Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Oxymoron

2011-03-25T23:50:03Z

MikeOxlong: Undo revision 859022 by TickTack (talk) remove evolutionist vandalism

'''Oxymoron''' is a figure of speech in which two terms which are polar opposites are used together for [[rhetorical]] effect, or criticized because they are self-contradictory as in "[[pro-life]] [[Democrat]]." In the past, rhetoric and elocution were standard school subjects and students were taught long lists of technical names of figures of speech and their meaning. ''Oxymoron'' was one of these, along with ''[[simile]]'', ''[[metaphor]]'', ''[[metonymy]]'', etc. True oxymoron is relatively rare; one well-known example occurs in [[Tennyson]]'s ''Idylls of the King:''
:And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.<ref>[http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/T/TennysonAlfred/verse/idyllsking/lancelotelaine.html Lancelot and Elaine], Tennyson, ''Idylls of the King''</ref>
Another occurs in [[Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Romeo and Juliet]]," when Juliet tells Romeo
:Good night, good night! parting is such sweet sorrow.<ref>Shakespeare, ''Romeo and Juliet,'' [http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/romeo_juliet.2.2.html Act II, Scene 2]</ref>
Arthur Koestler's book title, ''Darkness at Noon,'' is another example.

Among classical [[Greek]] authors, [[Sophocles]] was known for his fondness for the device.

Since the word ''oxymoron'' is derived from the Greek roots ''oxy,'' sharp, and ''moron,'' dull, it literally means "sharp-dull" and is thus itself an example of an oxymoron.

There is also a [[pun]]like form of humor which consists of observing or claiming that certain phrases are oxymorons. While not new, It was popularized by Warren Blumenfeld's 1986 book, ''Jumbo Shrimp & Other Almost Perfect Oxymorons: Contradictory Expressions That Make Absolute Sense.'' In literal fact, what is being pointed out is an amusing contradiction.

Originally it played on the fact that many listeners remembered they been taught what an oxymoron was in school, but could not remember what it was. The context would have been something like this:

Humorist: "Jumbo shrimp?" That's an ''oxymoron.'' 
Mark: [Realizes he should know the word... his ten-grade English teacher drilled him on it... but can't quite, and is forced to ask]: A what? 
Humorist: An oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 
Mark: (Thinks about it, remember realizes that although "Jumbo shrimp" is a real expression, "shrimp" means small and "Jumbo" means large, and rolls on the ground laughing helplessly). 

The device has now become so common that the word ''oxymoron'' has come to ''mean'' this form of humor, which is entirely unrelated to the original meaning of the word. It is often employed to make a political point. It rarely reveals any actual meaning; "Military intelligence is an oxymoron" does not actually point out anything intrinsic in military structure or thinking; it merely puns on the meaning of the phrase "military intelligence" and is just a tricky way of delivering an insult.

Examples of the modern, joking usage:

* ''Heroic villain'' - Since villains are bad, calling one heroic is an oxymoron.
* ''Friendly vandal'' - A flaw similar to the one above.

Examples of modern, serious usage:

* ''Jumbo shrimp''
* ''Real nightmare''
* ''same difference''
* ''expect the unexpected''
* ''classic rock''

Oxymorons that express a criticism include:

* ''Harvard Divinity School''
* ''gay charity'' (the homosexual ideology is entirely selfish)
* ''pro-life Democrat''
* ''evolutionary science''<ref>The theory of evolution is [[pseudoscience]] [http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/][http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html][http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm]</ref>
* ''liberal Christian''<ref>[[Liberal values]] are in direct contradiction to the teachings of [[Christianity]] ([[Abortion]], [[Homosexuality]] etc).</ref>
*"Military intelligence" - often used by liberals to smear the Armed Forces
*[[conservative]] professor - the process of obtaining a PhD and professorship is so politicized that [[liberals]] simply exclude conservatives

==External Links==
* [http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_oxymoronology.html Oxymorons (or Oxymora)]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Rhetorical Devices]]
[[Category:Figures of Speech]]
[[Category:Words and Phrases]]

Guinea pig

2011-03-25T23:48:20Z

MikeOxlong:

{{Taxonomy|image = wiggin.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Rodentia|suborder = Hystricomorpha|family = Caviidae|subfamily = Caviinae|genus = Cavia|species = porcellus
}}
'''Guinea pigs''' are [[rodent]]s commonly kept as pets in a similar manner to [[rabbit]]s. They are ideal for small children as they have a placid temperament and are large enough to be handled without causing distress to the animal (unlike some smaller pets such as [[hamster]]s). Like most rodents, guinea pigs can give birth to large litters of young and thus care should be taken when selecting males and females as pets. As with [[rabbit]]s, they eat [[vegetables]] such as [[carrot]]s and [[lettuce]] and are easy to feed and take care of.

==Animal testing==

Guinea pigs are used for the purposes of testing drugs and cosmetics before trials on [[human]]s, along with [[rat]]s, mice and other small rodents. Because of this, the term ''to be guinea pigs'' is sometimes used to describe someone or a group of people who are testing or trialling something for the first time, for example a class of students may say "we we're ''guinea pigs'' for the new course structure".

==As food==
Outside of the west, guinea pigs are sometimes eaten and are even considered somewhat of a delicacy in some parts of [[Peru]].

[[Category:Rodents]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Mammals]]

Guinea pig

2011-03-25T21:34:44Z

MikeOxlong: /* Animal testing */

{{Taxonomy|image = wiggin.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Rodentia|suborder = Hystricomorpha|family = Caviidae|subfamily = Caviinae|genus = Cavia|species = porcellus
}}
'''Guinea pigs''' are [[rodent]]s commonly kept as pets in a similar manner to [[rabbit]]s. They are ideal for small children as they have a placid temperament and are large enough to be handled without causing distress to the animal (unlike some smaller pets such as [[hamster]]s). Like most rodents, guinea pigs can give birth to large litters of young and thus care should be taken when selecting males and females as pets. As with [[rabbit]]s, they eat [[vegetables]] such as [[carrot]]s and [[lettuce]] and are easy to feed and take care of.

==Animal testing==

Guinea pigs are used for the purposes of testing drugs and cosmetics before trials on [[human]], along with [[rat]]s, mice and other small rodents. Because of this, the term ''to be guinea pigs'' is sometimes used to describe someone or a group of people who are testing or trialling something for the first time, for example a class of students may say "we we're ''guinea pigs'' for the new course structure".

==As food==
Outside of the west, guinea pigs are sometimes eaten and are even considered somewhat of a delicacy in some parts of [[Peru]].

[[Category:Rodents]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Mammals]]

triallist

Guinea pig

2011-03-25T21:33:14Z

MikeOxlong: "guinea pigs" as a term for trialists

{{Taxonomy|image = wiggin.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Rodentia|suborder = Hystricomorpha|family = Caviidae|subfamily = Caviinae|genus = Cavia|species = porcellus
}}
'''Guinea pigs''' are [[rodent]]s commonly kept as pets in a similar manner to [[rabbit]]s. They are ideal for small children as they have a placid temperament and are large enough to be handled without causing distress to the animal (unlike some smaller pets such as [[hamster]]s). Like most rodents, guinea pigs can give birth to large litters of young and thus care should be taken when selecting males and females as pets. As with [[rabbit]]s, they eat [[vegetables]] such as [[carrot]]s and [[lettuce]] and are easy to feed and take care of.

==Animal testing==

Guinea pigs are used for the purposes of testing drugs and cosmetics before trials on [[human]], along with [[rat]]s, mice and other small rodents. Because of this, the term ''to be guinea pigs'' is sometimes used for someone or a group of people to be testing or trialling something for the first time, for example a class of students may say "we we're ''guinea pigs'' for the new course structure".

==As food==
Outside of the west, guinea pigs are sometimes eaten and are even considered somewhat of a delicacy in some parts of [[Peru]].

[[Category:Rodents]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Mammals]]

triallist

Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law

2011-03-24T23:24:38Z

MikeOxlong: /* Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective */ Biblical perspective

While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.

:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty. Why the difficulty here? It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry. By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.

:::I gave over 150 examples: see [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] and the geometric pattern it displays.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston

:::::You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.

:::::More than 150 terms in [[Essay:Best New Conservatives Words]] demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications. I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind. Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::There are more than just three examples from the list of new conservative words that are not distinctly conservative. Also, I’m not sure if making the argument that conservative insights increase geometrically based on the word list is all that quantifiable. Words and language evolve and develop for a variety of reasons and it would be difficult if not impossible to attribute a words creation or popular use, for example, productivity, altruism, incompleteness, initiative, insightful, elitism, deflation, accountability, hysteria, leverage, local, motivation, optimism, phonics, potential, quantify, self-reliant, self-defence, vandalism, veracity, victimization, work ethic, etc, to conservative thought. However, it would be an interesting project to undertake, albeit a time consuming one. My point is that you need to develop a stronger argument for the theory that these conservative words are increasing geometrically with proof that they are developed because of conservative thought, and that conservative thought will continue to grow. Stating that they increase geometrically with no support to back it up, besides the observation that the number of terms increases from century to century is not a strong enough argument, for me anyway. I want there to be the support and sources to back it up. I’d be willing to assist in developing this argument further. - Cjohnston

:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive. You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms. Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative. I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway. If you want "support and sources" for an original insight, you're not going to find them. Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I understand that you don’t have time to explain each term and I am not asking you to. Though I still believe that the terms I outlined are not distinctly conservative terms and I don’t think it is ‘obvious’ that I was wrong about that because you haven’t explained why I am. Retuning to the original issue I raised, even if you have developed an ‘original insight’ it still needs to be explained well enough to stand as a strong argument. One of the things stressed in highschool and particularly post-secondary school is an argument needs to be well developed and well supported, which includes ‘original insights.’ Perhaps this example with help clarify my argument: I could develop an ‘original insight’ that the colour (note my spelling) of the sky is green. Most people would argue that no, the sky is in fact blue. If I did not develop the argument that the sky is green any further, it would not be considered a credible or strong argument. However, if I clarified with the support that the sky can appear green during intense thunderstorms as a result of water and ice scattering green light waves during strong updrafts in thunderstorms, the argument then makes much more sense and can stand as being a strong and credible argument. I hope this helps clarify my concerns. - Cjohnston

::: You haven't clarified anything for me, and your talk-to-substance ratio is very high. See [[liberal style]].

::: Are you saying there are no legitimate new conservative words? If you concede there are some, then it's possible to estimate their rate of increase, which we've done. If you insist there are none, then you lack the open-mind you claim to have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)

::::I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston

:::::You won't deny it, but you won't admit it either. Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself. Your non-committal comments have not been productive here.

:::::You've posted ten times, all talk. That's in violation of our [[90/10 rule]]. I'll be lenient and block you for only a day but please don't return unless you want to contribute to this encyclopedia in a substantive manner. Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)

== Did I do something wrong? ==

Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

:I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted. You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy. Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

== Societies become more conservative? ==

I question the assumption that societies become inevitably more conservative over time. Over the last 200 years we have seen a fundamental shift in society towards liberal values - promiscuity, for example, has been on the rise for over 50 years now. Attitudes surrounding things like homosexuality, sex before marriage, and race relations are becoming more liberal, not more conservative. As young generations seek solely their own gratification and try to find the easiest way to enjoy life, I fear this is a trend we will continue to see. Thoughts? [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 19:21, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

:Conservatism is based heavily on logic, and over time logic does prevail. Promiscuity and homosexuality reduce lifespan, induce depression, and degrade participants. Over time, logic prevails. Promiscuity is rejected in greater numbers today than in the past, and [[Proposition 8]] in the most liberal state sent a message against homosexuality that was unexpected by the media.

:Meanwhile there are countless other issues, from gun control to taxes to ownership of gold to money market savings, where conservative positions are far more accepted today than in the past. And, alas, the percentage of people who self-identify as conservative is constantly increasing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:36, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly, why was my edit deleted, I feel this was a valid point. Wikipedia has over 500 entries on silly laws, but not one on conservapedia's law. I feel this is a perfect example of liberal bias. they are hiding from the truth--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 23:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

: There are many legitimate criticisms of Wikipedia, but your edit wasn't one of them. We're fair here and do not criticize others unfairly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective ==

I think we could all agree that before the fall, society was perfectly conservative. At what point would conservatism be at its lowest? Would it be before, during or after the destruction of Babel? Or maybe after the fall, conservatism decayed until the time of Jesus? What would a graph of conservatism look like across time? Could it be that Jesus will return upon mankind's return to perfect conservatism? If so, could Conservapedia's law help us make an educated guess as to when that might be? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

: I'd guess it's been a geometric growth in [[conservatism]] since [[Jesus]]. Before that, logic and the Old Testament would have helped, but evil was at work too. Right before the [[Great Flood]] it was pretty bleak; afterward, things were in good shape at least initially.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
::Without a liberal corollary, Conservapedia's Law implies that conservatism has no limit. Do you think that is the case? I don't think we could possibly become "more conservative" than before the fall - it'd be like saying you could become more sinless than Adam was. I'm proposing that [[liberal creep]] acts as the limiting factor of conservatism, and is a corollary of Conservapedia's Law. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:26, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:::I agree with Brad B. Just as we do not live in an infinite universe, we cannot become more conservative than the infinite conservatism society had before the fall. Nothing can be more than infinity. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:40, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

::::Geometric progressions never reach infinity, which is the mathematical analog of where Adam and Eve were before the Fall.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::I realize that, but isn't it possible that it could eventually reach an arbitrarily large number that would be extremely close to 100% conservatism? In my humble opinion, conservatism (as is the case with nearly everything) has some sort of limit. Whether it will be reached in our lifetimes (or 10 or 100 lifetimes from now) is unknowable. My point is, if there were some sort of hypothetical figure that represented total conservatism, that it could not be reached by Conservapedia's Law? Of course, I hope that eventually we do reach 100% conservatism, but I am curious as to your opinion, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::I do not follow your logic. Geometric progressions always reach infinity when the absolute value of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1. Conervapedia's Law posits a ratio of 2. Do you expect conservative edits to Conservapedia to increase at this doubling rate? If not, why? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Take, for example, conservative words. There is not an infinite amount of words (or possible words) in the English language. If the amount of conservative words increases at this geometric rate, isn't there a point where every word is conservative? Since the series continues indefinitely to infinity, and will never reach infinity, it reasons that it will pass this point at some time. From that, that is why I agree adding some definition of "liberal creep" as a corollary to Conservapedia's Law, as it is not possible to reach infinite conservatism. To answer your original question, while I certainly hope growth continues at this rate (if not faster), the long-term accuracy of this insight (and by long-term i mean millennia, or until the Rapture) remains to be seen. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 13:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Good points, Denny. I think we would expect conservative insights to eventually decline in the same fashion that we see conservative insights added to Conservapedia decline. After a certain amount of time, it just can't keep up the pace because the core articles/principles are already here and can't become any more conservative. Whether or not it is [[liberal creep]] and/or other factors that limits the growth of conservatism, I don't know. What do you think your "graph of conservatism" would look like? It'd be fun to compare. Do you think true conservatism could be the harbinger of the return of Christ? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:17, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::If we accept that at the time of Adam (pre Fall) conservatism was infinite, then even with the observed geometric expansion of conservatism observed and described as ''Conservapedia's law'', it is not possible for conservatism to reach that level again. This ties nicely in with the teaching of the Bible, that the Creation was perfect and sin-free initially, but due to the Fall such a level of perfection/conservatism cannot be reattained. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 19:24, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

Ford Motor Company

2011-03-24T23:19:00Z

MikeOxlong: /* Boycott */

[[Image:fmclogo.png|thumb|250px|right]]

'''Ford Motor Company''' or '''Ford''' is a major American [[automobile]] manufacturer based in [[Dearborn]], [[Michigan]]. The company was founded by the entrepreneur [[Henry Ford]] in 1903. Its most famous product by far was the [[Model T]], which sold 15 million cars between 1908-27, about half of all the cars in the world at that time.

Ford is the second largest of the North American automobile manufacturers, and has a significant international presence as well. Ford makes 6.6 million vehicles a year under several brands including Lincoln and Mercury, and [[Volvo]] of [[Sweden]]. Ford also owns a one-third controlling interest in the Japanese manufacturer [[Mazda]].

==Models of Car Ford Has Produced==
* [[Model T]], 15 million produced 1908-1927
* [[Model A]], 4 million produced 1927-31
* [[Mustang(car)|Mustang]]
* [[Pinto(car)|Pinto]]
* [[Altria(car)|Altria]]
* [[Fiesta(car)|Fiesta]]
* [[Focus(car)|Focus]]
* [[Falcon(car)|Falcon]]
* [[Comet(car)|Comet]]
* [[Taurus(car)|Taurus]]
* [[Escort(car)|Escort]]
* [[Tempo(car)|Tempo]]
* [[Thunderbird(car)|Thunderbird]]
* [[Edsel(car)|Edsel]]

==Crossover Vehicles Ford Has Produced==

* [[Edge(car)|Edge]]
* [[Flex(car)|Flex]]
* [[Freestyle(car)|Freestyle]]

==Models of Trucks Ford Has Produced==

* [[Ranger(car)|Ranger]]
* [[F-Series(car)|F-Series]] (the most popular vehicle in America for 23 years)
* [[E-Series(car)|E-Series]]
* [[Super Duty(car)|Super Duty]]

==Models of Sport Utility Vehicles Ford Has Produced==

* [[Escape(car)|Escape]]
* [[Explorer(car)|Explorer]]
* [[Expedition(car)|Expedition]]
* [[Excursion(car)|Excursion]]
* [[Sport Trac(car)|Sport Trac]]

Ford is active in [[NASCAR]] racing, rally racing and building sports cars.

==Boycott==

A boycott of Ford products is currently in place. It was organized by the [[conservative]] [[American Family Association]] as a reaction to Ford's active promotion of homosexuality. Since the AFA's boycott drew national media attention to Ford's aggressive promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]], sale of Ford products have declined dramitacally.<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/01/group_says_boycott_adding_to_f.php</ref><ref>http://www.boycottford.com/</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Bak, Richard. ''Henry and Edsel: The Creation of the Ford Empire'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Henry-Edsel-Creation-Ford-Empire/dp/0471234877/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975402&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, Ray. ''Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism and Design'' (1994).
* Bonin, Huber et al. ''Ford, 1902-2003: The European History'' 2 vol Paris 2003. ISBN 2-914369-06-9 scholarly essays in English; reviewed in Len Holden, "Fording the Atlantic: Ford and Fordism in Europe" in ''Business History '' Volume 47, #1 Jan 2005 pp 122-127
* Brinkley, Douglas. "Prime Mover". ''American Heritage'' 2003 54(3): 44-53. on Model T
* Brinkley, Douglas G. ''Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company, and a Century of Progress'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Wheels-World-Company-Century-Progress/dp/B000BZ99PQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975451&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ford, Henry and Samuel Crowther. ''[http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/7213 My Life and Work]'', (1922), autobiography
* Lewis, David I. ''The Public Image of Henry Ford: An American Folk Hero and His Company'' (1976), much broader than title suggests
* Nevins, Allan and Frank Ernest Hill. ''Ford: The Times, The Man, The Company'' (vol 1, 1954); ''Ford: Expansion and Challenge, 1915-1933'' (1957); ''Ford: Decline and Rebirth, 1933-1962'' (1962), the standard history of the company and biography of Ford; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book vol 1]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book vol 2]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book for vol 3] the major scholarly history
* Sorensen, Charles E., with Samuel T. Williamson. ''My Forty Years with Ford'', 1956; autobiography
* Tedlow, Richard S. "The Struggle for Dominance in the Automobile Market: the Early Years of Ford and General Motors" ''Business and Economic History'' 1988 17: 49-62. Ford stressed low price based on efficient factories but GM did better in oligopolistic competition by including investment in manufacturing, marketing, and management.
* Watts, Steven. ''The People's Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century'' (2005), major biography
* Wilkins, Mira and Frank Ernest Hill, ''American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents'' (1964)
* Williams, Karel, Colin Haslam and John Williams, "Ford versus `Fordism': The Beginning of Mass Production?" ''Work, Employment & Society'', Vol. 6, No. 4, 517-555 (1992), stress on Ford's flexibility and commitment to continuous improvements

==References==
<References/>
{{Template:Automobiles}}
[[Category:Companies]]
[[Category:Cars]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:Business]]

Ford Motor Company

2011-03-24T23:17:25Z

MikeOxlong: /* Boycott */ media attention

[[Image:fmclogo.png|thumb|250px|right]]

'''Ford Motor Company''' or '''Ford''' is a major American [[automobile]] manufacturer based in [[Dearborn]], [[Michigan]]. The company was founded by the entrepreneur [[Henry Ford]] in 1903. Its most famous product by far was the [[Model T]], which sold 15 million cars between 1908-27, about half of all the cars in the world at that time.

Ford is the second largest of the North American automobile manufacturers, and has a significant international presence as well. Ford makes 6.6 million vehicles a year under several brands including Lincoln and Mercury, and [[Volvo]] of [[Sweden]]. Ford also owns a one-third controlling interest in the Japanese manufacturer [[Mazda]].

==Models of Car Ford Has Produced==
* [[Model T]], 15 million produced 1908-1927
* [[Model A]], 4 million produced 1927-31
* [[Mustang(car)|Mustang]]
* [[Pinto(car)|Pinto]]
* [[Altria(car)|Altria]]
* [[Fiesta(car)|Fiesta]]
* [[Focus(car)|Focus]]
* [[Falcon(car)|Falcon]]
* [[Comet(car)|Comet]]
* [[Taurus(car)|Taurus]]
* [[Escort(car)|Escort]]
* [[Tempo(car)|Tempo]]
* [[Thunderbird(car)|Thunderbird]]
* [[Edsel(car)|Edsel]]

==Crossover Vehicles Ford Has Produced==

* [[Edge(car)|Edge]]
* [[Flex(car)|Flex]]
* [[Freestyle(car)|Freestyle]]

==Models of Trucks Ford Has Produced==

* [[Ranger(car)|Ranger]]
* [[F-Series(car)|F-Series]] (the most popular vehicle in America for 23 years)
* [[E-Series(car)|E-Series]]
* [[Super Duty(car)|Super Duty]]

==Models of Sport Utility Vehicles Ford Has Produced==

* [[Escape(car)|Escape]]
* [[Explorer(car)|Explorer]]
* [[Expedition(car)|Expedition]]
* [[Excursion(car)|Excursion]]
* [[Sport Trac(car)|Sport Trac]]

Ford is active in [[NASCAR]] racing, rally racing and building sports cars.

==Boycott==

A boycott of Ford products is currently in place. It was organized by the [[conservative]] [[American Family Association]] as a reaction to Ford's active promotion of homosexuality. Since the AFA's boycott drew national media attention to Ford's aggressive promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]], sales Ford products have declined dramitacally.<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/01/group_says_boycott_adding_to_f.php</ref><ref>http://www.boycottford.com/</ref>

==Bibliography==
* Bak, Richard. ''Henry and Edsel: The Creation of the Ford Empire'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Henry-Edsel-Creation-Ford-Empire/dp/0471234877/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975402&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, Ray. ''Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism and Design'' (1994).
* Bonin, Huber et al. ''Ford, 1902-2003: The European History'' 2 vol Paris 2003. ISBN 2-914369-06-9 scholarly essays in English; reviewed in Len Holden, "Fording the Atlantic: Ford and Fordism in Europe" in ''Business History '' Volume 47, #1 Jan 2005 pp 122-127
* Brinkley, Douglas. "Prime Mover". ''American Heritage'' 2003 54(3): 44-53. on Model T
* Brinkley, Douglas G. ''Wheels for the World: Henry Ford, His Company, and a Century of Progress'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Wheels-World-Company-Century-Progress/dp/B000BZ99PQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198975451&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ford, Henry and Samuel Crowther. ''[http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/7213 My Life and Work]'', (1922), autobiography
* Lewis, David I. ''The Public Image of Henry Ford: An American Folk Hero and His Company'' (1976), much broader than title suggests
* Nevins, Allan and Frank Ernest Hill. ''Ford: The Times, The Man, The Company'' (vol 1, 1954); ''Ford: Expansion and Challenge, 1915-1933'' (1957); ''Ford: Decline and Rebirth, 1933-1962'' (1962), the standard history of the company and biography of Ford; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book vol 1]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book vol 2]; [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.94045 ACLS E-book for vol 3] the major scholarly history
* Sorensen, Charles E., with Samuel T. Williamson. ''My Forty Years with Ford'', 1956; autobiography
* Tedlow, Richard S. "The Struggle for Dominance in the Automobile Market: the Early Years of Ford and General Motors" ''Business and Economic History'' 1988 17: 49-62. Ford stressed low price based on efficient factories but GM did better in oligopolistic competition by including investment in manufacturing, marketing, and management.
* Watts, Steven. ''The People's Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century'' (2005), major biography
* Wilkins, Mira and Frank Ernest Hill, ''American Business Abroad: Ford on Six Continents'' (1964)
* Williams, Karel, Colin Haslam and John Williams, "Ford versus `Fordism': The Beginning of Mass Production?" ''Work, Employment & Society'', Vol. 6, No. 4, 517-555 (1992), stress on Ford's flexibility and commitment to continuous improvements

==References==
<References/>
{{Template:Automobiles}}
[[Category:Companies]]
[[Category:Cars]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:Business]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-03-24T23:13:44Z

MikeOxlong: /* No other animal exhibits religion */ reply

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

== My plans for this article ==

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

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

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

{{quotebox|Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No other animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)
::::The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution. The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::: There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion. If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence. They don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Firstly, the reason there is no evolutionary explanation for religion is that evolutionary theory is a biological theory, it doesn't set out to explain the existence of religion at all. It sets out to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Secondly, you appear to equate evolutionary scientists with atheists. Many evolutionary scientists are Christians and they would dispute such a characterisation. Thirdly, people display a whole lot of foolish behaviours that animals do not. People smoke, gamble and watch daytime television. Animals do not. The reason animals do not do those things is that they have not developed cigarettes, slot machines or TV sets. Similarly, they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena. Accordingly, your point about the lack of animal reverence is a non-point. Can we remove the item now? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:26, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Cecil, your statement that "many evolutionary scientists are Christian" is bizarre and deluded if you ''really'' believe that, and deceitful if you don't and are just using to push your opinions. I suggest you read conservapedia's article and learn what a [[Christian]] is. (If you don't want to do this I give you a hint: it is someone who accepts the word of [[God]] and not the word of atheists pushing [[pseudoscience]] in pathetic attempts to lead people away from the [[Bible]].) Evolutionists ''do'' posit that [[Darwinism]] can explain all aspects of human behavior, yet as the article points out it cannot explain one of the most significant behaviors that separates us from animals: [[religion]]! [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 18:44, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Mike, your dispute is not with me. It is with the evolutionary biologists who both believe in evolutionary biology and the Christian God. Otherwise, I await a response to the more substantive points in my post. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 19:10, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::Such people are ''not'' Christians. I hope [[Cafeteria Christianity|this]] is substantive enough for you. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 19:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in '''point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section''' there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.

::All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.

:Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:"I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|an openmindedness test]]. Please let us know what your test score is.

:::MalP, please do post your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
::::Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.

::::The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an '''even longer''' neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.

::::At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
::::The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a ''valve'' is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.

::::If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.

:::::Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.

::::::On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?'' Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

:::::::::Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

== Chipmunks on Devil's tower? ==

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

: By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the [[global flood]]) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::: I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
::::::However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9i30Mwjo4 here] is a video of a red-tailed hawk ([http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r6/devil.htm which is fairly common to the area]) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Turkish Angoras ==

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that ''all'' cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

== Logical Example 8 ==

There has actually been a great deal of research amongst the evolutionists regarding why 'bad' behavior exists. I know his name is taboo, but before Richard Dawkins became the poster child for the New Atheist movement, he was a reputable biologist. One of his greatest books was The Selfish Gene, which describes in great detail how 'nasty' behavior actually could be construed as an evolutionary advantage to the individual. Before some haughty evolution supporter tries to come in here with a lengthy, indignant protest to that specific counterexample, I'd suggest we remove it. There are plenty of other logical counterexamples. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 20:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)

:Example 8 entails highly self-destructive behavior. I don't think that's what Dawkins meant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)

::If indeed Example 8 refers to '''self-destructive''' behavior, then it does make sense as an example. However, it should be clearly stated that we're referring to behavior that is damaging to the person doing the action. Right now the example suggests that lying and murdering could not have evolutionary benefits; they could - such is the mindset of a Darwinist, but it's the truth. Both of them are mentioned by Dawkins in his book directly. I can give quotes if you'd like. Perhaps we should switch out liars, murderers, and psycopaths with examples like...oh, say, drug addicts, people who purposefully injure themselves, and suicidal people. These self-destructive tendencies are not accounted for by evolution.[[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 18:10, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-03-24T22:44:26Z

MikeOxlong: /* No other animal exhibits religion */ response to Cecil

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

== My plans for this article ==

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

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

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

{{quotebox|Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No other animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)
::::The real problem with this point is that it is not, in any way whatsoever, a counterexample to evolution. The fact that humans are the only animals with religion does not contradict any part of evolutionary theory. --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:27, 21 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::I assume that I should remove it if there is no objection? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 18:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::: There is no plausible evolutionary explanation for religion. If, as atheists think, religion is foolish, than animals less intelligent than humans should display the reverence. They don't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:06, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Firstly, the reason there is no evolutionary explanation for religion is that evolutionary theory is a biological theory, it doesn't set out to explain the existence of religion at all. It sets out to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Secondly, you appear to equate evolutionary scientists with atheists. Many evolutionary scientists are Christians and they would dispute such a characterisation. Thirdly, people display a whole lot of foolish behaviours that animals do not. People smoke, gamble and watch daytime television. Animals do not. The reason animals do not do those things is that they have not developed cigarettes, slot machines or TV sets. Similarly, they have not developed advanced language sufficient to create religious doctrine and they have not developed building techniques sufficient to build churches, mosques, synagogues or temples of Athena. Accordingly, your point about the lack of animal reverence is a non-point. Can we remove the item now? --[[User:CecilQ|CecilQ]] 17:26, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::Cecil, your statement that "many evolutionary scientists are Christian" is bizarre and deluded if you ''really'' believe that, and deceitful if you don't and are just using to push your opinions. I suggest you read conservapedia's article and learn what a [[Christian]] is. (If you don't want to do this I give you a hint: it is someone who accepts the word of [[God]] and not the word of atheists pushing [[pseudoscience]] in pathetic attempts to lead people away from the [[Bible]].) Evolutionists ''do'' posit that [[Darwinism]] can explain all aspects of human behavior, yet as the article points out it cannot explain one of the most significant behaviors that separates us from animals: [[religion]]! [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 18:44, 24 March 2011 (EDT)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

::Andy, To then further your point: Should this page then not have more than an average of 40 words per point to try and accumulate enough information to disprove evolution. I believe that in '''point 1 of the Missing Fossils Section''' there needs to be some source and some backup to the point that they say the whale has no ancestor. Who is the one that said there is no ancestor to the whale? Because if it's the editor(s) of this article who claim there is no ancestor, then there should be someone we can hold accountable for such a statement. I worry that people will read this information and take it as fact (which it entirely could be) but not have the tools to back up that fact. They'll point to this encyclopedia and say that's where the information came from, and yet there is no way to keep tracing that claim backwards until you reach some actual research.

::All I'm saying is that you proclaim that the person making the claim must put forth the proof, and there is no proof on point 1 of Missing Fossils. Please don't ask me to Google the fact that the fossils are missing, because that is counter to your own point. User: Luex 17:14 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:AJFrederickson, moonlight reflecting off clouds is completely up for interpretation on beauty. Whereas you might find it brilliant, there are some who might be completely indifferent to it. This is the same for biological creatures. You use the words 'inherent beauty' yet if humans weren't here to decide if something were beautiful or not, how could it be considered inherently beautiful.

:Leaves changing colour are not for any purpose. They change colour because the chlorophyll cells are dying off during the winter. We see that change in colour and some of us enjoy the sight where others do not. We're the ones who may have evolved to have this capability to decide whether we like this phenomenon. I do not believe that it is indicative of creation. (Luex Aug 10 2010 16:56 (-5:00 GMT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Explanation for some counterexamples ==
Half a year ago, I had posted an explanation for one of the counterexamples, giving a possible process of how a case of seemingly irreducible complexity could have grown through evolution. It was removed then without notice, and my account was blocked afterwards by TK. (If you were wondering: TK and I had an email discussion after that in which I explained my good intentions, and he unblocked my account.) What I'm wondering now is whether I could re-post that thing at this moment. My explanation had received no replies, and I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct. As you all understand, people of any education (including none) can discuss counterexamples, and sometimes our group of editors lacks the right person to explain why a counterexample could be incorrect. In order to improve this page's quality and accuracy, I'd therefore like to discuss again what I tried to discuss half a year ago - this time, however, I would like to not be blocked for it. So I'll ask upfront: Is it alright if I rewrite my theory, and post it here again?

Thanks a lot in advance. [[User:MalP|MalP]] 12:25, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:"I do think it is important to '''only''' have counterexamples on here that are correct." Excuse me, but anyone with an education should realise that none of the counterexamples here are correct. But if you try to remove them, or even rationally debate them you'll get blocked, so don't bother. Just saying. --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 13:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::I think you can only say with absolute certainty that something is correct/incorrect, after you have considered the example and debated about it with other people who are also considering it. I have a feeling that there are indeed quite some incorrect counterexamples in this article, but there many for which I can't come up with an explanation. Right now I'm only talking about a few examples for which I have some possible explanations. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::Houshalter, you're wrong on both of your points. I suggest you try taking [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|an openmindedness test]]. Please let us know what your test score is.

:::MalP, please do post your point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:12, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::Thank you, Mr Schafly. My point is about the possibility of giraffes being able to develop a long neck despite the seemingly irreducible complexity of it.
::::Because of the logical laws of natural selection, a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat. Up to that point, I think we all agree. It is also very logical of the article's author to write that a long neck is impossible with the valves present in it.

::::The point where the author is wrong, though, is that he forgets that the development of this neck went very slowly, and through many generations (and in case evolution is correct, it is likely still developing). The first giraffes which had a slightly longer neck than their smaller fellows, didn't need any special valves for this difference that was, at that time, probably still hard to observe with the eye. They were taller nevertheless, so they had a higher chance of surviving. That way, the neck "grew longer" through generations, up to the point that an '''even longer''' neck would be no longer beneficial, because the blood would then not be able to reach the head anymore.

::::At this point, all it takes is the first valve to develop in the giraffe's neck. Please note that most, if not all, animals (including giraffes. Humans too, by the way) have a rather simple valve system all through their body to improve the flood of blood. So, we have our giraffe with a neck so long that it would need stronger/better valves to continue growing. It is very logical that this animal will have a higher chance to survive if it develops a valve in its neck.
::::The longer the neck, the more problems there will be for the blood to reach the head. But also; the longer the neck, the more food the giraffe can get. There is obviously a balance between those two, where the neck has the exact length that balances these two things. If this balance point is reached and a ''valve'' is added, the giraffe will be able to continue growing its neck, until the next balance point.

::::If this whole process repeats itself, the giraffe is perfectly able to grow a long neck, albeit (like everything in evolution) very slow. I know this explanation may not be explained very well, but I think it's enough to show that irreducible complexity can perfectly develop through evolution, taking into consideration that all of this is a very gradual process, and two things can perfectly develop simultaneously this way. Please tell me what you think about this. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 17:19, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::For starters, as the entry says, it's simply untrue that "a giraffe with a long neck has more chance to survive than one with a short neck, because the former can reach higher in trees, eating food that no other giraffe is able to eat." That concept is easily to believe by students, but demonstrably false. That doesn't stop evolutionists from teaching and relying on the falsehood, as long as some people believe it. Giraffes eat low-lying vegetation.

:::::Moreover, the issue of why a valve would develop remains implausible due to the irreducible complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::I have personally seen giraffes eating from trees. They definitely do not feed on low-lying vegetation exclusively.

::::::On your second point: I had expected you to answer that, and that's why I already "countered" it in my first post, though maybe not clear enough: The longer a giraffe's neck is, the higher the chance of it having some blood pressure problems, while it still benefits from its reach (read the balance thing again). A giraffe would definitely benefit from a valve even if the length of the neck hasn't increased as much as it is now -- a valve would not inprove its reach to high branches, but it would decrease the chance that it will suffer from a potential shortage of blood in the brains, which can of course be fatal. Anyway, as I also stated: animals already have these valves, but in a less sophisticated form. All it takes is for these valves to grow stronger and more efficient. Taken all of this in consideration, I think it's safe to say that -- in case evolution is true -- there certainly is a possibility of giraffes growing long necks. -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 22:33, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::MalP, evolution is continually stating that the giraffe grew the long neck to reach the higher leaves in the trees, so it isn't a valve thing that matters here. It needs the leaves in the trees to eat and to survive, am I right? Let's set the way-back machine to a dozen or so million years ago, the approximate time that the evo crowd states that giraffes began stretching their dinky necks. Let's say that this year the rainfall was good, and the trees decided they were going to grow another two feet, putting the leaves out of reach of the stubby-necked giraffes. They need to do something johnny-on-the-spot, don't they? Question one: just what are these giraffes going to do? Question two: how many years do evo-supporters state that it took for these stubby-necked giraffes to grow enough neck to reach the leaves? Question three: how long does an animal the size of a stubby-necked giraffe live if it can only eat leaves in a tree, but can't reach them this year? Question four: if the stubby-necked giraffe needs to eat, do you honestly think it's going to wait a thousand years or more to grow the neck ''that it has got to have right now?'' Answer: that stubby-necked giraffe will be forced to look for other food sources; if it means it grazes like a cow, it grazes, and there wouldn't be a need for a long neck, anyway. It's either that or it dies of starvation within three weeks. And that is not enough time to rearrange it's genes to play that DNA game that evo's are touting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Karajou: You are assuming that every giraffe is of the exact same height. Where as when a giraffe is at it's mature adult age, it may not be as tall as another giraffe of the same age. This means that where some giraffes in your example would not be able to reach the trees because they are just 2 more feet out of their range, some of those giraffes could actually reach them. Say that if that those giraffes only survive if they're able to reach those trees (whether they die from starvation or weakness + disease due to shortage of calories and nutrients) then the only giraffes that survive in this situation are the ones with the longer neck. Now in the gene pool there is an abundance of long necked giraffes that were able to suffer the year and they then produce the next years generation of long necked giraffes. If you don't believe that some giraffes could be significantly taller than one another, even though they're so closely related genetically, just look at humans and the fact that some are very easily taller than others by large amounts. Allow me to state that I know that giraffes can in fact graze on grass at their feet, but for the sake of considering a life and death situation where if you can't reach those leaves you die, this situation doesn't disprove evolution. (Not sure how to sign this, so I'll just type it in!) User: Luex 16:36 10 Aug 2010 (-5:00 GMT)

:::::::::Luex, you're the one who's doing the assuming, not me. What you're assuming amounts to wishful thinking as to what went on with the origins of the giraffe according to evolution. Where's the proof of this tale? You're not taking into account the time involved here; not the time of millions of years, but the time a giraffe or two or several has left on earth if they cannot get anything to eat. If they ate everything within reach in the trees, they have to find another food source or starve to death; they are not going to wait several months to give birth to a calf that they hope would have an added inch or two to its neck, it's that simple. What you have described above does not have the proof to back it up; it is hearsay evidence, and anyone with common sense just isn't going to accept it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

:::@MalP, well every other argument here is basically just irreducible complexity. For one, you should group all of the irreducible complexity examples together for organization. Second, you should at least mention why scientists and "evolutionists" (as you call them) don't take it seriously. Irreducible complexity works two ways. One, that if you remove a part of the system it wouldn't work, therefore it would have to be created in it's present form. This should be noted to be an obvious fallacy. We have observed in simulations and models, irreducibly complex systems evolve on their own many times. The second meaning could be somewhat valid, but is generally ignored because we are well aware that there is large gap in what we can study and observe, mainly the fossil record. It goes that, because we don't know how something could have evolved or what evolutionary pressures would have caused it to evolve, it couldn't have evolved. As I explained, this would only be relevant on a system that we have a complete or close to complete understanding of, like a very thorough fossil record. Most of the examples are from places where the oppisite is true and we have no idea what the ancient conditions were at the time.

== Chipmunks on Devil's tower? ==

Evolutionist fantasies aside, how did chipmunks get to the top of Devil's tower after the flood? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 20:07, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

: By magnetic sensors in their brains??? Chipmunks ended up there the same way that monarch butterflies descend on the same towns every year, and the same way that chickens find their way back to their coops at sundown each night.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Sorry, perhaps I misstated my question. The stated counterexample suggests that chipmunks have no means to reach the top of Devil's tower, and that this is problematic for the evolutionist paradigm. How does science (including the [[global flood]]) provide such a means? Were the chipmunks dropped off there from the ark as the waters receded? --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:02, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::: I have an open mind about possible explanations. But proving that one theory is wrong does not require proving that another theory is right. If a math proof is flawed, then it is flawed regardless of whether a valid proof is available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:11, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: This strikes me as more of a "unanswered question in biology" than a "counterexample to evolution". The right answer is out there somewhere, though we may never be able prove what it is. It seems likely to me that whatever that answer is, it will be compatible with both creationist and evolutionist accounts. (Unless, of course, Noah made a world tour dropping off critters in inaccessible spots as the flood receded!) --[[User:LyleT|LyleT]] 21:41, 29 August 2010 (EDT)

::::: Lyle, you have free will to believe what you like, but your approach is not scientific. A new theory cannot develop until people let go of the disproved theory. It's time to let go of the disproved theory, and start looking in earnest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 29 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::My mind is also open about this. In fact, as I am actively seeking counterexamples to evolution, I would like this counterexample to be true. Unfortunately, an open-minded approach to the mystery of animals on the peak of Devils Tower yields what I believe is a plausible explanation. Many birds of prey inhabit the area. They can be seen perched on Devils Tower. These birds (hawks and eagles) can snatch a chipmunk/snake/etc and return to their perch on the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that some of these animals survived the flight and managed to evade their captors. I'm not saying that this is what happened on Devils Tower, I'm just saying that it's plausible.
::::::However, I cannot fathom a evolutionary explanation for animals on remote islands. That's a good counterexample. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:59, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::::Your suggestion is a clever one, but seems extremely implausible to me. Rarely does captured prey escape, and probably rarer still for one to be taken to the top of Devils Tower only to escape and not be recaptured there. But I wouldn't rule this out if there is something to support it. With millions of dollars in government funding spent on evolution "research" each year, there should be some observed evidence for it if it were true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::Thanks. I'd like to note that rarity does not negate plausibility, in fact, it implies it! As for something supportive, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9i30Mwjo4 here] is a video of a red-tailed hawk ([http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/chekbird/r6/devil.htm which is fairly common to the area]) carrying off a live snake. It is entirely plausible that a hawk (or any of the large birds of prey found in the area) could carry a snake to the peak of Devils Tower. It is entirely plausible that, upon landing, the snake bit the hawk and managed to escape. Do you have any evidence that any money was spent trying to figure out how animals got to the peak? We should be glad if they hadn't wasted any money on it, so I don't know how you could then decry the lack of observation. But regardless of whether or not there is direct observation of the event in question, that isn't a requirement of plausibility. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 18:10, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

== Turkish Angoras ==

I think this might be added. Turkish Angoras are a race of cats, very well known for their beautiful, long fur. If there was any reason for this race to have such long fur, I'd assume that ''all'' cats would have such long fur. Yet if shorter fur increases survivability, why do these cats have long fur in the first place? -[[User:MalP|Mal Peeters]] ([[User_talk:MalP|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2010 (EDT)

== Logical Example 8 ==

There has actually been a great deal of research amongst the evolutionists regarding why 'bad' behavior exists. I know his name is taboo, but before Richard Dawkins became the poster child for the New Atheist movement, he was a reputable biologist. One of his greatest books was The Selfish Gene, which describes in great detail how 'nasty' behavior actually could be construed as an evolutionary advantage to the individual. Before some haughty evolution supporter tries to come in here with a lengthy, indignant protest to that specific counterexample, I'd suggest we remove it. There are plenty of other logical counterexamples. [[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 20:34, 30 November 2010 (EST)

:Example 8 entails highly self-destructive behavior. I don't think that's what Dawkins meant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 30 November 2010 (EST)

::If indeed Example 8 refers to '''self-destructive''' behavior, then it does make sense as an example. However, it should be clearly stated that we're referring to behavior that is damaging to the person doing the action. Right now the example suggests that lying and murdering could not have evolutionary benefits; they could - such is the mindset of a Darwinist, but it's the truth. Both of them are mentioned by Dawkins in his book directly. I can give quotes if you'd like. Perhaps we should switch out liars, murderers, and psycopaths with examples like...oh, say, drug addicts, people who purposefully injure themselves, and suicidal people. These self-destructive tendencies are not accounted for by evolution.[[User:Alphanumeric1|Alphanumeric1]] 18:10, 4 December 2010 (EST)

Anthem for Doomed Youth

2011-03-23T20:17:47Z

MikeOxlong: typical > traditional

''Anthem for Doomed Youth '' is a celebrated war poem by British poet and soldier [[Wilfred Owen]], composed during [[World War I]]. It is written in the traditional form of an English [[sonnet]].

Owen wrote the poem while in hospital recovering from shell shock. It was written with the help of fellow soldier, poet and patient [[Siegfried Sassoon]], who suggested changing the title from "Anthem for Dead Youth."

== Text ==

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle? 
Only the monstrous anger of the guns. 
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle 
Can patter out their hasty orisons. 

No mockeries for them; no prayers nor bells, 
Nor any voice of mourning save the choirs,— 
The shrill, demented choirs of wailing shells; 
And bugles calling for them from sad shires. 

What candles may be held to speed them all? 
Not in the hands of boys, but in their eyes 
Shall shine the holy glimmers of goodbyes. 
The pallor of girls' brows shall be their pall; 

Their flowers the tenderness of patient minds, 
And each slow dusk a drawing-down of blinds.

Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?

2011-03-23T19:09:54Z

MikeOxlong: my humble response

{{Debate}}

==Background==

One of the fundamental issues in the pro-life/pro-choice controversy is determining when human life begins, particularly in terms of being regarded as fully "human" in the eyes of the law. The catalyst for this page was the legislative initiative in North Dakota to define human life from the earliest possible stage. The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws. This interpretation would not only define unborn, developing fetuses in the womb as fully human, but also carry the label and legal protections of being fully human to fertilized human eggs or frozen embryos that have yet to be implanted in a mother's womb.

Others feel that life as a human begins once a baby is independent of the womb and can survive in that mode, even if significant medical assistance is required. In this context, a developing fetus still in the womb in the 7th month is not a human being, but if prematurely born at that time it becomes one because it is now independent of the mother's body.

Neither definition is satisfactory to people who stand fully behind being either pro-life or pro-choice, and each side has compelling reasons to support those positions. The purpose of this debate page is to allow those ideas and expressions to be given a fair and open airings, which will hopefully provide guidance to people who are unsure if the truth is one side, the other, or somewhere in the middle.

Please note that the section labels below do not represent the only options - they are placeholders to organize responses, so new sections can be added as appropriate.

==Human Life begins with childbirth==
When it is born, a baby changes. Its white blood cells change, it uses its lungs for the first time and its blood takes a different route through its heart. It is at this point that human life begins. Before this, a foetus is just part of its mother's body, like an extra limb. When it is born, it becomes its own person and is no longer an extra bit of the mother.I personally believe that the baby's first breath is its soul being breathed into it, signifying the start of its life. Before the first breath, the baby is just a shell of a person or the potential to be a person, like a car without its engine. When the white blood cells change from those of a foetus to those of a baby, they change the blood from support blood into Life Blood, which no-one can live without. If a baby did not go through these changes, it would not survive. Pregnancy prepares a foetus for life, but does not create it. Childbirth creates life. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 12:54, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins at a certain stage of neonatal development==

It is my belief that life begins at the point where the brain has developed sufficiently for the fetus to be "self aware". Essentially when the brain is formed to the point that non automatic (or regulatory) brain activity (such as non auto response to stimulus) can be registered. Prior to this I consider the fetus a cell cluster, in the same way that I consider my heart a muscle.

On a side note, I wish there was more activity in the debate boards, or am I just missing it? I do love debate, and I realize that talk pages are usually not appropriate for such things, which is why I wish there was more going on around these parts. I'm not sure if this particular subject is especially debatable, since much of it hinges on personal belief rather than empirical fact with verifiable veracity.

Also, a question. Should any syops happen to wander around this way, I was wondering. Where do debate posts fall within the 90/10 rule. As I said before I love debate, but I would not want to violate any rules. I hope that partaking in ongoing debate counts as worthwhile contribution.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

==Human Life begins earlier than that==
Human life began 6000 or so years ago. The gametes in the sex organs are small parts of humans and are just as human as when they have fertilised an egg and grown into an adult, albeit less developed. In the same way that an unattached exhaust pipe is still part of a car, and a new car cn be built around it, all cells of a human are in themnselves human.
: But if someone stole an unattached exhaust pipe, they wouldn't be charged with Auto Theft. They'd probably be charged with petty larceny, depending on the value of the pipe. The reason for this is because being something that will eventually be part of a car doesn't make it a car. So why are cells that will eventually be part of a human considered human by themselves? [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
::Because humans have a ''[[soul]]''. I agree that the tailpipe analogy is a poor one, but it doesn't retract from the fact that the divine spark of life that separates from the animals is present from the moment of conception. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 15:09, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==Life Begins at Conception==
Two hundred years ago a one month premature fetus was not expected to live outside the womb. Today, with the advancement of medical knowledge and care, a one month premature human fetus is almost surely expected to be able to be brought to a fully independent and functional mature human being capable of sustaining life on it’s own. As medical abilities advance it seems entirely possible that a two month premature fetus could be expected to survive outside the womb and continue to maturity. It would seem that, one day future, medical advancements could also nurture a three month premature fetus with the same result. Logically, with great advancement in medicine, wouldn’t it seem possible that someday a fertilized egg could be nurtured to full maturity? An acorn planted in an appropriate environment and with adequate nurturing is expected to become a mighty oak. Just so, the fertilized human ovum, in the right environment, is expected become a fully functional baby. An acorn will never become a human nor a fertilized ovum an oak tree. In the bible, God speaks of the mystery of a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh. I think we can extrapolate this mystery to include a sperm being joined to an ovum and the two becoming ‘one’ flesh, as well. Life is in the acorn and life is also in the fertilized egg.
Life begins with conception. --[[User:WPA|WPA]] 14:52, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Real America

2011-03-20T22:38:45Z

MikeOxlong:

'''Real America''' is a term used to describe the real spirit, ambitions, values and attitude of the [[United States]]. "Real America" generally refers to the traditional values on which the [[United States]] was founded, such as [[gun rights|gun ownership]], faith in [[Jesus]], and [[conservative]] ideology. [[John McCain]] used the term to describe citizens in central [[Pennsylvania]], whereas Palin used the term in [[South Carolina]] (at least). [[Liberal]]s do not believe in this term and do not acknowledge that small towns are the core of the country.

[[Sarah Palin]] popularized the term during the 2008 Presidential Election, but it predates her by several years; notably [[Glenn Beck]] wrote a book in 2003 entitled "The '''Real America''': Messages From the Heart and Heartland." <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Real-America-Messages-Heart-Heartland/dp/0743486331#_</ref> The thesis of Beck's work was that liberal pundits have worked hard to undermine America's strength, greatness, and power, and that only Real Americans remain unaffected by this.

The term was also used in 2008 by Republican Rep. Robert Hayes, who observed in a speech in Concord, North Carolina that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve." In making this observation, Hayes, like Beck, appeared to be indicating that being a real American was a matter of political orientation rather than simple geography.

If Real America is considered in a geographic rather than a political sense, then, primarily, [[red state]]s can be considered Real America, but there are some towns in [[blue state]]s (usually not close to cities) that can be described this way.
[[Category:United States]]

==References==
<references/>

Buoyancy-Driven Convection

2011-03-20T22:24:35Z

MikeOxlong:

Buoyancy-Driven Convection is [[convection]] current created due to the the difference in density between two or more fluids whilst their mass is acted upon by a [[gravitational field]].
[[category:physics]]