Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Steve Jobs

2011-11-13T19:24:32Z

Samsonnn: /* Biography */

[[Image:Jobs.jpg|thumb|right|160px]]
'''Steve Paul Jobs''' (1955-2011)<ref>http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/</ref>; born in Los Altos CA served as the CEO of [[Apple Inc.|Apple, Inc.]] until August 24, 2011, which he co-founded with [[Steve Wozniak]] in 1976. He also co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. In 2010, Steve Jobs was recognized as the “best-performing CEO in the world.”<ref>[http://blog.intego.com/2010/01/06/steve-jobs-worlds-best-ceo/ Steve Jobs, World's Best CEO], [[Intego|blog.intego.com]], January 6, 2010.</ref> Steve Jobs grew up in the apricot orchards which later became known as [[Silicon Valley]], and lived there with his wife and three children until his death on October 5, 2011.<ref>http://www.geocities.com/franktau/History1.html</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576410753210811910.html?mod=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline/ Steven Paul Jobs, 1955-2011], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 6, 2011.</ref>

==Biography==
Jobs reportedly claimed that he left [[Christianity]] when he was thirteen and saw a Life magazine picture of starving children.<ref>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44979333#.TqN5x0cRqO8</ref> That story, however, sounds implausibly similar to the reason given by [[Buddha]] for founding [[Buddhism]], a belief system that Jobs later found attractive. Jobs was, in fact, similar to many California teenagers in the 1970s who did what they liked, while rejecting Christianity. But that all changed when he found out about his cancer. "Ever since I've had cancer, I've been thinking about (God) more. And I find myself believing a bit more. Maybe it's because I want to believe in an afterlife. That when you die, it doesn't just all disappear."
<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-shocker-bill-gates-should-have-dropped-acid/?test=faces#ixzz1biO9g7Pl Steve Jobs Shocker: Bill Gates Should Have Dropped Acid, Fox news, October 24, 2011]</ref>

Jobs left Apple in the mid-1980s after losing control of the company, but later returned in the mid-1990s to eventually restore it to preeminence. He was credited with overseeing the development and marketing of the Macintosh, the iPad, the iPhone, and the iPod.

Steve Jobs co-founded [[Pixar]] Animation Studios in 1986. Pixar merged with The [[Walt Disney Company]] in 2006, and Jobs served on Disney's board of directors. Jobs was one the very few persons to successfully run a company that takes a horizontal diversification approach (selling and marketing a variety of products that would appeal to their original consumer base). He was also one of the [[adoption success stories]].

::''I love beautiful objects. I love creating them. Negative people upset me... Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.''

Jobs co-invented 313 Apple patents, mostly on designs rather than as utility patients. This is far more than most technology executives, such as [[Bill Gates]].

Jobs donated a modest amount (relative to his wealth) of $150,000 in soft-money to causes related to the [[Democratic Party]],<ref>http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steve_Jobs.php</ref> but it is likely that Jobs supported liberal causes simply to further his own businesses, rather than based on his personal views.<ref>http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072</ref> There are strong indications that Jobs became more [[conservative]] on issues like the [[public schools]] as he grew older. When he met with [[Barack Obama]], Jobs was sharply critical of his policies. {{citation needed}}

== Awards ==
National Technology Medal from President Reagan in 1985, before founding NeXT; Jefferson Award for Public Service in 1987; Entrepreneur of the Decade by Inc. Magazine in 1989. [http://www.theapplemuseum.com/index.php?id=49]

==External links==
*[http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jobs.html Steve Jobs] Apple-Macintosh computers-iPods.
*[http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Jobs.html Steve Paul Jobs]
*[http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html "You've got to find what you love," Jobs says] Stanford Report, June 14, 2005.
*[http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/09/st_essayjobs_ceo/ Steve Jobs, the Perfect CEO], ''Wired Magazine'', September 27, 2011.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jobs, Steve}}
[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Business People]]

Talk:John Maynard Keynes

2011-11-13T18:12:59Z

Samsonnn:

== interesting article on Keynes indicating he was an arrogant and corrupt man ==

Here is an interesting article on Keynes which appears to show that he was a prideful and dishonest person: http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/01/john-maynard-keynes-the-stealth-enemy-of-human-freedom/ For example, he appears to have pretended to read a book that was an economics work that was written in German and the claim he it contained nothing new. It later came out that he Keynes could not read German. After all is said and done, Keynes appears to be have been an arrogant and corrupt man. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:43, 22 January 2011 (EST)

I am curious about calling Keynes a pedophile, there is no proof of this on the interent. Is it still ok to put this in Conservapedia.

Arrogant and homosexual, but evidence as being a pedaphile? There is not even any reference to it in the article. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 18:43, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, there is no evidence of pedophilia anywhere. I can find no reliable source on the internet which has any. I think that this is just a childish rumour that the author invented. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 13:12, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Mars

2011-11-13T17:58:43Z

Samsonnn: Created Martian Geology section

''For the [[Roman]] god of war, see [[Mars (god)]]''

{{Planet|image=Mars Viking.jpg
|caption=Mars photographed by [[Viking Orbiter]]s
|symbol=Mars symbol.svg
|discname=Known to ancients
|origname=Roman god of war
|order=4
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=206,620,000 km<ref name=marsfact>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html Mars Fact Sheet]." National Space Science Data Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], November 29, 2007. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=249,230,000 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|semimajor=227,920,000 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|bode=1.6 AU
|circumference=1,429,033,627 km
|eccentricity=0.0935<ref name=marsfact/>
|sidereal=686.980 da<ref name=marsfact/>
|synodic=779.94 da<ref name=marsfact/>
|orbitspeed=24.077 km/s
|inclination=1.850°<ref name=marsfact/>
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=24.6229 h<ref name=marsfact/>
|solarday=24.6597 h<ref name=marsfact/>
|rotatespeed=465.11 m/s
|axialtilt=25.19°<ref name=marsfact/>
|mass=6.4185 * 1023 kg<ref name=marsfact/>
|density=3,933 kg/m³<ref name=marsfact/>
|surfacegrav=3.71 m/s²<ref name=marsfact/>
|escapespeed=5.03 km/s<ref name=marsfact/>
|meanradius=3389.5 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|equatorradius =3396.2 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|polarradius=3376.2 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|surfacearea=144,800,000 km²
|mintemp=140 K<ref name=Arnett>Arnett, Bill. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html Entry for Mars]." ''The <s>Nine</s> 8 Planets'', September 26, 2006. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>
|meantemp=218 K<ref name=Arnett/>
|maxtemp=300 K<ref name=Arnett/>
|moons=2
|composition=Rock
|color=Red
|albedo=0.15<ref name=marsfact/>
|pmdm=2.1 * 1018 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=1.51 * 1023 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=535 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=370.83 a<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
}}
'''Mars''' is the fourth planet from the [[Sun]], after [[Mercury]], [[Venus]], and [[Earth]]. It is called "The Red Planet" on account of the iron oxide that covers much of its suface.

== Ancient knowledge and naming ==
Mars has the [[Rome|Roman]] name of the classical god of war. This name in turn derives from the [[Greece|Greek]] name ''Ares'' for this god. (The traditional symbol of Mars is his shield and spear.) The ancient [[Egypt]]ians simply called Mars ''Her Descher'', or "the red one."<ref name=Hamilton>Hamilton, Calvin J. "[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mars.htm Entry for Mars]." ''Views on the Solar System'', 2008. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref> The [[Hindu]]s call Mars Mangala, one of the Navagraha.<ref name=ucar>"[http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mythology/mangala.html&edu=high Mangala]." ''Windows to the Universe'', University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, University of Michigan, September, 2000. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref> The [[Maya]] people also tracked Mars regularly.

== Orbital characteristics ==
Mars is in a highly elliptical orbit around the Sun and maintains an average distance slightly more than 1.5 AU. The synodic period of Mars is roughly 26 months. This fact makes Mars a particularly difficult object to explore, because opportunities to launch a rocket probe to Mars occur so far apart in time.

== Rotational characteristics ==
Mars' sidereal and solar days are only slightly longer than the days of earth. This fact has led long-term Mars mission planners to adopt a permanent system for keeping time "local" to Mars. The first mission to use this "Mars solar clock" was [[Viking 1]] in 1976.<ref name=Allison>Allison, Michael, and Schmunk, Robert. "[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/mars24/help/notes.html Technical Notes on Mars Solar Time as Adopted by the Mars24 Sunclock]." Goddard Institute for Space Studies, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], May 20, 2008. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

== Physical characteristics ==
Mars is half the size of Earth and has about 11% of earth's mass. The large proportion of [[iron]] in Mars' clay-like topsoil gives Mars its distinctive color.

The weather on Mars is seasonal, on account of Mars's axial inclination. Yet because Mars's orbit is so eccentric, "summer" and "winter" on the northern and southern hemispheres can vary greatly. Temperatures vary from 140 K to 300 K, with an average temperature of 210 K. (The freezing point of [[water]] is 273.15 K.)

=== Atmosphere ===
Mars' atmosphere is quite thin and has an average pressure of 6.36 mb or 0.636% of that of earth. Its chief components are 95.32% [[carbon dioxide]], 2.7% [[nitrogen]], 1.6% [[argon]], 0.13% [[oxygen]], and 0.08% [[carbon monoxide]]. In addition it has trace amounts of [[water]] (210 ppm), [[nitrogen oxide]] (100 ppm), [[neon]] (2.5 ppm), hydrogen-deuterium oxide (HDO) (0.85 ppm), [[krypton]] (0.3 ppm), and [[xenon]] (0.08 ppm). Winds on Mars vary in speed from 2-7 m/s in summer to 5-10 m/s in fall, though the [[Project Viking]] landers have recorded winds varying from 17-30 m/s during dust storms that have swept past the landing sites.<ref name=marsfact/>

Recent warming trends on Mars, including an apparent partial melt of the polar ice caps, have led at least one scientist to question the widely circulating theories of [[global warming]] on earth. Specifically, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, asserts that the sun, and not any activity specific to the earth, must be responsible for any warming observed on either planet.<ref name=ngs>Ravilious, Kate. "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says]." ''National Geographic News'', National Geographic Society, February 28, 2007. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

=== Magnetosphere ===
Mars has a very weak magnetic field. Data from various missions has established an upper limit of 2.1 * 1018 N-m/T on the [[magnetic dipole moment]] of Mars. According to [[Russell Humphreys]]'s model of the creation of magnetic fields, Mars probably had a magnetic dipole moment ''at creation'' of 1.51 * 1023 N-m/T. Thus Mars's magnetic field has been decaying very rapidly. This tremendous decay, and the presence on [[Mercury]] of a magnetic field of significant strength, baffles [[astronomy|astronomers]] who have assumed that magnetic fields form on rapidly moving planets that have conductive and liquid cores that can act as dynamos. In fact, Humphreys asserts that the characteristic that determines which of the [[Terrestrial Planet|terrestrial planets]] will have a persistent magnetic field is the core radius, and that the cores of all four of these planets have similar conductivities. Mercury and Earth have larger cores than do Mars and Venus. The lengths of the sidereal days on those worlds do not matter.<ref name=Humphreys/>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:MarsTopoMap-PIA02031 modest.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Topographic map of Mars.]]
There is a dichotomy on the surface of Mars; the northern hemisphere consists of low-lying volcanic plains, with the southern hemisphere consists of ancient, heavily-cratered highland plains. Mars also has two volcanic regions: Tharsis and Elysium. Within the Tharsis region is the largest volcano in the solar system, [[Olympus Mons]]. Olympus Mons is approximately 500 km across and is about the same size as the state of Arizona. Its peak is 24 km above the surrounding plains and it is surrounded by a vertical scarp 6 km high. A large canyon system, Valles Marineris, is located along the Martian equator east of the Tharsis region. Valles Marineris is 2-6km deep and 200-600km wide and approximately 4,500 km long (approximately the distance from San Francisco to Boston). The eastern part of Valles Marineris appears to have a tectonic origin, but the western part is characterized by features such as teardrop islands and longitudinal grooves, indicating it may have been formed by catastrophic flooding in the past. Such flooding may be possible under current climate conditions. Run-off channels in the cratered highland indicate a thicker atmosphere or warmer climate in the past that would have allowed water to be stable on the surface.

Recent satellite imagery has shown that Mars has a 3 kilometre deep ice cap around its polar regions. The northern polar region is surrounded by [[dune]] fields. During the Martian winter, a layer of carbon dioxide condenses at the poles and sublimates in the summer, leaving the water-ice and dust polar caps exposed. The ratio of dust to water-ice contained in the polar caps remains unknown.
[[Image:F035a72_processed.jpg|thumb|100px|left|Cydonia Mensae, home of the alleged "face on Mars."]]
Persistent rumors tell of a "face on Mars," allegedly located in the Cydonia Mensae region at coordinates 40.9°N and 9.45°W. This alleged "face" is located in the midst of several pyramids and other mountains. Prevailing opinion at NASA is that the "face" is a trick of the eye due to the unusual lighting conditions.<ref name=faq>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetaryfaq.html#Mars Frequently Asked Questions - Planetary - Mars]." National Space Science Data Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], January 2, 2008. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

=== Water on Mars ===
[[Image:Weeping_100.jpg|thumb|120px|right|Multiple gullies in a south-facing wall in the Gorgonum Chaos region on Mars]]
Mars cannot have liquid water on its surface. The thin atmosphere does not permit this, even during high summer on Mars. Yet the [[Mars Global Surveyor]] mission in June 2000 took photographs of gully-like formations on several precipices and crater walls on Mars. These formations tend to occur between 30° and 70° north and south latitude. Mission analysts further suggest that these formations are relatively fresh and estimate that liquid water might be found less than 500 meters beneath the surface.<ref name=msss>"[http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/ MOC Images Suggest Recent Sources of Liquid Water on Mars]." Malin Space Science Systems, June 22, 2000. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

More recently, NASA's latest mission, the [[Phoenix lander]], has discovered what appears to be water ice very near the surface near Mars' north pole. Furthermore, analysis of a cubic meter of soil at this site reveals that the soil is far more [[alkali]]ne than expected, and has tolerable levels of salt and low levels of [[calcium]]. Investigators have even suggested that the soil might support the growth of an Earth vegetable, like [[asparagus]].<ref name=courier>"[http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23932393-5013016,00.html Scientists find soil on Mars good enough to grow asparagus]." ''The Courier Mail'', June 28, 2008. Accessed June 30, 2008.</ref>

== Life on Mars ==
The possibility that [[extraterrestrial life]] exists, or has existed, on Mars has been the subject of persistent scientific speculation for decades. The earliest speculation concerned a possible civilization on Mars,<ref name=Hamilton/> this after Percival Lowell theorized that the straight lines that several astronomers had seen on Mars were in fact artificial constructs, and specifically canals.<ref name=canals>"[http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html The canals of Mars--historical note]." Goddard Space Flight Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], n.d. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref> Lovell popularized his theory as early as 1906, and for a long time the suspicion of a non-human civilization native to Mars would find repeated expression in novels and dramatic presentations. Only with the first successful explorations of Mars would the scientific community, and the public, abandon that theory.

Current speculation concerns the possible finding of [[microbe]]s. These would be [[extremophile]]s, or microbes that survive and even grow in environments lethal to other forms of life. Direct attempts to find such life began in 1976 with the [[Viking 1]] and [[Viking 2]] landers. To date no positive sign of life on Mars has been found. The Viking landers found evidence of unexplained chemical activity, but no clear evidence of microbes. Whether the Viking landers would have been able to detect extremophiles, a concept unknown to the Viking mission planners, is unclear.<ref name=Hamilton/>

The [[astrobiology|astrobiologists]] involved with [[Project Viking]] suspect that Mars might be an inherently inhospitable environment for life. Ultraviolet light from the sun shines unchecked on Mars, on account of Mars' thin atmosphere and weak magnetic field. The soil of Mars is also very dry, and the soil has a high proportion of oxidizing agents.<ref name=Hamilton/>

== Problem for uniformitarian theories ==
The most formidable current problem that Mars poses for uniformitarians today is that its magnetic field is weak and inconsequential, while a planet (Mercury) of little more than half its weight does have a significant magnetic field. According to current theory, planets derive their magnetic fields by dynamo action. This requires fast rotation and liquid cores. Mars and Earth have comparable sidereal days, but Earth's magnetic field is strong enough to protect Earth from the [[solar wind]], while that of Mars is not. Mercury has a far longer sidereal day than Mars has, and yet Mercury has a significant magnetic field while Mars has none.

== Martian Geology ==
[[Image:Meridiani Planum.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Meridiani Planum region of Mars.]]

Discoveries by the [[Mars Excursion Rover]] ''Opportunity'' have led to a profound insight in the field of Martian geology. These discoveries combine with data from the rest of Mars to indicate massive geological catastrophes in the distant past.

Since ''Opportunity'' landed in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars it has sent back findings showing that the area was once underwater and that the water was very acidic. The entire Meridiani Planum region has much evidence of catastrophic flooding, including a clear inlet channel to the southeast and a splash zone in the north. In addition, there are many locations, particularly in the Valles Marineris area, where aquifiers seem to have burst, causing extreme flooding and erosion at several times in Mars' past.

Mars contains the largest of three major geologic features in the Solar System. The largest impact basin, the largest volcanoes and the largest canyon are all found on Mars and in a clear relationship to each other. This relationship provides the key to understanding Martian geology.

[[Image:Mars topography.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Mars' global topography, and the relationship between the Hellas impact basin and the Tharsis volcanoes.]]Mars’ largest impact basin is called Hellas. As shown in the topography map, on exactly the other side of Mars from Hellas is Mount Alba Patera, the largest volcano by surface area. This antipodal juxtaposition suggests that the Hellas impact caused the eruptions of Alba Patera and the volcanoes of the Tharsis plateau to the south and southwest. To the east is found the gigantic rift valley called Valles Marineris.

Most of the giant volcanoes on Mars are situated on the [[Tharsis Bulge]], a region where the magma below the crust was subject to a relatively high pressure, causing these volcanoes. Because Mars does not have [[plate tectonics]], the crust is not recycled, so the volcanoes have been able to grow a lot larger than they could on Earth, where a select area of crust is recycled on an average of a few hundred million years. The Tharsis volcanoes have been growing for billion of years, though they are thought to be currently dormant.

The Hellas Basin is another profound geological feature. This is a huge impact basin, likely caused by a large meteor. This is dwarfed by the Vastitas Borealis basin, which covers most of the northern hemisphere, which formed from an impact just after Mars' turbulent formation. It is thought that this was once a site of an ocean, in Mars' distant past. <ref>http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/</ref>

== Mars in popular culture ==
Mars has figured prominently in [[science fiction]] in the Western world for more than a century.

=== The War of the Worlds ===
The first novel speculating on a civilization on Mars was ''The War of the Worlds'' by [[H. G. Wells]], in 1897. Wells' Martians had a military strength that human civilization could not match, but ultimately perished after contracting various [[infectious disease]]s caused by microbes native to Earth to which the Martians effectively had no defense.

In 1938, actor/director [[Orson Welles]] and his Mercury Theater produced a [[radio]] drama based on this novel. Welles updated the novel to his own period but otherwise remained faithful to the source material. The broadcast created such a panic in the [[United States]] that Welles was compelled to order a broadcast disclaimer in mid-show and, at the end of the show, personally assure his listeners that no such thing as an extraterrestrial invasion had taken place.<ref name=Hamilton/>

H. G. Wells' novel would inspire two [[motion picture]] projects and one [[television]] series.

=== Other speculations on civilizations ===
Author [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] published several novels speculating on an elaborate civilization on Mars to which humans traveled, but which was not bent on invading the earth. Author [[C. S. Lewis]], in his novel ''Out of the Silent Planet'', envisioned Mars as the home of three races of non-fallen beings that were instructed to regard the earth as off-limits on account of man's [[fall of man|fallen nature]].

With the abandonment of the Lowell canal theory, science fiction authors and dramatists envisioned Mars as home to a human colony, such as the situation in the television series ''[[Terrahawks]]''. But at least one motion-picture producer saw Mars as a place that very ancient [[astronaut]]s had once visited. These astronauts, according to this scenario, left behind some advanced equipment that a human rebel was subsequently able to use to give Mars a breathable atmosphere and thus facilitate the Martian colony's liberation from the civilization of earth, which in the story had become venal and tyrannical.

=== Speculation on microbes ===
Authors [[John B. Olson]] and [[Randall S. Ingermanson]] have recently speculated (''[[Oxygen (novel)|Oxygen]]'' and ''[[The Fifth Man]]'') about the finding of microbes on Mars, and the implications that such a discovery would hold for the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith and the possible "back-contamination" of the earth when the crew that found the microbes returned to earth.

== Observation and exploration ==
Observation of Mars has been ongoing since the ancients noted its existence and its movements. The invention of the telescope provoked the first serious study of Mars as a celestial object, and not a prophetic sign. Yet not all of this observation led to proper inferences. Percival Lowell's canal theory would lead to more than half a century of vain speculation on extraterrestrial civilization before the first successful exploratory missions would return evidence forcing the abandonment of that theory.

Mars has been the subject of more attempts to explore it, and more failures, than any other planet. Of approximately 37 separate missions to Mars, only 13 have had any success. The planetary scientists of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]], so successful in exploring [[Venus]], experienced ten mission failures before achieving their first success, seven years after the [[United States]] achieved success with its [[Mariner 4]] mission. That Soviet mission, [[Mars 3]] in 1971, succeeded in placing a lander on Mars, but the lander's system transmitted for only 20 seconds before failing.

In 1975, [[Project Viking]] achieved the most notable success by placing two orbiters and two landers on Mars. Neither nation would attempt any further missions to Mars until 1988, when the Soviets lost one craft en route and lost contact with the other ([[Phobos 2]] seconds after its rendezvous with Mars's inner [[moon]] [[Phobos]]. Nor was the United States' program immune to failure; its ''Mars Observer'' vessel was lost prior to arrival after some propulsion systems failed.<ref name=faq/>

In 1996 the [[Mars Global Surveyor]] enjoyed the most success to date, returning more images than all previous missions combined. In that same year, the United States landed the first mobile explorer, or "rover," called the [[Mars Pathfinder]].

The United States would, unfortunately, lose the next two successive craft that it sent to Mars. But its [[Mars Odyssey]] would arrive intact in 2001 and send back the first high-resolution images. Two years later the [[European Space Agency]] would successfully place its [[Mars Express]] orbiter in the Martian system; sadly, its associated landing craft would crash-land. The Mars Express orbiter continues in orbit around Mars.<ref name=esa>"[http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/ Mars Express home page]." European Space Agency. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:Mcmurdopan_spirit_big.jpg|thumb|left|150px||360 degree panorama from mars rover ''Spirit''.]]
The most successful missions to date have been the Mars Excursion Rover missions. Two of these sophisticated mobile robots, named ''Spirit'' and ''Opportunity'', launched in 2003 and arrived safely on Mars about six months later, on opposite sides of the planet. They have been running for four years now, at least fifteen times longer than they were warranted to run. The Opportunity rover has been taking pictures of the Victoria Crater, and Spirit has been photographing the Esperanza formation which contains "vesicular" basalt (characterized by multiple cavities representing dissolved gas escaping from solution during a volcanic eruption).<ref name=David>David, Leonard. "[http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/061228_rovers_update.html Mars Rovers: On the Roll to New Targets]." ''Space.com'' December 28, 2006. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

On May 26, 2008, NASA placed a polar lander on Mars for the first time: the [[Phoenix lander]]. As of June 28, 2008, the Phoenix lander is functioning well and has already discovered water ice where it landed. Contrary to prior understandings, the Phoenix lander has found an alkaline soil that might be suitable for growing Earth vegetables.

At least one non-governmental group, calling itself the Mars Society, has been actively studying technologies appropriate to send a crew of from four to six astronauts to Mars for a roughly two-year stay.<ref name=marssoc>[http://www.marssociety.org/portal The Mars Society] global and USA portal. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

==Satellites==
Mars has two moons: [[Phobos]] and [[Deimos]] (which respectively mean "Fear and "Panic" in [[Greek]]). Russian scientists in the 1950s posited that Phobos might be hollow, but these claims were discredited in the late 1960s.

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

== Related Links ==
* [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/log/ NASA Historical Log: Missions to Mars]
* [http://www.space.com/mars/ Space.com] All About Mars
* [http://www.google.com/mars/ Google Mars], an interactive topographical map
* [http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/solar_system_level2/mars.html Mars: the Red Planet] by Starchild, an educational service of NASA.
* [http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/ War of the Worlds] commemorative site.
* [http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]
* [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/mars-testament-catastrophe Mars, a Testament to Catastrophe]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnOhFXamYOc Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology I] Video
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HwZ22eYhAg Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology II]Video
*[http://genesismission.4t.com/Video/Mars1.html Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology] With Video

{{solarsystem}}
[[Category:Mars]]

Talk:Mars

2011-11-13T17:45:30Z

Samsonnn:

{{simulsubmitted|user=TerryH|site user=Temlakos}}

==The dating of this event from craters places it at about the time of the Great Flood on Earth.==

No it doesn't. Look at the actual data from NASA. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:45, 13 November 2011 (EST)

== Young Mars creation model ==

Charles Creager, Jr., author of the article cited at the bottom of the new section headed Young Mars Creation model, is the principal author of that section text and has granted to me, TerryH, his explicit permission to submit his text (that he originally submitted to [[CreationWiki]]) to this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:45, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:I'm confused how this new section gives evidence for a young Mars. Maybe I'm not reading it right? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:54, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I must admit that the citation used for the scientific facts about Mars is a good one. The Mars Fact Sheet from the National Space Science Data Center is the one I use when giving facts about any planet. The exactness of the measurements is better than any other site. Good Job!!!--[[User:KevinSSr|KevinSSr]] 23:04, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== Water on Mars ==

Shouldn't the section about water on Mars be expanded? There's alot of information on the subject. Maybe I should try to expand that section.

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-13T17:34:39Z

Samsonnn:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

'''
== Question evolution! campaign axman cometh ==

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

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

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

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

== expansion to point ==
The article states:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."

However, this isn't particularly accurate.

In the scientific community, around 70% of scientists are Theists; around 95% of scientists in general support evolution. If 100% of Atheists support evolution, then 92% of Theistic scientists support evolution... This isn't a minority by far.

In fact, given, as obviously at it is, that Christianity is the largest religion, Christianity is proportionately the largest support of evolution.

The Catholic Church, in fact, strongly advocates evolution as the real way in which species originated, Pope Benedict XVI saying "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."
:Did the majority of scientists prove evolution to be a valid and undeniable fact? If so, then all of our articles have to be changed to reflect it. If it's not a fact, then this website will show it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:25, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Valuables, the article says "most prominent and vocal advocates" of evolution and gives footnotes. Did you read the footnotes? If not, why not? You certainly didn't cite the information the footnotes contained nor are you adequately addressing the most "vocal and prominent advocates" issue and seem to be trying to obscure this issue. Why aren't you addressing the information given in the footnotes? There must be a reason. What is it? Are you intentionally employing the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? Also, how vocal was that Pope on this issue? Was that Pope always pushing evolutionism? Next, atheists have a reputation for [[Atheism and women|being quarrelsome, socially challenged men]]. Are you an atheist? I ask because I have noticed that atheists often employ the fallacy of exclusion. I also ask because it seems you are being needlessly quarrelsome given what the sentence actually says and the supporting information cited via the footnotes. Also, if you are an atheist, do you have have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The biblical Christianity certainly has an [[Christian apologetics|abundant amount of evidence supporting it.]] Anyways, we all know that [[evolution|evolutionism is a false ideology and there is no evidence supporting it]]. It is just window dressing for wanting to rebel against biblical authority. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to make it very difficult to propagate evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:06, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::One other point, the evolutionary paradigm taught in high schools and universities and promoted by evolutionary scientists is purely naturalistic. However, the Catholic church's evolutionary paradigm is [[theistic evolution]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== Transitional Forms ==

There are thousands of transitional forms. Just look in a Natural History museum. Yes, there are a few missing links that have not yet been found, like the transition of dinosaurs to birds (archaepteryx could be, but more research is needed) but for most transitions, there are plenty. There are transitional forms that have been found that show the transformation of a hippo/bovine-like animal to whales and dolphins. This article should change to reflect this. - [[User:Samsonnn]]
:You forgot the fact that these so-called "transitionals" are transitional because someone said so. Saying so is one thing, ''proving so'' is quite another, and until someone sees it actually take place (read "film at eleven") then we're not going to take the word of a scientist saying it's a fact that animal A evolved into animal B because he stuck what he called a transitional between the two. Conservapedia is not going to call evolution a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
:::Samsonn, there are not thousands of transitional forms as can be seen [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils HERE] and [http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 HERE] and [http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms HERE] and [http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers HERE]. As for your comment, "more research is needed", you might want to read [[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
@Conservative: A creationist blog does not have more validity than papers written by actual scientists. Read the scientific papers, look in the museums! To deny the existence of transitional forms is the same as saying that almost every biologist in the world is conspiring against creationism.

@Karajou: What about all of the fossils which are shown to be a certain age by radioactive dating of the surrounding rocks? Evolution by natural seletion usually takes too long to be seen within a few human generations, so biologists have to rely on fossil records etc. but there are a few instances where it can and hass been observed. Often, this is due to a species being isolated on an island and differentiating significantly from the mainland type within a human lifetime. Artificial selection is a similar mechanism to natural selection, but happens on much shorter timescales. That is why cows produce so much milk, and horses can pull heavy carts, and how sheep produce fine wool. Farmers choose the characteristics that give optimal products and breed them; over time, the species changes to become better at what it is being bred for. Natural selection follows the same principle, except the purpose is survival and the watchmaker is blind.
Here is a very interesting video which shows unconscious artificial selection in action; it has given very interesting results; a human face on a crab shell!:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8 Here] --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 09:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Samsonn, you are being illogical and did not address the information I cited [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils HERE] and [http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 HERE] and [http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms HERE] and [http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers HERE]. You are employing the [[fallacy of exclusion]] because your evolutionism is merely window dressing for wishing to rebel against God and to ignore the [[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]. Second, the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] will aggressively reach people such as yourselves before they have been indoctrinated into evolutionary propaganda. The evidence for biblical creation/[[creation science]] and against evolution is superior, but it has never been promoted on a wide scale through a grassroots campaign to young people and other individuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Samsonn, by the way, I have noticed that many atheists employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:11, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I am not an atheist. I am a moderate Christian, and consider the bible allegorical, but that is irrelevant. I do not let my religious views get in the way of my science. Evolution is in the field of biology, so biologists are the best people to get knowledge from in this area, not creationists (many of whom don't even seem to even understand evolution, perhaps because attempts have been made to censor it from our schooling)

Regarding the link to the Conservapedia section of 'lack of transitional forms', I have made it clear that I find it fallacious; that is why I am talking about it here, so I can get a consensus to correct it. And the links to the creationist website are full of fallacies also. And as I have said, because it was written by a creationist, who has clearly already made up his mind about evolution, and not a biologist, then I don't think that it is a reliable citation. Give me a link to the work of an actual scientist and I will listen. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-13T17:27:38Z

Samsonnn:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

'''
== Question evolution! campaign axman cometh ==

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

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

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

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

== expansion to point ==
The article states:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."

However, this isn't particularly accurate.

In the scientific community, around 70% of scientists are Theists; around 95% of scientists in general support evolution. If 100% of Atheists support evolution, then 92% of Theistic scientists support evolution... This isn't a minority by far.

In fact, given, as obviously at it is, that Christianity is the largest religion, Christianity is proportionately the largest support of evolution.

The Catholic Church, in fact, strongly advocates evolution as the real way in which species originated, Pope Benedict XVI saying "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."
:Did the majority of scientists prove evolution to be a valid and undeniable fact? If so, then all of our articles have to be changed to reflect it. If it's not a fact, then this website will show it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:25, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Valuables, the article says "most prominent and vocal advocates" of evolution and gives footnotes. Did you read the footnotes? If not, why not? You certainly didn't cite the information the footnotes contained nor are you adequately addressing the most "vocal and prominent advocates" issue and seem to be trying to obscure this issue. Why aren't you addressing the information given in the footnotes? There must be a reason. What is it? Are you intentionally employing the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? Also, how vocal was that Pope on this issue? Was that Pope always pushing evolutionism? Next, atheists have a reputation for [[Atheism and women|being quarrelsome, socially challenged men]]. Are you an atheist? I ask because I have noticed that atheists often employ the fallacy of exclusion. I also ask because it seems you are being needlessly quarrelsome given what the sentence actually says and the supporting information cited via the footnotes. Also, if you are an atheist, do you have have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The biblical Christianity certainly has an [[Christian apologetics|abundant amount of evidence supporting it.]] Anyways, we all know that [[evolution|evolutionism is a false ideology and there is no evidence supporting it]]. It is just window dressing for wanting to rebel against biblical authority. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to make it very difficult to propagate evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:06, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::One other point, the evolutionary paradigm taught in high schools and universities and promoted by evolutionary scientists is purely naturalistic. However, the Catholic church's evolutionary paradigm is [[theistic evolution]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== Transitional Forms ==

There are thousands of transitional forms. Just look in a Natural History museum. Yes, there are a few missing links that have not yet been found, like the transition of dinosaurs to birds (archaepteryx could be, but more research is needed) but for most transitions, there are plenty. There are transitional forms that have been found that show the transformation of a hippo/bovine-like animal to whales and dolphins. This article should change to reflect this. - [[User:Samsonnn]]
:You forgot the fact that these so-called "transitionals" are transitional because someone said so. Saying so is one thing, ''proving so'' is quite another, and until someone sees it actually take place (read "film at eleven") then we're not going to take the word of a scientist saying it's a fact that animal A evolved into animal B because he stuck what he called a transitional between the two. Conservapedia is not going to call evolution a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
:::Samsonn, there are not thousands of transitional forms as can be seen [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils HERE] and [http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 HERE] and [http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms HERE] and [http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers HERE]. As for your comment, "more research is needed", you might want to read [[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
@Conservative: A creationist blog does not have more validity than papers written by actual scientists. Read the scientific papers, look in the museums! To deny the existence of transitional forms is the same as saying that almost every biologist in the world is conspiring against creationism.

@Karajou: What about all of the fossils which are shown to be a certain age by radioactive dating of the surrounding rocks? Evolution by natural seletion usually takes too long to be seen within a few human generations, so biologists have to rely on fossil records etc. but there are a few instances where it can and hass been observed. Often, this is due to a species being isolated on an island and differentiating significantly from the mainland type within a human lifetime. Artificial selection is a similar mechanism to natural selection, but happens on much shorter timescales. That is why cows produce so much milk, and horses can pull heavy carts, and how sheep produce fine wool. Farmers choose the characteristics that give optimal products and breed them; over time, the species changes to become better at what it is being bred for. Natural selection follows the same principle, except the purpose is survival and the watchmaker is blind.
Here is a very interesting video which shows unconscious artificial selection in action; it has given very interesting results; a human face on a crab shell!:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8 Here] --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 09:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Samsonn, you are being illogical and did not address the information I cited [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils HERE] and [http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 HERE] and [http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms HERE] and [http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers HERE]. You are employing the [[fallacy of exclusion]] because your evolutionism is merely window dressing for wishing to rebel against God and to ignore the [[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]. Second, the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] will aggressively reach people such as yourselves before they have been indoctrinated into evolutionary propaganda. The evidence for biblical creation/[[creation science]] and against evolution is superior, but it has never been promoted on a wide scale through a grassroots campaign to young people and other individuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Samsonn, by the way, I have noticed that many atheists employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:11, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I am not an atheist. I am a moderate Christian, and consider the bible allegorical, but that is irrelevant. I do not let my religious views get in the way of my science. Evolution is in the field of biology, so biologists are the best people to get knowledge from in this area, not creationists (many of whom don't even seem to even understand evolution, perhaps because attempts have been made to censor it from our schooling)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-13T17:27:16Z

Samsonnn: /* Transitional Forms */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

'''
== Question evolution! campaign axman cometh ==

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

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

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

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

== expansion to point ==
The article states:
"Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."

However, this isn't particularly accurate.

In the scientific community, around 70% of scientists are Theists; around 95% of scientists in general support evolution. If 100% of Atheists support evolution, then 92% of Theistic scientists support evolution... This isn't a minority by far.

In fact, given, as obviously at it is, that Christianity is the largest religion, Christianity is proportionately the largest support of evolution.

The Catholic Church, in fact, strongly advocates evolution as the real way in which species originated, Pope Benedict XVI saying "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."
:Did the majority of scientists prove evolution to be a valid and undeniable fact? If so, then all of our articles have to be changed to reflect it. If it's not a fact, then this website will show it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:25, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::Valuables, the article says "most prominent and vocal advocates" of evolution and gives footnotes. Did you read the footnotes? If not, why not? You certainly didn't cite the information the footnotes contained nor are you adequately addressing the most "vocal and prominent advocates" issue and seem to be trying to obscure this issue. Why aren't you addressing the information given in the footnotes? There must be a reason. What is it? Are you intentionally employing the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? Also, how vocal was that Pope on this issue? Was that Pope always pushing evolutionism? Next, atheists have a reputation for [[Atheism and women|being quarrelsome, socially challenged men]]. Are you an atheist? I ask because I have noticed that atheists often employ the fallacy of exclusion. I also ask because it seems you are being needlessly quarrelsome given what the sentence actually says and the supporting information cited via the footnotes. Also, if you are an atheist, do you have have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The biblical Christianity certainly has an [[Christian apologetics|abundant amount of evidence supporting it.]] Anyways, we all know that [[evolution|evolutionism is a false ideology and there is no evidence supporting it]]. It is just window dressing for wanting to rebel against biblical authority. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to make it very difficult to propagate evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:06, 8 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::One other point, the evolutionary paradigm taught in high schools and universities and promoted by evolutionary scientists is purely naturalistic. However, the Catholic church's evolutionary paradigm is [[theistic evolution]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:19, 9 November 2011 (EST)

== Transitional Forms ==

There are thousands of transitional forms. Just look in a Natural History museum. Yes, there are a few missing links that have not yet been found, like the transition of dinosaurs to birds (archaepteryx could be, but more research is needed) but for most transitions, there are plenty. There are transitional forms that have been found that show the transformation of a hippo/bovine-like animal to whales and dolphins. This article should change to reflect this. - [[User:Samsonnn]]
:You forgot the fact that these so-called "transitionals" are transitional because someone said so. Saying so is one thing, ''proving so'' is quite another, and until someone sees it actually take place (read "film at eleven") then we're not going to take the word of a scientist saying it's a fact that animal A evolved into animal B because he stuck what he called a transitional between the two. Conservapedia is not going to call evolution a fact. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
:::Samsonn, there are not thousands of transitional forms as can be seen [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils HERE] and [http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 HERE] and [http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms HERE] and [http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers HERE]. As for your comment, "more research is needed", you might want to read [[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
@Conservative: A creationist blog does not have more validity than papers written by actual scientists. Read the scientific papers, look in the museums! To deny the existence of transitional forms is the same as saying that almost every biologist in the world is conspiring against creationism.

@Karajou: What about all of the fossils which are shown to be a certain age by radioactive dating of the surrounding rocks? Evolution by natural seletion usually takes too long to be seen within a few human generations, so biologists have to rely on fossil records etc. but there are a few instances where it can and hass been observed. Often, this is due to a species being isolated on an island and differentiating significantly from the mainland type within a human lifetime. Artificial selection is a similar mechanism to natural selection, but happens on much shorter timescales. That is why cows produce so much milk, and horses can pull heavy carts, and how sheep produce fine wool. Farmers choose the characteristics that give optimal products and breed them; over time, the species changes to become better at what it is being bred for. Natural selection follows the same principle, except the purpose is survival and the watchmaker is blind.
Here is a very interesting video which shows unconscious artificial selection in action; it has given very interesting results; a human face on a crab shell!:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8 Here] --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 09:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Samsonn, you are being illogical and did not address the information I cited [http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils HERE] and [http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-3 HERE] and [http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Lack_of_Any_Clear_Transitional_Forms HERE] and [http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers HERE]. You are employing the [[fallacy of exclusion]] because your evolutionism is merely window dressing for wishing to rebel against God and to ignore the [[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]. Second, the grassroots [[Question evolution! campaign]] will aggressively reach people such as yourselves before they have been indoctrinated into evolutionary propaganda. The evidence for biblical creation/[[creation science]] and against evolution is superior, but it has never been promoted on a wide scale through a grassroots campaign to young people and other individuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Samsonn, by the way, I have noticed that many atheists employ the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:11, 13 November 2011 (EST)
I am not an atheist. I am a moderate Christian, and consider the bible allegorical, but that is irrelevant. I do not let my religious views get in the way of my science. Evolution is in the field of biology, so biologists are the best people to get knowledge from in this area, not creationists (many of whom don't even seem to even understand evolution, perhaps because attempts have been made to censor it from our schooling)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-11-13T17:20:53Z

Samsonnn: /* Logical examples */ removed extinction rate (high due to human actions)

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 39 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is less than 15%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# According to evolutionary theory, cavemen with no scientific or genetic knowledge domesticated the wolf (''canis lupus'') into a different species - the dog (''canis familiaris''). However, many experts on dog genetics have created hundreds of different dog breeds over the years through selective mating, but they are all the same species. If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false.
 
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]

== Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

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

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

== See also ==

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-11-13T17:18:41Z

Samsonnn:

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

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

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

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

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

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

== HIV and Evolution ==

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

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

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

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

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

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

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

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

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

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

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

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

== Declining human fertility ==

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

== Fossils ==

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

== Trichinella spiralis ==

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

== Deletions will be restored ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Evolution of whales ==

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

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

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

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

== Wait...what? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Kidney donor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-11-13T17:15:10Z

Samsonnn:

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

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

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

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

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

== HIV and Evolution ==

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

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

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

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

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

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

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

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

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

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

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

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

== Declining human fertility ==

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

== Fossils ==

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

== Trichinella spiralis ==

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

== Deletions will be restored ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Evolution of whales ==

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

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

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

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

== Wait...what? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Kidney donor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-11-13T17:14:35Z

Samsonnn:

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

===Cavemen and wolves===
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:14, 13 November 2011 (EST)

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

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

== Improving article ==

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

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

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

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

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

== Raptorex ==

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

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

== Bats ==

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

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

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

== Artistic beauty argument ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also this:

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

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

Here are some sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Altruism ==

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

== The Devil's Advocate ==

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

Logical examples

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

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

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

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

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

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

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

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

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

Lack of mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maladaptation

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

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

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

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

5. Strong example.

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

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

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

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

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

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

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

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

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

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

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

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

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

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

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

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

Paradoxical fossils

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

Irreducible Complexity

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

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

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

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

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

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

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

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

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

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

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

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: As to the specific points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

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

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

== HIV and Evolution ==

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

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

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

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

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

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

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

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

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

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

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

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

== Declining human fertility ==

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

== Vestigial organs ==

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

== Fossils ==

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

== Trichinella spiralis ==

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

== Deletions will be restored ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Evolution of whales ==

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

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

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

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

== Wait...what? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Kidney donor ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Counterexamples to the Bible

2011-11-13T14:34:07Z

Samsonnn: Added biblical pi

==A mathematical counterexample to the Bible==
In 1 Kings 7:23

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

"Round all about" shows us that the molten sea was a circle. The circumference of a circle is: Circumference = pi x diameter. And rearranging to get pi: pi = circumference/diameter

In this passage, the circumference is 30 cubits and the diameter is 10 cubits. Therefore pi = 30/10 = 3.0

Mathematics has shown us that pi = 3.14 to three significant figures, NOT 3.0. Therefore, this is a mistake in the Bible. A concession to the times, where little was known about mathematics. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 09:34, 13 November 2011 (EST)

== No counterexamples to the Bible? ==

Doesn't this become tautological if you are unwilling to consider counterexamples? [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
:The "counterexamples" you posted were repeatedly brought up over the years by atheists, agnostics, and the generally dimwitted over the course of thousands of years; and these "counterexamples" were repeatedly proven wrong. That's "Proven" with a capitol "P". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:27, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::Sorry, I must have missed something. Which counterexamples did TylerGD post? If they have all been Proven wrong with a capital P, shouldn't this article address them and state why they are wrong, as with every other counterexample here, instead of just not considering them? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:48, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::The page history contains the edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_the_Bible&diff=803692&oldid=803632 here]. I found the alleged "counterexamples" to be remarkably trivial and non-substantive. Our entries here are substantive, and will remain so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:59, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Ok, I understand this necessity. I agree that only the MAJOR counterexamples should be addressed! Thank you, anyway, for posting the link to the edits. --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 12:01, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::What should happen is a separate article titled [[Alleged Biblical contradictions]], detailing the passages, what liberals have against them, and why the contradictions don't exist in the first place. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:05, 11 August 2010 (EDT

How about the First Law of Thermodynamics? This states that energy may not be created or destroyed, which contradicts Genesis.
Also, the creation story says that light was created first. Light is not possible without a spacetime manifold, which was not created at that time.
The population of the earth is much too large too soon after the flood. Assuming 8 humans survived the flood, every woman over 15 years old would have to have 50 children to produce a large enough population by the time of the Exodus from Egypt. (Assuming: the flood was in the year 3000 BC, and the Exodus was in 2500 BC). And, even assuming this is possible, it does nothing to address the sudden rise of different races.

: I have an open mind about it. Let's take a look at your arguments:

:: The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy may be transformed from one type to another, and it is all the time. That's what creation presumably was.

:: See [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is a far longer list than [[Counterexamples to the Bible]]. Perhaps the goofy "spacetime manifold" never really existed. Are you open-minded about that?

:: I'm surprised by your population argument, because I've seen analysis that says the population levels today are just what one would expect from having just a few people in 3000 BC.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Now I'm confused. Our critic here is claiming that the First Law (it's a law, mind you) of Thermodynamics states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It contradicts Genesis. Okay...got that. Thermodynamics One contradicts Genesis. But at the same time, how did his big bang theory happen? You can't create or destroy energy, that's what he said. But there had to have been energy created (from nothing, I might add) in order to get a great big bang for his big bang theory, and that's a lot of energy created ''and'' destroyed of which he says can't be created or destroyed. And, while he's defending that little law in science, I'll bet he's ''denying'' Thermodynamics Two because its statements about entropy and energy left to itself seem to contradict evolution. In short, he's stating something came from nothing, leading to things getting better, both of which contradict each of those laws of Thermodynamics.
:::Makes the case for "In the beginning, God created..." even stronger, doesn't it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:33, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::::I'm not claiming that "something came from nothing" in the Big Bang. The sum of the energy contained in the mass of the universe equals the sum of gravitational potential energy in the universe. This is quite an easily calculable conclusion which suggests that the net energy in the universe is zero. So, while I agree with the "came from nothing" statement, I disagree with the "something". If you are going to throw out unscientific phrases, you should say "A net nothing came from nothing". The zero-energy universe is becoming more and more studied, and may well be a plausible explanation for cosmogenesis.

::::This explanation is in contradiction to the Creation story, in which light was created with no negative energy counterpart.

::::A caveat; the zero-energy universe is still in the preliminary phases of study, and may turn out to be false. However, in 20 years, I can guarantee scientists will have a clearer understanding of the beginning of the universe, while theists will respond with "*shrug* God did it".

::::In response to the statement about how "goofy spacetime manifold never existed", are you saying that there is no spacetime currently?

::::Also, I fully support the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no contradiction with regards to evolution; the entropy of the sun is increasing more than entropy due to life on earth is decreasing.

:::::I apologize for not being clear on my population calculations. Please allow me to restate:

:::::Let's assume the following:
:::::Eight people survived the flood (the year 3000 BC).
:::::1,000,000 people lived around the time of the Exodus (a highly conservative number) in the year 2500 BC
:::::To achieve this population, the population needs to increase by 2.5% each year. (4 woman * 1.025^500 ~= 1,000,0000)
:::::Assume the average person lives to 1000, and there are no deaths (which seems like a BIG assumption)
:::::In 900 years, this comes to an average of 50 children (1000 * .025 = 25. Multiply by two, since only woman reproduce and increase population, in practice, to get 50).

:::::That strains credulity a bit.

:::::: You're right, it does. And the mistake is your time estimate for [[Exodus]]. As taught in my class, it is widely accepted that Exodus occurred either in the 1200s or 1400s B.C. See [[World_History_Lecture_One#Egypt]]. A doubling in population every 30 years for a 1000 years would be roughly 2^30, or a billion, far more than is needed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Point taken, Andy, you are indeed correct. The population at the time of the Exodus was within the limits of possibilities assuming a flood. I withdraw my point.

Jeremiah 8:8 (NIV) "How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" While not a counterexample in the normal sense of the word, the Bible itself does attempt to warn against its own future inaccuracies at the hand of man being involved in its transcribing and interpretation. This is particularly of note as it is a self-contained disclaimer that must be held true if the rest is to be. [[User:Lopsidedidol|Lopsidedidol]] 10:37, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

Lopsidedidol, please address the information below and please especially address the Jeruaalem prophecy in particular:

'''Analysis of Bible prophecy from Christian scholars/apologists'''

*[http://sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html#c8 Science speaks - Prophetic accuracy] by Dr. Peter Stoner
*[http://www.drjbloom.com/public%20files/PubTheoData.pdf Public Theology and Prophecy Data - Factual Evidence that Counts for a Worldview] by Dr. John Bloom, Robert C. Newman, and Hugh G. Gouch, Jr.
*[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-16.pdf The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exist] by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr.
*[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP1W1299.pdf The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exist - Part Two] by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon and Dr. Walter Kaiser Jr.
*[http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ AboutBibleprophecy]
*[http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm Prophecy about Jesus]

'''Rebuttal to atheist Steven Carr concerning Bible prophecy:'''

*[http://www.tektonics.org/af/carrs01.html Steven Carr's The Jury Is In Chapter 11: Rebuttal] by [[JP Holding]][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 11:07, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:Give me a few hours to take in those links, my response will follow. [[User:Lopsidedidol|Lopsidedidol]] 11:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:::It's been more than a few hours. Should I assume you have repented and become a Christian? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:00, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

== Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain ==

Sorry to ask this, but the "population" argument brought to mind an old thought which I am sure has been answered many times. I am not saying that it is a "counterexample" to the Bible, mind you, I am just curious as to what the official refutation of this argument is... sorry to bother with such a silly question :) Now, God created Adam and Eve, and then Adam and Eve generated Abel and Cain, two males. So, where did the rest of the human population come from? Thanks for clearing this up for me :) --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 21:35, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

:I'm an atheist, but this argument is not very solid. While it is never addressed in the Bible, its possible Adam and Eve had more children. Why this is not addressed, since the Bible loves listing lineages, is anyone's guess...

:: I've never heard anyone claim that the Bible identifies ''everyone'' who ever existed. As the unsigned comment above states, perhaps there were other children, or other miracles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:41, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::: The "Adam and Eve had other children" option would imply that people from the same bloodline, actually brothers and sisters, generated children, which I am sure is not an acceptable option. Perhaps other people were directly created by God to populate the Earth? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 21:44, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::It has been addressed in the Bible:
:::This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
:::Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
:::And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
:::And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: '''''and he begat sons and daughters''''':
:::And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Genesis 5:1-5) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:45, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

::::That option, however, raises other questions, as I said. There must be something we are missing perhaps. --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 21:50, 11 August 2010 (EDT)

== Opinion from talk page ==

*that there are extreme inconsistencies in the lineage of Jesus, as given by the Apostles Matthew and Luke in their respective gospels. Also, the prophecy that Jesus would be descended from David was unfulfilled because of his so-called virgin birth. Lineages could only be traced through male parents in ancient Judea and Jesus did not have one.

:Reply: your conclusion is unjustified and your statement about the lineages unspecific and inconsequential. Jesus was significant because of his divine nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:08, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Allow me to jump in on this one:

::Luke 3:23 (tracing the lineage of Jesus)
::And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
::3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph

::AND

::Matthew 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
::Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

::So, we can all agree that the lineage of Jesus, as listed by Matt and Luke, are inconsistant. Is that specific enough? We can now say that the Bible contains contradictions, and is therefore not entirely inerrant, correct? Please note, the lineages diverege further, I just chose not to list them completely. [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 15:51, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Pete, you're the only one here who claims contradictions in the Bible where there are none, and it is clear that you're here to push that side of the fence once again. We're not going to agree with you at all; we will never agree with anything that's false. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:00, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

::::So...no contradiction in Matthew saying Jacob is the father of Joseph and Luke saying that Heli is the father of Joseph? Those can both be true? [[User:Pete5383|Paul]] 18:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::Are you insisting that one man cannot possibly have two different names? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:07, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

*that we have a non-existant prophecy in verse 23 (as seen above). Of course, Isaiah was speaking of events of his time, not of the future, as evidenced in Isaiah 9:6 with the use of, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given…” Not withstanding, the verse presented is transcribed incorrectly anayway. It was translated from the Greek text, and there the word “parthenos” is used, which does mean a virgin. However, the word in the original Hebrew, from which the Greek was taken, did not mean “virgin.” The word there is “almah,” which means simply a young woman. In the later Greek translation, the error was corrected, the proper Greek equivalent “neanis” being substituted. But it suited the purpose of the Church to leave in its “virgin” Greek, and so it has come down to us.

:This has been long debated but not resolved on one side as you suggest. Feel free to discuss further here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:08, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

==A suggestion==
As you know, there are already 3 articles for countering atheist stupidity: [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[counterexamples to Relativity]], and [[counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. I suggest the creation of 2 more counterexample articles called [[counterexamples to the big bang]] and [[counterexamples to atheism]]. That would be great in my opinion. [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 17:51, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

: Willminator, you're free to start any entries if and when you have good material (comporting with [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]) to include in them!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 19 September 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-13T14:08:25Z

Samsonnn:

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-13T14:07:34Z

Samsonnn:

Inconsistent triad

2011-11-09T15:07:33Z

Samsonnn:

An inconsistent triad is a set of three [[proposition|propositions]], only two of which can be true at one time. The most famous example of this commonly cited is the one posed by the [[Problem of Evil]]. This takes the form of:

: - God is [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]]
: - God is [[omnipotent]]
: - Evil exists

[[Atheists]] who adhere to [[strong atheism]] argue that this inconsistent triad disproves God, as they claim an all-loving and all-powerful God would not allow evil to occur, and the fact that evil does occur suggests that God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent. However, there have been attempts by Christian apologists to reconcile God with all three propositions, these take the form of [[theodicies]].

== See Also ==
[[Problem of Evil]]

[[category:logic]]

Talk:Atheism is a religion

2011-11-09T14:34:57Z

Samsonnn:

Suggest retitling to "Atheism as a religion" and request for proof that the theory of evolution is an Atheist doctrine. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:40, 17 January 2008 (EST)

'''Atheism is a religion in the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby'''

Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby --[[User:Hadron|Hadron]] 05:42, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== If atheism is a religion... ==

...does that mean that it's impossible for a person to not have a religion? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 19:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Evolution

2011-11-09T14:32:47Z

Samsonnn:

Global warming

2011-11-09T14:27:15Z

Samsonnn:

[[Image:NASA-1024x933.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows little warming, and many areas to the in the East (right) are cooling<ref>Roberts, Greg. "Antarctic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away." April 18, 2009. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191</ref>.]]
'''Global warming''' is the theory that the world is becoming dangerously warmer, and that government needs to assert more controls over energy production and use to try to stop it. Put another way, [[liberals]] concocted a theory of [[Global warming theory|man-made global warming]] to justify demands for a more powerful government. As temperatures have cooled in many areas, liberals have switched their theory to one of [[climate change]] and even [[global cooling]], which of course would occur naturally many times throughout [[Earth|Earth's]] geological history.<ref>"After any given warming phase begins, thousands of years later the cyclical [[Milankovitch]] decrease in the sun's heat kicks in. The warming stops, reverses and an [[ice age]] ensues." [http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html Counterpunch], June 2007</ref>

[[Liberal]] claims of global warming led to the resignation in October 2010 by Professor Hal Lewis from The American Physical Society because of "the [[global warming]] scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. '''It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist'''."<ref>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html</ref>

Many political activists use the term '''"global warming"''' to refer the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), which asserts that human activity such as spewing "[[greenhouse gases]]" is causing more temperature increase than all natural causes combined. The AGW theory is supported by left-leaning political parties, as well as a majority of sovereign states, national agencies, and an intergovernmental panel (see [[IPCC]]). The reality is that there is no global crisis, despite dire warning by the UN's [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC). Predictions made by [[climate model]]s publicized by the IPCC have not come to pass, and the climate has shown a mild cooling since 1995.<ref>http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist</ref>

In November 2009, emails were disclosed that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming. Prior to [[ClimateGate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted. For example, in 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref>

The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html</ref> The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed.

Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009). Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref>

In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man-made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market-based CO2 reductions such as a cap-and-trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and/or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Presence of CO2==

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. <ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.

==The Modern Warm Period==

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

Recent studies of the Milankovich Cycles, which predict Earth's climate by studying changes in its orbit and axial tilt, suggest that we are currently 18,000 years into a 150,000 year period between ice ages. This would imply that we should expect the temperature to be rising anyway. A 2002 study by Berger and Loutre suggests 50,000 years of warmer weather before Earth begins to cool again, which fits exactly with these predictions and implies that the temperature is rising naturally die to the cycles rather than human activity.

== Sun Spots ==
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor, acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature." <ref>[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009</ref>

==Politicization of the Issue==

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

==Climate Change As A Cult==
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

Commenting on the tendency to hastily issue dire warnings of Climate Change, seen in the coming [[Ice Age]] scare of the 70's, Maurizio Morabito asked, “Is the problem with the general public, who cannot talk about climate except in doom-laden terms, and for whom the sky is the last animist god?" <ref>Maurizio Morabito, ''The CIA’s ‘global cooling’ files'', The Spectator December 5 2009</ref>

Mark Steyn writes in Macleans,
<blockquote>
"Forty years ago conventional religious belief was certainly in decline in what we once knew as Christendom, but the hole was not yet ozone-layer sized. Once the sea of faith had receded far from shore, the post-Christian West looked at what remained and found “Gaia.”</blockquote>

And while, "When man was made in the image of God, he was fallen but redeemable", among these devotees of [[Gaia]],
<blockquote>Anti-humanism is everywhere, not least in the barely concealed admiration for China’s (demographically disastrous) “One Child” policy advanced by everyone from the National Post’s Diane Francis to Sir David Attenborough, the world’s leading telly naturalist but also a BBC exec who once long ago commissioned the great series The Ascent of Man. If Sir David’s any guide, the great thing about man’s ascent is it gives him a higher cliff to nosedive off.<ref>Mark Steyn, ''Why climate change is hot hot hot'' Macleans, December 24, 2009</ref></blockquote>

==Climate "Science" Fraud==
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

==Liberal claims of "Consensus"==
Reports of a scientific "consensus" among scientists allege that the Earth is warming overall, and that this warming, as well as other changes in climate patterns, is largely caused by human activities.<ref>Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider. "Expert credibility in climate change." April 9, 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html</ref><ref>From "IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html</ref> These allegations do not necessarily make the consensus true, as discussed throughout the referenced citation. Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming. However, according to some researchers, scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming theory offer a general lack of comparative credentials; proponents of man-made global warming argue that this has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting the theory for greater government control. Scientists skeptical of the theory question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> It has also been documented that on most college campuses criticism of the global warming theory is silenced or censored; evidence shows that scientists skeptical of AGW are being supressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992 on the doubtfulness of man-caused warming on Earth.

{{Cquote|Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>}}

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

==Past Speculation==

Speculation and warnings of catastrophic climate change are not unprecedented. In 2001 the ''Guardian'' noted that some 70s headlines shouted, "Brace yourself for another ice age". In 1971 the journal ''Science'' reported that the subsequent cooling effect resulting from a possible eightfold increased from atmospheric aerosol concentrations, "if sustained over a period of several years - is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." <ref>Reported by Alison George in ''Breaking the ice'', The Guardian, Thursday 28 June 2001</ref>

In June, 1974, ''[[Time]]'' magazine published its front page article, ''Science: Another Ice Age?'',<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref> while a report by the [[CIA]] in the same year stated that, "The world's leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of a detrimental global climatic change”, noting such things as that the "world's snow and ice cover had increased by at least 10 to 15 percent", and "the Canadian area of [[Arctic]] Greenland suffered below normal temperatures for 19 consecutive months", which was unique during the last 100 years. A "major climatic shift" was speculated, which would threaten the "the stability of most nations.” It further warned that "Scientists are confident that unless man is able to modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada" to "major areas in northern China will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow", within the next 2500 years - or sooner.<ref>[http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf ''A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems'', August 1974]</ref>

Also in 1974, Nigel Calder, former editor of ''New Scientist'' and atmospheric researcher wrote in his book ''The Weather Machine'', "One might argue that there is a virtual certainty of the next ice age starting some time in the next 2000 years. Then the odds are only about 20-to-1 against it beginning in the next 100 years."

In 1975 the liberal magazine ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that "Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend,...but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." These authorities were skeptical that political leaders would take any positive action to compensate for the [[climate change]], and they conceded that the more dramatic solutions, such as melting the arctic ice cap, might create worse problems than that which they were designed to solve.<ref>http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf</ref>

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
It is virtually universally accepted amongst secular climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==
[[File:Autumn foliage.jpg|thumb|Canoing on a Colorful Day, (NY).]]
Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming and Dissent==
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

Mark Steyn writes in "Why climate change is hot hot hot",
<blockquote>
What’s also changed since the seventies is the nature of the UN and the transnational bureaucracies...“Aid” is a discredited word these days and comes with too many strings attached. But eco-credits sluiced through an oil-for-food program on steroids offers splendid new opportunities for bulking up an ambitious dictator’s Swiss bank accounts.<ref>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/2/</ref></blockquote>

The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

==Al Gore's Claims==
[[File:Gore GlobalWarming.jpg|right|200px]]
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Related to above, while Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported,

:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==Reported effects of Climate Change==

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


{{liberalism}}
{{Climategate scandal}}

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

== See Also ==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Problem of Evil

2011-11-09T14:23:49Z

Samsonnn:

The so-called '''problem of evil''' is a topic of much debate in [[theology]] and the [[philosophy]] of [[religion]]. It was first proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher [[Epicurus]]. Many [[atheist]]s base their views to some degree on their assessment of this argument's strength, and this problem has been investigated by many theologians, such as [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

[[God]] is, according to accounts given by the holy texts of most monotheistic religions, [[omniscience|omniscient]], [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]].

# An omniscient being knows all the true propositions, including those which describe all the [[evil]] that exists.
# A [[benevolence|benevolent]] person seeks to prevent evil from befalling others, to the extent that he or she knows of it and can do something about it (ought implies can), and an ''omnibenevolent'' being never strays from this goal.
# However, an omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from befalling persons.
# Given 1, 2 and 3, we would expect that God should prevent evil from occurring. However, we know evil occurs from time to time.
# Therefore, God lacks at least one trait usually ascribed to Him or else does not exist at all.

This is an example of an [[inconsistent triad]].
== Is the Argument Sound? ==

As with all logical arguments, we must ask if the premises of the "argument from evil" are true. If one or more premise is false, then an argument does not constitute a good reason for believing its conclusion.

The argument can be dismissed if one is willing to drop one or more of its premises: that God is omniscient, that God is omnipotent, that God is omnibenevolent, or that evil exists.

'''Rejecting omnipotence:'''

If God is not all powerful, then his ability to constrain all evil in any given moment is limited.

'''Rejecting Omnibenevolence:'''

If God is not all good, then evil may exist.

'''Rejecting the existence of evil:'''

Perhaps evil does not exist - a view taken by [[Augustine]] who classified evil as a [[privation]]. Perhaps we call those things we do not like 'moral evils' without justification. But it strikes at the heart of our intuitions about what it means for something to be morally wrong if something like the torture of innocent children would not count.

Also, rejecting the existence of evil would appear to contradict Scripture: ''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].'' (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

Although denying any one of the premises is sufficient to deflate the argument, such a move is not likely to satisfy a theist who wants to preserve the rationality of believing in the God as described in scripture. Thus, most theists do not attempt such a strategy.

== Is the Argument Logically Valid? ==

If a deductive argument is valid, the conclusion ''must be'' true if the premises are true. If it turns out that the conclusion is false while all the premises are true, then one has exposed an "argument" as invalid. Many theists think the argument from evil is logically invalid, meaning that the conclusion (God does not exist) does not necessarily follow from the premises (which theists tend to accept as true).

One who objects to the conclusion along these lines might say something like the following:

If allowing some evil serves a greater good, then allowing that evil is not by itself inconsistent with the existence of an omnibenevolent God. In other words, it is possible that an event that we observe as "evil" is, invisible to us, an event which serves the greater good.

Theists point to many possible explanations, called theodicies, that attempt to show how some greater good is achieved by allowing some evil. Some common examples:

*God allows evil in order to allow for soul-making - the process by which humans grow spiritually, from self-centered beings to moral beings who have compassion for others.
*God allows evil because it is necessary for the existence of free will.
*God allows evil so that we may come to see what life is like for human creatures when they have separate themselves from God and His will.

An atheist usually replies to such explanations by reminding the theist that each explanation's plausibility depends on one already believing in God. Thus, using simple theodicies as arguments against the logical validity of the problem of evil amounts to circular reasoning, in which the claim to be proved is assumed true at the beginning. Circular reasoning does not imply the claim is false, but it is a logical error. Therefore, theodicies cannot give anyone ''more'' reason(s) to believe that God exists than they already possessed.

An alternative reply that a theist might offer attempts to compare the finite pains associated with human existence to the infinite bliss of heaven. Given that the reward for the faithful is immeasurable bliss for eternity, then any amount of finite pain caused in a finite time period is vanishingly irrelevant.

A likely reply to ''this'' like of objection is that such a calculus illegitimately treats human persons as objects that can be manipulated to one's own ends so long as one returns the favor at a later date. It is utterly implausible that a person would be justified in enslaving another for a year, even if their plan was to give the victim a billion dollars in compensation afterwards. To treat a human in such a way is to lack respect for humanity's essential nature: we are autonomous moral agents who are ends in ourselves, rather than means to ends.

== Free Will ==

The twentieth century saw the rise of a "reformed" philosophy of religion, spearheaded primarily by Alvin Plantinga, a prominent professor at Notre Dame. Plantinga introduced, in his 1967 work ''God and Other Minds'', a defense of theism that counters the argument of evil with several observations about freedom of will. Rather than trying to give a moral justification for evil, Plantinga prefers to establish only that the existence of God and evil are jointly ''possible''.

Plantinga argues that God has a sufficient reason to allow some moral evil: only in this way can He make possible the greater moral good of human freedom. Thus, Plantinga opposes theological compatiblism - the view that God can allow human freedom and prevent moral evil. If he is right, theological compatiblism is incoherent; and could be likened to the claim that 'God can make a color that is bluer than blue.'

Plantinga's view hinges on the claim that even God cannot ensure free moral agents always do the right thing:

Suppose God creates an agent with the intent that this agent freely chooses good all the time. Now, if the agent is to ''freely'' choose some good, he must actually be free to choose it or to refrain from choosing it. Further suppose that there is a world - the world God wants to make actual - in which that agent does choose the good all the time. This world can only be made actual if its predecessor - a "world segment" that includes all of the world's states of affairs save the agent's choice - is first made actual (before it can be true that an agent chooses the right thing in a situation, the agent must be presented with the situation at hand). But if a world segment is made actual, then, if the agent is free with respect to the decision that must be made, God cannot control whether the agent will ''freely'' choose to do right or wrong. The upshot is that theological compatiblism must be false - for God to determine that an agent will do right all the time is inconsistent with that agent freely choosing to do right all the time. "God determines that an agent must freely choose to do right" is analogous to "God creates a married bachelor."

Plantinga furthers his defense in ''God, Freedom and Evil.'' If it is ''logically possible'' that all agents are depraved (will go wrong with respect to some action or other) in any world in which they exist, then it is logically possible that God could, no matter which agents he caused to exist, never create a world with human freedom and no moral evil. 

He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.

== God's love for us as particular persons ==
One proposed solution to the problem of evil argues that, although people in general could exist without evil, the particular people who now exist could not. The lives of all who now live are so deeply entwined with the evils of the past, that without all of those evils, or the bulk of them, everyone now alive would never have existed. In a perfect world, none of us would have ever been born; in a perfect world, people would still exist, but we would not be among them, nor anyone whom we love. If God loves people in general, the best thing He could have done for people in general would have been to create a perfect world for them to live in. But if God loves particular people — the particular people who now exist — the best thing He could have done for those particular people is to create a world containing whatever is necessary for their existence — in other words, the best thing God could do ''for us'' is to create the very world which now exists. God could have done better; but God could not have done better for us, only for other people.

We creatures really have no right to complain about God creating a world which contains evil, for without evil we would not exist — when we are complaining about God creating a world which contains evil, what we are really objecting to is our own existence, for God creating such a world is necessary to our own existence.

The objection is made to this account, that it could also justify all kinds of evil acts committed by human beings, e.g. the mass murderer could claim that they comitted their crimes out of a special love for those who would only exist as a result of those crimes. On the contrary, this justification is only valid for a being who has perfect foreknowledge of the future — i.e. God. Although the mass murderer can know that certain people will only exist as a consequence of their mass murder, the mass murderer cannot claim to know and love those people as specific individuals, only as an amorphous potentiality. Only God can know and love those people as individuals, thus this is only a valid moral justification for acts of God, not for the acts of any lesser beings.

== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.

J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>

== References ==

*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).

{{reflist}}

[[Category: Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]

Talk:Inconsistent triad

2011-11-09T14:20:19Z

Samsonnn:

'''Omnibenevolence'''

The writer has missed this out of the article. This is a key part of the problem of evil. The problem of evil is only an inconsistent triad without this.
Though it can be argued that omnipotence and omniscience is the same thing; an all-powerful being should know everything also?
So I suggest adding omnibenevolence to this and removing omniscience.

Fixed - Samsonnn

Inconsistent triad

2011-11-09T14:19:51Z

Samsonnn:

An inconsistent triad is a set of three [[proposition|propositions]], only two of which can be true at one time. The most famous example of this commonly cited is the one posed by the [[Problem of Evil]]. This takes the form of:

: - God is [[omnibenevolent]]
: - God is [[omnipotent]]
: - Evil exists

[[Atheists]] who adhere to [[strong atheism]] argue that this inconsistent triad disproves God, as they claim an all-loving and all-powerful God would not allow evil to occur, and the fact that evil does occur suggests that God is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent. However, there have been attempts by Christian apologists to reconcile God with all three propositions, these take the form of [[theodicies]].

== See Also ==
[[Problem of Evil]]

[[category:logic]]

Talk:Inconsistent triad

2011-11-09T14:18:37Z

Samsonnn: Created page with "'''Omnibenevolence''' The writer has missed this out of the article. This is a key part of the problem of evil. The problem of evil is only an inconsistent triad without this. T..."