal's chances of survival, it increases the chances for its offspring. Multilevel selection theory: Consider, for example, an animal population made up of warring groups. This would entail two levels of selection - between groups and within groups. Within any one group, altruistic behavior would be deselected by the dominance of selfish behavior. However, if altruistic behavior increased the overall fitness of the group, then the groups with the highest proportion of altruists would outperform the more selfish ones. Under appropriate conditions, this alternative selection pressure could dominate the disadvantage of altruism for the individual. Multi-level selection doesn't only occur on these two levels, since animals may be a part of various groups - close family group, extended family, tribe etc. We can consider evolutionary selection to happen on each level simultaneously. This explanation of altruism finds more evidence from anthropological studies which support viewing of groups of humans as adaptive units. According to Sober and Wilson, "the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world." More reading [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/][http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/de%20Waal%20(2008).pdf] As you can see your example supports evolution more than it counters it.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:Able806, I don't have time to read through evolutionist propaganda. You have yet to explain intra-species altruism, which is the key point. Parents dying for their children is obvious in its advantage, but an animal nursing one of another species invariably reduces its ability to propagate its own genes. Dolphins assisting injured humans and animals do so at risk to themselves, with no possible genetic propagation or benefit. So long as ''any'' examples cannot be explained by evolution, it must be discarded; this is the nature of ''science.'' Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 10:28, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Rod, if you would have read my post you would have seen I gave you and example of intra-species altruism, or reciprocal altruism, and the science behind it as well as multi-level theory. As for propaganda, I really do not wish to participate in ad homium attacks against researchers, especially when one refuses to read the information provided. Evidence is evidence, take it as you will, however you claim has been shown to be false and contrary to the purpose of the article. Your trailing statement “Altruism is endowed by God, not Darwin” means nothing in this argument, and is a hook, which I shall not bite. I believe an administrator should settle this issue. Now if you will excuse me, I have articles to write.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

I don't pretend to understand all of this, but I don't think the existence of [[altruism]] either proves or disproves the [[Theory of Evolution]]. Certainly a species whose individuals "do nice things for each other" without getting an immediate reward will survive better than species who are more individualistic. But God might have set it up that way for a reason.

It's fun to speculate on how traits like [[cooperation]] may have "evolved", but until we can read behavior in the [[fossil record]] it's all academic. The only scientific question about evolution is whether it was directed by an [[intelligent designer]] or its was merely due to the "creative" force of [[natural selection]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:Ed, I agree with your statement. Being that Altruism is a behavior, it is not something that can be detected in fossils of organisms that never used tools. As such, using altruism as a counterexample is grasping when there are other examples that have more "meat" if you will. Hence the reason why it should not be a part of this article due to it subtracting from the areas that hold more testable and provable potential.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:55, 18 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe an example would help. A form of altruism has been observed among certain species of vampire bats, where one bat that found a meal (the "lucky bat") would share part of it with another bat (the "unlucky bat"} that didn't find a meal that night. The lucky bat can afford to give up some of its food, while the unlucky bat has to have something, or it will starve; so the exchange helps the unlucky bat more than it hurts the lucky bat. And the next night, the lucky bat might be the unlucky one, and have to depend on a handout. Since he showed himself to be generous the previous night, the other bats know that he's good for a meal for any of them if they need it, so they help him out this night. I heard of this back in college, so I forget all the details, and it's only anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to show how altruism can be a good evolutionary strategy, under certain circumstances.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:54, 18 December 2008 (EST)

==Hair==
Rod, once again another area which you might rethink. Hair is dependent on the rs-3 locus which encodes for the ectodysplasin-A receptor (EDAR), which is required for the initiation of hair development in mammals. This locus is also essential for scale development in fish and reptiles. This locus is the developmental precursor which follows a path similar to the Pax6 in eye development. As for hair being well fossilized, it is in amber but in other types of fossils it fossilizes poorly. Most fossils found in amber are of insects (due to the bugs eating or landing on the plant) not many higher animals are found in amber fossils, was [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7D61139F935A25757C0A960958260 one] of the rare instances that it occurred. I know you are getting your information from AIG or ICR but follow up with it by searching pubmed. You will see articles that have been researched and reviewed that sometimes conflict with AIG or ICR's claims.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:01, 22 December 2008 (EST)

==Vestigiality==
Now I am begining to wonder about your purpose Rod, you have added yet again another false claim. In humans, the coccyx, the plica semilunaris, the pseudogene L-gulonolactone oxidase among many other muscles that serve no current purpose but had purpose in the past are all considered vestigial structures. To claim there are none in a human is false and further not supported by fact. So back to the orginal purpose of this article, perhaps we could stick to the valid counterexamples to evolution, instead of those that have been shown to be false.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 18:59, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:Every claim of "vestigiality" (an absurdity, I might add) has been proven false about humans, as far as I am aware. The claim about tonsils resulted in the needless death of thousands in improperly subjecting them to anesthesia and removing their tonsils. Are you willing at least to admit that? Please improve your spelling and also spell out your far-fetched claim that something else is vestigial in humans. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:08, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:I find it curious that you see it necessary to attack sourced, well-established problems with evolutionary theory, with nothing more than your own propagandist assertions, no doubt ingrained by an evolutionist education. Please, either back up your claims or leave these facts alone and contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If you do some reading with an ''open mind'', you just might find the natural world is far different than you were taught. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly, to start, not every claim of vestigiality has been proven false about humans. The three items I listed above are examples that have withstood testing for now. I do not disagree that there is a possibility that they may be reclassified as more information is gathered, just like tonsils, however it is unlikely. Here are some published references for the items I listed: Coccyx <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8059973</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/677043</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6373560</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3284435</ref>, Plica<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15255295?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>
L-gul<ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10572964</ref><ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8175804</ref>. I have no problem admitting the deaths of people placed under anesthesia however to claim that the removal of the tonsils caused the death, well that is something that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, which considering the millions that have their tonsils removed does not seem to be the cause. I believe the key is the definition of vestige: the remnant of a structure that functioned in a previous stage of species or individual development. Vestigiality can be proven by morphology and sequence testing, pretty clear if you ask me. As for my spelling I apologize, English is not my first or primary language and I wrote the comment while traveling for the holiday, failing to spell check before I posted as I normally do. Rod, as for your comment, I agree with many of the items posted on this article as shown in one of my previous posts, however what you have posted recently is easily shown to be incorrect thus allowing for the question to be raised what are your intentions for this article? You keep trying to label my assertions as propaganda; however you provide no published evidence contrary to my statements. As I have said before I am a Biochemist, a field which relies heavily on the ToE so it is only reasonable for me to have a favorable view of evolution. I am a scientist which also means I question everything, including ToE. Aschlafly’s comment of the fall colors actually intrigues me. I know the biochemical pathways that lead to the chemical reaction in the leaves but I only understand that the difference in color is caused by the concentrations of the chemicals in the leaves. Not being a neurobiologist, I do not know what wavelengths of light stimulate what parts of the brain which would be needed to scientifically understand Aschlafly’s statement. I have supported my claim in the links above, perhaps you should open your mind to the understanding that perhaps not everything is as it first seems. As for being taught, well consider that I actually perform research so my friend I use experience more often than not.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:38, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't allow ideological [[censorship]] here. Try Wikipedia if you want to insist on censoring criticism of evolution, though I oppose censorship by Wikipedia also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)

==Jellyfish fact==

The article appears to lapse into the faulty "god of the gaps" way of thinking here. If the article is willing to state that the phenomenon is only "apparently" unrelated to 'evolution'. I've always felt the integrity of a conservative argument is based on the percentage of unimpeachable truths within (as opposed to the liberal priorities placed on 1. quotes from famous peoples and 2. quotes from liars) so if you don't mind, I would like to trim down the list to only those statements which are ironclad. [[User:MICasey|MICasey]] 09:24, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

: You make valid points, but a complete failure of evolution to explain a basic undeniable fact (such as the jellyfish behavior), and a lack of any imaginable evolutionary explanation, is a valid counterexample to the theory.

: Evolutionists claim that their theory explains all of life. If they want to reduce their sweeping claims, then we could reduce the list accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:02, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

==Several points==

I have been trying to decide whether to list all my comments here or to distribute them throughout the page. Since my goal is, in part, to summarize and comment on several debates, I have decided to list them in one place; I hope this does not cause confusion or offense. The comments below are not intended to be comprehensive--there are more issues I would like to discuss when I have more time to do the proper research. These are merely the ones that I (as a clinician and scientist) can address readily. I hope my discussion is not too technical, and I will do my best to answer any relevant questions that arise.

* Immune system: "the immune system is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection." False. Plenty of humans are born with immune systems that are partially defective and thus not thoroughly developed, yet they are able to resist some infections. For example, people with selective immunoglobulin A deficiency have a somewhat greater susceptibility to respiratory and urinary infections, but they can resist other infections normally. Much the same is true of some complement deficiencies. Similarly, invertebrates have only some of the immune defenses that vertebrates have, yet invertebrates manage to resist some infections: specifically [[invertebrates]] and [[vertebrates]] both have [[defensins]], but the [[adaptive immune system]] only seems to exist in vertebrates. Ref. 2 in the original page (which I didn't add) provides other examples. Thus, the immune system can be reduced into component parts, and organisms possessing only some of those component parts can resist infection. Recommendation: This claim should be deleted.

* Fossils: "the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the fossil record." Not a single reference is provided to support or explain this claim. I am aware that creationists often make this point, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable could post a link to a relevant discussion. Recommendation: This claim should be defended or removed.

* Ploidy: "Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4." This is simply false. The example of [[Down syndrome]] is sufficient to refute this point, since individuals with trisomy 21 can indeed mate with euploid individuals. So can those with XYY syndrome (note: NOT XXY (Klinefelter's) syndrome, which is a different matter entirely). Polyploidy is reasonably common in plants: for discussion, see the recent paper by Wood et al. (2009) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the second sentence does not follow from the first. Remember that mating is not necessary for reproduction or speciation in some species, and thus is not necessary for evolution; species can reproduce parthenogenically or via vegetative propagation. That said, the above discussion gives me the impression that the statement in the article does not accurately reflect the views of [[Aschlafly]] and others. Recommendation: This claim should be revised or removed.

* Bats and sonar: There are several problems with this argument. I'll confine myself to the two most glaring issues. First: "An animal that can't fly doesn't need [sonar.]" False. Dolphins and whales have sonar and can't fly; as discussed above, the same is true of shrews and Madagascarian tenrecs. Second: "The bats can't fly without sonar." False; even bats that *can* use echolocation don't *have* to use it (see http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/22/0804408105.abstract for evidence; those who cannot access scientific papers may want to look at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080826-bat-sonar.html instead). I fear that I'm missing something critical here, as the first issue was reinstated even though the ample evidence against it was never discussed. Perhaps someone can explain why this happened, but failing that: Recommendation: This claim should be removed.

* Prostate: "Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design." No. According to evolutionary theory, natural selection will only eliminate a design if it has a negative effect on reproduction. Prostate problems (which are very common, hence the claim about "poor design") tend to occur after a man has passed his prime reproductive years (for just one reference on prevalence rates, see http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/449623-overview). Heck, sometimes these problems don't start until *his children* have passed their peak reproductive years! The impact on reproductive fitness is thus negligible, and evolutionary theory would not require that the prostate (or prostate problems) be eliminated. Recommendation: This claim should be removed.

* Bad design: "While evolutionists argue that there are examples of '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!" False, for the same reason as in the prostate example. Evolution only suggests that a design will be eliminated if it has negative effects (relative to some other existing design). The 'flaws' in the human spine presumably refer to the high frequency of lower back pain or injury, which rarely if ever would have an effect on reproduction. I do not know what the putative flaw is in the sinuses, so I cannot evaluate this claim. Recommendation: This claim should be clarified or removed.

* Teeth: "We have the perfect number of teeth to fit in our mouths." False--consider wisdom teeth, which are regularly impacted and require surgery (see http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0306p158.pdf or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11220165 for a review of prevalence rates of wisdom tooth impaction). Recommendation: This claim should be removed.

[[User:Reaganetics|Reaganetics]] 11:37, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

:Reaganetics, you've nitpicked about a half-dozen minor examples from nearly 40 counterexamples. An open mind is a prerequisite to intelligent discussion; we're not here to reassure your preconceptions. If you can open your mind and admit that evolution may well be false, then let's discuss as long as you like. But if you're an atheist or someone who bought into the theory of evolution as a student and who refuses to accept that you could have been duped, then I'll spend my time on translating the Bible here instead. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

::I am certainly interested in discussing these issues, and, as I repeatedly noted, I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I might be wrong. That is why I repeatedly suggested that I was open to clarifications or corrections, and that is why I suggested that certain counterexamples be *strengthened* by adding references.

::To be frank, that is also why I find your comment to be a disappointment. It presents no evidence to counter any of my arguments. It characterizes my arguments as nitpicking (how is it nitpicking to point out declarative statements that appear to be false?) and characterizes the points I criticized as minor (if the points are too minor to merit criticism, why are they presented at all? If truth is important, shouldn't we be interested in ensuring the accuracy of all of our statements, minor or major?)

::Perhaps someone else can provide a more substantive response. [[User:JasonS|JasonS]] 22:24, 8 October 2009 (EDT) (formerly Reaganetics)

:::JasonS, you say only that ''you'' "might be wrong." You apparently won't concede that the theory of evolution might be wrong. Atheists, for example, insist that the theory of evolution must be true regardless of how many counterexamples are shown to them. They are not open to the possibility that the theory of evolution might be false.

:::If you're not open-minded about the issue, then it's not an intelligent discussion. It's a fool's errand. There are nearly 40 counterexamples listed and your objections above to a mere half-dozen are plainly deficient. If you demonstrate an open mind then I'd be happy to discuss further; otherwise my time is obviously better spent elsewhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:42, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Hmm. I thought I had been clearer. I am willing to accept that evolution might be true, false, or true in some regards and false in other regards. (Which of these possibilities are you open to?) I want to know what the best arguments on both sides are. I saw problems with some of the arguments here, so I pointed those problems out.

::::I'm therefore sorry to see that you continue to be unresponsive. You claim that my objections are "plainly deficient," but you don't explain why. It's noteworthy, I think, that I provided evidence to support my claims, but you seem unwilling or unable to support yours. I'm also not sure why it's relevant that I only criticized six out of 40 examples (is there a minimum number I should criticize to qualify for serious debate? As I said in my original comment, I will criticize more when I have time to do the proper research). Finally, I'm a bit puzzled by your approach to this topic. I find it peculiar for someone to show up and post a comment only to declare (repeatedly) that he thinks it's best that he spend his time elsewhere. Why not just spend your time elsewhere?

::::As before, perhaps there is someone else who can discuss these issues on a more substantive level. Just to be clear what I mean by that, let me give the example I give to my students. A substantive discussion involves more than mere rhetoric; it involves the presentation of facts and evidence (supported by reliable sources) and the discussion of the logical consequences of those facts and that evidence. Anything else is not terribly useful, at least in science. [[User:JasonS|JasonS]] 10:47, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

If you are HONESTLY open minded about this, then it won't be a waste of time to answer your questions.

* Immune system: Even though various animals have different immune systems with different methods, the HUMAN immune system is irreducibly complex because it requires both identifying and mounting specific responses. If T cell receptors did not exist, then an adaptive response would be impossible, but an adaptive response is necessary for T cell receptors to have any use at all.

* Fossils: [http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm][http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/fossil_record.htm] or our own [[Evolution]] article.

* Ploidy: The point of the statement is that these multiple chromosomes are detrimental and unlikely, so that one species cannot evolve additional chromosomes.

* Bats and sonar: First, swimming is basically flying in water. The point is that animals which can walk (like the supposed ancestor of the bat) wouldn't use sonar. Second: I looked at your source, and it said that when not using sonar, "In the wild they could rely on spatial memory in familiar surroundings, and they could also use vision in moonlight that would aid them in locating obstacles." Well, there you go. If ever they don't use sonar, it's because they've used it so often in a spot that they remember it well. Even though I can walk around in my apartment at 2 AM without turning on the lights, I would still be right in saying that in general, I need lights to get around.

* Prostate: You would need to dispute this for EVERY prostate-having species to have any validity to this. Additionally, men are capable of having children into very old age.

* Bad design: Actually, evolution is repeatedly claimed to be responsible for tons of things that don't have reproductive value. Evolutionists claim, for example, that people live to such long age to help raise grandchildren.

* Teeth: Really? Because people had teeth for thousands of years before that surgery was developed and they all fit into our mouths.

I hope this can answer your questions and put an end to this silly debate. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 11:51, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

== Kidneys ==

The phrase "The existence of ''two'' kidneys, which is unnecessary in most people..." seems to be a bit of a stretch. Most people can live a normal, healthy life with only one kidney, but have to take many precautions to ensure that the kidney is not damaged or over-worked. High blood pressure, proteinuria, and poor glomerular filtration are all relatively common ailments for those with only one kidney. I really don't view this as an argument for or against evolution (or creationism for that matter). --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:40, 2 November 2009 (EST)
For the time being, I'm going to remove this claim. I wanted to wait to see what was said about it, but feel free to revert if you'd like to keep it in. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:43, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:No, I don't think you're right. "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."[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] Of course, many people have high blood pressure and other problems, and having only one rather two kidneys would not give someone an advantage. But the second kidney is superfluous for most people and has no evolutionary justification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::I think the quality of life has a lot to do with the rigorous screening of the patients prior to donation, as cited in the article. They can have no trace of diabetes, high blood pressure, or any sort of renal disease. As I said, one ''can'' live with only one kidney, and many go on to lead a normal, healthy life—as the article says. I think this falls in somewhat of a gray area in evolution/creation debate. Perhaps the function of the other kidney is to "pick up the slack" (?) if the other one fails, as is known to happen—the prevalence of renal disease is steadily increasing. This could be beneficial from both a design standpoint and an evolutionary standpoint. That's the main reason I took it out. I'm not trying to overstep any bounds, though, and just hope to keep the credibility of all arguments on this site sound. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 22:11, 2 November 2009 (EST)

:::I have an open mind about this. But it's obvious from the Scienceline article that people exaggerate their need for a second kidney. All evidence is that the second kidney is superfluous in most people. So why do people exaggerate the need for a second kidney? Because evolution teaches that everything has a utilitarian purpose, and it misleads people into this false perception. The result is made clear by the article: 75,000 people need a donation of that extra kidney that most people don't need, but don't donate it due to being misled by the theory of evolution into thinking they do need it. That's a heavy cost caused by a politically motivated falsehood.

:::Design explains the extra kidney: symmetry, or even to have an extra one to give another person in need. It could even be there as a test for us. That's a challenging thought.

:::Evolution cannot plausibly explain the superfluous kidney, and hence its inclusion in this list. The theory claims that populations evolve, but there is no reason for an entire organ to develop which most of the population does not need. Pre-obesity, when evolution supposedly occurred, at most a tiny percentage of people would have had a need for a second kidney, far too few to just an entire population developing it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 2 November 2009 (EST)

::::Following your logic, why didn't God give humans two hearts as well? I agree with you in your belief of creationism, and I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your belief that just because you say it, it becomes a fact.[[User:Ssmith12|Ssmith12]] 17:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Typical liberal response. The reason God didn't make humans with two hearts because humans don't need two hearts. Also, your liberal dissent and vandalism is very obvious. Next time, be more logical and read the Bible, the most logical book in the world.[[User:Biblekid|Biblekid]]17:56, 12 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Andy Schlafly already admitted that the extra kidney is, well, extra, and that a human doesn't need two kidneys. I don't want to appear as a vandal on this site, I just wanted to make sure Mr. Schlafly shows a bit of humility, and perhaps quote a bible verse rather than just go on with his musing.[[User:Ssmith12|Ssmith12]] 18:44, 12 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::There's no logic in your objection. An intelligent designer is not constrained by an idiotic straight-jacket of consistency.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==The Greatest show on earth==
I am not sure if this should go here, but I had no answer on the Richard Dawkins talk page, and this may develop into a counter-example.
This is a copy of my post:
I have just finished reading Dawkins' latest book. Once you remove the usual authoritative evolutionist arguments, there is surprisingly (or not that surprisingly, actually) little information in there. I am quite impressed by one argument though: the comparative DNA 'evidence' described on page 153. If is my personal feeling that the results have most certainly been fabricated. In this case, a big blow could be dealt to the evolutionists by exposing the fraud. It is also possible that the results are correct, but the interpretation is wrong, or biased. Unfortunately, I am afraid I can not see, by myself, how the argument goes wrong. Could someone explain to me how to refute this particular statement from the evolutionists? Thanks in advance,
--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 11:20, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:I wouldn't be surprised if they ''had'' been fabricated, since that's the norm for evolutionist "science." Their interpretation is biased in any case, as comparative DNA evidence shows the single hand of the creator. Leave it to evolutionists to twist anything to deny God, though. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 11:25, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:: I don't really understand your point. The evidence could be fabricated, yes. Are you saying that even if it were not, it would actually be in favor of creationism? That would be truly wonderful, and a very good argument in a debate. Do you know where I can find more information on this? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 12:28, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::: Well, I'm not about to buy Dawkins' book, so I don't know the "details" of the evidence he's presenting, but you might want to look at [[baraminology]], look up the distinctions between micro- and macro- evolution, etc. Various sets of animals have extremely similar DNA because they're descended from the same baramins, or ''types'' that were on the Ark. Corruption of genetic information produces microevolution - speciation within those types, leaving a genetic footprint in the form of similarities which can be found through the study of comparative DNA. Genesis establishes that God spoke all beings into existence, with distinctly ''one'' creation event and ''one'' common language. This prediction is proven as all beings share DNA, protein chirality, etc. And as God's creation is parsimonious, we see great efficiency throughout creation in the reuse of ingenious parts. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::: And this genetic similarity, this "reuse", is exactly the opposite of what we'd see if evolution were possible. If life could come from nothing, you wouldn't expect the same thing to keep coming up the same way every time. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 12:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::: Yes, that is one of the great contradictions of evolution. On one hand, evolutionists claim that if you ran evolutionary history again, it would be totally different, and on the other, they claim that the same things (like eyes) will keep popping up, even though this is statistically impossible. Then they fabricate things like the evolutionary history of the eye, which is entirely speculation, as none of them have any actual primitive eyes to look at. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::: The eye is a great example of my point, but you and I both know Dawkins will never acknowledge that. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 12:54, 13 December 2009 (EST)

The gene-based arguments for evolution have been a complete failure. I'm surprised Dawkins makes another run at it. For example, gene sequences appear, disappear, and then reappear in the alleged evolutionary path, which suggests a common designer rather than an evolutionary process. I'll add this to our accompanying list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::My in-law lent me his copy (he's an evolutionist) so I did not have to give money to further Dawkins' agenda. Thanks for your suggestions, I have been introduced to these subjects by our wonderful pastor and I find them fascinating. I still have a problem though (if we suppose the evidence hasn't been fabricated, for the sake of the discussion). I will try to expose briefly what Dawkins says in his book, because it is different than what I have seen so far. From what I understand, some scientists took eleven species (from different baramins) and studied five genes that can be found in these species. For each of the genes, they compared the eleven versions (one for each of the species) and they extracted the handful of family trees which would require the least modifications. The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form. My problem is that I have to admit that the argument makes sense, and I have to resort to arguing that the evidence must have been fabricated. I personally think that the evidence is correct, and that there is a perfectly sensible creationist explanation that eludes me. Would you have any ideas on what that explanation is, or know someone who has? --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::Please elaborate on (and correct?) your statement that "The argument is that the five gene concur on which trees are the most parsimonious, something which should presumably not happen if God had created the species in their present form."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:15, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::Well, this is the final form of Dawkins' argument. His line of reasoning goes like this: " If God created these eleven species and they have no common ancestor, we should not expect consensus on the most parsimonious trees." According to him, for example, the version of gene A in the pig could be similar to the version of gene A in the rabbit, while the version of gene B would be similar to the one in the kangaroo. Thus, each gene would have its own 'family tree' and there would be no consensus. What he finds is that all five genes vote for a few family trees, and he argues that this proves evolution. What he is saying is that he can think of no other reason why absolutely no gene should be more similar between the kangaroo and the pig than between the rabbit and the pig. As for myself, I can not think of a reason either, so I have to surmise that the results are incorrect. I hope I can find an explanation here, since it seems to be one of the best on-line resource for Creationism. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 13:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::::The logic of this argument seems convoluted because it is based on a faulty premise: what do we think God would have done? That's an absurd question. No line of reasoning can depend on it. It is reasonable to infer design from something that is statistically implausible or impossible (e.g., finding a gold watch on a beach), but trying to reason in the opposite direction is illogical (e.g., drawing conclusions from the lack of a gold watch on a beach).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::If I understand correctly, that means that no argument can be based on our preconceptions on how God should act. I like this, because it has the additional effect of removing the evolutionists' "argument from poor design". Who are we to judge God's acts? Solving several problems at once is the hallmark of elegant explanations. Thank you very much. --[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 15:37, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-01-22T03:32:48Z

SamF: Archived the nitpicking, maybe I should have just deleted it.

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1 Archive 1]]

== My plans for this article ==

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

2010-01-22T02:14:47Z

SamF: Created page with 'The Tiny house movement is a non-movement towards smaller homes and simpler lifestyles. It began in earnest in the 1990's, but has accelerated in the [[http://conservapedia.com/F...'

Archaeopteryx

2010-01-22T01:14:07Z

SamF: Started to work on it, Hoyle led the team, and is not a science nobody. I plan to complete a profile of the team and their 6 findings, 4 of which are already in the article.

{{Taxonomy
|name=Archaeopteryx (extinct)
|image=Archaeopteryx1.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Aves
|subclass=
|infraclass=
|superorder=
|order=Archaeopterygiformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=Archaeopterygidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Archaeopteryx
|subgenus=
|species=A. siemensii
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''''Archaeopteryx''''', an extinct [[bird]] known from a small number of [[fossil | fossils]], is considered by [[evolution|evolutionary]] biologists to be the first species of [[bird]] to appear on Earth.<ref>"Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird in the fossil record." - John Wells [http://www.discovery.org/a/1106] </ref>

''Archaeopteryx'' is sometimes presented as evidence of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of [[reptile]]s, making it appear to be a so-called "[[transitional form]]" between reptiles and birds.

There are two criticisms of the ''Archaeopteryx''. The preeminent British physicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, determined it to be fraudulent. Another criticism is even if ''Archaeopteryx'' existed, it was a true bird and not a transitional form suggesting evolution.

== Specimens ==
There are currently ten known specimens of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>Wikipedia claims an eleventh specimen, but only lists ten.</ref>.
All have been found in the limestone of the Solnhofen area in Germany.<ref name="CFM">Magovern</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
! Speciman || When found || Location fount || People involved || Current location || Comments
|-
| Feather<ref name="CN">Nedlin, 1999 (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref> || 1860 || Near Solnhofen || Described by H. von Meyer || Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde in [[Berlin]] || Single feather only.
|-
| London specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1861 || Near Langenaltheim || Announced by H. v Meyer || [[British Museum of Natural History]], [[London]] || Missing the head and neck
|-
| Berlin specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1877 || Near Blumenberg || Described by W. Dames || Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde || The most complete specimen
|-
| Maxberg specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1958 || Near Langenaltheim || Found and owned by Eduard Opitsch || Was in Maxberg Museum but now missing || Torso
|-
| Haarlem Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1855 || Near Riedenburg || Described by H. von Meyer || Teylers Museum, [[Haarlem]] || Not classified as ''Archaeopteryx'' until 1970. Not very complete
|-
| Eichstätt Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1951 || Near Workerszell || Described by Peter Wellnhofer || Jura Museum, [[Eichstätt]] || Smallest specimen
|-
| Solnhofen Specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1960s || Near Eichstätt || Described by Wellnhofer || Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Solnhofen || Missing some pieces, but fairly complete
|-
| Munich specimen or Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein specimen<ref name="CN" /><ref name="CFM" /> || 1991 || Near Langenaltheim || Described by Wellnhofer || Paläontologisches Museum München, [[Munich]] || First specimen to be found with an intact sternum, proving ''Archaeopteryx'' was capable of powered flight like modern birds
|-
| Thermopolis specimen<ref>The Wyoming Dinosaur Center]</ref><ref>Hartman, 2005</ref> || || || || Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, [[Wyoming]] || Had been privately owned in Switzerland
|}

== Criticism ==

===Evidence of fraud===

In 1983, a half-dozen leading [[British]] scientists led by noted British [[Fred Hoyle|Radio-astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle]] carefully studied the plates and counter-plates from the two best ''Archaeopteryx'' specimens, and found evidence of forgery.<ref>Sarfati, 2000</ref> They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen do not match.<ref name="four">British Journal of Photography (March-June 1985). W.J. Broad, "Authenticity of Bird Fossil is Challenged," N.Y. Times C1, C14 (May 7, 1985). T. Nield, "Feathers Fly Over Fossil 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1467:49-50. G. Vines, "Strange Case of Archaeopteryx 'Fraud'," New Scientist 1447:3.</ref>
They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing.<ref name="four" />
They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand.<ref name="four" />
They also found that etching process had used cement blobs.<ref name="four" />
When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists.<ref name="four" />
The same [[British]] Museum had been responsible for the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud.

The [[Nobel Prize]] committee punished Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] for exposing this fraud by passing him over and giving its award to his underling for work that Hoyle was the undisputed leader on.

===not a transitional===
The second criticism of the ''Archaeopteryx'', that it is not a transitional form, has been strengthened by the work of anatomist Dr. David Menton<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_menton.asp</ref> suggesting that ''Archaeopteryx'' is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all. In 1994, an article explained that the ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially a flying bird, with a large [[cerebellum]] and [[visual cortex]]. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status -- a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not (the South American hoatzin, ''Opisthocomus hoazin'', also shares with ''Archaeopteryx'' clawed digits in its wings, albeit as juveniles). Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />

== Evidence for evolution? ==
In 1993, an article was published in ''Science'' magazine arguing that the ''Archaeopteryx'' had fully-formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings<ref>Feduccia, 1993</ref>

While most evolutionary scientists agree that the flight feathers of ''Archaeopteryx'' were essentially modern, several papers since have argued against Feduccia's claims about the anatomy of ''Archaeopteryx''<ref>"The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx," ''Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society,'' 149:97-116, 2007.</ref> Specimens such as the Thermoplis Specimen <ref>Wyoming Dinosaur Center.</ref> are thought to clearly show that the arms, wishbone, tail, feet, hips, and palate of ''Archaeopteryx'' were more like meat-eating theropod dinosaurs than modern birds.

The brain of ''Archaeopteryx'' was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex.<ref name="cw94">Wieland, 1994</ref>
Critics point out that its teeth are irrelevant to its alleged transitional status, as a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not.<ref name="cw94" />
Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved.
In most vertebrates, including many reptiles, only the mandible moves.<ref name="cw94" />

== Bibliography ==

* Anon., [http://www.wyodino.org/research/?item=archaeopteryx ''Archaeopteryx'': The Thermopolis Specimen] The Wyoming Dinosaur Center
* Bakalar, Nicholas, [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1201_051201_archaeopteryx.html Earliest Bird Had Feet Like Dinosaur, Fossil Shows], National Geographic News, 1 December, 2005
* Feduccia, A., "Evidence from Claw Geometry Indicating Arboreal Habits of Archaeopteryx," ''Science'', 259(5096):790-793, February 5, 1993 ([http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-8075%2819930205%293%3A259%3A5096%3C790%3AEFCGIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1 abstract])
* [[Duane Gish|Gish, Duane]], [http://www.icr.org/article/321/ As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won't Fly] ''Impact'', September 1, 1989
* Hartman, Scott, [http://skeletaldrawing.com/Archaeopteryx/archaeo.htm Clarification statement on Thermopolis specimen] 1st December 2005 (The Wyoming Dinosaur Center).
* Magovern, Charlie and Florence, [http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/casts/archaeopteryx/data.html Archaeopteryx]
* Nedlin, Chris, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#specimens All About Archaeopteryx], 1999 (The TalkOrigins Archive)
* [[Jonathan Sarfati|Sarfati, Jonathan]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3653 Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”], Creation Ministries International, March 24, 2000
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], Chapter 4 of ''Refuting Evolution''.
* [[Carl Wieland|Wieland, Carl]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp Archaeopteryx], ''Creation'' 1(1):12–16, June 1978.
* Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/909/ Bird evolution flies out the window], ''Creation'' 16(4):16–19, September 1994

==See also==
*[[Feathered dinosaurs]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Extinct Animals]]
[[Category:Birds]]