How did Darwin say monkeys lost their tails?

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Interesting question.

[Sean Dillon]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:29:55 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting question.

I'm not sure if Darwin ever did say.

However, we can still give you an answer from an evolutionary perspective:

The short answer is, they didn't. Humans and all other primates still have tail bones.

The slightly longer answer is that, when a feature like a tail ceases to be useful to a population, then that feature will only be a resource drain and impediment to the carriers. In such situations, individuals with shorter tails will tend to be favored by natural selection. And so, over time, the tail will become so short as to no longer protrude from the body.

[RonO]

On 3/19/2017 2:26 PM, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting question.
>

What is your alternative and the evidence to back it up. Compare it to
the various hypotheses put up for the various taxa that have reduced
their tails. Why is it that the science side has real evidence and you
have nothing? Sort of bad for you isn't it?

There are monkeys and apes that have pretty much reduced the tail bones
to nubs, but they still have tail bones. Ever look at a human skeleton?
Why are the human tail bones still connected to the muscles and
tendons of monkey tails? Those tail bones still have a function, they
just aren't extended out to a long tail.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 19 March 2017 19:29:55 UTC, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting question.

Have a look at the end of chapter two of
_The Descent of Man_. Most or all of
Charles Darwin's writings are collected
online.

Very unreliable summary: it got caught in a door.

[Burkhard]

Ah yes, that rings a bell - wasn't that misunderstood by some folks as a
strange throwback to Lamarckism?

[Rolf]

<Astero...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:b702ebe2-86d5-47b3...@googlegroups.com...
> Interesting question.
>

As far as I know, I have never seen monkeys without a tail and presume they
still have tails.

I am glad there are no monkeys among my ancestors.

[John Bode]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:29:55 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting question.

Monkeys never lost their tails.

[Rolf]

"John Bode" <jfbod...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:b1d3daca-c7bd-4926...@googlegroups.com...

> On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:29:55 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Interesting question.
>
> Monkeys never lost their tails.
>

Really? Asteroid lost his.
Can anyone here help him?

[John Bode]

It's a bit like asking why ostriches don't fly south for the winter.

[John Bode]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:29:55 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting question.

As I mentioned earlier, monkeys still have tails.

What you're asking is why *apes* lost their tails. And while I'm not Darwin nor a biologist, I think I have an idea that *may* hold water. Those of
you who know what you're talking about may feel free to correct me.

Most monkey and ape species are primarily forest dwellers, spending most of
their time in the forest canopy (there are exceptions - I think baboons and
gorillas spend most of their time on the ground, although I could be wrong
about that).

Monkeys are quadrapeds - they walk on all fours, both when on the ground and
when moving through the trees. They walk, run, and jump along branches in
the canopy. Viewed in that light, it's easy to see why they've retained
long, powerful tails - it helps provide balance when they're scampering through the branches. Other mammals that do a lot of broken-field running
such as cats (lions, cheetahs) and canids (wolves, foxes) have relatively
long and powerful tails as well. Then you have hoppers like roos and
wallabies - their tails act as counterweights to the rest of their bodies.

Of course, this isn't 100% true - deer, antelope, etc., have small tails
and run like hell. But I think they've figured out different ways of
maintaining their balance that don't rely on a tail.

Apes are brachiators - they swing by their arms from branch to branch. A
tail doesn't help much in that situation, and would more likely just get
in the way. Longer forelimbs result in bigger swings, shortening the tail
and hindlimbs raises the center of gravity and reduces the amount of mass
that has to be supported by the hands. Since their arms are so long
relative to their legs, apes have adopted knuckle-walking for moving along
the ground.

There are plenty of other mammals that either have small or vestigial
tails - heffalumps, bears, sloths, pigs, etc., and they tend to not be
open-field runners either.

So at least part of it comes down to locomotion - mammals that needed to
maintain balance when running flat out on uneven terrain tended to hold
on to their tails. Mammals that didn't do that much running, or tended to
run in straight lines, tended to lose their tails.

Again, not 100% the case, but there are enough examples on both sides that
I feel fairly confident that's at least part of the explanation.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Ambrose Bierce understood ostriches:

"OSTRICH, n. A large bird to which (for its sins, doubtless) nature
has denied that hinder toe in which so many pious naturalists have
seen a conspicuous evidence of design. The absence of a good working
pair of wings is no defect, for, as has been ingeniously pointed out,
the ostrich does not fly."

--Ambrose Bierce

earle
*

[jillery]

Ambrose Bierce grokked the anthropic principle.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[wdm...@verizon.net]

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interesting question.

As has been noted elsewhere monkeys still have their tails. Some descendants of monkeys have lost their tails. Several people have offered adaptationist explanations, and these may be true. It is also quite possible that the loss of tails in apes is a result of neutral drift - which you should read about if you want to understand evolution. On a similar note, you might have asked why many primates cannot produce Vitamin C.

Yours,
Bill

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

How did monkeys lose their tails, according to Darwin?

"As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited effect, it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the projecting part of the tail, being functional useless, should after many generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually rubbed and chafed."

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <82e11373-48f1-4aae...@googlegroups.com>,

Is it really necessary to make the exact same reply to five different
posts?

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

It was a good quote.

[John Bode]

It would *really* help to name the work that the quote belongs to (in this
case, it's "The Descent of Man", Chapter II). It would also help to
reproduce the quote *in full*:

> As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited > effect (94. I allude to Dr. Brown- Sequard's observations on the
> transmitted effect of an operation causing epilepsy in guinea-pigs, and
> likewise more recently on the analogous effects of cutting the sympathetic
> nerve in the neck. I shall hereafter have occasion to refer to Mr.
> Salvin's interesting case of the apparently inherited effects of mot-mots > biting off the barbs of their own tail- feathers. See also on the general
> subject 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. ii.
> pp. 22-24.), it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the
> projecting part of the tail, being functionally useless, should after many

> generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually
> rubbed and chafed.

So Darwin is referring to the work of other naturalists when making this
statement.

Okay, so we now know what Darwin said.

What's your point?

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 10:49:54 AM UTC-7, John Bode wrote:
> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:04:54 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 6:19:54 PM UTC-7, wdm...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Interesting question.
> > >
> > > As has been noted elsewhere monkeys still have their tails. Some
> > > descendants of monkeys have lost their tails. Several people have
> > > offered adaptationist explanations, and these may be true. It is also
> > > quite possible that the loss of tails in apes is a result of neutral
> > > drift - which you should read about if you want to understand evolution.
> > > On a similar note, you might have asked why many primates cannot produce
> > > Vitamin C.
> > >
> > > Yours,
> > > Bill
> >
> > How did monkeys lose their tails, according to Darwin?
> >
> > "As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an
> > inherited effect, it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys,
> > the projecting part of the tail, being functional useless, should after
> > many generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being
> > continually rubbed and chafed."
>
> It would *really* help to name the work that the quote belongs to (in this
> case, it's "The Descent of Man", Chapter II). It would also help to
> reproduce the quote *in full*:

Of course you know that I typed it out of the book and can do this very thing. However, I thought I'd wait for the evolutionists to come out in force demanding the reference and accuse me of quote mining. I have the Britannica great works volume.

>
> > As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited > effect (94. I allude to Dr. Brown- Sequard's observations on the
> > transmitted effect of an operation causing epilepsy in guinea-pigs, and
> > likewise more recently on the analogous effects of cutting the sympathetic
> > nerve in the neck. I shall hereafter have occasion to refer to Mr.
> > Salvin's interesting case of the apparently inherited effects of mot-mots > biting off the barbs of their own tail- feathers. See also on the general
> > subject 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. ii.
> > pp. 22-24.), it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the
> > projecting part of the tail, being functionally useless, should after many
> > generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually
> > rubbed and chafed.
>
> So Darwin is referring to the work of other naturalists when making this
> statement.

Yes, and it makes it all so much more convincing, doesn't it? Which is what most all works of evolutionists. Establish their pseudo-authority upon the works of others. So tails chaff off and we know so because of what some other expert said.

> Okay, so we now know what Darwin said.
>
> What's your point?

What's your point?

[John Bode]

You *did* leave some context out of the quote; you could have at least
included an ellipsis to indicate that.

> >
> > > As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited > effect (94. I allude to Dr. Brown- Sequard's observations on the
> > > transmitted effect of an operation causing epilepsy in guinea-pigs, and
> > > likewise more recently on the analogous effects of cutting the sympathetic
> > > nerve in the neck. I shall hereafter have occasion to refer to Mr.
> > > Salvin's interesting case of the apparently inherited effects of mot-mots > biting off the barbs of their own tail- feathers. See also on the general
> > > subject 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. ii.
> > > pp. 22-24.), it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the
> > > projecting part of the tail, being functionally useless, should after many
> > > generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually
> > > rubbed and chafed.
> >
> > So Darwin is referring to the work of other naturalists when making this
> > statement.
>
>
> Yes, and it makes it all so much more convincing, doesn't it? Which is
> what most all works of evolutionists. Establish their pseudo-authority
> upon the works of others. So tails chaff off and we know so because of
> what some other expert said.

This is how it works in *all* fields of study, not just science. People
build their work off of the works of others. This is true in history, in
art, in literature, in mathematics, *and* in science. Nobody, anywhere,
in any field, at any time, starts completely from scratch.

Do you consider Newton a pseudo-authority since he built his work off of
Kepler and Galileo?

You are the type specimen for Tom Nichols' "The Death of Expertise: The
Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters".

>
>
>
> > Okay, so we now know what Darwin said.
> >
> > What's your point?
>
>
> What's your point?

Darwin didn't get everything right - he had no concept of the *mechanism*
for heredity, so it's not surprising that he wouldn't reject that
"mutilations" theory for shortening tails out of hand.

It's been over *one hundred and fifty years* since "Origin" was printed -
a lot of knowledge has been acquired and refined in that time. Darwin
got the big picture mostly right - he was off on the details. So was
Newton.

[RonO]

What an idiot. What does this matter? Darwin didn't know about genetics.

Darwin was wrong over a hundred years ago. How does that change how
wrong you are today? What did Darwin get right and has been confirmed
by over a hundred years of research?

Why is it that you have no god did it example as good as the
verification of biological evolution?

You put up how Darwin was wrong once, and god did it creationists have
never been right a single time. What does that tell you when you have
no verified creation events ever. All have been failures, not just
some, but all. That is why you don't have any examples to put forward.

McCoy, how could anyone be as lame as you are for so long? Do you have
the capacity to learn anything or are you perpetually willfully ignorant?

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

I hadn't read through the book myself. This passage
surprises me; it seems Lamarckian, that a parent's
tail being damaged retards the growth of subsequent
offsprings' tails. The "Darwinian" idea would be
that a parent with less tail or none has a greater
reproductive fitness, in some environments, and that
characteristic is inherited. Probably, that the
tail is easy to get injured and maye infected,
and also it is in the way when you sit down.

Well, in fact he says in _The Descent of Man_
that "no explanation... has ever been given of
the loss of the tail." And then he says that
some closely related monkey species have long,
short, or almost no tail; that characteristics
may be preserved by "correlation" whether useful
or not (of course this has an explanation in
modern genetics), that disease or diet can affect
the form of an organism, and basically that pure
"natural selection" doesn't explain everything.

And so he shows, not that no evolutionary
explanation for a missing tail exists - but
that he finds it impossible to choose which
one is right. Even Lamarckism.

That happens, in science.

So, did you know that already?

[Ernest Major]

Darwin didn't have (and knew he didn't have) a working theory of
variation. (He didn't need one - the observed fact of variation was
sufficient to support evolution by natural selection, though with the
knowledge of the it would have been possible to argue that might be some
limit to variation short of universal common descent; Darwin's response
to that was to point to the great variation in historical times in
groups subjected to artificial selection, such as pigeons, and also not
to adopt universal common descent as a firm conclusion.)

Lamarckism is commonly taken nowadays to mean inheritance of acquired
characters, but that was the common wisdom of the time, and Darwin was
in hindsight insufficiently skeptical. Historians of science seem to
take the key point of Lamarck's theories as being not the inheritance of
acquired characters, but rather the ascent of species along the great
chain of being.

>
> Well, in fact he says in _The Descent of Man_
> that "no explanation... has ever been given of
> the loss of the tail." And then he says that
> some closely related monkey species have long,
> short, or almost no tail; that characteristics
> may be preserved by "correlation" whether useful
> or not (of course this has an explanation in
> modern genetics), that disease or diet can affect
> the form of an organism, and basically that pure
> "natural selection" doesn't explain everything.
>
> And so he shows, not that no evolutionary
> explanation for a missing tail exists - but
> that he finds it impossible to choose which
> one is right. Even Lamarckism.
>
> That happens, in science.
>
> So, did you know that already?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[RichD]

On March 19, Ron O wrote:
> Ever look at a human skeleton?
> Why are the human tail bones still connected to the muscles and
> tendons of monkey tails? Those tail bones still have a function, they
> just aren't extended out to a long tail.

tail bones have no function???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve04-BcEP94

scientists, sheesh!


--
Rich

[John Stockwell]

No, it was an out of context quote.

Here is the real quote:

From The Descent of Man:

" According to a popular impression, the absence of a tail is eminently distinctive of man; but as those apes which come nearest to him are destitute of this organ, its disappearance does not relate exclusively to man. The tail often differs remarkably in length within the same genus: thus in some species of Macacus it is longer than the whole body, and is formed of twenty-four vertebrae; in others it consists of a scarcely visible stump, containing only three or four vertebrae. In some kinds of baboons there are twenty-five, whilst in the mandrill there are ten very small stunted caudal vertebrae, or, according to Cuvier,[150] sometimes only five. The tail, whether it be long or short, almost always tapers towards the end; and this, I presume, results from the atrophy of the terminal muscles, together with their arteries and nerves, through disuse, leading to the atrophy of the terminal bones. But no explanation can at present be given of the great diversity which often occurs in its length. Here, however, we are more specially concerned with the complete external disappearance of the tail. Professor Broca has recently shewn[151] that the tail in all quadrupeds consists of two portions, generally separated abruptly from each other; the basal portion consists of vertebrae, more or less perfectly channelled and furnished with apophyses like ordinary vertebrae; whereas those of the terminal portion are not channelled, are almost smooth, and scarcely resemble true vertebrae. A tail, though not externally visible, is really present in man and the anthropomorphous apes, and is constructed on exactly the same pattern in both. In the terminal portion the vertabrae, constituting the os coccyx, are quite rudimentary, being much reduced in size and number. In the basal portion, the vertebrae are likewise few, are united firmly together, and are arrested in development; but they have been rendered much broader and flatter than the corresponding vertebrae in the tails of other animals: they constitute what Broca calls the accessory sacral vertebrae. These are of functional importance by supporting certain internal parts and in other ways; and their modification is directly connected with the erect or semi-erect attitude of man and the anthropomorphous apes. This conclusion is the more trustworthy, as Broca formerly held a different view, which he has now abandoned. The modification, therefore, of the basal caudal vertebrae in man and the higher apes may have been effected, directly or indirectly, through natural selection.

But what are we to say about the rudimentary and variable vertebrae of the terminal portion of the tail, forming the os coccyx? A notion which has often been, and will no doubt again be ridiculed, namely, that friction has had something to do with the disappearance of the external portion of the tail, is not so ridiculous as it at first appears. Dr. Anderson[152] states that the extremely short tail of Macacus brunneus is formed of eleven vertebrae, including the imbedded basal ones. The extremity is tendinous and contains no vertebrae; this is succeeded by five rudimentary ones, so minute that together they are only one line and a half in length, and these are permanently bent to one side in the shape of a hook. The free part of the tail, only a little above an inch in length, includes only four more small vertebrae. This short tail is carried erect; but about a quarter of its total length is doubled on to itself to the left; and this terminal part, which includes the hook-like portion, serves "to fill up the interspace between the upper divergent portion of the callosities"; so that the animal sits on it, and thus renders it rough and callous. Dr. Anderson thus sums up his observations: "These facts seem to me to have only one explanation; this tail, from its short size, is in the monkey's way when it sits down, and frequently becomes placed under the animal while it is in this attitude; and from the circumstance that it does not extend beyond the extremity of the ischial tuberosities, it seems as if the tail originally had been bent round by the will of the animal, into the interspace between the callosities, to escape being pressed between them and the ground, and that in time the curvature became permanent, fitting in of itself when the organ happens. to be sat upon." Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the surface of the tail should have been roughened and rendered callous, and Dr. Murie,[153] who carefully observed this species in the Zoological Gardens, as well as three other closely allied forms with slightly longer tails, says that when the animal sits down, the tail "is necessarily thrust to one side of the buttocks; and whether long or short its root is consequently liable to be rubbed or chafed." As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited effect,[154] it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the projecting part of the tail, being functionally useless, should after many generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually rubbed and chafed. We see the projecting part in this condition in the Macacus brunneus, and absolutely aborted in the M. ecaudatus and in several of the higher apes. Finally, then, as far as we can judge, the tail has disappeared in man and the anthropomorphous apes, owing to the terminal portion having been injured by friction during a long lapse of time; the basal and embedded portion having been reduced and modified, so as to become suitable to the erect or semi-erect position. "



There is a hint of Lamarckism here. Yet, there is sufficient evidence to indicate, in our modern view, that a stubby tail would tend to become injured and infected, and thus be eliminated as an external projection by natural selection.

[jillery]

What part of "tail bones still have a function" do you not understand?

Fundies, sheesh!

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

There's nothing that you quoted that takes away or adds to this:

As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited effect,[154] it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the projecting part of the tail, being functionally useless, should after many generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually rubbed and chafed.

This reminds me of quotes where an evolutionist admits the weakness of evolution ,and the talk origin guy quotes more from the evolutionist who claims that he is a firm believer of evolution. Like, just because the guy is a firm believer in evolution, doesn't take away from his admission to the weakness of evolution. Or the talk origin guy who writes a letter to the evolution guy and procures a letter stating that some creationist took him out of context. The normal process for determining if something is out of context is to quote the whole context. In this case, you quoted more of the context, and it seems to me that you're counting on people to take your statement "No, it was an out-of-context" to hold weight over what you quoted, which actually did nothing to subtract or add to the question.

[Sean Dillon]

As someone already asked, what exactly is the point here? That Darwin said something incorrect? If so, so what?

[John Stockwell]

No. What I pointed out is that you are a fool. Quoting Darwin is irrelevant,
because the science has advanced. Darwin is of historical interest only.


-John

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by RichD
<r_dela...@yahoo.com>:

>On March 19, Ron O wrote:

>> Ever look at a human skeleton?
>> Why are the human tail bones still connected to the muscles and
>> tendons of monkey tails? Those tail bones still have a function, they
>> just aren't extended out to a long tail.
>
>tail bones have no function???

Try reading for comprehension. From the above, referring to
human tail bones:

"Those tail bones still have a function, they just aren't
extended out to a long tail"

What do you suppose that might mean?

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve04-BcEP94
>
>scientists, sheesh!

Your disdain would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Eric]

Vestigial organs can have function and still be vestigial. An old 50 lb CRT television shot full of holes can still function as a boat anchor. That doesn't change the fact that it has lost its primary function, and only serves a rudimentary role compared to other televisions. The same for the human tailbone.

[Pro Plyd]

John Bode wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:29:55 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Interesting question.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, monkeys still have tails.
>
> What you're asking is why *apes* lost their tails.

Correct.

[Pro Plyd]

John Bode wrote:
> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:04:54 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 6:19:54 PM UTC-7, wdm...@verizon.net wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 3:29:55 PM UTC-4, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Interesting question.
>>>
>>> As has been noted elsewhere monkeys still have their tails. Some
>>> descendants of monkeys have lost their tails. Several people have
>>> offered adaptationist explanations, and these may be true. It is also
>>> quite possible that the loss of tails in apes is a result of neutral
>>> drift - which you should read about if you want to understand evolution.
>>> On a similar note, you might have asked why many primates cannot produce
>>> Vitamin C.

>> How did monkeys lose their tails, according to Darwin?
>>
>> "As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an
>> inherited effect, it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys,
>> the projecting part of the tail, being functional useless, should after
>> many generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being
>> continually rubbed and chafed."
>
> It would *really* help to name the work that the quote belongs to (in this
> case, it's "The Descent of Man", Chapter II). It would also help to
> reproduce the quote *in full*:
>
>> As we now have evidence that mutilations occasionally produce an inherited > effect (94. I allude to Dr. Brown- Sequard's observations on the
>> transmitted effect of an operation causing epilepsy in guinea-pigs, and
>> likewise more recently on the analogous effects of cutting the sympathetic
>> nerve in the neck. I shall hereafter have occasion to refer to Mr.
>> Salvin's interesting case of the apparently inherited effects of mot-mots > biting off the barbs of their own tail- feathers. See also on the general
>> subject 'Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. ii.
>> pp. 22-24.), it is not very improbable that in short-tailed monkeys, the
>> projecting part of the tail, being functionally useless, should after many
>> generations have become rudimentary and distorted, from being continually
>> rubbed and chafed.
>
> So Darwin is referring to the work of other naturalists when making this
> statement.

Contemporary to his time. We now know otherwise.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 21:15:32 -0600, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

But if you're a good little creationist you'll scream
that because Darwin didn't get this little bit 100%
right IT PROVES THAT HE DIDN'T GET *ANYTHING*
RIGHT AND THE (CHRISTIAN) BIBLE IS THUS
COMPLETELY CORRECT !!!