Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Man is not the descendant of monkey

2009-03-20T19:42:51Z

Kallium:

I'd just like to ask, who exactly claims that Mankind evolved from monkeys? I've been seeing it as "Mankind and monkeys have a common ancestor" most of the time... [[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 20:36, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

:Yes, who? Who claims man descends from monkeys? Anybody that preaches evolution. The who is ....all secular Western cultures, most atheist-led countries. Man evolved from ape, from beasts, is just leftwing indoctrination. The result is to dehumanize man, make less than worthy, create classes and label them sub-human species. The origins of man are God and all men are created equel.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:03, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
::Could you please cite some examples? [[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 21:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

People tend to use "monkey" and "ape" very generically, unlike "gorilla", "chimpanzee", and etc. which are more specific.

In a sense, Jjameson is correct in questioning the claim: evolutionists don't claim that man evolved from a monkey or ape; but that humans and apes had a common ancestor from which both evolved.

On the other hand, as "monkey" and "ape" are general terms, that supposed common ancestor, if found, although being classified as a different species by scientists, would likely be referred to by laymen as a "monkey" or "ape" anyway. So in that sense, Jpatt is correct.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

::What I find interesting is that it presupposes a worldview that somehow monkeys are "less worthy". Aren't ALL God's creations wondrous? Why must we always want to be considered "better" than all of the rest of Creation, all of which is God's work? There's an implicit arrogance there that reeks of species insecurity, in my book. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 11:53, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::You are lowering the value of mankind to the level of a monkey. If people are no more valuable than animals, then they can be killed when they don't do what you want. Ever eat a cheeseburger or swat a mosquito?

:::Why must we always ignore Genesis 1:28 wherein God gave us dominion over all the rest of His creation? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:01, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Actually, no - I do not eat any animal products or byproducts, nor wear leather. And like many like me, I do actually worry about stepping on ants and the like. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I try my best and am upset when it happens. I don't wish to have dominion over other people, or animals. I want to live amongst all of God's Creation as One. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 12:51, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::What religion is that? Buddhism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::No no, I'm a (vegetarian) Anglican Christian. [[User:KBinbota|KBinbota]] 13:12, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::God created all of the world, but only man in His image. That's a fundamental distinction worth respecting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:05, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::Doesn't that seem just a little too convenient? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 15:42, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T13:43:31Z

Kallium: /* Estimates and disagreements */ reply

== On my rewrite ==

Major diffs include
* change of ref to printed text "Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000" to http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
* removal of section on accelerated decay - pure conjecture without citation. Reference was link to another wiki.
* expanded assumptions
* Added C14 creation rate at flood and creation (probably still needs a reasonable citation that is more than conjecture)
* expanded outside influences, show where metamorphic rock is incorrect and RATE using this infomration to improperly date Grand Canyon. Included refutation of RATE data at answers in creation

If there are any questions, I spent some time back in college writing software for a radiocarbon laboratory and have more than passing knowledge of the material that is written about. Feel free to ask any questions here. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Philip's edits==

Philip, I have to point this out to everyone. You are a rare person who has placed productive information in an article that you obviously disagree with and also removed information that would have supported you position on the topic, but you removed it anyway because you had identified it as a bigoted reference. I can not express the level of gratitude towards you for doing this. Thank you.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:01, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Err, thanks. Maybe. The bit I removed claimed that the (YEC) RATE project got it wrong. There were two references, one to an ICR article about the RATE project, and the other to an anti-YEC site claiming that the RATE project got it wrong. It was this second reference that I was referring to as bigoted, because it's first criticism was that creationist peer-review is by other creationists. As evolutionist peer-review is by other evolutionists, the only rationale here must be that creationary ''scientists'' are invalidated as peer-reviewers simply because they are creationists.
:I've probably just destroyed your reason for thinking that I've done good, but like you presumed, I do want the truth, and the truth is not what I think you were thinking.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Principles ==

The whole bit about the candles and what not seems a bit pedestrian. I say remove it entirely. Readers understand how to measure time, they don't need to be spoon fed a quasi-example such as this one --[[User:Pastafarian|Pastafarian]]
:On the contrary, most people don't understand the basic principles of how radiometric dating works; this explains it with objects that are quite familiar. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== Removal of calibration section points ==

I've just removed the bits about methods by which radiometric methods can be "cross-verified". The first example, which seemed a bit convenient anyway, seems at the very least to be disputed and at worst to be simply wrong. See [http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/archaeology/middle/petraglia_toba_india_continuity_2007.html here]. The second is not a method of calibration with independently-''known'' dates, but with other dates that have also not been calibrated. And this is mentioned further down in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:41, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== Reversion to earlier version ==

I just reverted two paragraphs to an earlier version. Feebasfactor had edited the two paragraphs, and in so doing incorrectly claimed that the problem that YECs have with radiometric dating is the size of the margin of error. This is not the issue. He also changed "Young-Earth creationists therefore claim ..." to "However, [[young earth creationist]]s claim...". This was fair enough, as the sentence did not logically flow from the previous sentence. However, this was because of a previous edit[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Radiometric_dating&diff=next&oldid=213492] that changed the flow of the previous sentence, and which introduced a contrary thought which was unsupported by a valid reference. It had been there plenty long enough for a reference, but none was forthcoming, so I've reverted those paragraphs to prior to that edit, with the result that the "Young-Earth creationists therefore claim ..." is again valid, and the incorrect claim about the size of the margin of error is gone. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:59, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry about that, I was trying to resolve the flow - the previous version seemed a little conflicted. Modification to the sentence was perhaps overly drastic, though. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:38, 31 January 2008 (EST)

==Uranium-Lead Dating==
In your article, you do mention uranium-lead decay, and that lead in the sample originally would skew the resulting age. Zircon, which is often used in dating, has the the property that, when crystallizing, it will exclude all lead and will trap surrounding uranium. The lead that is found in zircon, then, can only have been the product of uranium decay.[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit5/deeptime.html] [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/zircon_home.html] Also, one can calculate the amount of contamination. Any process that allows one isotope of will let in the others found on Earth. By measuring the amount of lead 204 (which is non-radiogenic and therefore could not have been produced by the decay of the uranium), we would know the amounts of the other isotopes (through the relative amounts on Earth, which are nearly uniform) that contaminated the sample.[http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/radiometric%20dating.pdf] (page 8 by the way). From this, the age could be calculated. --[[User:Phillipps|Phillipps]] 12:53, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: This uses the same faulty circular reasoning the decay-based approaches. You're assuming something about aging to prove aging. It's like using a political poll today to predict the outcome of an election in a few months. For obvious reasons, that approach is often wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:43, 8 March 2008 (EST)

:: Equating the decay of radioactive particles (which follow the laws of physics) to the behavior of voters is a false analogy. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but the reasons aren't obvious. What am I assuming?--[[User:Phillipps|Phillipps]] 17:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::For clarification, I know why political polls can't be used to predict election results, but you still haven't responded to my question.--[[User:Phillipps|Phillipps]] 11:28, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Shall you be responding?--[[User:Phillipps|Phillipps]] 16:33, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Rate of decay ==

The reference to the beryllium experiment is misleading, in that the experiment referred to changes in rate in different conditions while it is used as a source for changes in rate over time. In other words, the experiment demonstrated changes from ''external'' (i.e. chemical) factors while this article claims heretofore unidentified ''internal'' factors over much longer periods of time- or at least it should identify what external factors may have caused this. Furthermore, the difference in decay rates was only 1.5%, which may be quite a lot from the perspective of a nuclear physicist, but dates are rarely if ever determined with that degree of accuracy due to such variation in external conditions. The citation is used to imply, for those who expect absolute precision certainty from dating techniques (which you won't get in ''any'' sort of measurement) and do not inspect it more closely, that the difference found was so massive as to render the entire methodology invalid. Is the reported 1.5% really significant in this context, then? Let's see- the oldest radiometric estimates for the age of the Earth are roughly 6 billion years, and if the Earth is only 6000 years old, that means that radiometric dating must have a margin of error of at ''least'' 6x109 / 6x103 = 1x106, or 1,000,000. If radiometric dating is really off by a factor of one million (or 100,000,000%), the variation in rate of decay as presented in the experiment accounts for only 0.015 / 1,000,000 = 0.000000015 = 0.0000015% of the error. By contrast, a 1.5% error on a date of six billion years gives the range of 5.91-6.09 billion years- not nearly the massive variation that is implied. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Estimates and disagreements ==

As I explained briefly in the edit summary before it was reverted, the statement that "laboratories are known to improve the likelihood of of getting a "correct" date by asking for the expected date of the item" does not follow from the document that was cited to support it. The form had an area to "estimate date", which was preceded by detailed descriptions and records of where the sample was found. This is basic, scientifically responsible bookkeeping, with the estimate then based upon the context of where the sample was found as described. Note that the estimate box also has a space for explaining the basis of that estimate. This would be the hypothesis, if you like to think of it that way. Thus the estimate is the expected date where expected = anticipated/hypothesized. It is ''not'' the expected date where expected = desired/required. They aren't ''asking'' to get a result that matches the estimate. Same with the range- "age limits" is actually a commonly used term much like "confidence limits" in statistics. They are not the limits imposed by the submitter- again, they are ''estimates'' not, as the article says, the "maximum and minimum ''acceptable'' ages".

I removed those sentences because the second grossly misrepresents the cited document on a ''factual level'', and without it the first is unsupported assertion. (There are other instances like that elsewhere in the article, I might add.) Think: if scientists were that dishonest, why would they bother going through all the time and ''money'' to package samples, fill out paperwork, ship them off, process them, and pay people to run them through machines that require regular maintenance, just to throw out masses of expensive but "unacceptable" data in the end? Why not just make it all up?

I don't know why my other edit regarding scientific disagreements was reverted; it is misleading to suggest that the whole method is flawed because not everyone (or in the example, two people) agrees on a detail. There have been ''huge'' arguments in all areas of science, when seemingly contradictory results have been found by different people. Some historical examples include how brain cells connect (neuronists vs. reticularists), the identity of the genetic material (nucleic acids vs. proteins), and the phenomenon of plate tectonics, but this doesn't mean that their histology, biochemistry, or geological measurements (respectively), were poorly performed or fundamentally wrong- likewise with this subject. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:48, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I reject the above analysis out-of-hand.

: Those sentences are going right smack back in there, and if you so much as touch them again, I ''will'' block you. Let that suffice.

: There is no reason ''at all'' for specifying an estimated date. That is an open invitation to the very sort of fudging that we allege.

: Radiometric dating is ''suppposed'' to be ''absolute''. '''''How can any determination be absolute and yet at the same time depend upon context?''''' This is classic bait-and-switch. It goes to the heart of the conclusion by the RATE Group that ''all'' radiometric dating should be re-examined.

: Detail, you say? We are talking about how the scientific establishment dares regard radiometric dating as a gold standard, capable of rendering an absolute date and thereby actually acting as a fact check on recorded history. Radiometric dating has been represented to the public at large as the next best thing to time travel for fixing the date of a volcanic eruption, or the deaths of large numbers of anything from [[trilobite]]s to [[dinosaur]]s. This is not a quibble here.

: Lastly, I no more consider myself obliged to explain than if I had reverted an edit that tried to allege that two plus two was equal to five.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: Kallium, you've been deleting factual information. It's poorly kept secret that radiometric yields often widely different estimates of age. The statements that you've repeated deleted are well supported. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)

::TerryH, one wonders why you felt the need to open your overtly aggressive reply with a threat. "Because I can block and you can't" (''argumentum ad baculum'') isn't a productive response.

::The estimate is the hypothesis- ''that's'' the reason. ''I said the estimate, not the measurement, "depends on context".'' In fact, my '''entire first paragraph''' was ''solely'' about the estimate. Don't change my meaning then accuse '''''me''''' of bait-and-switch.

::When balancing your checkbook, you have an idea what total you expect to get (your hypothesis) based upon what the statement says and what your income/spending habits for the month were (the context). If you find a discrepancy with the bank, and then redo your math and find a different total that is in agreement, is that "fudging"?

::I did say "detail", because the example was a disagreement over whether an item was 40,000 or 60,000 years old (''internal'' argument), not a disagreement over the validity of the technique (''external'' argument). Using the former to represent the latter is a misrepresentation. Besides, you ignored the actual point.

::A "fact check on recorded history"? Show me written documents describing trilobites dying.

::Radiometric dating ironically ''is'' the next best thing to time travel in terms of determining dates, only because there's isn't a better technique in between.

::Your Parthion shot lacks substance and merely revisits your opening attempt at intimidation.

::Andy, the cited document did not support the interpretation. Perhaps the information is factual, but it should either be adequately sourced or removed as per ''your own rules''. Perhaps the statements really are well supported- in which case it should be easy to find a plethora of better examples- but they weren't so here, making them simply unsupported accusations.

::By the way, isn't "poorly kept secret" an oxymoron? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 08:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T03:55:09Z

Kallium: I explained edits, reversion was not explained. See more detail on talk page.

'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

== Principles ==

No method exists for ''measuring'' [[time]], except by measuring it as it is passing.
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.

The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at a measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.

For example, to work out how long a [[candle]] has been burning, the following steps would be needed:
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.
# Measure how long the candle is now.
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.

For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps). For example, [[uranium]] will eventually decay into [[lead]]. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate. Calculations involve the well-established function for exponential decay: <math>F</math><math>t</math><math>=e</math><math>-kt</math>.

== Key assumptions ==

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.

=== Initial quantities ===

One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).

In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C14 to C12, but the same principle otherwise applies.

=== Rate of decay ===

Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant.
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant, and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref>

The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

=== Outside influences ===

It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.

For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.

== Calibration ==
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.

Carbon dating, with its much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.

Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.

Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.

However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.

[[Young earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.

== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.
{{QuoteBox|C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method...<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}

A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}

One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and again came up with a date of 40,000 years.
However, such disagreements are not restricted to radiometric dating and occur in all fields of science.

==Some major methods of radiometric dating==

There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]

== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Talk:Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T03:48:19Z

Kallium: /* Estimates and disagreements */ new section

Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T00:54:02Z

Kallium: /* Acceptance and reliability */ broader perspective

'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

== Principles ==

No method exists for ''measuring'' [[time]], except by measuring it as it is passing.
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.

The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at a measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.

For example, to work out how long a [[candle]] has been burning, the following steps would be needed:
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.
# Measure how long the candle is now.
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.

For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps). For example, [[uranium]] will eventually decay into [[lead]]. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate. Calculations involve the well-established function for exponential decay: <math>F</math><math>t</math><math>=e</math><math>-kt</math>.

== Key assumptions ==

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.

=== Initial quantities ===

One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).

In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C14 to C12, but the same principle otherwise applies.

=== Rate of decay ===

Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant.
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant, and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref>

The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

=== Outside influences ===

It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.

For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.

== Calibration ==
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.

Carbon dating, with its much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.

Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.

Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.

However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.

[[Young earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.

== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.
{{QuoteBox|C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method...<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}

A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}

One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and came up once more with a date of 40,000 years.
However, such disagreements are not restricted to radiometric dating and occur in all fields of science.

==Some major methods of radiometric dating==

There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]

== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

<references/>
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T00:48:10Z

Kallium: fix ref list

'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

== Principles ==

No method exists for ''measuring'' [[time]], except by measuring it as it is passing.
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.

The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at a measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.

For example, to work out how long a [[candle]] has been burning, the following steps would be needed:
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.
# Measure how long the candle is now.
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.

For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps). For example, [[uranium]] will eventually decay into [[lead]]. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate. Calculations involve the well-established function for exponential decay: <math>F</math><math>t</math><math>=e</math><math>-kt</math>.

== Key assumptions ==

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.

=== Initial quantities ===

One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).

In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C14 to C12, but the same principle otherwise applies.

=== Rate of decay ===

Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant.
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant, and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref>

The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

=== Outside influences ===

It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.

For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.

== Calibration ==
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.

Carbon dating, with its much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.

Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.

Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.

However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.

[[Young earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.

== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.
{{QuoteBox|C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method...<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}

A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}

One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and again came up with a date of 40,000 years.

==Some major methods of radiometric dating==

There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]

== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

<references/>
[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T00:46:20Z

Kallium: /* Acceptance and reliability */ See the cited form. "Estimated" does not mean "desired" or "acceptable"- it's a hypothesis and description of context, making this paragraph unsupported.

'''Radiometric dating''' is a method of determining the age of an artifact by measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred.<ref>[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html Radiometric Time Scale] USGS</ref> Radiometric dating is mostly used to determine the age of rocks, though a particular form of radiometric dating—called [[Radiocarbon dating]]—can date wood, cloth, skeletons, and other organic material.

== Principles ==

No method exists for ''measuring'' [[time]], except by measuring it as it is passing.
Therefore, the age of an artifact must be ''calculated''.

The basic principle in any dating method is to find a process that is occurring at a measurable rate and which is causing a change, measure the rate of that process, work out what state the artifact was in at the beginning of the process, observe what state it is in now, and to calculate how long the process at the measured rate would need to occur to effect that change.

For example, to work out how long a [[candle]] has been burning, the following steps would be needed:
# Measure how long it takes the candle to burn down a given amount.
# Find out how long the candle was when it started burning.
# Measure how long the candle is now.
# Calculate the difference between the two lengths.
# Calculate how long it would need to burn in order to burn that length.

For most radiometric dating methods, one radioactive element changes by a process of nuclear decay into another element (often through a number of intermediate steps). For example, [[uranium]] will eventually decay into [[lead]]. So to measure how old a specimen containing some uranium and some lead is, the following steps are required:
# Measure the decay rate of uranium.
# Find out how much uranium was in the specimen to start with (this might be done by assuming that all the lead was originally uranium).
# Find out how much uranium is in the specimen now.
# Calculate how much uranium has turned into lead.
# Calculate how long it would take that much uranium to turn into lead, given the measured rate. Calculations involve the well-established function for exponential decay: <math>F</math><math>t</math><math>=e</math><math>-kt</math>.

== Key assumptions ==

There are a number of assumptions involved in radiometric dating.
They are assumptions because they are unable to be proved one way or the other.

=== Initial quantities ===

One key assumption is that the initial quantity of the parent element can be determined. With uranium-lead dating, for example, you must be able to determine how much uranium was in the sample to start with. One assumption that can be made is that all the lead in the sample was once uranium, but if there was lead there to start with, this assumption is not valid, and any date based on that assumption will be incorrect (too old).

In the case of carbon dating, it is not the initial quantity that is important, but the initial ratio of C14 to C12, but the same principle otherwise applies.

=== Rate of decay ===

Another assumption is that the rate of decay is constant.
There is no reason to expect that the rate of decay of a radioactive material is largely constant, and it was almost certainly not constant near the creation or beginning of the universe.<ref>At least one example of a change in the rate has been observed in laboratory experiments. See ''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1608/ Radioactive decay rate depends on chemical environment]''.</ref>

The process of decay is as follows. Atoms consist of a heavy central core called the [[nucleus]] surrounded by clouds of lightweight particles (electrons), called [[electron shell]]s. The energy locked in the nucleus is enormous, but cannot be released easily. The phenomenon we know as heat is simply the jiggling around of atoms and their components, so in principle a high enough temperature could cause the components of the core to break out. However, the temperature required to do this is in in the millions of degrees, so this cannot be achieved by any natural process that we know about. The second way that a nucleus could be disrupted is by particles striking it. However, the nucleus has a strong positive charge and the electron shells have a strong negative charge. Any incoming negative charge would be deflected by the electron shell and any positive charge that penetrated the electron shells would be deflected by the positive charge of the nucleus itself.

=== Outside influences ===

It is important that the sample not have had any outside influences. One example of this can be found in metamorphic rocks.<ref>[http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm Radiometric Dating] Course notes for EENS 211 at Tulane University</ref> This does not mean that all rock samples are unreliable, but it is possible to account for a process which throws off the data for metamorphic rocks.

For example, with [[Uranium-lead dating]] with the crystallization of magma, this remains a closed system until the uranium decays. As it decays, it disrupts the crystal and allows the lead atom to move. Likewise, heating the rock such as [[granite]] forms [[gneiss]] or [[basalt]] forms [[schist]]. This can also disrupt the ratios of lead and uranium in the sample.

== Calibration ==
In order to calibrate radiometric dating methods, the methods need to be checked for accuracy against items with independently-known dates.

Carbon dating, with its much lower maximum theoretical range, is often used for dating items only hundreds and thousands of years old, so can be calibrated in its lower ranges by comparing results with artifacts who's ages are known from historical records.

Scientists have also attempted to extend the calibration range by comparing results to timber which has its age calculated by [[dendrochronology]], but this has also been questioned because carbon dating is used to assist with working out dendrochronological ages.

Otherwise, calibration consists of comparing results with ages determined by other radiometric dating methods.

However, tests of radiometric dating methods have often shown that they do ''not'' agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of radiometric dating methods not agreeing with each other.

[[Young earth creationists]] therefore claim that radiometric dating methods are not reliable and can therefore not be used to disprove Biblical chronology.

== Acceptance and reliability ==
Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.
{{QuoteBox|C14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: "If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method...<ref>T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson, ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in ''Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology'', Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970. Quoted in Lamb, 2007.</ref>}}

A geological guidebook published by the [[Queensland]] government acknowledges that the dates are not absolute, but must be interpreted:
{{QuoteBox|Also, the relative ages [of the radiometric dating results] must always be consistent with the geological evidence. ... if a contradiction occurs, then the cause of the error needs to be established or the radiometric results are unacceptable<ref>Walker, 2002</ref>}}

One example of scientists not accepting radiometric dates is that of [[Mungo Man]], a human fossil from [[New South Wales]].
When originally found, it was dated by [[radiocarbon dating]] at around 30,000 years old.
This was later revised to 40,000 years.
Another scientist later used other methods to derive a date of 62,000 years.
The original discoverer, unconvinced by this result, used a different method again, and again came up with a date of 40,000 years.

<references/>

==Some major methods of radiometric dating==

There are several major types of radiometric dating in use:<ref>Walker, 2005</ref><ref>Faure and Mensing, 2005</ref>
#[[Radiocarbon dating]], also called carbon dating
#[[Potassium-argon dating]]
#[[Uranium-lead dating]]
#[[Uranium-thorium]]
#[[Rubidium-strontium dating]]

== Bibliography ==
* Lamb, Andrew, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026 Carbon dating into the future] 24th March, 2007 (Creation Ministries International).
* Faure, G. and Mensing, T., Isotopes: Principles and Applications, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, M., Quarternary Dating Methods, Wiley & Sons, 2005.
* Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/470 The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating], ''Creation'' 24(4):20–23, September 2002.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]

Talk:Radiometric dating

2009-01-16T00:30:41Z

Kallium: /* Rate of decay */ new section

Hand

2009-01-15T23:31:03Z

Kallium: added examples

[[Image:Tst456yh.svg|right|thumb|Palm of left hand, showing position of skin creases and bones, and surface markings for the volar arches.]]
The human '''hand''' is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other [[primate]]s and also [[kangaroo]]s and [[squirrel]]s and [[chameleon]]s and a number of other animals, but when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can build enormous skyscrapers or tiny electronic circuits.

== Anatomy ==

The human hand consists of 27 [[bones]] - two rows of carpals forming the wrist (consisting of the scaphoid, lunate, triquetral and pisiform proximally, and the trapezoid, trapezium, capitate and hamate distally), followed by five metacarpals forming the palm, and 3 phalanges for each finger (proximal, distal and intermediate) and 2 phalanges for the thumb. These bones provide the attachments for the tendons of the long muscles originating from the humerus and the radius and ulnar bones of the forearm, as well as the short muscles of the hand.

The wrist is controlled by 4 muscles - the extensor carpi radialis and ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis and ulnaris. Attached to the carpal bones of the wrist, these muscles allow for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and circumduction. The fingers and thumb are also largely controlled by muscles arising in the forearm, their tendons passing under retinaculums (stong fibrous bands at joints, forming the carpal tunnel ) at the wrist to prevent them bow stringing during flexion and extension. Small muscles in the hand provide additional mobility to the digits, such as the interossei muscles, located between the metacarpals, which abduct and adduct the fingers, and the various muscles of the thenar eminence which provide the ability to oppose thumb and forefinger.

These muscles are innervated by the ulnar, radial and median nerves.<ref>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1285060-overview</ref>

== The Hand Throughout The Animal Kingdom ==
Structures in the human hand are remarkably similar throughout [[mammals]], birds and reptiles, and can even be seen in some fossils. Most [[mammals]] have comparable bones, even [[whales]] and [[bats]], although some are significantly distorted, such as in a horse's [[hoof]].<ref>http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-limbs.jpg</ref> The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Other than humans, the only other species with oppossable thumbs are other primates, such as [[chimpanzees]], whose hands are also much stronger.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Image:Hands.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A human left hand (back and palm).]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

Hand

2009-01-15T23:23:14Z

Kallium: Mammals are a class (Mammalia), not a kingdom.

[[Image:Tst456yh.svg|right|thumb|Palm of left hand, showing position of skin creases and bones, and surface markings for the volar arches.]]
The human '''hand''' is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other [[primate]]s and also [[kangaroo]]s and [[squirrel]]s and [[chameleon]]s and a number of other animals, but when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can build enormous skyscrapers or tiny electronic circuits.

== Anatomy ==

The human hand consists of 27 [[bones]] - two rows of carpals forming the wrist (consisting of the scaphoid, lunate, triquetral and pisiform proximally, and the trapezoid, trapezium, capitate and hamate distally), followed by five metacarpals forming the palm, and 3 phalanges for each finger (proximal, distal and intermediate) and 2 phalanges for the thumb. These bones provide the attachments for the tendons of the long muscles originating from the humerus and the radius and ulnar bones of the forearm, as well as the short muscles of the hand.

The wrist is controlled by 4 muscles - the extensor carpi radialis and ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis and ulnaris. Attached to the carpal bones of the wrist, these muscles allow for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and circumduction. The fingers and thumb are also largely controlled by muscles arising in the forearm, their tendons passing under retinaculums (stong fibrous bands at joints, forming the carpal tunnel ) at the wrist to prevent them bow stringing during flexion and extension. Small muscles in the hand provide additional mobility to the digits, such as the interossei muscles, located between the metacarpals, which abduct and adduct the fingers, and the various muscles of the thenar eminence which provide the ability to oppose thumb and forefinger.

These muscles are innervated by the ulnar, radial and median nerves.<ref>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1285060-overview</ref>

== The Hand Throughout The Animal Kingdom ==
Structures in the human hand are remarkably similar throughout [[mammals]] and even birds and reptiles. Most [[mammals]] have comparable bones, although significantly distorted (such as in a horse's [[hoof]]).<ref>http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-limbs.jpg</ref> The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Other than humans, the only other species with oppossable thumbs are other primates, such as [[chimpanzees]], whose hands are also much stronger.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Image:Hands.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A human left hand (back and palm).]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

Hand

2009-01-15T23:19:46Z

Kallium: sp

[[Image:Tst456yh.svg|right|thumb|Palm of left hand, showing position of skin creases and bones, and surface markings for the volar arches.]]
The human '''hand''' is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other [[primate]]s and also [[kangaroo]]s and [[squirrel]]s and [[chameleon]]s and a number of other animals, but when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can build enormous skyscrapers or tiny electronic circuits.

== Anatomy ==

The human hand consists of 27 [[bones]] - two rows of carpals forming the wrist (consisting of the scaphoid, lunate, triquetral and pisiform proximally, and the trapezoid, trapezium, capitate and hamate distally), followed by five metacarpals forming the palm, and 3 phalanges for each finger (proximal, distal and intermediate) and 2 phalanges for the thumb. These bones provide the attachments for the tendons of the long muscles originating from the humerus and the radius and ulnar bones of the forearm, as well as the short muscles of the hand.

The wrist is controlled by 4 muscles - the extensor carpi radialis and ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis and ulnaris. Attached to the carpal bones of the wrist, these muscles allow for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and circumduction. The fingers and thumb are also largely controlled by muscles arising in the forearm, their tendons passing under retinaculums (stong fibrous bands at joints, forming the carpal tunnel ) at the wrist to prevent them bow stringing during flexion and extension. Small muscles in the hand provide additional mobility to the digits, such as the interossei muscles, located between the metacarpals, which abduct and adduct the fingers, and the various muscles of the thenar eminence which provide the ability to oppose thumb and forefinger.

These muscles are innervated by the ulnar, radial and median nerves.<ref>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1285060-overview</ref>

== The Hand Throughout The Animal Kingdom ==
Structures in the human hand are remarkably similar throughout the mammal kingdom and even birds and reptiles. Most [[mammals]] have comparable bones, although significantly distorted (such as in a horse's [[hoof]]).<ref>http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-limbs.jpg</ref> The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Other than humans, the only other species with oppossable thumbs are other primates, such as [[chimpanzees]], whose hands are also much stronger.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Image:Hands.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A human left hand (back and palm).]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

Hand

2009-01-15T23:19:18Z

Kallium: redundancy

[[Image:Tst456yh.svg|right|thumb|Palm of left hand, showing position of skin creases and bones, and surface markings for the volar arches.]]
The human '''hand''' is one of God's most amazing creations. No other creature has a limb quite like it, apart from a number of other [[primate]]s and also [[kangaroo]]s and [[squirrel]]s and [[chameleon]]s and a number of other animals, but when a person turns his or her hand to a task he or she can build enormous skyscrapers or tiny electronic circuits.

== Anatomy ==

The human hand consists of 27 [[bones]] - two rows of carpals forming the wrist (consisting of the scaphoid, lunate, triquetral and pisiform proximally, and the trapezoid, trapezium, capitate and hamate distally), followed by five metacarpals forming the palm, and 3 phalanges for each finger (proximal, distal and intermediate) and 2 phalanges for the thumb. These bones provide the attachments for the tendons of the long muscles originating from the humerus and the radius and ulner bones of the forearm, as well as the short muscles of the hand.

The wrist is controlled by 4 muscles - the extensor carpi radialis and ulnaris and flexor carpi radialis and ulnaris. Attached to the carpal bones of the wrist, these muscles allow for flexion, extension, abduction, adduction and circumduction. The fingers and thumb are also largely controlled by muscles arising in the forearm, their tendons passing under retinaculums (stong fibrous bands at joints, forming the carpal tunnel ) at the wrist to prevent them bow stringing during flexion and extension. Small muscles in the hand provide additional mobility to the digits, such as the interossei muscles, located between the metacarpals, which abduct and adduct the fingers, and the various muscles of the thenar eminence which provide the ability to oppose thumb and forefinger.

These muscles are innervated by the ulnar, radial and median nerves.<ref>http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1285060-overview</ref>

== The Hand Throughout The Animal Kingdom ==
Structures in the human hand are remarkably similar throughout the mammal kingdom and even birds and reptiles. Most [[mammals]] have comparable bones, although significantly distorted (such as in a horse's [[hoof]]).<ref>http://universe-review.ca/I10-82-limbs.jpg</ref> The opposable [[thumb]] makes it possible to grasp branches and manipulate tools. Other than humans, the only other species with opposable thumbs are other primates, such as [[chimpanzees]], whose hands are also much stronger.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Image:Hands.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A human left hand (back and palm).]]
[[Category:Anatomy]]

Talk:Dark matter

2009-01-05T18:42:54Z

Kallium: On second thought...

{{simulsubmitted|user=TerryH|site user=Temlakos}}
Dark matter 'proof' called into doubt: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19125684.200-dark-matter-proof-called-into-doubt.html and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/ns-dm090606.php [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Would you care to summarize the article or provide a link to the published paper (rather than a summary of the paper)? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is an article about the so called "dark matter" written by [[Creation Ministries International]]: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4626/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Occam's Razor ==

Einstein and Vulcan is not an example of Occam's Razor. Occam's razor states that new phenomena should not be introduced if existing explanations suffice. Planets were already well-known, so the observations were very plausibly explained by an undiscovered planet. This was the going idea for about 50 years before Einstein came along. Imagine you are in a Newtonian world filled with excitement over continual uncovering of new knowledge of planets. Now here are some observations that seem to suggest a new planet, but there's this crazy physicist nut who says it's due to space itself actually ''bending''. In that case, Occam's razor would suggest that this relativity idea was bogus, because we perceive space as flat and Newtonian physics explains every other observation to the degree of accuracy possible at that time. Thus as additional planet was not a new ''phenomenon'', just another physical entity within the then-known physical framework of the universe, whereas relativity represented an entire reshaping of our understanding of the universe. However, the math of relativity fully explained the orbital anomaly, so that explanation survived. The idea of Vulcan was then discarded because there were no longer any unexplained effects which could accommodate it. It was a questions of alternatives, not additions. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:38, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2008-10-26T22:09:25Z

Kallium: /* Consciousness */

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

==Refutations==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Thinker...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Consciousness ==

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

== Bat counterexample ==

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

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

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

== Some Comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Consciousness ==

The conciousness point is erroneous. Just because no other animals show these traits (though Philip J. says that others do) it doesn't mean evolution must be flawed. According to evolutionism, the very first thing to evolve would have had traits that nothing else had, right? For example, the first type of fish that walked on land was, at the time, the ''only'' animal that could walk on land. We might ''expect'' that other speciese are "self conscious", but it doesn't ''need to be so''. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

There are six points in this claim, and all are incorrect:
:*Self-awareness: since when is self-awareness defined by clothing? Besides, there is some evidence of that in certain cases, but as HelpJazz said, it's irrelevant anyway.
:*Morality: 1) it is subjective, 2) there are certain animal behaviors that can be interpreted as "moral" and 3) there are plenty of humans that lack morality.
:*Tools: there are many examples of animals using tools, and incidentally it is most often, but not exclusively, in primates, but of course all this depends entirely on your definition of 'tool'.
:*Self-sacrifice: animals ''do'' exhibit self-sacrifice- in fact, such behavior is ''abundant''. It is not the most common behavior, but it's very easy to find nonetheless (for one of the best examples, think colonial insects).
:*"Lower life forms": this claim contains one of the oldest and most common misunderstandings about evolution: ''it is not linear''. Evolution '''does not''' say that man evolved from apes evolved from rats evolved from reptiles evolved from amphibians evolved from fish (...). The animals we see today are not our ancestors. You can say the same for any rodent, bird, fish, etc.
:*"Man is simply not an animal": an animal is biologically ''defined'' as a heterotrophic multicellular eukaryote that lacks cell walls. As I have previously asked elsewhere on this site, which of those four criteria do you believe not to apply to humans- that we don't make our own food, are made of more than one cell, have compartmentalized cells, or don't have cells walls? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:09, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

Fact

2008-10-26T20:42:55Z

Kallium: The existence of different boiling points is also fact, not theory- theory attempts to explain it.

A ''fact'' is a statistic, datum, or event that is objective, observable, and recordable.

Facts are used as evidence to make claims. Facts are generally held to be [[mind-independent]], i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place.
[[category:philosophy]]

Facts are different from theories, which attempt to explain trends in facts. Facts are also different from opinions, which are subjective interpretations of facts.

In history and journalism, "facts" refer to recorded, independently-verifiable events or statistics. In science, "facts" are observations or data, (fact: at sea-level, water boils at 100 degrees Celcius, while other liquids boil at different temperatures) and theories are built to explain facts (theory: why water boils at 100 C, why different liquids have different boiling points).

Atom

2008-10-23T11:41:33Z

Kallium: definition

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is
a [[particle]] of [[matter]] indivisible by [[chemical]] means <ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Glossary.html Glossary of Nuclear Terms] </ref> which form the building blocks of molecules.
The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton]]s, electrically neutral [[neutron]]s and negatively charged [[electron]]s. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained closely together in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels. Since protons and neutrons are approximately 2000 times as heavy as electrons, the vast majority of an atom's mass is found in the nucleus. Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles. Atoms are mostly empty space, as the relative size of the nucleus compared to the area of the lowest electron shell is about that of a pea in a stadium. Another common analogy for the atom along the same lines is the "fly in the cathedral", where the cathedral is the whole atom and the fly is the nucleus.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".
===Atomic Number===
[[Image:Isotopes.jpg|right|thumb|Isotopes]]
Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion. Anions of the common elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine are known as fluoride, chloride, bromide and iodide (replacing -ine with -ide), respectively.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (chloride, Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chloride ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as [[isotope|isotopes]]. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes. Many isotopes are [[radioactive]] and [[decay]] over time.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

==References==
<references />

Atom

2008-10-23T11:40:26Z

Kallium: ions

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is
a [[particle]] of [[matter]] indivisible by [[chemical]] means. <ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Glossary.html Glossary of Nuclear Terms] </ref>
The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton]]s, electrically neutral [[neutron]]s and negatively charged [[electron]]s. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained closely together in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels. Since protons and neutrons are approximately 2000 times as heavy as electrons, the vast majority of an atom's mass is found in the nucleus. Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles. Atoms are mostly empty space, as the relative size of the nucleus compared to the area of the lowest electron shell is about that of a pea in a stadium. Another common analogy for the atom along the same lines is the "fly in the cathedral", where the cathedral is the whole atom and the fly is the nucleus.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".
===Atomic Number===
[[Image:Isotopes.jpg|right|thumb|Isotopes]]
Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion. Anions of the common elements fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine are known as fluoride, chloride, bromide and iodide (replacing -ine with -ide), respectively.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (chloride, Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chloride ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as [[isotope|isotopes]]. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes. Many isotopes are [[radioactive]] and [[decay]] over time.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

==References==
<references />

Atom

2008-10-23T11:34:58Z

Kallium: fly in the cathedral

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is
a [[particle]] of [[matter]] indivisible by [[chemical]] means. <ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Glossary.html Glossary of Nuclear Terms] </ref>
The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton]]s, electrically neutral [[neutron]]s and negatively charged [[electron]]s. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained closely together in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels. Since protons and neutrons are approximately 2000 times as heavy as electrons, the vast majority of an atom's mass is found in the nucleus. Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles. Atoms are mostly empty space, as the relative size of the nucleus compared to the area of the lowest electron shell is about that of a pea in a stadium. Another common analogy for the atom along the same lines is the "fly in the cathedral", where the cathedral is the whole atom and the fly is the nucleus.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".
===Atomic Number===
[[Image:Isotopes.jpg|right|thumb|Isotopes]]
Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as [[isotope|isotopes]]. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes. Many isotopes are [[radioactive]] and [[decay]] over time.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

==References==
<references />

Atom

2008-10-23T11:28:14Z

Kallium: "close proximity" is redundant

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is
a [[particle]] of [[matter]] indivisible by [[chemical]] means. <ref>[http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Glossary.html Glossary of Nuclear Terms] </ref>
The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton]]s, electrically neutral [[neutron]]s and negatively charged [[electron]]s. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained closely together in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels. Since protons and neutrons are approximately 2000 times as heavy as electrons, the vast majority of an atom's mass is found in the nucleus. Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".
===Atomic Number===
[[Image:Isotopes.jpg|right|thumb|Isotopes]]
Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as [[isotope|isotopes]]. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes. Many isotopes are [[radioactive]] and [[decay]] over time.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

==References==
<references />

Arsenic

2008-10-23T11:24:34Z

Kallium: sp

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Metalloid | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and is the 20th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Many of its compounds are highly toxic. It bears a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic toxicity is often the result of the inhibition of certain enzymes, commonly those pertinent to metabolism; specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which can prevent the reaction products from functioning appropriately. This can lead to cellular death, which may in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

While chronic exposure to arsenic can cause several types of cancer, such as bladder and skin, it is also used as an anticancer agent for others, such as acute promyelocytic leukemia.

Cacodylic acid (AsOH(CH3)2), an organic form of arsenic, is a defoliant and was used in the Vietnam War under the name Agent Blue. In the United States, it is sometimes sprayed on cotton fields, where it causes the plants to desiccate, making harvesting of cotton bolls easier. Cacodylic acid is also the primary excreted metabolic product of arsenic in humans.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Arsenic

2008-10-23T11:24:06Z

Kallium: Cacodylic acid

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Mettaloid | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and is the 20th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Many of its compounds are highly toxic. It bears a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic toxicity is often the result of the inhibition of certain enzymes, commonly those pertinent to metabolism; specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which can prevent the reaction products from functioning appropriately. This can lead to cellular death, which may in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

While chronic exposure to arsenic can cause several types of cancer, such as bladder and skin, it is also used as an anticancer agent for others, such as acute promyelocytic leukemia.

Cacodylic acid (AsOH(CH3)2), an organic form of arsenic, is a defoliant and was used in the Vietnam War under the name Agent Blue. In the United States, it is sometimes sprayed on cotton fields, where it causes the plants to desiccate, making harvesting of cotton bolls easier. Cacodylic acid is also the primary excreted metabolic product of arsenic in humans.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Arsenic

2008-10-23T11:17:13Z

Kallium: metalloid, not non-metal

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Mettaloid | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and is the 20th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Many of its compounds are highly toxic. It bears a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic toxicity is often the result of the inhibition of certain enzymes, commonly those pertinent to metabolism; specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which can prevent the reaction products from functioning appropriately. This can lead to cellular death, which may in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

While chronic exposure to arsenic can cause several types of cancer, such as bladder and skin, it is also used as an anticancer agent for others, such as acute promyelocytic leukemia.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Dark matter

2008-10-23T03:48:15Z

Kallium: Occam's Razor- no, it's not

[[Image:DarkMatterNASA1.jpg|350px|right]]'''Dark matter''', in [[astronomy]], is any hypothetical [[matter]] that is not directly detectable but which astronomers infer when the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect. It is one of two concepts (the other is [[dark energy]]) that conventional astronomers invoke to account for observations that conventional cosmologies, including the [[Big Bang]], cannot explain.

== The first dark matter ==
: ''Main Article: [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]]''
The first recorded instance of the invocation of anything similar to dark matter was the hypothesis of a [[planet]] named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] in the mid-1850s. This planet was supposed to be inside the orbit of [[Mercury]] and yet was never directly observed from [[Earth]], for reasons that no astronomer ever explained. Astronomers inferred the existence of this planet because Mercury precessed in its orbit around the Sun by 43 arc-seconds per century faster than expected by Newtonian physics. Many apparently observed transits of unidentified objects across the sun were thought to be this undiscovered planet.

Then in 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] solved the problem. He showed that Mercury, at [[apsis|perihelion]], passes close enough to the Sun for [[General Relativity]] to require a second-order correction. He published the correction and accounted exactly for the precession in the orbit of Mercury, without the need for any planet, [[asteroid]] belt, or other object or objects inside that orbit.<ref name=Hartnett>Hartnett, John. ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]''. Creation Book Publishers, 2007. ISBN 9780949906687.</ref>

== Modern conventional concept ==
[[Image:Sky wmap.jpg|100px|left]]The present concept of dark matter dates from the 1930's, when astronomers first found serious differences between the masses they inferred by examining orbital speeds and the masses they inferred by measuring stellar, galactic, and other visual magnitudes.

=== The mathematical problem ===
This classic equation, derived from the theory of [[gravity]] of Sir [[Isaac Newton]], gives the total dynamical mass in any system that is inside the orbit of any given body (for example, a particular star in its galaxy):

<math>M = \frac{v^{2}R}{G}</math>

where R is the distance of the body from the barycenter, v is the orbital speed of that body, and G is the gravitational constant.

The ''luminous mass'' of any galaxy or other object is the mass that corresponds to the measured light from the object.

[[Jan Oort]] first determined that the total mass of our [[galaxy]] was insufficient by a factor of at least two to account for the galaxy's rotational speed.<ref name=Thompson>Thompson, Tim. "[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm Missing 'Dark' Matter]." ''[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm The Electric Cosmos], n.d. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> The swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky is also credited with the discovery of the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass, in 1933. Zwicky examined the Coma supercluster, and found that its dynamical mass exceeded the luminous mass by a factor of ten.<ref name=Silk>Silk, Joe. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California-Berkeley, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Soter>Soter S and deGrasse-Tyson N, eds. "[Fritz Zwicky's Extraordinary Vision]." Excerpt from ''Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge'', New Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1565846029 Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Miller>Miller CM. "[http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ Cosmic Hide and Seek: the Search for the Missing Mass]." 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:HubbleDarkMatterRing.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Image of galactic cluster with ring of alleged dark matter around it]]Since that time, astronomers have assumed that some form of matter, which gives off no measurable radiation, is nevertheless present in various galaxies and galactic clusters that clearly spin faster than their measured luminous masses would predict.<ref name=Harvard>Authors unknown. "[http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html Dark Matter Mystery]." ''Field Guide to X-ray Astronomy'', Chandra X-ray Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, August 29, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> They acknowledge, however, that the notion of a new, non-luminous form of matter is difficult to accept. Yet many astronomers insist that they have observational evidence for which dark matter remains the only plausible explanation. One such communication comes from the Chandra X-ray Center, whose astronomers stated in 2006 that they had observed two galactic clusters for hundreds of hours, and that each one clearly showed a rotational speed consistent with far more mass than was visible.<ref name=Chandra>Hupp E, Roy S., and Watzke M. "[http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter]." [[NASA]], press release 06-297, August 21, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

=== Estimated proportion ===
[[Image:Cosmos percent comp.jpg|200px|right]]The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) team at [[NASA]] has used measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation<ref name=WMAP>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold, B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html WMAP Mission Results]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> to determine that the universe is geometrically flat. According to standard cosmology, the universe should then be at a critical mass density of 9.9 * 10-27kg/m³. The actual mass density of the universe is more than twenty times less than that.<ref name=WMAP2>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html WMAP - Content of the universe]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

Current theory suggests that the familiar baryonic matter (composed of atoms) constitutes only 4.6% of the total mass-energy in the universe. Dark matter constitutes 23% of the total, while [[dark energy]] comprises the remaining 72%.<ref name=WMAP2/>

=== Candidates for dark matter ===
Conventional astronomers have generally focused on the following explanations for the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass:
# Brown dwarf [[star]]s and similarly massive but relatively non-luminous objects. Astronomers have in fact invented a new name for a class of objects that include brown dwarf stars and other massive objects: Massive Compact Halo Objects, or MACHOs.<ref name=Silk/><ref name=Miller/><ref name=WMAP2/><ref name=White>White, Martin. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>
# Supermassive [[black hole]]s. Astronomers are now attempting to detect these objects by their relativistic effects on light, in which they act as lenses.<ref name=WMAP2/>
# New, previously unknown forms of matter. Many cosmologists have formed hypotheses that suggest entirely new particles of matter. They call these Weakly Interactive Massive Particle, or WIMPs.<ref name=WMAP2/><ref name=Silk/><ref name=Miller/> Other cosmologists have suggested other types of particles, named ''axions''.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=axionnote>The name ''Axion'' is a registered trademark of the Colgate-Palmolive Company ([[USA]]) and was the name of a once-popular brand of laundry detergent used to pre-soak heavily-soiled garments before washing them with a conventional detergent. The astrophysicists who coined this name suggested that axions performed some kind of cosmic cleansing.</ref> The recently sought Higgs boson is another candidate for a dark-matter elementary particle.
# A new theory of gravity. In 1983, Mordecai Milgrom first suggested that Newtonian dynamics was insufficient to explain the gravitational interactions of massive objects like galaxies and galactic clusters. He therefore suggested a Modified Newtonian Dynamic, or MOND, in which gravitational attraction varied inversely to the first power of the orbital radius, not its square as Newton originally assumed.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=Thompson/>

Tim Thompson<ref name=Thompson/> has recently suggested yet another possibility to which most conventional astronomers pay scant attention. He suggests that the major attractive force that allows galaxies and systems of higher mass to rotate with such excessive speed is not gravity at all, but electrostatic forces. He reminds his readers that electrostatic forces are stronger than gravity, and also that the strength of a magnetic field varies inversely as the first power, not the square, of the distance from the center. This is very close to Milgrom's MOND, with the advantage of having an underlying theory to explain it,<ref name=Thompson/> which Milgrom's system does not have.<ref name=Hartnett/>

== Creationist perspectives ==
In 2000, Don DeYoung, writing in the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]], challenged the notion of dark matter as a fanciful concept with little justification.<ref name=deYoung>DeYoung DB. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html Dark Matter]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'', 36(4), March 2000. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> He pointed out that none of the conventional explanations popular at the time were satisfactory:
# Non-luminous stars, the usual candidates for MACHOs, would have to be far more common than they actually are, by several orders of magnitude, for them to account for the mass deficit.
# Black holes are a theoretical construct that have not thus far been verified.
# Efforts to detect WIMPs and axions have thus far produced no definitive findings.

DeYoung also challenged the notion that galaxies or galactic clusters were necessarily stable. He did not comment directly on Milgrom's modified dynamic, but he did suggest that gravity was poorly understood.

DeYoung then concluded that the hand of [[God]] was responsible for holding rapidly spinning galaxies and larger systems together, despite the observed mass deficits. But [[John Hartnett]] has recently produced a solution that requires no continuing miracle, but derives from a new understanding of the creation and expansion of the heavens.<ref name=Hartnett/> Hartnett's system builds on the earlier work of Carmeli, who in 1996 proposed an extension of Einsteinian relativity to the cosmic scale ([[Cosmological Relativity]]). The Hartnett system, explained more fully in his work ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]'', predicts that an expanding universe will produce rapidly spinning galaxies and larger systems ''as a consequence of the expansion'' and not due to gravity (or any other force) alone.

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

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Dark matter

2008-10-23T03:47:12Z

Kallium: wording

[[Image:DarkMatterNASA1.jpg|350px|right]]'''Dark matter''', in [[astronomy]], is any hypothetical [[matter]] that is not directly detectable but which astronomers infer when the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect. It is one of two concepts (the other is [[dark energy]]) that conventional astronomers invoke to account for observations that conventional cosmologies, including the [[Big Bang]], cannot explain.

== The first dark matter ==
: ''Main Article: [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]]''
The first recorded instance of the invocation of anything similar to dark matter was the hypothesis of a [[planet]] named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] in the mid-1850s. This planet was supposed to be inside the orbit of [[Mercury]] and yet was never directly observed from [[Earth]], for reasons that no astronomer ever explained. Astronomers inferred the existence of this planet because Mercury precessed in its orbit around the Sun by 43 arc-seconds per century faster than expected by Newtonian physics. Many apparently observed transits of unidentified objects across the sun were thought to be this undiscovered planet.

Then in 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] solved the problem. He showed that Mercury, at [[apsis|perihelion]], passes close enough to the Sun for [[General Relativity]] to require a second-order correction. He published the correction and accounted exactly for the precession in the orbit of Mercury, without the need for any planet, [[asteroid]] belt, or other object or objects inside that orbit.<ref name=Hartnett>Hartnett, John. ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]''. Creation Book Publishers, 2007. ISBN 9780949906687.</ref>

In solving the orbit of Mercury, Albert Einstein followed [[Occam's Razor]]. Future cosmologists would not heed his advice.

== Modern conventional concept ==
[[Image:Sky wmap.jpg|100px|left]]The present concept of dark matter dates from the 1930's, when astronomers first found serious differences between the masses they inferred by examining orbital speeds and the masses they inferred by measuring stellar, galactic, and other visual magnitudes.

=== The mathematical problem ===
This classic equation, derived from the theory of [[gravity]] of Sir [[Isaac Newton]], gives the total dynamical mass in any system that is inside the orbit of any given body (for example, a particular star in its galaxy):

<math>M = \frac{v^{2}R}{G}</math>

where R is the distance of the body from the barycenter, v is the orbital speed of that body, and G is the gravitational constant.

The ''luminous mass'' of any galaxy or other object is the mass that corresponds to the measured light from the object.

[[Jan Oort]] first determined that the total mass of our [[galaxy]] was insufficient by a factor of at least two to account for the galaxy's rotational speed.<ref name=Thompson>Thompson, Tim. "[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm Missing 'Dark' Matter]." ''[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm The Electric Cosmos], n.d. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> The swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky is also credited with the discovery of the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass, in 1933. Zwicky examined the Coma supercluster, and found that its dynamical mass exceeded the luminous mass by a factor of ten.<ref name=Silk>Silk, Joe. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California-Berkeley, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Soter>Soter S and deGrasse-Tyson N, eds. "[Fritz Zwicky's Extraordinary Vision]." Excerpt from ''Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge'', New Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1565846029 Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Miller>Miller CM. "[http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ Cosmic Hide and Seek: the Search for the Missing Mass]." 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:HubbleDarkMatterRing.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Image of galactic cluster with ring of alleged dark matter around it]]Since that time, astronomers have assumed that some form of matter, which gives off no measurable radiation, is nevertheless present in various galaxies and galactic clusters that clearly spin faster than their measured luminous masses would predict.<ref name=Harvard>Authors unknown. "[http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html Dark Matter Mystery]." ''Field Guide to X-ray Astronomy'', Chandra X-ray Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, August 29, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> They acknowledge, however, that the notion of a new, non-luminous form of matter is difficult to accept. Yet many astronomers insist that they have observational evidence for which dark matter remains the only plausible explanation. One such communication comes from the Chandra X-ray Center, whose astronomers stated in 2006 that they had observed two galactic clusters for hundreds of hours, and that each one clearly showed a rotational speed consistent with far more mass than was visible.<ref name=Chandra>Hupp E, Roy S., and Watzke M. "[http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter]." [[NASA]], press release 06-297, August 21, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

=== Estimated proportion ===
[[Image:Cosmos percent comp.jpg|200px|right]]The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) team at [[NASA]] has used measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation<ref name=WMAP>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold, B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html WMAP Mission Results]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> to determine that the universe is geometrically flat. According to standard cosmology, the universe should then be at a critical mass density of 9.9 * 10-27kg/m³. The actual mass density of the universe is more than twenty times less than that.<ref name=WMAP2>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html WMAP - Content of the universe]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

Current theory suggests that the familiar baryonic matter (composed of atoms) constitutes only 4.6% of the total mass-energy in the universe. Dark matter constitutes 23% of the total, while [[dark energy]] comprises the remaining 72%.<ref name=WMAP2/>

=== Candidates for dark matter ===
Conventional astronomers have generally focused on the following explanations for the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass:
# Brown dwarf [[star]]s and similarly massive but relatively non-luminous objects. Astronomers have in fact invented a new name for a class of objects that include brown dwarf stars and other massive objects: Massive Compact Halo Objects, or MACHOs.<ref name=Silk/><ref name=Miller/><ref name=WMAP2/><ref name=White>White, Martin. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>
# Supermassive [[black hole]]s. Astronomers are now attempting to detect these objects by their relativistic effects on light, in which they act as lenses.<ref name=WMAP2/>
# New, previously unknown forms of matter. Many cosmologists have formed hypotheses that suggest entirely new particles of matter. They call these Weakly Interactive Massive Particle, or WIMPs.<ref name=WMAP2/><ref name=Silk/><ref name=Miller/> Other cosmologists have suggested other types of particles, named ''axions''.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=axionnote>The name ''Axion'' is a registered trademark of the Colgate-Palmolive Company ([[USA]]) and was the name of a once-popular brand of laundry detergent used to pre-soak heavily-soiled garments before washing them with a conventional detergent. The astrophysicists who coined this name suggested that axions performed some kind of cosmic cleansing.</ref> The recently sought Higgs boson is another candidate for a dark-matter elementary particle.
# A new theory of gravity. In 1983, Mordecai Milgrom first suggested that Newtonian dynamics was insufficient to explain the gravitational interactions of massive objects like galaxies and galactic clusters. He therefore suggested a Modified Newtonian Dynamic, or MOND, in which gravitational attraction varied inversely to the first power of the orbital radius, not its square as Newton originally assumed.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=Thompson/>

Tim Thompson<ref name=Thompson/> has recently suggested yet another possibility to which most conventional astronomers pay scant attention. He suggests that the major attractive force that allows galaxies and systems of higher mass to rotate with such excessive speed is not gravity at all, but electrostatic forces. He reminds his readers that electrostatic forces are stronger than gravity, and also that the strength of a magnetic field varies inversely as the first power, not the square, of the distance from the center. This is very close to Milgrom's MOND, with the advantage of having an underlying theory to explain it,<ref name=Thompson/> which Milgrom's system does not have.<ref name=Hartnett/>

== Creationist perspectives ==
In 2000, Don DeYoung, writing in the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]], challenged the notion of dark matter as a fanciful concept with little justification.<ref name=deYoung>DeYoung DB. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html Dark Matter]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'', 36(4), March 2000. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> He pointed out that none of the conventional explanations popular at the time were satisfactory:
# Non-luminous stars, the usual candidates for MACHOs, would have to be far more common than they actually are, by several orders of magnitude, for them to account for the mass deficit.
# Black holes are a theoretical construct that have not thus far been verified.
# Efforts to detect WIMPs and axions have thus far produced no definitive findings.

DeYoung also challenged the notion that galaxies or galactic clusters were necessarily stable. He did not comment directly on Milgrom's modified dynamic, but he did suggest that gravity was poorly understood.

DeYoung then concluded that the hand of [[God]] was responsible for holding rapidly spinning galaxies and larger systems together, despite the observed mass deficits. But [[John Hartnett]] has recently produced a solution that requires no continuing miracle, but derives from a new understanding of the creation and expansion of the heavens.<ref name=Hartnett/> Hartnett's system builds on the earlier work of Carmeli, who in 1996 proposed an extension of Einsteinian relativity to the cosmic scale ([[Cosmological Relativity]]). The Hartnett system, explained more fully in his work ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]'', predicts that an expanding universe will produce rapidly spinning galaxies and larger systems ''as a consequence of the expansion'' and not due to gravity (or any other force) alone.

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

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Dark matter

2008-10-23T03:45:41Z

Kallium: time-frame

[[Image:DarkMatterNASA1.jpg|350px|right]]'''Dark matter''', in [[astronomy]], is any hypothetical [[matter]] that is not directly detectable but which astronomers infer when the actual mass of any observed celestial object is not sufficient to account for an observed gravitational effect. It is one of two concepts (the other is [[dark energy]]) that conventional astronomers invoke to account for observations that conventional cosmologies, including the [[Big Bang]], cannot explain.

== The first dark matter ==
: ''Main Article: [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]]''
The first recorded instance of the invocation of anything similar to dark matter was the hypothesis of a [[planet]] named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] in the mid-1850s. This planet was supposed to be inside the orbit of [[Mercury]] and yet was never directly observed from [[Earth]], for reasons that no astronomer ever explained. Astronomers inferred the existence of this planet because Mercury precessed in its orbit around the Sun by 43 arc-seconds per century faster than its own mass, and that of the [[sun]], as Newtonian physics would predict. Many apparently observed transits of unidentified objects across the sun were thought to be this undiscovered planet.

Then in 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] solved the problem. He showed that Mercury, at [[apsis|perihelion]], passes close enough to the Sun for [[General Relativity]] to require a second-order correction. He published the correction and accounted exactly for the precession in the orbit of Mercury, without the need for any planet, [[asteroid]] belt, or other object or objects inside that orbit.<ref name=Hartnett>Hartnett, John. ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]''. Creation Book Publishers, 2007. ISBN 9780949906687.</ref>

In solving the orbit of Mercury, Albert Einstein followed [[Occam's Razor]]. Future cosmologists would not heed his advice.

== Modern conventional concept ==
[[Image:Sky wmap.jpg|100px|left]]The present concept of dark matter dates from the 1930's, when astronomers first found serious differences between the masses they inferred by examining orbital speeds and the masses they inferred by measuring stellar, galactic, and other visual magnitudes.

=== The mathematical problem ===
This classic equation, derived from the theory of [[gravity]] of Sir [[Isaac Newton]], gives the total dynamical mass in any system that is inside the orbit of any given body (for example, a particular star in its galaxy):

<math>M = \frac{v^{2}R}{G}</math>

where R is the distance of the body from the barycenter, v is the orbital speed of that body, and G is the gravitational constant.

The ''luminous mass'' of any galaxy or other object is the mass that corresponds to the measured light from the object.

[[Jan Oort]] first determined that the total mass of our [[galaxy]] was insufficient by a factor of at least two to account for the galaxy's rotational speed.<ref name=Thompson>Thompson, Tim. "[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm Missing 'Dark' Matter]." ''[http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm The Electric Cosmos], n.d. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> The swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky is also credited with the discovery of the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass, in 1933. Zwicky examined the Coma supercluster, and found that its dynamical mass exceeded the luminous mass by a factor of ten.<ref name=Silk>Silk, Joe. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California-Berkeley, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Soter>Soter S and deGrasse-Tyson N, eds. "[Fritz Zwicky's Extraordinary Vision]." Excerpt from ''Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge'', New Press, 2000. ISBN 978-1565846029 Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref><ref name=Miller>Miller CM. "[http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ Cosmic Hide and Seek: the Search for the Missing Mass]." 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:HubbleDarkMatterRing.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Image of galactic cluster with ring of alleged dark matter around it]]Since that time, astronomers have assumed that some form of matter, which gives off no measurable radiation, is nevertheless present in various galaxies and galactic clusters that clearly spin faster than their measured luminous masses would predict.<ref name=Harvard>Authors unknown. "[http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html Dark Matter Mystery]." ''Field Guide to X-ray Astronomy'', Chandra X-ray Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, August 29, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> They acknowledge, however, that the notion of a new, non-luminous form of matter is difficult to accept. Yet many astronomers insist that they have observational evidence for which dark matter remains the only plausible explanation. One such communication comes from the Chandra X-ray Center, whose astronomers stated in 2006 that they had observed two galactic clusters for hundreds of hours, and that each one clearly showed a rotational speed consistent with far more mass than was visible.<ref name=Chandra>Hupp E, Roy S., and Watzke M. "[http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter]." [[NASA]], press release 06-297, August 21, 2006. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

=== Estimated proportion ===
[[Image:Cosmos percent comp.jpg|200px|right]]The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) team at [[NASA]] has used measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation<ref name=WMAP>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold, B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/index.html WMAP Mission Results]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 26, 2008.</ref> to determine that the universe is geometrically flat. According to standard cosmology, the universe should then be at a critical mass density of 9.9 * 10-27kg/m³. The actual mass density of the universe is more than twenty times less than that.<ref name=WMAP2>Hinshaw GF, and Griswold B. "[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html WMAP - Content of the universe]." [[NASA]], April 17, 2008. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>

Current theory suggests that the familiar baryonic matter (composed of atoms) constitutes only 4.6% of the total mass-energy in the universe. Dark matter constitutes 23% of the total, while [[dark energy]] comprises the remaining 72%.<ref name=WMAP2/>

=== Candidates for dark matter ===
Conventional astronomers have generally focused on the following explanations for the discrepancy between dynamical and luminous mass:
# Brown dwarf [[star]]s and similarly massive but relatively non-luminous objects. Astronomers have in fact invented a new name for a class of objects that include brown dwarf stars and other massive objects: Massive Compact Halo Objects, or MACHOs.<ref name=Silk/><ref name=Miller/><ref name=WMAP2/><ref name=White>White, Martin. "[http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html Dark Matter]." Department of Astronomy, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, ca. 1995. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref>
# Supermassive [[black hole]]s. Astronomers are now attempting to detect these objects by their relativistic effects on light, in which they act as lenses.<ref name=WMAP2/>
# New, previously unknown forms of matter. Many cosmologists have formed hypotheses that suggest entirely new particles of matter. They call these Weakly Interactive Massive Particle, or WIMPs.<ref name=WMAP2/><ref name=Silk/><ref name=Miller/> Other cosmologists have suggested other types of particles, named ''axions''.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=axionnote>The name ''Axion'' is a registered trademark of the Colgate-Palmolive Company ([[USA]]) and was the name of a once-popular brand of laundry detergent used to pre-soak heavily-soiled garments before washing them with a conventional detergent. The astrophysicists who coined this name suggested that axions performed some kind of cosmic cleansing.</ref> The recently sought Higgs boson is another candidate for a dark-matter elementary particle.
# A new theory of gravity. In 1983, Mordecai Milgrom first suggested that Newtonian dynamics was insufficient to explain the gravitational interactions of massive objects like galaxies and galactic clusters. He therefore suggested a Modified Newtonian Dynamic, or MOND, in which gravitational attraction varied inversely to the first power of the orbital radius, not its square as Newton originally assumed.<ref name=Hartnett/><ref name=Thompson/>

Tim Thompson<ref name=Thompson/> has recently suggested yet another possibility to which most conventional astronomers pay scant attention. He suggests that the major attractive force that allows galaxies and systems of higher mass to rotate with such excessive speed is not gravity at all, but electrostatic forces. He reminds his readers that electrostatic forces are stronger than gravity, and also that the strength of a magnetic field varies inversely as the first power, not the square, of the distance from the center. This is very close to Milgrom's MOND, with the advantage of having an underlying theory to explain it,<ref name=Thompson/> which Milgrom's system does not have.<ref name=Hartnett/>

== Creationist perspectives ==
In 2000, Don DeYoung, writing in the [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]], challenged the notion of dark matter as a fanciful concept with little justification.<ref name=deYoung>DeYoung DB. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/darkmatter.html Dark Matter]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'', 36(4), March 2000. Accessed July 28, 2008.</ref> He pointed out that none of the conventional explanations popular at the time were satisfactory:
# Non-luminous stars, the usual candidates for MACHOs, would have to be far more common than they actually are, by several orders of magnitude, for them to account for the mass deficit.
# Black holes are a theoretical construct that have not thus far been verified.
# Efforts to detect WIMPs and axions have thus far produced no definitive findings.

DeYoung also challenged the notion that galaxies or galactic clusters were necessarily stable. He did not comment directly on Milgrom's modified dynamic, but he did suggest that gravity was poorly understood.

DeYoung then concluded that the hand of [[God]] was responsible for holding rapidly spinning galaxies and larger systems together, despite the observed mass deficits. But [[John Hartnett]] has recently produced a solution that requires no continuing miracle, but derives from a new understanding of the creation and expansion of the heavens.<ref name=Hartnett/> Hartnett's system builds on the earlier work of Carmeli, who in 1996 proposed an extension of Einsteinian relativity to the cosmic scale ([[Cosmological Relativity]]). The Hartnett system, explained more fully in his work ''[[Starlight, Time and the New Physics]]'', predicts that an expanding universe will produce rapidly spinning galaxies and larger systems ''as a consequence of the expansion'' and not due to gravity (or any other force) alone.

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

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Dark matter

2008-10-23T03:38:59Z

Kallium: /* Occam's Razor */ new section

{{simulsubmitted|user=TerryH|site user=Temlakos}}
Dark matter 'proof' called into doubt: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19125684.200-dark-matter-proof-called-into-doubt.html and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/ns-dm090606.php [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Would you care to summarize the article or provide a link to the published paper (rather than a summary of the paper)? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is an article about the so called "dark matter" written by [[Creation Ministries International]]: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4626/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:36, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

== Occam's Razor ==

Einstein and Vulcan is not an example of Occam's Razor. Occam's razor states that new phenomena should not be introduced if existing explanations suffice. Planets were already well-known, so the observations were very plausibly explained by an undiscovered planet. This was the going idea for about 50 years before Einstein came along. Imagine you are in a Newtonian world filled with excitement over continual uncovering of new knowledge of planets. Now here are some observations that seem to suggest a new planet, but there's this crazy physicist nut who says it's due to space itself actually ''bending''. In that case, Occam's razor would suggest that this relativity idea was bogus, because we perceive space as flat and Newtonian physics explains every other observation to the degree of accuracy possible at that time. Thus as additional planet was not a new ''phenomenon'', just another physical entity within the then-known physical framework of the universe, whereas relativity represented an entire reshaping of our understanding of the universe. However, the math of relativity fully explained the orbital anomaly, so that explanation survived. The idea of Vulcan was then discarded not because of Occam's razor but because there were no longer any unexplained effects which could accommodate it. It was a questions of alternatives, not additions. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:38, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Element

2008-10-23T03:12:10Z

Kallium:

An '''element''' is a single type of [[atom]] as defined by its periodic number, which is the number of [[protons]] in its [[nucleus]].<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref> [[Hydrogen]] has only one proton whereas [[uranium]] has 92. Uranium is the largest of the stable elements occurring in nature. All known elements are listed on the [[periodic table of the elements|periodic table]], with the heavier ones produced in a laboratory. Chemical compounds are made from joining atoms of the same or different elements. These elements and their compounds make up all matter on the earth and quite possibly all matter outside of the earth as well.

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
*[[Periodic table of the elements]]

[[Category:Elements]]

Arsenic

2008-10-23T02:57:41Z

Kallium: carcinogenesis and chemotherapy

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Non-Metal | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and is the 20th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Many of its compounds are highly toxic. It bears a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic toxicity is often the result of the inhibition of certain enzymes, commonly those pertinent to metabolism; specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which can prevent the reaction products from functioning appropriately. This can lead to cellular death, which may in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

While chronic exposure to arsenic can cause several types of cancer, such as bladder and skin, it is also used as an anticancer agent for others, such as acute promyelocytic leukemia.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Arsenic

2008-10-23T02:55:54Z

Kallium: abundance, not just allosteric, and not just cell death

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Non-Metal | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and is the 20th most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Many of its compounds are highly toxic. It bears a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic toxicity is often the result of the inhibition of certain enzymes, commonly those pertinent to metabolism; specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which can prevent the reaction products from functioning appropriately. This can lead to cellular death, which may in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Arsenic

2008-10-23T02:49:42Z

Kallium: toxicity depends on the compound

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Non-Metal | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and many of its compounds are highly toxic. It bears a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic poisoning is the result of the allosteric inhibition of certain enzymes pertinent to metabolism, specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which results in their failing to function appropriately. This leads to cellular death, which in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Arsenic

2008-10-23T02:47:43Z

Kallium: replaced clumsy wording

{{Element | name=Arsenic | symbol=As | anumber=33 | amass=74.9 amu | noe=33 | class=Non-Metal | cstructure=Rhombohedral | color=Gray | date=Arsenic has been known since ancient times. | discname=Unknown | origname=From the Greek ''arsenikos'' and Latin ''arsenicum''. | uses=Arsenic conducts electricity and is a poison | obtained=Mispikel }}

'''Arsenic''' is a highly toxic [[chemical element]] with an [[atomic number]] of 33, and [[atomic mass]] of approx. 74.92, and a chemical similarity to [[phosphorus]] which is the cause of some of its toxic effects. The most common [[oxidization state|charges]] for an individual atom of arsenic to possess are -3, +3, and -5.

Arsenic poisoning is the result of the allosteric inhibition of certain enzymes pertinent to metabolism, specifically, it replaces phosphorus is certain reactions, which results in their failing to function appropriately. This leads to cellular death, which in turn leads to tissue death and [[necrosis]], and, if left untreated, death.

Oklahoma State University veterinary professor Dr. Billy Clay testified that the amount of arsenic used in animal agriculture is insignificant compared to what’s already in the environment. “Arsenic is very common in nature,” Clay said. “It's everywhere.”<ref>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3379 Activists Play Chicken With Arsenic]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Calcium

2008-10-23T02:44:34Z

Kallium:

{{Element | name=Calcium | symbol=Ca | anumber=20 | amass=40.1 amu | noe=20 | class=Standard metal | cstructure=Cubic | color=Silver | date=1808 | discname=[[Sir Humphrey Davy]] | origname=From the Latin ''calcis''. | uses=Calcium is one of the primary elements in bones, shells, etc. Taking calcium internally can promote bone growth. | obtained=Chalk, limestone, marble, vitamin to promote bone growth. }}

'''Calcium''' is a very important element to human physiology, as calcium-phosphate salts form the basis for the creation of [[bones]]. It is also a critical cellular component in all organisms, and in animals serves roles of particular importance in blood, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. Consuming too much calcium can lead to kidney stones, which are typically composed of calcium deposits.

Calcium in its pure form is referred to as "the white element" and is kept sealed in underground chambers due to the hazards involved in its handling.

[[category:Elements]]

Bone

2008-10-23T02:38:38Z

Kallium: Ca2+ is a critical component of every cell, not just found in bones and blood.

'''Bone''' is living, growing [[tissue]] made mostly of collagen. [[Collagen]] is a protein<ref>[http://folding.stanford.edu/download.html Protein & Folding]</ref> that provides a soft "framework", and [[calcium]] is a mineral that adds strength and hardens the framework. The combination of collagen and calcium makes bone the strongest material in the body. More than 99 percent of the body’s calcium is contained in the bones and [[teeth]]. Most of the remaining 1 percent is found in the [[blood]].

==Bone Remodeling==
Throughout life, bone is constantly renewed through a three-part process called remodeling. This process consists of reabsorption, collection, and formation. During reabsorption, old bone tissue is broken down and removed by special cells called osteoclasts. During collection, red blood cells bring proteins to the osteoblasts. During bone formation, new bone tissue is laid down to replace the old. Osteoclast and osteoblast function is regulated by several hormones including calcitonin, parathyroid hormone, [[vitamin D]], [[estrogen]] (in women) and [[testosterone]] (in men), among others.

==[[Osteoporosis]]==
[[Women]] are more likely than men to develop osteoporosis. This is because women generally have smaller, thinner bones, and because they can lose bone tissue rapidly in the first 4 to 8 years after [[menopause]] due to the sharp decline in production of the hormone estrogen. Produced by the [[ovary|ovaries]], estrogen has been shown to have a protective effect on bone. Women usually go through menopause between ages 45 and 55. After menopause, bone loss in women greatly exceeds that in men. However, by age 65, women and men tend to lose bone tissue at the same rate. While men do not undergo the equivalent of menopause, production of the male hormone testosterone may decrease, and this can lead to increased bone loss and a greater risk of developing osteoporosis.

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Bone

2008-10-23T02:36:48Z

Kallium: No, they're rigid- that's the point.

'''Bone''' is living, growing [[tissue]] made mostly of collagen. [[Collagen]] is a protein<ref>[http://folding.stanford.edu/download.html Protein & Folding]</ref> that provides a soft "framework", and [[calcium]] is a mineral that adds strength and hardens the framework. The combination of collagen and calcium makes bone the strongest material in the body. More than 99 percent of the body’s calcium is contained in the bones and [[teeth]]. The remaining 1 percent is found in the [[blood]].

==Bone Remodeling==
Throughout life, bone is constantly renewed through a three-part process called remodeling. This process consists of reabsorption, collection, and formation. During reabsorption, old bone tissue is broken down and removed by special cells called osteoclasts. During collection, red blood cells bring proteins to the osteoblasts. During bone formation, new bone tissue is laid down to replace the old. Osteoclast and osteoblast function is regulated by several hormones including calcitonin, parathyroid hormone, [[vitamin D]], [[estrogen]] (in women) and [[testosterone]] (in men), among others.

==[[Osteoporosis]]==
[[Women]] are more likely than men to develop osteoporosis. This is because women generally have smaller, thinner bones, and because they can lose bone tissue rapidly in the first 4 to 8 years after [[menopause]] due to the sharp decline in production of the hormone estrogen. Produced by the [[ovary|ovaries]], estrogen has been shown to have a protective effect on bone. Women usually go through menopause between ages 45 and 55. After menopause, bone loss in women greatly exceeds that in men. However, by age 65, women and men tend to lose bone tissue at the same rate. While men do not undergo the equivalent of menopause, production of the male hormone testosterone may decrease, and this can lead to increased bone loss and a greater risk of developing osteoporosis.

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Skeleton

2008-10-23T02:34:59Z

Kallium: grammar

[[Image:Human Skeleton.jpg|right]]
The '''skeleton''' is an internal structure within many animals, comprised of the [[bone]]s, designed to support and protect the [[internal organ]]s.

In many cultures, skeletons are perceived as a symbol of death.

On [[Halloween]], skeletons are a common costume.

[[category:anatomy]]

Neurotransmitter

2008-10-23T02:31:07Z

Kallium: The neurotransmitter article only mentions one? Will expand later.

'''Neurotransmitters''' are [[chemical]]s in the [[nervous system]] that communicate information between [[neuron]]s. Neurotransmitters are released from a [[presynaptic terminal]] of one neuron and cross the [[synaptic cleft]] (the space between neurons) before binding to a [[receptor]] on another neuron. Austrian scientist [[Otto Loewi]] discovered the first neurotransmitter, [[acetylcholine]], in 1921 while experimenting on [[frog]]s.

== Neurotransmitter Guidelines ==
To be considered a neurotransmitter, a chemical must meet most or all of the following criteria:
*it must be manufactured within a neuron
*it must be found in a neuron
*it must be released when a neuron is stimulated
*when it is released it must [[binding|bind]] to a [[receptor]] and cause a biological change
*after release the chemical must become inactive
*when applied manually to post-synaptic [[membrane]] the chemical must have the same biological effect that it did when released from a neuron

== Examples of Common Neurotransmitters ==
*Acetylcholine
*Serotonin
*Glutamate
*GABA

[[category:neuroscience]]

Neurotransmitter

2008-10-23T02:25:50Z

Kallium: there are multiple

Neurotransmitter

2008-10-23T02:24:57Z

Kallium: correction

'''Neurotransmitters''' are [[chemical]]s in the [[nervous system]] that communicate information between [[neuron]]s. Neurotransmitters are released from the [[presynaptic terminal]] of one neuron and cross the [[synaptic cleft]] (the space between neurons) before binding to a [[receptor]] on another neuron. Austrian scientist [[Otto Loewi]] discovered the first neurotransmitter, [[acetylcholine]], in 1921 while experimenting on [[frog]]s.

== Neurotransmitter Guidelines ==
To be considered a neurotransmitter, a chemical must meet most or all of the following criteria:
*it must be manufactured within a neuron
*it must be found in a neuron
*it must be released when a neuron is stimulated
*when it is released it must [[binding|bind]] to a [[receptor]] and cause a biological change
*after release the chemical must become inactive
*when applied manually to post-synaptic [[membrane]] the chemical must have the same biological effect that it did when released from a neuron

[[category:neuroscience]]

Dendrites

2008-10-23T02:24:04Z

Kallium: CSF: not relevant to this page, and besides, it's everywhere

'''Dendrites''' are one of the three primary parts of a [[neuron]]. They extend in a branching, tree-like fashion (hence their name) from the cell body or [[soma]], and are used primarily for receiving input from other cells. Information is carried out of a cell along its [[axon]] which terminates near the tips of dendrites from other neurons. Between the ends of the axon and neighboring dendrite is a small space called a [[synaptic cleft]]. Small chemical messengers called [[neurotransmitters]] are released from the terminating axon and enter the synaptic cleft. These neurotransmitters may be either [[excitatory]] or [[inhibitory]], and different ones are released by different types of neurons. Here the neurotransmitters may bind to [[receptors]]; small proteins held in place in the [[cellular membrane]] along the dendrite edge. If enough excitatory neurotransmitters bind to the matching receptors, the dendrite will activate and propagate an [[electrical impulse]] to the soma. If sufficient inhibitory neurotransmitters bind, the dendrite will effectively inactivate or at least reduce the frequency of its impulses. The soma then integrates the inputs from its many (typically thousands) of dendrites, and its output along the axon, or lack thereof, is determined by the summed dendritic signals.

==References==

Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Dendrites

2008-10-23T02:23:15Z

Kallium: teleological

'''Dendrites''' are one of the three primary parts of a [[neuron]]. They extend in a branching, tree-like fashion (hence their name) from the cell body or [[soma]], and are used primarily for receiving input from other cells. Information is carried out of a cell along its [[axon]] which terminates near the tips of dendrites from other neurons. Between the ends of the axon and neighboring dendrite is a small space called a [[synaptic cleft]]. This space is filled with [[cerebral spinal fluid]]. Small chemical messengers called [[neurotransmitters]] are released from the terminating axon and enter the synaptic cleft. These neurotransmitters may be either [[excitatory]] or [[inhibitory]], and different ones are released by different types of neurons. Here the neurotransmitters may bind to [[receptors]]; small proteins held in place in the [[cellular membrane]] along the dendrite edge. If enough excitatory neurotransmitters bind to the matching receptors, the dendrite will activate and propagate an [[electrical impulse]] to the soma. If sufficient inhibitory neurotransmitters bind, the dendrite will effectively inactivate or at least reduce the frequency of its impulses. The soma then integrates the inputs from its many (typically thousands) of dendrites, and its output along the axon, or lack thereof, is determined by the summed dendritic signals.

==References==

Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Dendrites

2008-10-23T02:19:32Z

Kallium: neurotransmitters are excitatory or inhibitory, not the dendrites

'''Dendrites''' are one of the three primary parts of a [[neuron]]. They extend in a branching, tree-like fashion (hence their name) from the cell body or [[soma]], and are used primarily for receiving input from other cells. Information is carried out of a cell along its [[axon]] which terminates near the tips of dendrites from other neurons. Between the ends of the axon and neighboring dendrite is a small space called a [[synaptic cleft]]. This space is filled with [[cerebral spinal fluid]]. Small chemical messengers called [[neurotransmitters]] are released from the terminating axon and enter the synaptic cleft. These neurotransmitters may be either [[excitatory]] or [[inhibitory]], and different ones are released by different types of neurons. Here the neurotransmitters may bind to [[receptors]]; small proteins held in place in the [[cellular membrane]] along the dendrite edge. If enough excitatory neurotransmitters bind to the matching receptors, the dendrite will activate and propagate an [[electrical impulse]] to the soma, which sums the inputs from all its various dendrites. If sufficient inhibitory neurotransmitters bind, the dendrite will effectively inactivate or at least reduce the frequency of its impulses. The soma then decides whether to alter current firing behavior based on the summed dendrite inputs.

==References==

Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Dendrites

2008-10-23T02:13:58Z

Kallium: grammar, grammar, grammar

'''Dendrites''' are one of the three primary parts of a [[neuron]]. They extend in a branching, tree-like fashion (hence their name) from the cell body or [[soma]], and are used primarily for receiving input from other cells. Information is carried out of a cell along its [[axon]] which terminates near the tips of dendrites from other neurons. Between the ends of the axon and neighboring dendrite is a small space called a [[synaptic cleft]]. This space is filled with [[cerebral spinal fluid]]. Small chemical messengers called [[neurotransmitters]] are released from the terminating axon and enter the synaptic cleft. Here the neurotransmitters may bind to [[receptors]]; small proteins held in place in the [[cellular membrane]] along the dendrite edge. If enough neurotransmitters bind to the matching receptors, the dendrite will activate and propagate an [[electrical impulse]] to the soma, which sums the inputs from all its various dendrites. Individual dendrites can either be [[excitatory]] or [[inhibitory]]. The soma then decides whether to alter current firing behavior based on the summed dendrite inputs.

==References==

Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Dendrites

2008-10-23T02:13:03Z

Kallium:

'''Dendrites''' are one of the three primary parts of a [[neuron]]. They extend in a branching, tree-like fashion (hence their name) from the cell body or [[soma]], and are used primarily for receiving input from other cells. Information is carried out of a cell along its [[axon]] which terminates near the tips of dendrites from other neurons. Between the ends of the axon and neighboring dendrite is a small space called a [[synaptic cleft]]. This space is filled with [[cerebral spinal fluid]]. Small chemical messengers called [[neurotransmitters]] are released from the terminating axon and enter the synaptic cleft. Here the neurotransmitters may bind to [[receptors]]; small proteins held in place in the [[cellular membrane]] along the dendrite edge. If enough neurotransmitters bind to the matching receptors, the dendrite will activate and propagate an [[electrical impulse]] to the soma, which sums the inputs from all its various dendrites. Individual dendrites can either be [[excitatory]] or [[inhibitory]]. The soma then decides whether to alter current firing behavior based on the summed dendrite inputs.

==References==

Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Dendrites

2008-10-23T02:08:04Z

Kallium: etymology

'''Dendrites''' are one of the three primary parts of a [[neuron]]. They extend in a branching, tree-like fashion (hence their name) from the cell body or [[soma]]. They are used primarily for receiving input from other cells. Information is carried out of a cell along its [[axon]] which terminates near the edges of dendrites from other neurons. Between the point at which the axon terminates and the start of the other neuron's dendrites are small spaces called a [[synaptic cleft]]. This space is filled with [[cerebral spinal fluid]]. Small chemical messengers called [[neurotransmitters]] are released from the terminating axon and enter the synaptic cleft. Here the neurotransmitters may bind to [[receptors]]; small proteins held in place in the [[cellular membrane]] along the dendrite edge. If enough of the right neurotransmitter binds to the right receptor the dendrite will activate and propagate an [[electrical impulse]] to the soma. The soma then sums the inputs from all its various dendrites. Individual dendrites can either be [[excitatory]] or [[inhibitory]]. The soma then decides whether to alter current firing behavior based on the summed dendrite inputs.

==References==

Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Neuron

2008-10-23T02:05:43Z

Kallium: grammar, grammar, grammar

A '''neuron''' or nerve [[cell]] is the functional cellular unit of the [[nervous system]]; along with the [[neuroglial]] cell it makes up all [[nervous tissue]]. The cell is divided into three major parts: the [[dendrites]], [[soma]] or cell body, and the [[axon]]. The archetypal neuron receives input at the tips of the dendrites, integrates that information at the cell body and outputs an electrical impulse along the axon. However, there is significant variation in cellular architecture and function across the animal kingdom.

==References==

* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Neuron

2008-10-23T02:04:28Z

Kallium: 'Electrical impulse?' Yes, that's a fundamental feature, though not limited to neurons.

A '''neuron''' or nerve [[cell]] is the functional cellular unit of the [[nervous system]], along with the [[neuroglial]] cell it makes up all [[nervous tissue]]. The cell is divided into three major parts the [[dendrites]], [[soma]] or cell body, and the [[axon]]. The archetypal neuron receives input at the tips of the dendrites, integrates that information at the cell body and outputs an electrical impulse along the axon. However, there significant variation in cellular architecture and function across the animal kingdom.

==References==

* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Neuroglial

2008-10-23T02:01:19Z

Kallium: grammar, grammar, grammar

'''Neuroglial''' or '''glial''' [[cells]], make up one of the two major cellular components of [[nervous tissue]] (the other being [[neurons]]). Nervous tissue is composed of almost 10 times as many glial cells as neurons. They primarily provide structural and metabolic support for neurons, some aid in communication between neurons and assist in neurological development, while others respond to damage and [[pathogens]]. Glial cells are divided into two major classes of cell types: microglia and macroglia. The microglia are primarily [[phagocytes]], they are mobilized by minor [[pathological]] changes and can eliminate invading [[microorganisms]], promote tissue repair, and remove debris.

Macroglia are separated into four classes: ogliodendrocytes, Schawnn cells, astrocytes, and ependymal cells. Schwann cells and ogliodendrocytes form the [[myelin sheath]] around neuron [[axons]]. This sheath insulates the [[electrical impulse]] that travels down the axon, but also increase the speed of the electrical propagation by keeping unmylinated spaces along the axon. The impulse jumps between these unmylinated zones called the [[nodes of Ranvier]]. This form of propagation is referred to as [[saltatory conduction]]. Schawnn cells myelinate the [[peripheral nervous system]] while ogliodendrocytes myelinate the [[central nervous system]]. Schawnn cells and ogliodendrocytes also help guide axon growth during [[neurological development]]. Astrocytes are important in providing structural support and also aid in metabolic functions. During development of the nervous system, astrocytes serve as scaffolding for axons as they grow. Enpendymal cells line the [[ventrical]] cavities in the central nervous system and produce [[cerebral spinal fluid]] and aid in regulating the flow of this liquid medium.

==References==

* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.

* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

* Sanes, Reh, Harris (2005). Development of the Nervous System, 2nd edition. Academic Press; ISBN 0-12-618621-9

* Hendelman, WJ. (2000). Atlas of functional neuroanatomy. Florida:CRC Press.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

CPR

2008-10-23T01:47:23Z

Kallium: unnecessary

'''CPR''' (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) is an emergency procedure for a person whose [[heart]] has stopped. It consists of

* Rescue breathing, to get oxygen to the lungs
* Chest compressions, to keep blood circulating

When blood flow or breathing stops, seconds count. Permanent brain damage or death can happen quickly. CPR can help keep oxygen flowing through a victim's body when the heart has stopped until emergency medical help arrives. Although it can buy time, it is not sufficient to keep the person alive for an extended period and despite the name is unlikely to revive them without additional medical intervention.

CPR is a rather violent procedure, unlike how it is portrayed in television shows, and usually causes significant secondary injuries, especially to the victim's rib cage. If performed improperly, not only will it be ineffective, but the damage can be severe. As such, it is only performed as a last resort. Therefore, you should not try CPR unless you have had training - if it is done incorrectly or when not absolutely necessary, it will almost certainly do more harm than good. <ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cpr.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

CPR

2008-10-05T16:52:08Z

Kallium: Minor corrections and addition information

'''CPR''' (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) is an emergency procedure for a person whose [[heart]] has stopped and is no longer breathing. It consists of

* Rescue breathing, to get oxygen to the lungs
* Chest compressions, to keep blood circulating

When blood flow or breathing stops, seconds count. Permanent brain damage or death can happen quickly. CPR can help keep oxygen flowing through a victim's body when the heart has stopped until emergency medical help arrives. Although it can buy time, it is not sufficient to keep the person alive for an extended period and despite the name is unlikely to revive them without additional medical intervention.

CPR is a rather violent procedure, unlike how it is portrayed in television shows, and usually causes significant secondary injuries, especially to the victim's rib cage. If performed improperly, not only will it be ineffective, but the damage can be severe. As such, it is only performed as a last resort. Therefore, you should not try CPR unless you have had training - if it is done incorrectly or when not absolutely necessary, it will almost certainly do more harm than good. <ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cpr.html</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-09-15T22:23:35Z

Kallium: Was the reviewer a coward? No, it's "anonymous" review.

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a "climate scientist". If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:"Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''"(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, <includeonly>suckadick moron</includeonly>who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: "Substantive comments only, please." If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by "substantive"? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.

:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - "having or expressing substance", but apparently the measure of "substantive" for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

ASchlafly- you said above, "PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors". As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that "PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS". What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.

:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.

The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:"The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?

:"The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'll second that. I hold a Ph.D. in complexity theory, and I don't see any problem with the two techniques above. That's just my opinion, but the fact that other opinions exist should at least make people pause for thought on this one. I'm certainly no raving Liberal, as I hope you can see from my edits here.

::I '''do''' think the PNAS letter was '''very disrespectful''' in its attitude, and perhaps too brief and dismissive, but I think it did make a valid point (in a bad way). Ultimately Andy, as great as you are at other things, from what you've written here you don't appear to have any real expertise in statistics beyond that of a reasonably-gifted layman. I don't think you're going to make any headway against these people until you acknowledge these limitations, and seek out somebody like Behe who has the relevant expertise and can add some academic weight to your arguments.

:: Where do we go from here? I think we should stop, take a step back, reevaluate some of the claims made here (some of which I'm afraid were wrong imho) and seek out heavyweight help. I hope you don't mind this constructive criticism and take it at face value. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:08, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::It takes much more than a 9th-grade education to thoroughly evaluate professional microbiology and experimental statistics. The letter was rejected because the objections raised demonstrated fundamental misunderstandings of the techniques used, and thus were not up to PNAS standards. That's all there is to it. Period. The objections were vague (far from "''very specific''") and offered no corrections (and none have yet appeared on this site either). They only said "that's wrong" without support, which accomplishes nothing. That letter, like all such correspondence, was evaluated purely on its own merit, and not because PNAS is afraid of being proven wrong (in fact, that's when science is most exciting!). Furthermore, anonymous review is common practice- you also wouldn't have gotten a name if he/she had agreed with the letter. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 18:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)