Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

William Lane Craig

2009-05-12T20:30:58Z

TaKess:

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. William Lane Craig]]
'''William Lane Craig''' is a renowned [[Christianity|Christian]] scholar, [[philosopher]], and [[apologist]]. He currently holds the position of Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology in La Miranda, California.

Born 23 August 1949, at age sixteen W. L. Craig pledged his life to [[Jesus Christ]], his Lord and Savior. Thus began a career, indeed a calling, dedicated to the [[Gospel]]. Craig completed a B. A. at [[Wheaton College]] in 1971, and two M. A. degrees at [[Trinity Evangelical Divinity School]] in 1974 and 1975 (in the philosophy of religion and church history), and a Ph. D. from the University of Birmingham (England) in 1977. Craig also received a D. Theol. from the University of Munich in 1984, where he studied under the famous [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]].

Craig is known for his [[Christian apologetics]], specifically concerning the [[Resurrection]], the existence of God, and theocentric ethics. Craig's case for the existence of God usually involves five central arguments:
*the [[cosmological argument]], which includes Craig's specially-developed Kalam argument
*the argument from fine-tuning
*the moral argument
*the argument from the historicity of the [[Resurrection]]
*the argument from personal experience

In the estimation of some atheists, Craig has won all or nearly all of his debates with atheists and is one of the most impressive debaters currently alive.<ref>http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392#more-392</ref>

[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Christian Apologists]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, William}}

Jihad

2009-05-12T20:18:00Z

TaKess:

{{citations missing}}

'''Jihad''' is an [[Islam|Islamic]] concept meaning "to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle"; has many meanings to the [[Muslim]], both inward and outward; mainly used in the West to describe a "holy war" that some fundamentalist Muslims fight against non-Muslims or Muslims of other Islamic sects. The word "Jihad" is a transliteration of the [[Arabic]] word "جهاد". Individuals who engage in jihad are referred to as ''mujahideen'' or ''mujahedeen''.

Jihad as "struggle," is divided into two types, the greater Jihad and the lesser Jihad. The greater Jihad is the internal struggle against [[sin]] and temptation and to make one's self a better Muslim. The lesser Jihad is the physical conflict (historically understood as defensive struggle) against those who threaten the Muslim way of life. Many followers of Islam do not condone the use of jihad as a manner of securing converts.

== Mention of Jihad in the [[Qur'an]] ==

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur'an 2:190

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.
Qur'an 22:39

Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Qur'an 4:90

But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Qur'an 8:61

[[category:islam]]

Talk:Osama Bin Laden

2009-05-12T20:15:44Z

TaKess:

:Osama Bin Laden actually appears (uncredited) as a tribal leader in the American blockbuster ''Rambo III'' [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/]. This is a well-known statement, based on the presence of Rambo III filming in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's then friendliness with US interests, and the presence of a lot of extras. I think this should be included. [http://www.plp.org/misc/oblncia.html]

==Bush==

Erm - how can an article about OBL not mention George Bush?! Utter madness from the home schooled loonies [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

How is Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11/01 attack if he is not wanted for it?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=24550#wantedfor

Bin Laden has not been found guilty for the 9/11/01 attack, although he has been found guilty for other crimes. How about mentioning those (at least first) before mentioning something of which he hasn't even been convicted?
* Because [[Saddam Hussein|Saddam]] and [[the Axis of Evil]] were responsible for it. Try to keep up. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Taliban "emerging" out of mujaheddin ==

The Taliban most assuredly did '''not''' "emerge from" the ''mujaheddin'', despite what the cited source, commondreams.org (which bills itself as "breaking news and views for the progressive [read ''liberal''] community"), says. Even [CNN http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/] can get it right—the Taliban arose in opposition to the muj. At ''most,'' some of the muj may have defected to the Taliban. The idea that US aid to the muj "in the 80s" (to use commondreams.org's phrase) led to 9/11 is simply a liberal myth. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 23:53, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:This is vague at best. ''Mujahideen'' simply refers to anyone who is engaged in ''jihad'', which bin Laden claims all of his men are. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

== Contradiction ==

This article both claims (incorrectly) that Clinton took no action against Bin Laden and also (correctly) claims that Bin Laden was targeted in a cruise missile strike. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Mrvipond|Mrvipond]] 10:39, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::The cruise missile attack was an attempt by Clinton to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal. It wasn't until after the Sept 11 attacks that Clinton started claiming Bin Laden had been the target. Before then the justification was a series of vague references to "insurgents." The article should either drop the reference to the cruise missile attacks or clarify their relevance. I vote for clarifying, because if the mention is dropped critics will claim we're censoring data. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]]

== Death ==

Is it not worth also mentioning that there is a widespread belief that he is now dead. The broadcasts he supposedly made last year (the first for 3 years) were widely believed to be obvious fakes.

Talk:Osama Bin Laden

2009-05-12T20:15:34Z

TaKess:

:Osama Bin Laden actually appears (uncredited) as a tribal leader in the American blockbuster ''Rambo III'' [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095956/]. This is a well-known statement, based on the presence of Rambo III filming in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's then friendliness with US interests, and the presence of a lot of extras. I think this should be included. [http://www.plp.org/misc/oblncia.html]

==Bush==

Erm - how can an article about OBL not mention George Bush?! Utter madness from the home schooled loonies [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:53, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

How is Bin Laden responsible for the 9/11/01 attack if he is not wanted for it?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
http://www.amw.com/fugitives/case.cfm?id=24550#wantedfor

Bin Laden has not been found guilty for the 9/11/01 attack, although he has been found guilty for other crimes. How about mentioning those (at least first) before mentioning something of which he hasn't even been convicted?
* Because [[Saddam Hussein|Saddam]] and [[the Axis of Evil]] were responsible for it. Try to keep up. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:58, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== Taliban "emerging" out of mujaheddin ==

The Taliban most assuredly did '''not''' "emerge from" the ''mujaheddin'', despite what the cited source, commondreams.org (which bills itself as "breaking news and views for the progressive [read ''liberal''] community"), says. Even [CNN http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/] can get it right—the Taliban arose in opposition to the muj. At ''most,'' some of the muj may have defected to the Taliban. The idea that US aid to the muj "in the 80s" (to use commondreams.org's phrase) led to 9/11 is simply a liberal myth. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 23:53, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

:This is vague at best. ''Mujahideen'' simply refers to anyone who is engaged in ''jihad'', which bin Laden claims all of his men are.

== Contradiction ==

This article both claims (incorrectly) that Clinton took no action against Bin Laden and also (correctly) claims that Bin Laden was targeted in a cruise missile strike. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Mrvipond|Mrvipond]] 10:39, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::The cruise missile attack was an attempt by Clinton to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal. It wasn't until after the Sept 11 attacks that Clinton started claiming Bin Laden had been the target. Before then the justification was a series of vague references to "insurgents." The article should either drop the reference to the cruise missile attacks or clarify their relevance. I vote for clarifying, because if the mention is dropped critics will claim we're censoring data. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]]

== Death ==

Is it not worth also mentioning that there is a widespread belief that he is now dead. The broadcasts he supposedly made last year (the first for 3 years) were widely believed to be obvious fakes.

Osama Bin Laden

2009-05-12T20:14:30Z

TaKess: decapitalizing "b" in "bin", expanding on bin Laden's view of Islam

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Osama bin Laden''' is a [[Saudi Arabia]]n millionaire, a radical [[Sunni]] [[Muslim]], and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group widely believed<ref>By the majority of the population, except for a few "9/11 Truthers"</ref> to be responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful [[entrepreneur]] in the [[construction]] [[industry]].

During the [[Clinton Administration]] <ref>[http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-24-1998.1.html Did Bill Clinton Smooth the Way for bin Laden to Become the World's Most Successful Terrorist?], Mary Mostert, Original Sources, August 24, 1998. </ref>, bin Laden issued two Declarations of War against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref> However, Clinton did not take the threat seriously, and did not make an effort to capture or kill bin Laden. <ref> [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/] Osama bin Laden: missed opportunities</ref>

In bin Laden's declarations and writings, he asserts that American attacks against Muslims justify reciprocation by Muslims, including the killing of innocents as a part of militaristic [[jihad]]. He refers to Islamic states headed by individuals friendly to the United States as usurper states which are disloyal to [[Islam]], but states that anyone who converts to Islam, even President [[George_W._Bush|Bush]], will be welcomed as a brother.

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

In the 1990s, bin Laden also gave funding to Chechen terrorists fighting against Russia.[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/DJ29Ag05.html] These terrorists were later responsible for the [[Beslan school siege of 2004]]. Chechens also fought in Afghanistan against U.S. forces on behalf of the Taliban.[http://muslimvillage.net/story.php?id=370]

During the 1980s insurgency against the [[Soviet]] occupation of [[Afghanistan]] the [[Carter Administration]] initially directed help to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants, some of whom were radical Islamists. bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

In 1998, bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the [[Islamic Brotherhood]] to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both Ben Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States launched [[cruise missile]]s, however, both terrorist leaders escaped.

Bin Laden is cited by the [[United States]] government as the most wanted terrorist. He remains at large to this day despite seven years of the United States army searching for him.

== See also ==
*[[Terrorism]]
*[[FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List]]
* [[Yasser Arafat]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]
[[Category:Muslims]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-05-12T17:15:32Z

TaKess:

{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Eric Holder..." ==

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that [[Obama]]'s Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --[[User:Andrew1123|Andrew1123]] 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

==Reference Needed for Claim that Wikipedia Called Bush a Nazi==

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is #150 really relevant? (The criticism of GWB/BHO) ==

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

:I'm sorry - and you are?
::20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎
::20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)
:Do you have any interest here other than this issue?
:Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his ''personality'' for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:
:<blockquote>"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."</blockquote>
:Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!
:Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.
:Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: [[Religion of Barack Obama]]. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

: Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Gothic architecture ==

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. [[User:ELeger|ELeger]] 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Drudge Bias ==

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, '''news aggregators,''' are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter '''pundits''' in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

: You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

: You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that '''at this point in time and on each of those articles,''' there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a '''news aggregator''' who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while '''pundits''' who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. [[User:Iamchipdouglas|Iamchipdouglas]] 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

== Organizing instances in order of severity? ==

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

:Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

== Thank you as well! ==

:Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! [[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwm[[User:Kriegerdwm|Kriegerdwm]] 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Update regarding the "Controversies and criticism" section at Wikipedia's Presidency of George W. Bush article ==

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. [[User:Breithaupt|Breithaupt]] 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

==Why do they do it?==

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the '''reason''' Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Cassie Bernall==

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, ''before'' the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::So you are saying that Wikipedia '''does''' admit she was murdered by an atheist? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-05-12T16:59:08Z

TaKess:

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-05-12T16:47:42Z

TaKess: adding signature

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2009-05-12T16:47:23Z

TaKess: Cassie Bernall

Talk:Mutation

2009-05-07T20:59:40Z

TaKess:

Is there a reason why the TOE paragraph is at the top instead of the paragraph explaining what mutations are?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

There are some serious mistakes in this article. First off, RNA is not found in the nucleus of the cell unless its mRNA, and in that case would not be mutated or affect the genetic makeup of the organism in question. mRNA is copied from the DNA structure itself and thus cannot alter DNA. Second, ribosomes are not responsible for correcting the DNA structure, they are responsible for protein synthesis and production of tRNA. It should also be mentioned that most mutations have no effect on the codons read to synthesis proteins due to similar 3 base codes. {{unsigned|Biology}} June 2007

==Gain-of-Function Mutations==

Sickle hemoglobin is a gain of function mutation Conservative.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:05, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

I have to ask, after reading this article and having much background knowledge of Sicklic hemoglobin, why anyone one would label it as a gain or a loss of function mutation? Heterozygous carriers of the Sicklic hemoglobin trait have hemoglobin that binds O2 just as regular hemoglobin does the only difference is in low O2 environments where the sicklic hemoglobin changes to a sicklic shape, otherwise it functions just like normal hemoglobin. I am not a biologist so I do not know how this relates to functional mutation grouping but I am a biochemist and I know for a fact that the sicklic hemoglobin is caused by a point mutation, where there is a change in the beta subunit to the amino acid valine at position 6 instead of the glutamic acid that is found in normal hemoglobin. As for homozygous carriers it has been found that the degree of anemia varies widely between patients. In general, patients with sickle cell disease have hematocrits that are roughly half the normal value (e.g., about 25% compared to about 40-45% normally). Patients with hemoglobin SC disease (where one of the beta globin genes codes for hemoglobin S and the other for the variant, hemoglobin C) have higher hematocrits than do those with homozygous Hb SS disease. The hematocrits of patients with Hb SC disease run in low- to mid-thirties. The hematocrit is normal for people with sickle cell trait. So depending on the variant of the disease caused by the homozygous carriers the disease does not have to be life threatening.

If anything I believe that a good example of a gain of function mutation would be found in HIV. SIV Vpu is not a viroporin, HIV-1 O Vpu is not a viroporin, however HIV-1 M Vpu is a viroporin (gated cation channel specific to Na+). This is a new activity that evolved in HIV after the split from SIV over a 10 year timeframe and is part of the reason that the HIV-1 M clade is the most common type of HIV in the world. This cation channel is gated and therefore more complicated than just a simple ion channel, considering that this is a new viral component found only in the HIV-1 M clade it is a safe conjecture to say that this is an example of a gain of function mutation considering that the HIV clades before HIV-1 M did not contain a gated cation channel specific to Na+.

Apolipoprotein AI is another example of what I believe would classify as a gain of function mutation. The Apolipoprotein AI Milano allele is the mutated allele. In an experiment where reconstituted HDL particles made of Apolipoprotein AI were infused into arteriosclerotic rabbits, the rabbits had fewer and less extensive plaques. There was decreased aortic cholesterol, and decreased cell proliferation (both of which improve cell wall flexibility. These experiments all point to the Apolipoprotein AI as a lipid-binding protein that is a major component of High Density Lipoprotein particles, and therefore play an important role in removing cholesterol from cells. Subsequent detailed research of the Apolipoprotein AI mutation has demonstrated that it has improved biological function that directly contributes to lowering the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the individuals carrying it.

Perhaps the two examples I listed above should be placed into the article since they are well researched in the scientific community due to the amount of press heart disease and HIV both get.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 15:40, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Feel free to add them, although keep in mind the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Article level|target audience]].
:The sickle hemoglobin is sometimes used as evidence for evolution (as opposed to creation), and I suspect that is why it was included in this article. However, leading creationists only dispute ''information-gaining'' mutations, and accept that there are ''information-losing'' mutations, such as apoliproprotein AI, which result in a gain of function or a benefit in some circumstances.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2107]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:54, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:I will look into the APO-AIM but for now if it does not meet the standards then it should be left out. The HIV example though I know meets because it also increased the size of the genome of HIV. So I will add it in.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:59, 15 November 2007 (EST)

== No new genetic info? ==

The statement that "mutations that create new genetic information have never been observed" is simply false, unless you're using some unusual definition of genetic information, in which case that should be explained. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 21:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)
:No, it's not false, and I would consider it a usual use of "information", although not the meaningless (literally) definition that evolutionists often use (i.e. any change (except perhaps a deletion) is by definition new information). However, I do take your point that the definition wasn't explained. As a partial answer to that, I've linked "information", and although that article doesn't specifically mention ''genetic'' information, it's better than nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:24, 8 January 2008 (EST)

==According to Molecular Pathology==
There are three main classes of mutation with several subclasses.
*Deletions
:Deletions of DNA ranging from 1 bp to megabases.
*Insertions
:Insertions of DNA including duplications.
*Single base substitutions
:*Missense Mutations
::Replacement of one amino acid with another in the gene product.
:*Nonsense Mutations
::Replacement of an amino acid codon with a stop codon.
:*Splice Site Mutations
::Create or destroy signals for exon-intron splicing

Within these main classes a mutation can be consided a loss of function or gain of function. There are also Frameshifts and Dynamic Mutations. Since I did not start this article I want to know if anyone would object if I made these corrections as well as provide some background information about what exactly these mutations trully are?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:07, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Ok, I am assuming that this is fine and will start adding it in.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 16:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:Sounds good. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Mutations don't lead to evolution? New genetic information? ==

What's this about no new genetic information never being observed? Is it talking about a whole new genetic code? Mutations change DNA, which changed RNA, which changes proteins. This has been observed numerous times such as the nylon eating bacteria who have evolved to produce nylonase. To say that mutations are produced, but that they are neither new information nor beneficial is wrong and naive. Mutations simply create differences in bonds, in physical properties, it may make a protein more hydrophobic or change it's stability. Inherently they are neither good nor bad, it is only to the organism to whom these differences apply that may have worse or better effects depending on the circumstances of the molecule.
Also, mutations don't cause evolution on their own. It is only with natural selection that mutations can cause evolution to occur. Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth. For instance it would be a lot easier to wipe out humans as "highly evolved" as they seem to be than bacteria as the current problems with antibiotic resistance show. And please that Mayr quote is taken out of context, Mayr gave many examples of how such complex organs could be improved by mutations, surely you could replace it with something from AIG or something that doesn't go against the life's work of the author. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 22:43, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

: When talking about genetic information, we are talking about data ''with meaning''. If you randomly change a sentence, for example, you don't introduce any ''new meaning''; you only corrupt the sentence. There is evidence that the nylon-eating bacteria is not a random change, but something that appears to have been designed for[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1586/].
: The article does not say that beneficial mutations are not produced, only that ones with new information are not produced.
: "''Also, bacteria and viruses evolve all the time. They may not meet most people's definition of "evolved", but they are some of the most successful organisms on earth.''": First you assert that it happens, then you admit that it may not be evolution, then you try and justify that it is evolution on the grounds that they are successful! That's a series of non-sequiturs.
: You would accept a quote from AiG? Why do I have my doubts? Nevertheless, you have a point, and although I'll leave the quote in, I'll clarify it.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

::So you admit genetic information can change, but not obtain new meaning? I really don't understand your concept of "new meaning". If you have the sentence ''THE HAT WAS RED'' a H->C mutation occurs ''THE '''C'''AT WAS RED''. I would call this new meaning, although you could probably argue that it was 'corrupted' from it's earlier version in that it no longer carries the same meaning, but I don't see that as a problem. And I was commenting on that people have different concepts of what is "evolved", a lot of people believe that dogs are somehow ''more evolved'' than worms. Bacteria are successful, in that they are not static. There happens to be a site that refutes that very article [[http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]], and I'm very glad they have since I have little time to go through and pick it apart myself. Honestly, I find it hard to go through their lines of reasoning, it seems as if they don't fully grasp the idea of plasmids.
::And I wouldn't myself accept a quote from AIG as a satisfactory argument, I have very little respect for their work. However, they are used commonly on this site as an appropriate if not authoritative source. It's just that if a preacher spent his whole life studying the bible and said once: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that an invisible supernatural being exists which was able to create everything we know." despite explaining afterwards what he meant, and backing up his claims in numerous books, it would be misleading to use this quote single-handedly to try and discredit his life's work. Although, I do thank you for changing it to read a little more accurately. Perhaps you should pick up ''What Evolution Is'' by Mayr, it's written for the general reader (I assume you haven't taken undergrad biology courses?) and sums up Mayr's reasoning well. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:54, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: A mutation is a ''random'' change. Did you ''randomly'' change a letter in the sentence "THE HAT WAS RED", or was some ''intelligent design'' involved on your part? How about trying that again with a ''random'' change, and see what you get. I've done the same sort of thing a number of times before, but I always make a ''random'' change (close my eyes, move the cursor back an arbitrary number of spaces, then press a key at random, before opening my eyes). And you know what? I've ''never'' had to repeat that because I've actually added new information!
::: Furthermore, information is not normally found in isolation. If your sentence was in a discussion about a person and their clothing, then "THE CAT WAS RED" would make no sense, despite it being grammatically correct.
::: Now it is ''theoretically possible'' that the sentence is in a context where there is a cat, and elsewhere creationists have admitted that the odd ''extremely rare'' information-gaining mutation might occur, so even if the Nylon bug is one, it's about the only one (and it's about the only one people keep telling me about), whereas if evolution was true, there should be ''many'' examples. And the odd very rare such mutation is going to be swamped by all the information-destroying ones, so it offers little comfort to evolution. By the way, the article you linked to is ''not'' a response to the one I linked to, although it does have a link to such a response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:51, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Oh, dear I was really hoping the "random" thing wasn't going to be a problem. You see I could have ran that sentence through a program that randomly changed one letter in the sentence to any others in the alphabet and listed them all. Of all of these one would be "THE CAT WAS RED" which in this example let's consider a beneficial mutation along with others such as "THE BAT WAS RED", and "THE MAT WAS RED" that still make plausible sentences in English. If we consider these sentences as mRNA and each word as a codon for a protein (reading left to right) in this four protein molecule then these mutations in the first base of the second codon will change the type of amino acid to be inserted into this protein. In the proteins for the "beneficial" mutations that I have stated above the new amino acid would do something like alter the configuration of the protein or change it's hydrophobicity in a way that would enable it to carry out it's function more effectively (it could have other consequences, but this is an example so let's keep it simple). We can say that mutations such as "THE PAT WAS RED", "THE SAT WAS RED", and "THE NAT WAS RED" that are all made up of English words, but don't make grammatical sense as mutations that may change the amino acid sequence, but change it to something similar (like Asn->Glu, both negatively charged with similar pKa values) to where it's function is not affected. Also third base pair changes such as "THE CAN WAS RED" would still code for the same amino acid (in this case) since their is redundancy in the the genetic code and would therefore have the same protein produced as from the original sequence. That mutation would have little or no effect on the fitness of the organism, unless for a complex biochemical one (such as changing the stability of the DNA by going to a G/C->A/T base pair). All the other mutations that make nonsense sentences "THT HAT WAS RED", "THE GAT WAS RED", and "THE HAT WAS NED" let's call harmful mutations that make the protein less effective at what it does. When natural selection works on these mutations the positive ones get selected for and the harmful ones start declining in the population. So after many generations some may be left with "THE CAT WAS RED" which despite being random in the first place looks like it was designed, since all the much more likely harmful mutations occurred and were selected against.
::::And I do apologize for linking the wrong article, tabbed browsing is a boon and a curse. ^^ --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 10:49, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: Using intelligent design to demonstrate evolution ''is'' a problem, and always will be. Including ''systematically'' trying all combinations. And stopping the "mutations" there. No microbes-to-man evolution is going to stop at a single mutation. How about ''randomly'' making one mutation (even trying every combination), then ''another'' random (not systematic) mutation to the sequence that already has a mutation, then ''another'' random mutation to that, and so on. And then see how many still make sense.
::::: Further, you didn't address the point about whether the "mutated" sentence actually did make sense ''in context''.
::::: Lenski's research involved bacteria going through about 44,000 generations before he got ''one'' that he could claim was novel (not that it truly was). Humans, if they evolved from apes, must have had ''thousands'' of information-gaining mutations, and there's been nowhere enough time for that to happen (44,000 generations is about one million years). And with sexual reproduction there's only a 50% chance that any beneficial mutation will be passed on anyway! (See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 here] for more on that.)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
::::::I was not stopping the mutations there, nor "systematically" trying them all. In a large populations over a large period of time the improbable is possible, all combinations might arise. Mutations can arise on top of each other, but given the occurrence rate of mutations and the size of most genomes, mutations happening in the same gene aren't likely (but yes, they do happen! improbable is not impossible!). As for whether or not the sentence made sense in context, the changing of one base pair in a gene isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It might be my fault for trying to use an example to make things simpler, but addition before algebra. I'm not sure what you mean by the "context" a protein might find itself in, but a single amino acid change can do a lot or a little. Changing the hydrophobicity for example can make it more or less effective at what it does, but not necessarily take it "out of context". And before we start discussing on the accumulation of mutations, just how much time are you talking about here for age of the earth? --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 21:11, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: You may not have ''intended'' to stop the mutations there, but that's as far as your example went, and continuing it would have changed the result.
::::::: Time is not the magic wand that saves the argument. Trains run on tracks. Not when there are active processes working to weed out misfits, etc.
::::::: Not every combination of letters—even just three letters—constitutes a valid English word. And not every combinarntion of valid English words makes sense. And not every combination of valid English sentences make sense. And so on. In the case of DNA, there are only 64 ''possible'' "words", and, unlike English, every single one of them "makes sense", i.e. codes for an amino acid. But does every combination of amino acids make sense? And every combination of proteins? And so on all the way up the chain, even to the whole organism. A brain cell in a liver doesn't make sense, for example. This is what I mean by context. You would have wondered what my reference to trains was there for. The words of that sentence are all valid. The sentence itself makes sense. But the sentence ''in this context'' doesn't make sense. (It even ''disrupts'' the flow of thought, as the next sentence seems to refer to it, although it's not meant to.) A random change in a very small unit (e.g. a gene) might well make sense locally, but not in the wider context, especially the wider you go. The wider you go with the context, the greater the chance that it makes no sense at all.
::::::: I'm out of time now, but I hope that's clear enough.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 3 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Well a sense of the time in which these processes occur in does help with the understanding, as does knowing how often mutations do occur. However, I don't think that your argument about context works against the idea of beneficial mutations. A mutation that doesn't "make sense" in a larger context and decreases the fitness of an organism is selected against. But not all mutations do that. The likelihood of a series of mutations rapidly occurring to make brain cells appear in the liver is not likely. And even if you may not think that it is "in context" it doesn't mean it couldn't be beneficial in some way. Lots of structures have lost their original function and are used for something else, such as legs becoming mouth parts in lobsters. --[[User:Rainedaye|Rainedaye]] 20:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)

== KathrynMonroe's edit ==

I've reverted KathrynMonroe's edit because most claims of information-gaining mutations having been ''observed'' turn out to be bluster or misunderstanding the issue, and because:
* The first reference, to "Susumu Ohno 1984" is not elaborated on, so it can't be checked.
* The second reference, to Sean Carrol, appears, from the abstract, to be to a claimed mutation that occurred "prior to the emergence of the adaptive immune system in vertebrates", so could not possibly have been ''observed''.
* The third reference, from a quick read, also doesn't appear to make any claims about actual ''observation'' of such mutation.
It also makes unsubstantiated claims about old and mined quotes.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

:I apologize since my wikifying is a new skill I"m trying to develop. I've fixed the wording and provided a better example of the first point - the creation of the nylon-digesting enzyme complex. I also clarified the quote by Grasse. Hope those help!
:: You've now provided a different first reference, but haven't addressed the comments I made about the other references.
:: Also, your revised comment about quotes is slightly better, but still not good enough, and implicitly falsely treats creationists and scientists as two mutually-exclusive groups. Your comment near the end about some claims being opinion is factually incorrect.
:: I'll do some work on it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

==Mutation Types==
A point mutation is in the same class as a deletion and an insertion mutation, however it is classified as a subsitution mutation (there are some subsitution mutations that change more than one base). I will try to work out the formating.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:28, 4 February 2009 (EST)

==However, mutations that create new genetic information have never been observed.==

What does the above sentence actually mean? In other words, what is "genetic information"? This page is woefully incomplete without such a definition, and the page on [[information]] does not define it, either. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:59, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

Genetic drift

2009-05-07T20:54:32Z

TaKess:

'''Genetic drift''' is the random change in the frequency of alleles in a population due to chance events causing unequal participation of individuals in producing succeeding generations. Genetic drift can be a principal force in the [[theory of evolution|evolution]] of some populations; it is especially associated with populations of small size or where [[polymorphism]]s in a gene do not have very different fitnesses.

==Genetic Drift as it Relates to Allele Frequencies==

Different forms of a [[gene]] are called [[allele|alleles]]. Individual members of a [[population]] have different alleles. Together, all the alleles for all the genes in a population constitute the "gene pool" of the population. Through reproduction, individuals pass their genes on to the next generation. Considering only the effect of genetic drift, the larger the population is, the more stable the frequency of different alleles in the gene pool will be over time; this is because random chance will play less of a role in determining who breeds. In small populations, allele frequencies are likely to change rapidly and dramatically over very few generations, or "drift," because of chance events. This rapid change can occur in small populations because each individual's alleles represent a large fraction of the gene pool, and if an individual did not reproduce it could have a much larger effect than in the case of an individual in a large population not reproducing. Also, alleles that are found infrequently are more likely to be lost due to random chance.

After many generations, if only genetic drift is operating, populations (even large populations) will eventually contain only one allele of a particular gene, becoming "monomorphic," or fixed for this allele. This can be seen as a loss of information in the population, though in real populations, this process is prevented by [[mutation]]s.

==Random Events that Affect Genetic Drift==

Many types of random events that can affect the likelihood of alleles being passed to future generations can be imagined. An adult may fail to mate during mating season due to unusually adverse weather; a pregnant mother may randomly discover a rich food source and produce unusually strong or numerous off-spring; all the offspring of one parent may be consumed by predators. Many other scenarios are possible.

To see how such events affect allele frequencies, imagine a population that contains four individuals of an organism that reproduces once and dies. Let us examine how allele frequencies change for a gene that has two alleles, ''A'' and ''a''. As with other genes, each individual has two alleles, one inherited from each parent. Imagine that three of the individuals are aa genotype, and one is ''Aa'' genotype. Thus, of the population's eight copies of the gene, one is ''A'', and seven are ''a''. Now imagine that because of random chance, the ''Aa'' individual does not reproduce. Therefore, only ''aa'' offspring are produced and the ''A'' allele is lost to the population. The ''A'' allele goes from a frequency of one-eighth to zero through the process of genetic drift.

A large reduction in population size can lead to a situation known as a genetic bottleneck. After a genetic bottleneck the population is likely to have different allele frequencies. When only a very small number of individuals are left after a population decline, the population will have only the alleles present in these few individuals. This is known as the "founder effect." The founder effect can be viewed as an extreme case of a genetic bottleneck. If a population decline affects all individuals in the population without respect to the alleles they carry, genetic drift will have an effect on all genes.

Genetic drift has important implications for the process of speciation. When a small group of individuals becomes isolated from the majority of individuals of a species, the small group will genetically drift from the rest of the species. Because genetic drift is random and the smaller group will drift more rapidly than the larger group, it is possible that, given enough time, the small group will become different enough from the large group to become a different species. One consequence of this process is [[inbreeding]], and when inbreeding occurs, deleterious alleles can "drift" to high frequency in the population. This can ultimately lower the total fitness of a population, although these effects can be mitigated by gene flow (introducing new variation by breeding with other populations) and selection acting on new variation.

The fact that small populations are more subject to genetic drift has important implications for conservation. If the number of individuals of a species becomes small, it becomes increasingly influenced by genetic drift, which may result in the loss of valuable genetic diversity. Conservation biologists seek to maintain populations at sufficient numbers to counteract genetic drift.

==Genetic drift and evolution==

Along with [[natural selection|selection]], [[mutation]]s, and [[gene flow]], genetic drift is one of the major mechanisms that can cause populations to change over time. In the [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]], genetic drift is seen as the most important element causing evolutionary change at the [[DNA]] sequence level: Since most changes at the molecular level are neither good (beneficial) nor bad (deleterious), but neutral, these changes must "drift" to fixation.

==Further Reading==

:Avise, John C. Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1994.
:Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998.
:Mayr, Ernst. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1976.
:Weaver, Robert F., and Philip W. Hedrick. Genetics, 2nd ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1992.

[[Category:Genetics]]

Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2009-05-04T21:48:58Z

TaKess: Falsifiability, see talk page

The '''Endosymbiotic hypothesis''' is a [[hypothesis]] used by evolutionists to explain the origin of certain [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] [[organelle]]s, specifically [[mitochondrion|mitochondria]] and [[chloroplasts]].
Evolutionists believe that early in the course of terrestrial life, all cells were [[prokaryote]]s.
It is hypothesized that at some point, [[endophagocytosis]] occurred whereby one bacteria "hijacked" the energy producing potential of another by engulfing a respiring or photosynthesizing bacteria.

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are the only organelles to contain their own [[DNA]] (other than the nucleus, which contains the DNA for the entire cell) and their DNA is well-conserved enough that they appear to be nearly separate organisms. DNA and [[RNA]] analyses have borne out much of this hypothesis; in particular, chloroplasts have a high amount of similarity with cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), and mitochondria strongly resemble proteobacteria. Some evolutionists argue that the [[nucleus]] is also the result of the endophagocytosis of an [[archaea]]. Further evidence supporting mitochondria and chloroplasts being endosymbionts lies in the fact that both organelles have [[plasma]] membrane bound spaces inside of their outer membranes, something no other organelle possesses. Many other eukaryotes have organelles which appear to have several layers of plasma membrane; evolutionists interpret this to mean that these are the result of a series of endosymbiosis events.

One problem with the endosymbiotic hypothesis is that endophagocytosis is not observed among existing prokaryotes.

Alternate hypotheses are that eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells were simply [[intelligent design|design]]ed as they are. This, unlike the endosymbiotic hypothesis, is neither [[theory|testable]] nor [[falsifiable]], though it is consistent with other creation models which creationists claim are falsifiable.
[[Category:biology]]

Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2009-05-04T21:47:21Z

TaKess: falsifiability

==Falsifiability==

I take issue with the claim that the endosymbiotic hypothesis is not falsifiable. Off the top of my head, it strongly predicts that a) we should find similarities between mitochondria and chloroplasts and their hypothesized "relatives" in the bacterial kingdoms, and b) that such organelles should have two layers of plasma membrane rather than one. Finding evidence against either of these would falsify the theory. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 17:47, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

User talk:KathrynMonroe

2009-04-14T19:57:11Z

TaKess:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)}}
== Allele ==
I've just had a very quick read through your edits to [[Allele]]. There are a few typos there, which I haven't got time to fix at the moment. Also note the link to "CP Guidelines" in the welcome box above, and in particular the section on that page about ''Article level''. I think the Allele page could do with a bit of work in that regard. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

== Squid giant axon ==

Nice catch--for some reason I thought giant squid axons were used (and it seemed a little strange to me, given that live giant squid have only recently been observed). [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:57, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Biophysics

2009-04-14T18:19:59Z

TaKess: creating page

'''Biophysics''' is a subset of [[physics]] which is related to [[biochemistry]]. Biophysics is a diverse and interdisciplinary field; it involves questions which deal with a variety of biological questions which can be illuminated through physics-based methods.

Examples of questions in biophysics include:
*how molecular motors like kinesin move
*allometry, or the relationship between metabolism and organismal size
*questions relating to the movement of fluids in small environments, and how this affects nutrient availability
*error-proofing mechanisms in the construction of DNA and RNA
*how biological structures like Holliday junctions and indentations in [[plasma membrane]]s form
*how cell signaling and transport are viable on small scales

Cephalopod

2009-04-14T18:16:08Z

TaKess: adding more info re: cephalopods

'''Cephalopod''' molluscs are a branch of related marine [[invertebrate]]s. They include [[octopus]], [[squid]], [[cuttlefish]], [[nautilus]] and the extinct [[ammonite]]s.

"Cephalopod" comes from the Greek Κεφαλόποδ (kephalópod), meaning roughly "head-foot." Univalve molluscs include a muscular "foot"; in gastropods such as snails, the foot is found on the bottom, near the stomach, whereas in cephalopods, it is part of the head.

Some cephalopods, such as octopus, are widely considered to be among the most intelligent marine invertebrates. Octopus and cuttlefish are capable of camouflaging themselves to match many complex environments, a behavior which aids them in predation. Octopus are also capable of planning ahead and performing feats of dexterity such as opening jars. Some marine biologists claim that other cephalopods, such as Humboldt squid, may be capable of communication.

The [[axon|axons]] of [[giant squid]] were used by early [[biophysics|biophysicists]] to uncover the manner in which nerve signals propagate along nerve cells. Since the axons are very long--the longest of any known animal--they were an ideal model system to use in studying this phenomenon.

[[Category:Molluscs]]

Dairy

2009-04-14T17:18:41Z

TaKess: creating page

'''Dairy''' is a catch-all term for [[food]] and [[drink]] products that are made from the milk of mammals. [[Cow|Cows]] are the main mammal from which dairy products are made, but sometimes, goat's milk can be used instead.

Dairy products are known for being high in complete protein, fat (though the fat can be reduced or removed in processing), the sugar [[lactose]] (which many humans do not tolerate well), and other nutrients.

Examples of dairy products include milk itself, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, and kefir.

Species

2009-04-09T03:53:51Z

TaKess: Species concepts

A '''species''', according to the [[classification system]] used by biologists, is a group of living organisms having sufficient genetic similarity to be able to produce fertile offspring.<ref>A group of organisms belong to the same biological species if they are capable of producing fertile offspring. [http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-S/species.html Holgrem Lab], Northwestern University, Illinois </ref>

For example, a [[tiger]] and a [[clam]] are classified as different species, because they cannot produce offspring. A [[German Shepherd]] and a [[Beagle]], although different ''breeds'', are classified as being the same species because they can produce fertile offspring.

However, the definition of "species" has changed over time and is sometimes problematic.

== Origin of the term ==

[[Linnaeus]], who introduced the classification system in the 18th century, originally intended "species" to refer to the biblical creation "[[baramin|kinds]]", but the modern definitions of species do not match the biblical kinds.
Despite this, many people, both Christians and evolutionists, believe that the idea of new species developing is inconsistent with the Bible.
However, creationary scientists accept that speciation has been observed, although they deny that speciation can lead to the development of completely new features as predicted by evolutionists.

[[Charles Darwin]] wrote ''The Origin of Species'' {{years ago | 1859}} years ago, hoping to account for the diversity of plant and animal life with an entirely [[naturalistic]] explanation (see [[Theory of evolution]]).

== Defining species ==

There is not a single universally-agreed definition of "species." This is because different definitions of "species" are germane to different contexts. For living organisms, the biological species concept is considered the norm, but it is not always the easiest definition to apply.

Examples of species concepts include:
;the ''biological species'' concept: A species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding. This concept only applies to extant organisms which undergo a significant amount of sexual reproduction; moreover, successful reproduction (or, at least, the lack of barriers to it) must be observed. When several reproductively isolated populations are observed within an apparently similar group of organisms, they are often considered different species. There are several different ways to define this concept depending on which methods of reproductive isolation are being considered.
;the ''morphospecies'' concept: A species is a group of organisms characterized by common morphological features. While it is easy to observe and categorize species this way, especially fossil species, such categorizations are not foolproof, and this concept often yields faulty results. For example, a two-legged goat born to a four-legged goat mother is not a member of a new species.
;the ''genetic species'' concept: A species is a group of organisms defined by [[DNA]] sequence traits. The cutoffs between species defined this way are often arbitrary, but this species concept is often considered the best one for microorganisms like [[bacteria]].

=== Common third species ===

There are cases where two species are not capable of interbreeding, but each is capable of interbreeding with a third species.<ref name="spark">[http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/evolution/speciation/section1.html Speciation] (SparkNotes)</ref>

=== "Natural" interbreeding ===

"Species" is sometimes defined in such a way that groups of creatures that do not ''naturally'' interbreed (perhaps because of geological isolation) are classified as separate species despite the fact that they ''can'' interbreed.<ref name="spark"/>

=== Ring Species ===
"Ring species" occur when a contiguous lineage of ancestors co-exist at the same time. Unlike most species whose direct ancestral species are now extinct, the ancestral species of a ring species still survive. The existence of ring species makes it more difficult to define what a species is. For example, A can breed with B can breed with C can breed with D... however D cannot breed with A. The most prominent example of a ring species is the Larus Gull which resides in the north Atlantic. Neighboring species around the arctic interbreed, however this ability to interbreed terminates near Britain with the Herring Gull and Lesser Black-Backed Gull.<ref>Harrison, Peter (1988): Seabirds (2nd ed.). Christopher Helm, London ISBN 0-7470-1410-8</ref>

=== Classifying extinct creatures ===

Many extinct species known only from fossils have been given species names, despite the impossibility of determining their capability of interbreeding.

==Notes==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Biological classification]]
*[[Baraminology]]

[[category:biology]]

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T23:33:53Z

TaKess: i keep forgetting to sign

Better. Explained the iron problem and its solution. Removed all mention of Canup, as it is very confusing to refer to: "This scientist said X, which supports my position. But then they said they were wrong, their computer model was off, X is not true at all. Still, they said X, so im going to cite them as supporting my claim."

-----
Who wrote this? It has about as much scientific accuracy as claiming the moon is made of green cheese. Further, the article ''contradicts'' the same source it claims support from regarding angular momentum! --{{unsigned|Suricou}}

The history of the Moon Theories, and the reason for their rejection, has been censored from this content page. Why? We're not going to allow censorship of history here. No one disputes this history, so why are folks trying to censor it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:...wha? The source you cited explained why the current theory is generally accepted and why the previous theories are most likely wrong. The article reflects that. Please explain what is being "censored". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: What was censored is that the prevailing, accepted theories of the origin of the Moon were disproven by the lunar landings, and then scientists convened to deveop a new theory. That is historical fact. No one disputes it. Why do liberals insist on censoring it???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Uh... there is ''one'' currently accepted theory. And that is not disproven by the lunar landing. The article mentions the three old theories that are in the source AND says what speaks against them. It's right there. In fact, the first three items of the list were left almost completely untouched.
::And what do you expect scientists to say when something speaks against their current theory? Something like "Wow, the new findings go against our theory! So we must not develop a new theory, but instead we should embrace the fact that God the Almighty did it!" maybe? So of course they developed a new theory based on new observations. Welcome to science.
::The current theory (number 4) is not disproven. The source argues in favor of it. Trying to cite it to "prove" or even "suggest" that it's wrong would be extremely deceiving. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Honest question from a frustrated user ==

Aschlafly, are you going to ban me if I rephrase/expand the current "article" and take some of your anti-scientific spin and quote-mining out it to make it a bit more neutral and balanced? This would normally be a no-brainer, but the article and site history (especially the reverts) show that this is not a trivial question, so I'd rather have permission before I get infinitely banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Everything in the content page is factual and thoroughly supported. Be specific about what you think is wrong. Obviously this challenges your personal opinions but the point here is to set forth the scientific and historical facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Andy, I don't think you should let him change a thing. It is a really, really good article as is everything you contribute to this site. Your students are very lucky to have you. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 19:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Let's see... I didn't read into your more recent changes, but let's start with a few cases of ''conveniently'' selective quoting:
{{QuoteBox|Three such tests are discussed here. None of these is supportive of the Giant Impact model, '''but neither do they disprove it'''.}}
{{QuoteBox|Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories. "Putting enough material into orbit to form the moon seemed to require a rather narrow set of impact conditions," says Robin M. Canup of the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colo. '''But a new study by her and Erik Asphaug of the University of California at Santa Cruz may have broken the logjam.'''}}
{{QuoteBox|Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-Earth's mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect. 
 
In 1997 Alastair G. W. Cameron, one of the fathers of the giant-impact theory, now at the University of Arizona, arrived at a total mass that was a third too low. He suggested that subsequent asteroid impacts made up the difference. But few liked the idea, as the asteroids would have added extra iron. 
 
'''Canup and Asphaug argue that the fault lies not in the stars but in our simulations.''' The calculations rely on a technique known as smoothed-particle hydrodynamics, which subdivides the bodies and applies the laws of physics to each piece. Early runs tracked 3,000 pieces--leaving the iron core of the moon to be represented by just a single piece. Even the slightest computational imprecision could vastly overstate the iron content, in which case the computer compensated by reducing the impact angle. The result was a bias toward heavy impactors and light proto-Earths. '''Because Canup and Asphaug use 30,000 particles, they get by with a much smaller impactor. Everything--mass, iron, momentum--clicks into place.'''}}
::I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with the theory (and criticism should be mentioned in the article, of course), but you try to make things look as if scientists only cling to a completely silly theory that has been effectively disproven already.

::: No, I say it is impossible to disprove this theory, and therefore the theory is not even science. The theory is no different from saying that a UFO placed the Moon by hand there 4 billion years ago. That cannot be disproven, no matter how silly it is.

::::Funny, I see this argument being used against creationism. Yes, the UFO theory is silly. Just as silly as the "God created it. The end." theory. The criticism could lead to a prove against the impact theory. Right now, we have a bunch of scientists who voice their concern. Research has to be done to see if it actually shows that the theory is wrong or not. If it is wrong (this is, of course, quite possible), then they have to work on a new theory, based on the new observations. This is science. Just not the "Let's quotemine articles and label it proof!" sort of science that is used on this site. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm quite clear that the tests that people have done are "not supportive of the theory," just as I say (and even quote the scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only thing I credit you for is the omission of any overly "Of course, the only truth is that God created the Moon during Creation Week, and Answers in Genesis shows undeniable proof." bias... yet.

::: That's a silly comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No. If you want "silly comment", look at [[Moon]], for example: "Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::An attempt to balance things would begin with a rewrite the condensed list with things that speak for the impact theory (which you "expanded" by a slightly biased view of the events leading to it - you really couldn't resist inserting the "non-creationist scientists" bit, could you?).

::: There is nothing factual that supports the theory. It's pure speculation by a few scientists whose prior theories have been completely disproven. I don't even see evidence that most scientists even support this new theory. They didn't for ten years after it was proposed, and the scientists who wrote those articles that I cite plainly don't support it now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to create an ultra-super-"Why that theory has been proven without doubt!" article. I just want a bit of fairness and a bit of style correction to make the article look halfway presentable. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Everything in the article is factual, and no significant facts have been left out of the article. Really, you have be specific about what you propose adding or deleting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Weren't the huge quote blocks specific enough? You left out anything that speaks in favor of the theory. No wonder you think that [[Theory of evolution]] is a good article. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually... nevermind. Judging from your replies (here and at the top of the page) and edits, I sense that this would be way more trouble than it's worth. I'll leave the article to you. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: OK, fine. But you really shouldn't be complaining then. The facts are not always what we expect or want, and clearly your preconceived views have been challenged. I urge you to reconsider you views rather than oppose the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Okay, serious case of WTF here. I'm not leaving the article because of "the facts" or because "my views" have been challenged. Look at my long post (which you butchered up into many small posts). Look at where I stated that I didn't want to turn this into an ultra-pro-this-theory playground and that I acknowledge the criticism. I was aiming for BALANCE. You know, FAIRNESS. Unlike your little propaganda piece that only tries to aim as much doubt at the current theory as possible.
:::::'''The reason why I'm leaving the article''' (and quite possibly the site soon enough) '''is YOU.''' Your completely inane posts and "articles" drive me crazy. Blogs and news sites in several countries openly mock you and your site, yet you are completely immune to any sort of criticism. Of course, you are not alone there. Don't worry. I don't just think that you alone are a sad joke on this site. Conservative gets to be your first mate on the S.S. Flawed Perception. Didn't you ever consider that you might be wrong and that the several news sites (and the whole bunch of blogs) around the world may actually have a point or two?
:::::The Moon Theory article was doomed the second you decided that the currently accepted theory is wrong. I could try to add balance to the article, but my efforts would instantly be neutralized; either through reverts or by bloating the criticism section even more. I apologize for wasting your time. I had assumed for a minute that you'd actually be interested in anything but complete bias. In retrospec, I honestly don't know why I ever assumed such a silly thing.
:::::Why don't you just deliver the ''coup de grâce'' and "protect" it against liberal vandalism? You could even give control over it to Conservative, I'm sure he'll be delighted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 21:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That was one of the funniest exchanges yet on this site. --[[User:Redscare|Redscare]] 22:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I enjoy reading arguements from someone who refuses to listen to another viewpoint by telling people they're not listening to theirs. There are several users on this site who do it all the time. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The criticism section is incoherent. If the Giant-Impact theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability, then why does it matter that the Moon lacks in siderophilic elements? The article goes on to discuss other tests. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

: Once I realized that the Giant-Impact theory isn't science, the other articles don't matter to me. But obviously some people insist on clinging to the Giant-Impact theory even though it isn't science. To them, these other facts might matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So what is the point of citing the evidence if Giant-Impact theory is not scientific anyway? I really don't understand your position. Why are you willing to say that the other models were disproven? Does the evidence show that the Giant-Impact theory is better than the other models or not? If yes, then the Giant-Impact theory must be scientific. If not, then I guess the other models weren't really disproven. Either way, you make no sense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::If a theory can be proven wrong (as is alledged in the article), then it is by definition "falsifiable". [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Following is incorrect ==

From the article "This new theory fail lacks testability and falsifiability",

The theory is falsifaiable if future mineral analysis detects materials which could not have originated from Earth, or if closer examination of Earths mineral content produces results which are inconsistant with the theory.

The theory can be tested by carrying out mineral analysis upon the moon (for example in deep moon bores), which would either support the theory or falsify it.

Thus this sentence is factually incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Furthermore, in the Criticisms section there is actually a report quoted which details three possible tests! If something can be proved wrong, that means it is "falsifiable", it isn't really all that difficult to understand. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 09:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Clinging to unsupported theories==

*The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

This, unfortunately, has been the norm throughout scientific history. In the 1860s, nobody had been able to come up with the [[germ theory of disease]]. More soldiers died of communicable illnesses in the Civil War than of wounds suffered in battle.

I look forward to a renaissance in science, wherein scientists are able to say, "We just don't know." Then maybe they'll be open to alternatives to their [[methodological naturalism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:...and what comes after the "We just don't know"? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

We say that all the time, and '''then''' we develop hypotheses to test in order to learn more. We, as scientists (yes im one of those) do not first try to come up with a ''supernatural'' explanation, when a ''natural'' one is more proper. A "[[Renaissance]]" like you describe is more properly called the "[[Dark Ages]]".
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Er, no, by renaissance I did not actually mean the death of curiosity and objectivity. I had in mind something more like conservatives and liberal honestly sharing their insights and working together to improve the world. You have to say "I don't know" before you can say "Let's find out." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::But fighting with each other is more rewarding and fnu! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, scientific advances have improved the world tremendously, with the obvious exceptions of WMDs, etc. I'm not sure what avoiding the scientifc method has done for the world.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== New Scientist Article ==

This article in New Scientist would seem to be relevant: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325875.700-did-the-new-moon-lose-its-iron-heart.html --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Quite interesting! I've got some time on my hands, so unless you're on it, I'll include it and do some rephrasing along the way. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Go for it Sid. I'm off to work.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Decided to go with a full rewrite (got a bit sidetracked by other issues here), now I just have to source it and then I'll post. I also included AmesG's edits to some degree (thanks for pointing out the bit about the impactor's contribution). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sid, the joys of LexisNexis know no bounds.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll keep that in mind in the future, thanks for the tip! But my current "problem" isn't the lack of sources - I wrote the whole thing based on them - but the fact that I rephrased stuff so often that I figured it'd be easier to write first and add Ref-tags later :P --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid, I await your edits with bated breath.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:There you go. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like it Sid.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested move ==

Since the title is somewhat misleading, I suggest a move to [[Origin of the Moon]]. Opinions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the move. All of the theories discussed in the article relate to the moon's origin, so that's a much more descriptive title. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (PDT)

:Went ahead with it since there doesn't seem to be anything speaking against it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== AustinM!!! ==

Next time you plan to revert HOURS of hard work that involved looking up new and insightful articles and actually READING a few of the cited sources, '''USE THE TALK PAGE!'''

I left in all the criticism that was in the original article. I merely put it into the context of the sources (read: I was actually being honest and not just mining for convenient quotes.) and moved things around so that they actually make some structured sense. There was quite a bit of nonsense in Aschlafly's version, such as the "completely disproven" bit (The fact that somebody RECENTLY revived one of the discarded theories KINDA speaks against that, doesn't it?). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== swap article and discussion pages for superior treatment, more fun ==

"Look at the moon, look at the moon...." (from HAIR)

Forget about how old the moon is. Article needs substantial changes, mainly for stylistic reasons. Currently (7 APRIL, 2007 AD)article springs current scientific theory half way thru, which is not a good pedagogical technique.(But then neither is employing "pedagogical" when "educational" would have sufficed.)Here below are the first 2 pars as I see them. If no one objects, I will put them when next I am around these parts.

-------------------------------------------
There is not (blah blah)coalesce as the Moon over a period of time.
-----------------------------------------
[[user:mylesP|MylesP]]

:I didn't do a deep-down analysis of your changes so far, but they look nice! From what I see, you add a more professional tone to it. I'm not quite sure what you want to do with the above paragraphs. Do you want to insert them into the intro (above the ToC)? If so, I'm all for it - they're a nice summary of the article that comes after it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Sid, I have rewritten intro, and first 2 pars are changed to incorporate initial ref to new theory "Big Whack" at very start. Normal stylistic changes made to body of article. No change in content. Would suggest writers use brackets sparingly - they are not commas. Also, frowned on appearance of terms FeO and “siderophilic” without definition. Turns out former is Ferrous Oxide, and latter means “iron loving”. Have incorporated that as well. All this could be made a little clearer. From what I rem from my own casual reading, reason Moon is poor in iron is because in collision and subsequent heat, most of the heavy stuff sank to Earth’s core. Moon ended up with very little. Basically, Moon is a lot of sterilised accreted dust, fairly boring, and that’s why we stopped going there after we found out what it was made of. Question of angular momentum is dealt with in VERY shallow way. Once again, I’m no expert, but I think there are some big misconceptions here. Will leave note in another section here. [[user:mylesP|MylesP]]

::You're my personal hero for your walk-through there! Excellent points regarding style and usage of words, too. I'll try to keep them in mind.
::The whole issue with the lack of iron of the moon is not really trivial from what I gathered. Depending on the "when", much/most of the iron had sunk to the core already, thus leaving lots of non-iron-y material in the mantle to form the Moon. But then there are the issues of how much material and force you'd need to form the moon in the first place.
::I'm definitely no expert in this field, and I agree that a few things could/should be covered in more detail. Angular momentum being one of them. I just went with the sources I found during an afternoon, and they didn't really go into detail there. It's a start, but it of course needs more work. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth Creation Hypothesis ==

Let me explain what is the problem with this section.

(i) The reference is NOT to a paper written by "Astronomer Dr Don DeYoung (Professor of Physics, Grace College, Indiana), ... presented at the Second International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, USA, in 1990", but to the website ttp://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/moon.asp
which is basically a blog, or at best a re-interpretation of someone else's material.

About half way down the article, we find:

"Because the presence of the moon over any part of the earth does not cause an immediate bulging response, this slight delay results in a continuous, slight, forward 'pull' on the moon, causing it to spiral slowly outwards, away from the earth. '''The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.'''

This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years." (my emboldenment)

The emboldened claim is actually crucial for the argument that the moon is only 10,000 years old at most. Now, I have no idea whether or not DeYoung has any evidence for the the emboldened claim, and nowhere in the blog is it explained why the rate of increase should have been greater in the past rather than less, the same or even variable over time. More to the point, I do not think the author of the blog has such evidence, or even considered the possibility. What is clear, is that this whole section is based on a claim taken from something which is little more than a blog, and which, in itself, has no academic credibility. If you wish this section to be credible, search out DeYoung's actual paper and use his argument and his evidence; not someone's assertions based on his or her potentially flawed interpretations of them.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

... oh and by the way; try to find someone who refutes his arguments, and clarify why, and if you can find a response where deYoung refutes the refutations, even better!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:34, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my experience, AiG has (so far) been pretty much a dead end in terms of sources. However, I would applaud the finding of the original paper and maybe a few better-researched claims (or just better research and reasoning for that one claim at least). What I find odd is that AiG (didn't check if it's that source link or another one) basically echoes most things that are being said in this article and then adds the distance calculation. Sorta makes me wonder why they even bother with the other things when the distance argument supposedly is the ultimate proof. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Expansion of revert summary ==

The revert summary didn't let me write my point fully. From what I gather, all of the "Big Three" have been proven "wrong" (in the sense of needing better explanations that take the new evidence into account - if that is possible). The arguments against it come later on, but the first part seems to be meant to show what had been assumed back then, and I think the source says just that (and also gives the countering explanation). Tectonics isn't exactly my special field, so I won't touch it much, but I invite you to include the argument in the "problems with the big three" section, it appears to me critical for full understanding of the problems with that theory. --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 19:21, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism & scientists ==

Does the term "atheistic scientists" mean that the theories they made were atheistic or the scientists themselves? The latter should have no place in a non-religious/science article. The former makes more sense. Personal attacks on respected scientists are unwarranted.

Keep in mind that "atheism" simply refers to a disbelief in gods, not Abrahamic religions solely. Many theistic religions have beliefs about the origin of the moon. "God is not a deciever." [[User:LyraBelaqua|LyraBelaqua]] 00:36, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
: It would mean the scientists themselves, and is relevant because their views affect their hypotheses. Specifically, a scientist who is an atheist is not even going to ''consider'' the possibility that God created the moon. I agree that God is not a deceiver, and therefore, when God said that he created the moon on the fourth day of creation, he wasn't being deceptive, but actually meant just that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:28, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== Is it falsifiable or not? ==

It has now been two years (!) since some of the above exchanges regarding the falsifiability of the giant impact hypothesis. For some reason, the article still claims that "This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability" and then, two lines later, states that the article has been falsified! '''Both of these cannot be true.''' The theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and falsified. Unless there are any complaints, I will amend the article to reflect this. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 22:22, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

: There is no contradiction. People (perhaps yourself?) cling to the new theory despite the failure of the tests. The new theory is impossible to falsify, but ever test to prove it true has failed. It's not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

:: There is no contradiction? Here's the relevant quote from the article:

:::"This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by Karl Popper.

:::Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."

:::Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory."

:: How can something be falsified if it lacks falsifiability? By ''definition'', both of these cannot be true. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:24, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise a valid semantic point. I've improved the wording accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:49, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: The wording is now better. But with respect, the problem is not an issue of mere wording. The article claims that the theory is not testable or falsifiable; it then ''lists things which contradict the theory''. If the theory is not falsifiable, then no observation could possibly be taken as "contradictory" to the theory; no potential piece of evidence could make it appear implausible. That's part of what lacking falsifiability implies. The article also claims that the theory lacks testability, but you have just stated here that there have been tests performed to check it! Clearly both of those cannot be true, either. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 16:19, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: No, you're getting tangled up in semantics. Your objections could be easily satisfied by minor modifications to the wording, which you could easily do yourself. I suggest you focus on opening your mind to the substance first.

:::::: Thanks for taking it this far, Andy. I'm sure [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] will be able to come up with a revision that satisfies all of us. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 22:18, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: I added a sentence. It seems that the real problem with the theory is not that it's unfalsifiable as it stands, but that it will merely be amended in the event that evidence appears to contradict it, as has been done in the past. I disagree that this makes the theory unfalsifiable but have left that implication in the article, respecting the intent of the author. "has been criticized" may seem weasel-wordy so feel free to revert that if you think so. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 14:31, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Your edit is heavy-handed, perhaps even a parody of your view of others. If you think the theory is falsifiable, then how would you propose falsifying it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: I think the issue of siderophilic elements is a legitimate one, and possibly a falsifier. I'm not up-to-date on the literature but I am guessing planetary scientists are working on ways to amend the giant impact hypothesis which incorporate the lack of such elements. Evidence that the earth has never had a magma ocean would also be a falsifier, but maybe scientists will find a way around that one, too. On a more obvious level, direct evidence that the earth-moon system isn't billions of years old (for example) would also completely be a falsifier. I don't think that a theory being subject to amendment in the light of new discoveries renders it unfalsifiable, but it's your encyclopedia and not mine (and that is an interesting debate in the philosophy of science). [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::: Your points cast doubt on the theory, but I doubt many would see them as falsifying it entirely.

:::::::::: By the way, black holes and the theory of extraterrestrial life are also not falsifiable, and hence not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) I think your opinion on black holes is based on a misunderstanding of the common statement: "'Black holes do not exist' is not falsifiable". Some would argue that this is true (I disagree), but this statement is an argument that falsifiability is not a good demarcation of science from non-science, not that black holes are somehow unscientific. There are serious problems with falsifiability alone. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:08, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:edit: I meant to say "'Black holes exist' is not falsifiable." Sorry! [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:39, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:: How would you falsify the claim that black holes exist???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:55, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

::: That's the point. "Black holes exist" may not be falsifiable ''per se'', but that clearly doesn't mean it suddenly isn't scientific to state that, because obviously that is a scientific statement. This is one of the serious problems with falsifiability as a criterion.

::: Anyway, I'd say that if we do plenty of looking, especially where black holes are expected to be, and find none, that is close enough to being a falsifier. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Surely this is all the wrong way round. The null hypothesis would naturally be that 'no black holes exist'. This is of course falsifiable if black holes are detected. From our understanding of the laws of physics and observations made, the only reasonable conclusion as it stands is that black holes do exist. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

: Exactly. In this sense, "black holes exist" needn't be falsifiable (in the absence of evidence, there's no reason to think it is true instead of the null hypothesis) in order to be scientific. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 19:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T23:33:36Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T23:14:43Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T23:12:23Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T23:12:09Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T22:39:33Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T22:08:44Z

TaKess: black holes

Talk:Inbreeding

2009-04-03T21:59:36Z

TaKess:

That is not entirely accurate. Sorry Ed, but I can find a source later. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 18:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

This article should be deleted. It's not family friendly material, and does nothing but take offensive pot-shots at various religions. I tried to edit out the unnecessary portions, but another user quickly reverted. --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 18:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:It certainly appears the intention in creating this article was as a hit piece. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I don't think I'm clear on the lingo yet. What is a hit piece? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It is intended to attack and denigrate a group of people here, and not really give us any better understanding of the problem of inbreeding. While this group may serve as an example, there is little or no discussion of what inbreeding is and what the potential problems are regarding it. The article singles out this group of families without providing any context whatsoever before hand. That's why I say ''intent''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Yikes, where to begin? ==

Inbreeding is '''not''' "the act of sexual intercourse among members of an immediate family." Perhaps someone is confusing it with "incest?"

Is it asking too much for people to at least check a dictionary before writing definitions? AHD, for example has:
:1. The breeding of related individuals within an isolated or a closed group of organisms or people. 2. The continued breeding of closely related individuals so as to preserve desirable traits in a stock.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/69/I0076900.html]

No time to work on this now... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Deleted. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'd like to begin working on this page anew, presenting it from a population-genetic and mathematical perspective and omitting whatever offensive material was present in the original version of the page. Let me know if this isn't okay. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:56, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::This variant of the page is probably a little too technical. I'll go over it later and try to clarify it. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 17:59, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Inbreeding

2009-04-03T21:54:56Z

TaKess: recreating page from a serious perspective

'''Inbreeding''' is breeding between closely related individuals in a population. In humans, close inbreeding is referred to as [[incest]].

== Mathematical definition ==

In [[population genetics]], the ''coefficient of inbreeding'' <math>F</math> is the probability that two alleles at a randomly chosen [[locus]] in an individual are identical by descent, meaning they are identical as a result of having come from a common ancestor. This number is normalized relative to a "base population" in which no alleles are assumed to be related. <math>F</math> is generally larger when more inbreeding occurs, such as in structured populations or small populations. In this way, inbreeding is related to [[genetic drift]].

== Inbreeding depression ==

Because inbreeding increases the [[Homozygous|homozygosity]] in a population, it can lead to the expression of [[recessive]] [[mutation]]s; since vastly more mutations are deleterious (harmful) than beneficial, this usually manifests as a genetic disorder, reducing the [[fitness]] of individuals.

For example, if an organism has a recessive, deleterious mutation and gives rise to many offspring, some of whom also carry this mutation, and some of those offspring mate, it is likely that they will produce some children who are homozygous for this recessive, deleterious [[allele]].

Inbreeding can thus cause homozygosity for deleterious alleles to become prevalent in a population, which reduces the overall population fitness.

On the other hand, if there are no deleterious alleles and the mutation rate is low, inbreeding is not necessarily harmful to the population. For example, [[creationism|creationists]] argue that, since [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] were created perfect and mutation rates were lower before the [[Flood]], marriage and breeding between Adam and Eve's descendants was not harmful or immoral in the way it is today.

== Inbreeding in animals ==

Breeding closely related animals allows a breeder to select desired traits and create a population where every individual has those traits. However, sometimes deleterious traits also "hitchhike" along with the desired traits as a result of inbreeding. This can lead to inbreeding depression.<ref>Sarah Hartwell wrote, "Deleterious genes become widespread and the breed loses vigor." [http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm]</ref> As an example, [[Pug]]s are a dog breed which has been bred for thousands of years, but genetic disorders relating to the eyes are common in the breed. [[Manx]] cats, known for having short tails, arose naturally due to [[genetic drift]], but problems such as spina bifida are very common.

One way to overcome inbreeding depression is by periodically introducing new genetic variation in a process known as outcrossing, where members of the breed are mated with individuals from outside the breed. This decreases the "purity" of the line, but can reduce the prevalence of genetic disorders.

== Notes ==

<references />

Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2009-04-03T20:18:32Z

TaKess: clarifying and expanding, including issues with the hypothesis

The '''Endosymbiotic hypothesis''' is a [[hypothesis]] used by evolutionists to explain the origin of certain [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] [[organelle]]s, specifically [[mitochondrion|mitochondria]] and [[chloroplasts]].
Evolutionists believe that early in the course of terrestrial life, all cells were [[prokaryote]]s.
It is hypothesized that at some point, [[endophagocytosis]] occurred whereby one bacteria "hijacked" the energy producing potential of another by engulfing a respiring or photosynthesizing bacteria.

Mitochondria and chloroplasts are the only organelles to contain their own [[DNA]] (other than the nucleus, which contains the DNA for the entire cell) and their DNA is well-conserved enough that they appear to be nearly separate organisms. DNA and [[RNA]] analyses have borne out much of this hypothesis; in particular, chloroplasts have a high amount of similarity with cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), and mitochondria strongly resemble proteobacteria. Some evolutionists argue that the [[nucleus]] is also the result of the endophagocytosis of an [[archaea]]. Further evidence supporting mitochondria and chloroplasts being endosymbionts lies in the fact that both organelles have [[plasma]] membrane bound spaces inside of their outer membranes, something no other organelle possesses. Many other eukaryotes have organelles which appear to have several layers of plasma membrane; evolutionists interpret this to mean that these are the result of a series of endosymbiosis events.

One problem with the endosymbiotic hypothesis is that endophagocytosis is not observed among existing prokaryotes.

Alternate hypotheses are that eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells were simply [[intelligent design|design]]ed as they are. This is, of course, like the endosymbiotic hypothesis, neither [[theory|testable]] nor [[falsifiable]].
[[Category:biology]]

Genome

2009-04-03T20:09:21Z

TaKess: minor changes

A genome is all the [[hereditary]] information held by an [[organism]]. This includes both expressed and non-expressed genetic [[information]].
In most organisms, it is stored in [[DNA]]; however, [[retrovirus]]es store it in [[RNA]].

[[Eukaryotic cell|Eukaryote]]s (including humans) have two types of genomic material:
# the [[Nucleus|nuclear]] genome: Information found inside the nucleus of a cell.
# the [[Mitochondria|mitochondrial]] genome: Information found in the [[mitochondria]]<ref>http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3580</ref> (this separate genome is used as evidence for the [[endosymbiotic hypothesis]], although it can also be explained by creationist models).
In addition, organisms often inherit other material from their parents, such as proteins, RNA molecules, and other chromosomal factors like methyl groups attached to certain base pairs. These are regarded as the purview of [[epigenetics]].

The [[Human Genome Project]] mapped the genome of humans (''Homo sapiens'') in a 13-year study, and is considered one of the marvels of modern human [[medicine]] and [[biology]]. All of the information is stored in a database.<ref>http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml</ref> It is expected that the results of the project will allow scientists to predict how genetics influences drug interaction with the body, and lead to target specific drugs.<ref>Collins, Francis S. and McKusick, Victor A. [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/5/540 Implications of the Human Genome Project for Medical Science] ''JAMA'', 2001;285:540-544, 7th February 2001.</ref>

Genomes of other species have been recorded as well, such as mice,<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/mouse/</ref> chimpanzees<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html</ref> and yeast.<ref>http://www.yeastgenome.org/</ref> The mouse genome sequence from the C57BL/6J strain has about 30,000 genes, and 99% of them have direct counterparts in humans.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6915/full/420509a.html</ref>

The chimpanzee represented the first non-human primate sequenced. The differences in the chimpanzee and human genomes are small, with 99% of the DNA sequence preserved. <ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref> The differences can be classified in terms of differences in local single nucleotide substitutions, insertions, deletions and repetitions of sequences. A relatively large number of difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes are not due to substitutions.<ref>http://207.210.67.162/~striz/docs/chimpc.pdf</ref> When this is taken into account, humans and chimpanzees still share 96% of their sequence, and are genetically closer than rats and mice.<ref>http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2005/nhgri-31.htm</ref>

== Creationist View ==
Instead of seeing DNA as evidence for [[evolution]], creation scientists see DNA as confirming evidence of [[God]]'s divine plan. He has encoded into DNA His blueprints for making life. It is thus no surprise that the DNA of similar animals shares many sequences. DNA can be seen as a successful prediction of creation science.<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0425dna.asp DNA—what does it prove?] Answers in Genesis, 25th April, 2003.</ref>
== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Inbreeding

2009-04-03T19:56:44Z

TaKess: gonna start over

User:TaKess

2009-04-03T19:53:37Z

TaKess:

I'm a student at the University of Arizona heading to graduate school to study evolutionary biology.

My goal here is to fill in some gaps in terms of biology, especially population genetics, as well as what little I know of computer science, physics, and mathematics. I will do my best to educate, inform, and conform to the standards of the site rather than argue excessively.

Dog

2009-04-03T19:47:15Z

TaKess:

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is ''litter''.
Breeders refer to male dogs as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
[[Image:Dog - Jay Paul - The New York Times.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Dog in a kennel with the animal said to be on hold due to court case]]
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:

*Guarding property and livestock.
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]].
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain rescue.
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]].
*Providing assistance to blind and deaf people.
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s.
*To detect illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges and dogcarts.
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles and walk the tightrope.
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA.
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today.

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]].

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

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

[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Bioinformatics

2009-04-03T19:44:17Z

TaKess: creating page

'''Bioinformatics''' is the science of storing, analyzing, labeling, and processing data from molecular [[biology]], especially sequenced [[Genome|genomes]]. It overlaps significantly with the field of health informatics, which deals with data from the health sciences.

[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T19:35:26Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T19:34:00Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T18:31:30Z

TaKess: minor change to article

Origin of the Moon

2009-04-03T18:28:49Z

TaKess: clarified "falsifiability" point

All the prevailing, [[atheistic]] theories of the '''origin of the [[Moon]]''' were completely disproved by the lunar landings and studies of the lunar rocks afterwards. The material lacked [[iron]] that permeates the [[Earth]]'s crust.

Specifically, each of these prevailing scientific theories was disproved by the lunar landings:<ref name="PSI">Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html The Origin of the Moon]</ref>

*The [[Moon]] formed in an orbit around [[Earth]] at the same time that Earth formed.
**This theory was disproved upon learning that the [[Moon]] has proportionally far less iron in it than the [[Earth]].

*The [[Moon]] formed in a part of the solar system that was low in iron, and was later captured into an orbit around the Earth.
**This was also disproved by examination of lunar rocks, which exhibit the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, unlike rocks known to come from other sources in the solar system, e.g. [[Mars]].

*The [[Earth]] was originally spinning so fast that it spun off a fragment of lower density (iron-poor) material which became the [[Moon]].
**This solves the isotopic similarity and the relative lack of iron, but an analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved ruled out this possibility.

== Giant-Impact Model ==
For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin. In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].<ref>''Id.''</ref> The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

This theory proposes that an impact with a large planetesimal (asteroid-like body) released a great quantity of debris into orbit, a portion of which collected under the influence of gravity. There is no direct evidence for this theory. It is supported by [[atheistic]] scientists, however, primarily due to lack of any alternative explanation for them. They try to fit the observations to this theory as follows:
:*The lack of [[iron]], provided the impact of the planetesimal happened relatively late in the earth's formation and after the [[Earth]]'s [[iron]] had sunk towards its core. In that manner the [[Moon]] might possibly have picked up mantle from the Earth that has less [[iron]]. Most of the planetesimal itself would have sunk into the earth's core.
:*The similar oxygen isotope composition between the [[Moon]] and [[Earth]] could possibly be explained by such a collision, provided the [[Moon]] were then formed from debris dislodged from the [[Earth]] by the collision.
:*A high-velocity collision might be sufficient to release enough energy to place a substantial mass of the [[Earth]]'s crust into orbit.

== Criticisms of the Giant-Impact Model ==

This new theory has been criticized as lacking testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by [[Karl Popper]]. While it seems possible ''prima facie'' to test the theory, it is likely that atheistic scientists will merely amend the theory to skirt the failures of such tests, rendering the theory extremely difficult if not impossible to falsify.

Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."<ref>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf</ref>

Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby demonstrating the implausibility of the theory.<ref>http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf</ref>

A third study found that "the bulk composition of the Moon differs significantly from that of the terrestrial mantle" and that "[t]he high
bulk FeO content of the Moon rules out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of the terrestrial mantle."<ref>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF</ref>

Nearly two decades after the Giant-Impact Model was embraced at the Hawaii convention, ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>

:Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.

:Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-[[Earth]]'s mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect.

''Scientific American'' concluded:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.
s

== Reference ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Religion of Barack Hussein Obama

2009-04-01T20:21:17Z

TaKess: minor link fix

'''[[Barack Hussein Obama]]'s religious beliefs''' are currently the subject of intense speculation. It is believed that he is either a Muslim, an Atheist or a Christian. There is a significant body of evidence that supports he has a faith in each.

==Obama and Atheism==

*When he initially took the oath of office on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, Obama misspoke (possibly due to [[Chief Justice Roberts]] not being prepared) and out of an "abundance of caution" the oath was retaken the next day. CNN.com noted, "Though a Bible was used in Tuesday's oath, one was not used for Wednesday's." <ref>CNN.com, ''Obama retakes oath of office after Roberts' mistake'', January 22, 2009[http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/#cnnSTCText]</ref>
*Since assuming office Obama has not attended a single church function. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html|Obama has not attended a Church service since winning the White House] </ref>

==Obama and Islam==

*[[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama_is_likely_the_first_Muslim_President|Article on Obama]]

==Obama and Christianity==

Barack Obama and his wife (who was raised a Baptist) were members of the [[United Church of Christ|Trinity United Church of Christ]]<ref>www.tucc.org, Trinity United Church of Christ web site[http://www.tucc.org] ''We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.''</ref> in Chicago, led by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, for twenty years. The church embraces [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces.<ref>www.mcclatchydc.com, ''Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines'', by Margaret Talev, March 20, 2008 [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html]</ref> This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.{{fact}} According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church in 1988, when he was in his late 20's.<ref>International Herald Tribune, ''Barack Obama's search for faith'', by Jodi Kantor, April 30, 2007 [http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in his book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', the title of which is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.

In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church after twenty years of membership. His response blamed the media , stating “It's not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace, so our faith remains strong and I suspect we will find another church home for our family."<ref>FoxNews.com, ''Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago'', May 31, 2008[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], </ref>. He also called Wright's rhetoric "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson, no date given [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>U.S. News and World Report, ''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"'', April 30, 2008[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

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

{{stub}}

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-01T20:19:17Z

TaKess:

Talk:Origin of the Moon

2009-04-01T02:22:02Z

TaKess: falsifiability?

Origin of the Moon

2009-04-01T02:18:23Z

TaKess: grammar, but please see talk page

All the prevailing, [[atheistic]] theories of the '''origin of the [[Moon]]''' were completely disproved by the lunar landings and studies of the lunar rocks afterwards. The material lacked [[iron]] that permeates the [[Earth]]'s crust.

Specifically, each of these prevailing scientific theories was disproved by the lunar landings:<ref name="PSI">Planetary Science Institute: [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html The Origin of the Moon]</ref>

*The [[Moon]] formed in an orbit around [[Earth]] at the same time that Earth formed.
**This theory was disproved upon learning that the [[Moon]] has proportionally far less iron in it than the [[Earth]].

*The [[Moon]] formed in a part of the solar system that was low in iron, and was later captured into an orbit around the Earth.
**This was also disproved by examination of lunar rocks, which exhibit the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, unlike rocks known to come from other sources in the solar system, e.g. [[Mars]].

*The [[Earth]] was originally spinning so fast that it spun off a fragment of lower density (iron-poor) material which became the [[Moon]].
**This solves the isotopic similarity and the relative lack of iron, but an analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved ruled out this possibility.

== Giant-Impact Model ==
For ten years after the lunar landings, atheistic scientists lacked any accepted theory about the [[Moon]]'s origin. In 1984, an international meeting was convened in Kona, [[Hawaii]], for the purpose of agreeing on a new theory for the origin of the [[Moon]].<ref>''Id.''</ref> The attendees at the meeting agreed upon the following "giant-impact model," which was first proposed in 1975 but which had not yet been generally accepted.<ref>''Id.''</ref>

This theory proposes that an impact with a large planetesimal (asteroid-like body) released a great quantity of debris into orbit, a portion of which collected under the influence of gravity. There is no direct evidence for this theory. It is supported by [[atheistic]] scientists, however, primarily due to lack of any alternative explanation for them. They try to fit the observations to this theory as follows:
:*The lack of [[iron]], provided the impact of the planetesimal happened relatively late in the earth's formation and after the [[Earth]]'s [[iron]] had sunk towards its core. In that manner the [[Moon]] might possibly have picked up mantle from the Earth that has less [[iron]]. Most of the planetesimal itself would have sunk into the earth's core.
:*The similar oxygen isotope composition between the [[Moon]] and [[Earth]] could possibly be explained by such a collision, provided the [[Moon]] were then formed from debris dislodged from the [[Earth]] by the collision.
:*A high-velocity collision might be sufficient to release enough energy to place a substantial mass of the [[Earth]]'s crust into orbit.

== Criticism of the Giant-Impact Model ==

This new theory lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential aspects of science as explained by [[Karl Popper]].

Scientists did find that none of three proposed tests are "supportive of the Giant Impact model."<ref>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf</ref>

Another article noted that the Moon is lacking in siderophilic elements (Au, Co, Fe, Ir, Mn, Mo, Ni, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, Ru) found on Earth, and this indicates that the Moon was not formed by materials broken off of Earth, thereby falsifying the theory.<ref>http://www.ias.ac.in/jessci/dec2005/ilc-3.pdf</ref>

A third study found that "the bulk composition of the Moon differs significantly from that of the terrestrial mantle" and that "[t]he high
bulk FeO content of the Moon rules out the derivation of the proto-lunar material from any but a small fraction of the terrestrial mantle."<ref>http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF</ref>

Nearly two decades after the Giant-Impact Model was embraced at the Hawaii convention, ''Scientific American'' observed that:<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=000A90B0-C919-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21</ref>

:Unfortunately, researchers have had trouble getting the giant-impact model to work without the contrivances that scuttled earlier theories.

:Four facts and three parameters is a recipe for contradiction. To explain the moon's low iron content, you need to avoid a grazing collision (corresponding to a large impact angle), lest too much of the impactor's iron spill into orbit. Then, to explain the angular momentum, you need to compensate for the smallish angle with a hefty impactor. Then, to explain the moon's mass, you need to adjust the proto-[[Earth]]'s mass. In the end, you might find that the total mass is incorrect.

''Scientific American'' concluded:<ref>''Id.''</ref>

:Considering all the twists and turns in lunar science, nobody claims that the models are complete just yet.

== Reference ==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

User:TaKess

2008-12-02T23:37:03Z

TaKess: New page: I'm a student at the University of Arizona heading to graduate school to study evolutionary biology.

I'm a student at the University of Arizona heading to graduate school to study evolutionary biology.

Iliad

2008-12-02T23:35:39Z

TaKess: Historicity of the Iliad

[[Image:Rubens Greek gods.jpg|thumb|Rubens, Greek gods]]
'''The Iliad''' is an epic poem widely believed to have been written by [[Homer]], the legendary blind [[Greece|Greek]] poet, in the 8th century B.C. The poem is about the [[Trojan War]] (''Ilium'' being the Latin name of [[Troy]]). The siege of Troy is believed to have taken place in 1184 B.C.<ref>The Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979</ref>

''The Iliad'' was revered by Greeks and all who followed in the Greek legacy, attempting to emulate it. It received something on the order of [[Biblical]] significance by later Greeks, seeking to define the prime values of their culture - honor, and valor. [[Alexander the Great]] is said to have slept with a copy of ''The Iliad'' under his bed, and claimed to be a descendant of the Greek warrior [[Achilles]].

The Iliad is, together with the [[Odyssey]], which accounts events that took place after the Trojan War, one of the two main ancient Greek epic poems.

::''Sing, O goddess, the anger of [[Achilles]] son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the [[Achaean]]s. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to [[Hades]], and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so were the counsels of [[Zeus|Jove]] fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another.''

Modern readers seeking an account of the Trojan War may be surprised to find that the most famous episode - the Trojan Horse - does not feature in the Iliad at all. Instead the poem concentrates on the in-fighting between the rival Greek kings Achilles and Agammemnon.

== Historicity ==

There is widespread debate over the historicity of the Iliad. Important questions in this debate include:
* Was the Iliad written by one man (the alleged Homer), or by many people over generations?
* Was the Iliad constructed orally before being written down?
* Are the events in the Iliad at least loosely based on history, or is it entirely mythological?
* Were some portions of the Iliad written before others?
* Were the characters in the Iliad based on real people?

== See also ==

*[[Atlas]]
*[[Greek mythology]]
*[[Pisistratus]]

==External Links==

* [http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/homer/iliad_title.htm A Modern Translation]
* [http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html The Iliad] By Homer, written 800 B.C.

==References==

<References/>

{{Nb_mythology_iliad}}
[[Category:Poetry]]
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Books]]

Race

2008-12-02T23:32:22Z

TaKess: Evolution and race

'''Race''' is a concept which classifies human beings according to broad [[physical]] characteristics such as skin color. Many assert that race is more than physical and claim that different races have different psycological, intellectual and religious characteristics.

Various different classifications have been proposed for human races in the past. [[Evolution]]ary text books used to have a chapter on eugenics that discussed various "races", such as Negroid (mostly Africans), Mongoloid (mostly Asian) and Caucasian (mostly Europeans) and which of the races were the furtherest along in evolution.<ref>For example, Hunter, George William, ''A Civic Biology'' (1914), [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt196.htm p.196]: "At the present time, there exists upon the Earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos, and finally the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."</ref> However, modern evolutionary understanding has helped to reveal that races do not constitute valid biological groupings.

The concept of race is no longer considered scientifically valid, as there is very little genetic differences between the so-called races, and those differences are mostly superficial.

For example, all people have the same skin-coloring pigment ([[melanin]]), and what "color" one is depends mainly on how much melanin one has.

Though it is not scientifically valid, race is still requested in the government census and many other forms, and used by many people to classify individuals into groups and treat them differently, and associate within one's own race group.

In a study done in 1999, 75% of anthropologists disagreed with the statement, "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens" amongst cultural anthropologists 80% disagreed, and 69% of pyschical anthropologists disagreed<ref>http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/POST_WWII.PDF#search=%22stanley%20marion%20garn%22</ref>

A '''race''' also refers to a competition of speed.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
*[[Racism]]
*[[Eugenics]]

[[category:Sociology]]
[[category:Ethnicities]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Domestic cat

2008-12-02T23:30:59Z

TaKess:

[[Image:Domestic cat.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Domestic cat. The different colored eyes are due to [[Heterochromia]]; this cat is likely deaf in one ear]]
The '''domestic cat''' is a [[mammal]] of the species ''Felis silvestris catus'' that has for many thousands of years been a constant companion of [[human]]s. Originally domesticated in ancient times, cats have been much valued for their ability to catch [[mice]] and other vermin, and for their loving and loyal relationship with their human masters. Nocturnal by nature, cats living outside of human society, known as [[feral cat|feral cats]], invariably revert to a night-time existence.

There is some debate as to the original time at which cats were domesticated, as mummified cats have been found in [[Cyprus]] dating back to at least 6,000 B.C. Cats are strictly carnivorous, so they do not usually eat [[carbohydrate]]-heavy human foods like grains and fruits; they are thus a natural companion for humans. Some evidence has found that cat ownership has health benefits, especially in the elderly.

== Breeds ==
There are over 50 domestic cat breeds, among them the Abyssinian, the American Bobtail, the American Shorthair, the Balinese, the British Shorthair, the Burmese, the Cornish Rex, the Egyptian Mau, the Manx, the Nebelung, Norwegian Forest Cat, the Persian, the Russian Blue, the Siamese and the Turkish Angora. Cat breeds differ widely in terms of coloration, amount and location of body hair, and size. As with human [[race|races]], there is no evidence that cat breeds are [[monophyly|monophyletic]] groups; they are grouped based largely on a small number of physical characteristics.

{{Nb_zl_felines}}
[[Category:Egypt]]

Cat

2008-12-02T23:24:53Z

TaKess: More on feral cat colonies

{{Taxonomy|image = cat.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|family = Felidae|genus = Felis|species = F. silvestris|sub = F. s. catus (Domesticated cat)}}

'''Cats''' are a group of [[carnivore|carnivorous]] [[mammals]] with sharp [[teeth]] and retractable [[claw]]s (except in the case of the [[cheetah]]) on their paws, originally distributed worldwide apart from [[Australasia]], [[Madagascar]] and [[Antarctica]]. Several of the larger kinds of cat can be dangerous to humans.

The [[domestic cat]], believed to derive from the [[Africa]]n wildcat, has been used to control [[vermin]] or kept as a pet for thousands of years, and worshiped as a god by the ancient [[Egyptian]]s, amongst others. Today the domestic cat remains extremely popular as a [[pet]]; there are an estimated 76 million pet cats in the [[United States]].

Species of cat include the [[lion]], [[tiger]], [[leopard]], [[cheetah]], [[jaguar]], [[puma]], [[cougar]], [[ocelot]], [[lynx]], [[caracal]], [[serval]] and many smaller breeds.

==Feral Cats==

A '''feral cat''' is a direct descendant of a domestic cat but is untamed and generally frightened of any human contact. A feral cat is usually one that has returned to the wild, foraging for food and living in areas with open space. This is usually as a result of someone abandoning a cat (or cats), some of which are able to survive in the wild and breed, which leads to the establishment of a colony of feral cats. Such colonies usually exist for social and mutual protection purposes, but individual cats within each colony are expected to find their own food.

The life of a feral cat is usually difficult, and many do not survive for very long, due to various factors such as having to catch their own food, inadequate shelter from the elements, encounters with other animals ([[skunk]], [[raccoon]], etc) or dogs or other feral cats, dangers from vehicles on roadways, and not receiving medical treatment for illnessess or injuries. Cats as domesticated animals (pets) on average are afforded better care and thus have a better quality of life and longer life spans.

A ''stray'' cat is a cat that is unowned, but generally accepts [[human]] [[touch]], may take food directly from a human, etc. The terms are often interchangeable, especially in popular usage.

==External Links==
*[http://www.feralcat.com/ Feral Cat Coalition]
*[http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/feral_cats/ Humane Society Info on feral cats]

*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290840,00.html | FOXNews.com - Oscar the Cat Predicts Nursing Home Deaths]

{{Nb_zl_felines}}
[[Category:Felines]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]

Biology

2008-12-02T23:20:59Z

TaKess: No evidence despite requests for evidence and, as far as I can tell, this is completely false.

'''Biology''' is the scientific study of life.

It encompasses several fields of study, including [[genetics]], [[biochemistry]], [[cell biology]], [[structural biology]], [[mammalian physiology]], [[biophysics]], [[medicine]], [[botany]], and [[zoology]]; in addition, studies such as [[ecology]] and [[evolution]] also fall under the purview of biology.

==Principles==

The study of biology works from several basic foundations:

1. The cellular theory of life. All life is composed of at least once cell, which undergoes the classical processes of cellular life; the cell is the basic unit of all macrobiotic life. The chemical composition of all cells in nature is similar, and all existing cells have emerged from prior cells through the processes of cellular division and [[mitosis]].

2. Genetic theory. All cells encode their genetic information in the form of DNA, the fundamental component of genes. These genes transfer the physical, and often psychological, traits of one generation of organism to the next.

3. Homeostasis. All living organisms will attempt to reach some form of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - both through the metabolism of individual creatures, and the population dynamics of whole populations.

==History==

More than ten thousand years ago, Mesopotamia showed evidence of the domestication of goats, sheep, and grains; while this was most likely unintentional, at least at first, it can be placed as the first point at which human study of the nature of life itself began. From these humble beginnings, all of modern biology eventually flourished.

The discoveries of the nineteenth century spurred the development of modern biology. Mendel's breeding experiments initiated [[genetics]]; the microscope initiated [[microbiology]]; and the synthesis of urea initiated [[biochemistry]]. In the early twentienth century the field of [[population genetics]] spurred the development of [[statistics]]. Advances in [[analytical chemistry]] permitted scientists to determine the structure of important biological molecules, such as DNA. These discoveries lead to the rapid development of [[molecular genetics]]. Coming full circle, these developments, combined with population genetic theory, is permitting scientists to examine the process of crop and animal domestication.

==Modern Research==
Modern biological research is heavily focused on identifying [[gene]]s and characterizing their [[gene expression|expression]] and function. Progress in this field has enabled scientists to analyze organisms as [[complex]] molecular systems. The study of complex systems has also been applied to ecology. There is also rapid characterization of the [[biodiversity]] of the [[Earth]]. This is especially pronounced in [[microbiology]], where surveys of diversity have only become possible with the development of modern molecular techniques.

[[Category:Biology]]

NP-complete

2008-12-02T23:18:20Z

TaKess: Creating page. Sadly, I'm not qualified enough to give extensive comments.

NP-complete is a [[complexity]] class in [[computer science]]. The NP is short for "[[nondeterministic]] [[polynomial]]," and the term is used to refer to a class of problems with the following properties:

* Solutions to NP-complete problems can be verified in polynomial time.
* If a polynomial-time solution to one NP-complete problem is found, then every other NP-complete problem can be solved in polynomial time.
* As implied by the above two, fast (i.e. polynomial time) solutions do not exist as of yet.

Because there are many NP-complete problems which have strong implications in [[physics]], [[biology]] and other areas of science, much work in computer science is devoted toward developing algorithms which yield [[approximate]] solutions to these problems.

Phylogeny

2008-12-02T23:11:11Z

TaKess: Computational implications

[[Image:Cladogram.gif|right|thumb|250px|A cladogram.]]
'''Phylogeny''' describes the relationships between groups of animals as understood by ancestor/descendant history, so that groups are linked together on the basis of the recency of common ancestry. This is assessed primarily by the recognition of shared derived characters. The pattern of evolutionary relationships within and between groups can be depicted in the form of a branching diagram called [[cladogram]]s, which are like genealogies of [[specie]]s.

Not only is phylogeny important for understanding paleontology, but paleontology in turn contributes to phylogeny. Many groups of organisms are now extinct, and without their fossils we would not have as clear a picture of how modern life is interrelated.

[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] [[Ernst Haeckel]] is well known for his claim that "[[ontogeny]] recapitulates phylogeny," meaning that organisms pass through stages in development that mirror their evolutionary history. Though some of the drawings he produced as evidence of this claim were later found to be fraudulent, evolutionary biologists maintain that other evidence supports this conclusion, albeit not as strongly as Haeckel suspected.

==Phylogenetics==
Phylogenetics, the science of phylogeny, is one part of the larger field of [[systematics]], which also includes [[taxonomy]]. Taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying the diversity of organisms.

Many problems in [[computational biology]] are inspired by work in phylogenetics and systematics, several of which have been shown to be [[NP-complete]].

==See Also==

[[category:evolution]]

Phylogeny

2008-12-02T23:09:52Z

TaKess: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny