Section 46 Periodic Trends Of The Elements: Fill & Download for Free

HistoryAncient to early modern historyIn ancient Rome, the architectural feature called a vomitorium was the entranceway through which crowds entered and exited a stadium, not a special room used for purging food during meals.[1] Vomiting was not a regular part of Roman dining customs.[2]It is true that mean life expectancy in the Middle Ages and earlier was low; however, one should not infer that people usually died around the age of 30.[3] In fact, the low life expectancy is an average very strongly influenced by high infant mortality, and the life expectancy of people who lived to adulthood was much higher. A 21-year-old man in medieval England, for example, could by one estimate expect to live to the age of 64.[4]There is no evidence that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.[5] In fact, the image of Vikings wearing horned helmets stems from the scenography of an 1876 production of the Der Ring des Nibelungen opera cycle by Richard Wagner.[6]King Canute did not command the tide to reverse in a fit of delusional arrogance.[7] His intent that day, if the incident even happened, was most likely to prove a point to members of his privy council that no man is all-powerful, and we all must bend to forces beyond our control, such as the tides.There is no evidence that iron maidens were invented in the Middle Ages or even used for torture. Instead they were pieced together in the 18th century from several artifacts found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.[8]The plate armor of European soldiers did not stop soldiers from moving around or necessitate a crane to get them into a saddle. They would as a matter of course fight on foot and could mount and dismount without help. In fact soldiers equipped with plate armor were more mobile than those with chainmail armor, as chainmail was heavier and required stiff padding beneath due to its pliable nature.[9]Modern historians dispute the popular misconception that the chastity belt, a device designed to prevent women from having sexual intercourse, was invented in medieval times. Most existing chastity belts are now thought to be deliberate fakes or anti-masturbatory devices from the 19th and early 20th century. The latter were made due to thewidespread belief that masturbation could lead to insanity, and were mostly bought by parents for their teenage children.[10]Christopher Columbus's efforts to obtain support for his voyages were not hampered by a European belief in a flat Earth. Sailors andnavigators of the time knew that the Earth was roughly spherical, but (correctly) disagreed with Columbus's estimate of the distance toIndia, which was approximately one-sixth of the actual distance. If the Americas did not exist, and had Columbus continued to India, he would have run out of supplies before reaching it at the rate he was traveling. Without the ability to determine longitude at sea, he would not have learned that his estimate was an error in time to return. Many of the educated classes believed the Earth was spherical since the works of the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.[11][12] Eratosthenes made an accurate estimate of the Earth's diameter in approximately 240 BCE.[13] See also Myth of the Flat Earth.The First Thanksgiving (c. 1914) ByJean Leon Gerome Ferris. Many of the elements depicted in this painting are erroneous or anachronistic.Columbus did not "discover America" in the sense of identifying a new continent. Although some historians argue he knew he had found a land between Europe and Asia,[14] most of his writings show he thought he reached the eastern coast of Asia.[15] Most of the landings Columbus made on his four voyages, including the initial October 12, 1492 landing (the anniversary of which forms the basis of Columbus Day), were in the Caribbean Islands. Columbus was not the first European to visit the Americas: at least one explorer, Leif Ericson, preceded him by reaching what today is believed to be Newfoundland.There is a legend that Marco Polo imported pasta from China[16] which originated with theMacaroni Journal, published by an association of food industries with the goal of promoting the use of pasta in the United States.[17] Marco Polo describes a food similar to "lagana" in his Travels, but he uses a term with which he was already familiar. Durum wheat, and thus pasta as it is known today, was introduced by Arabs from Libya, during their conquest ofSicily in the late 7th century, according to the newsletter of the National Macaroni Manufacturers Association,[18] thus predating Marco Polo's travels to China by about six centuries.Contrary to the popular image of the Pilgrim Fathers, the early settlers of the Plymouth Colony did not necessarily wear all black, and their capotains (hats) were shorter and rounder than the widely depicted tall hat with a buckle on it. Instead, their fashion was based on that of the late Elizabethan era: doublets, jerkins and ruffs. Both men and women wore the same style of shoes, stockings, capes, coats and hats in a range of colors including reds, yellows, purples, and greens. Children of both sexes wore identical clothing: achemise, an ankle-length gown, an apron and a close fitting cap tied under the chin. At the age of seven, boys were "breeched", i.e. allowed to wear adult men's clothing.[19] According to Plimoth Plantation historian James W. Baker, the traditional image was formed in the 19th century when buckles were a kind of emblem of quaintness.The thanksgiving at Plymouth Colony, widely believed to be the "First Thanksgiving", was not the first day of thanksgiving on the North American continent. Preceding thanksgiving days were held at the Spanish colony of Saint Augustine, Florida in 1565,[20][21] inFrobisher Bay in 1578,[22] in French Canada beginning in 1604, in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607,[23] and at Berkeley Hundred in 1619,[24]in addition to numerous similarly themed indigenous celebrations.[25] The association of Thanksgiving Day with the Plymouth celebration was largely the work of 19th-century writer Sarah Josepha Hale, who campaigned over multiple decades for a permanent national Thanksgiving holiday.[26]Marie Antoinette did not say "let them eat cake" when she heard that the French peasantry were starving due to a shortage of bread. The phrase was first published in Rousseau's Confessions when Marie was only 10 years old and most scholars believe that Rousseaucoined it himself, or that it was said by Maria-Theresa, the wife of Louis XIV. Even Rousseau (or Maria-Theresa) did not use the exact words but actually Qu'ils mangent de la brioche ("Let them eat brioche [a rich type of bread]"). Marie Antoinette was an unpopular ruler; therefore, people attribute the phrase "let them eat cake" to her, in keeping with her reputation as being hard-hearted and disconnected from her subjects.[27]George Washington did not have wooden teeth. His dentures were made of gold, hippopotamus ivory, lead, and human and animal teeth (including horse and donkey teeth).[28]The signing of the United States Declaration of Independence did not occur on July 4, 1776. The final language of the document was approved by the Second Continental Congress on that date and it was printed and distributed on July 4 and 5,[29] but the actual signing occurred on August 2, 1776.[30]The United States Constitution was written on parchment, not hemp paper. However, drafts were likely written on hemp paper, as most paper at the time was made from hemp.[31]Modern historyNapoleon on the Bellerophon, a painting of Napoleon I byCharles Lock Eastlake. Napoleon was taller than his nickname, The Little Corporal, suggests.Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured) was not short; rather he was slightly taller than the average Frenchman of his time.[32][33] After his death in 1821, the French emperor’s height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches in French feet, which is 5 feet 7 inches (1.69 m).[34][35] Some believe that he was nicknamed le Petit Caporal (The Little Corporal) as a term of affection.[36]Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day, but the celebration of the Mexican Army's victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. Mexico's Independence from Spain is celebrated on September 16.[37][38]The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 was not caused by Mrs. O'Leary's cow kicking over a lantern. A newspaper reporter invented the story to make colorful copy.[39]The claim that Frederick Remington, on assignment to Cuba, telegraphed William Randolph Hearstthat "...There will be no war. I wish to return" and that Hearst responded, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war" is unsubstantiated. Although this claim is included in a book byJames Creelman, there is no evidence that the telegraph exchange ever happened, and substantial evidence that it did not.[40][41]The popular image of Santa Claus was not created by The Coca-Cola Company as an advertising gimmick; by the time Coca-Cola began using Santa Claus's image in the 1930s, Santa Claus had already taken his modern form in popular culture, having already seen extensive use in other companies' advertisements and other mass media.[42]Italian dictator Benito Mussolini did not "make the trains run on time". Much of the repair work had been performed before Mussolini and the Fascists came to power in 1922. Accounts from the era also suggest that the Italian railways' legendary adherence to timetables was more propaganda than reality.[43]There is no evidence of Polish cavalry mounting a brave but futile charge against German tanks using lances and sabres during the German invasion of Poland in 1939. This story may have originated from German propaganda efforts following the charge at Krojanty in which a Polish cavalry brigade surprised German infantry in the open and charged with sabres until driven off by armoured cars. While Polish cavalry still carried the sabre for such opportunities, they were trained to fight as highly mobile, dismounted cavalry (dragoons) and issued with light anti-tank weapons.[44][45]During the occupation of Denmark by the Nazis during World War II, King Christian X of Denmark did not thwart Nazi attempts to identify Jews by wearing a yellow star himself. Jews in Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David. The Danish resistance didhelp most Jews flee the country before the end of the war.[46]Albert Einstein did not fail mathematics in school, as is commonly believed. Upon being shown a column claiming this fact, Einstein said "I never failed in mathematics... Before I was fifteen I had mastered differential and integral calculus."[47][48] Einstein did however fail his first entrance exam into Federal Polytechnic School in 1895, although at the time he was two years younger than his fellow students and did exceedingly well in mathematics and science on the exam.[49]Actor Ronald Reagan was never seriously considered for the role of Rick Blaine in the 1942 film classic Casablanca, eventually played by Humphrey Bogart. This belief came from an early studio press release announcing the film's production that used his name to generate interest in the film. But by the time it had come out, Warner Bros. knew that Reagan was unavailable for any roles in the foreseeable future since he was no longer able to defer his entry into military service.[50] Studio records show that producer Hal B. Wallis had always wanted Bogart for the part.[51][52]U.S. Senator George Smathers never gave a speech to a rural audience describing his opponent, Claude Pepper, as an "extrovert" whose sister was a "thespian", in the apparent hope they would confuse them with similar-sounding words like "pervert" and "lesbian".Time, which is sometimes cited as the source, described the story of the purported speech as a "yarn" at the time,[53] and no Florida newspaper reported such a speech during the campaign. The leading reporter who covered Smathers said he always gave the same boilerplate speech. Smathers had offered US$10,000 to anyone who could prove he had made the speech; it was never claimed.[54]John F. Kennedy's words "Ich bin ein Berliner" are standard German for "I am a Berliner."[55][56] An urban legend has it that due to his use of the indefinite article ein, Berliner is translated as jelly doughnut, and that the population of Berlin was amused by the supposed mistake. The word Berliner is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the Berliner Pfannkuchen; they are usually called ein Pfannkuchen.[57]Eva Perón never uttered the quote "I will return and I will be millions". The quote was first formulated by the indigenous leader Túpac Katari in 1781 shortly before being executed. The misattribution to Eva Perón originates from a poem by José María Castiñeira de Dioswritten in Eva Perón's first-person narrative nearly ten years after her death. The quotation could have been inspired by a similar one in the contemporary film Spartacus.[58]The Rolling Stones were not performing "Sympathy for the Devil" at the 1969 Altamont Free Concert when Meredith Hunter was stabbed to death by a member of the local Hells Angels chapter that was serving as security. While the incident that culminated in Hunter's death began while the band was performing the song, prompting a brief interruption before the Stones finished it, it concluded several songs later as the band was performing "Under My Thumb".[59][60] The misconception arose from mistaken reporting in Rolling Stone.[61]GeneralDespite appearance to the contrary, death per capita due to warfare was much higher in earlier times.A common misconception often quoted by media, politicians, activists is that violence is on the rise and has historically been much lower.[62] Similarly, the trend in post-colonial anthropology has been to regard historically indigenous and tribal societies as more peaceful than contemporary Western society.[63][64] However, archaeological evidence shows that previous societies had very high level of violence.[65] Likewise, modern tribal societies typically too have extremely high rates of violence, with more than half of deaths being violence related in some cases.[66][67] Ancient and medieval empires had lower rates of violence, and the violence decreased further as empires became more organized.[68] Modern societies saw still lower rates of violence from the medieval period onwards, with significant decreases after World War II.[69][70] This trend is general across all categories of violence, from large-scale warfare to murder and animal cruelty, and the trend is discernible on both millennium, century and decade scale, making modern societies the most peaceful the world has even seen.[71]Legislation and crimeIt is rarely necessary to wait 24 hours before filing a missing person's report; in instances where there is evidence of violence or of an unusual absence, law enforcement agencies in the United States often stress the importance of beginning an investigation promptly.[72]The UK government Web site says explicitly in large type "You don’t have to wait 24 hours before contacting the police".[73]Entrapment law in the United States does not require police officers to identify themselves as police in the case of a sting or other undercover work.[74] The law is specifically concerned with enticing people to commit crimes they would not have considered in the normal course of events.[75]Embassies and consulates are not the territory of the country they represent, but remain part of the host country, although they do enjoy special legal protections in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, such as inviolability of diplomatic premises, which dictates that agents of the host state cannot enter without permission from the country represented.[76][77] Inviolability has been challenged, however: when Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was given asylum in the embassy of Ecuador in London, England, the British government threatened to arrest him based on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.[78]Food and cookingRoll-style Western sushi. Contrary to a popular misconception, sushi can contain any number of ingredients, including vegetables and other non-meat products.Searing meat does not "seal in" moisture, and in fact may actually cause meat to lose moisture. Generally, the value in searing meat is that it creates a brown crust with a rich flavor via the Maillard reaction.[79][80]Some people believe that food items cooked with wine or liquor will be totally non-alcoholic, because alcohol's low boiling point causes it to evaporate quickly when heated. However, a study found that some of the alcohol remains: 25 percent after one hour of baking or simmering, and 10 percent after two hours.[81][82]Monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a widespread reputation for triggering migraine headache exacerbations, but there are no consistent data to support this relationship. Although there have been reports of an MSG-sensitive subset of the population, this has not been demonstrated in placebo-controlled trials.[83][84]Sushi does not mean "raw fish", and not all sushi includes raw fish. The name sushi means "sour rice", and refers to vinegared rice.[85]Microwave ovens do not cook food from the inside out. Upon penetrating food, microwave radiation decays exponentially due to the skin effect and does not directly heat food significantly beyond the skin depth. As an example, lean meat has a skin depth of only about 1 centimeter (0.4 in) at microwave oven frequencies.[86]Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics. There are, however, other safety-related issues:electrical arcing may occur on pieces of metal not designed for use in a microwave oven, and metal objects may become hot enough to damage food, skin, or the interior of the oven. Metallic objects designed for microwave use can be used in a microwave with no danger; examples include the metalized surfaces used in browning sleeves and pizza-cooking platforms.[87]The functional principle of a microwave oven is not related to the resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many different frequencies. The resonance frequencies of water are about 20 GHz, which would be much too large to penetrate common foodstuffs. Microwave ovens work on the principle of dielectric heating.[88]The Twinkie does not have an infinite shelf life; its listed shelf life is approximately 45 days[89] (25 in its original formulation)[90] and generally remains on a store shelf for only 7 to 10 days.[91]Words and phrasesMain articles: List of common false etymologies and Common English usage misconceptionsNon-standard, slang or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words. For instance, despite appearing as a word in numerous dictionaries,[92] "irregardless" is sometimes dismissed as "not a word".[93][94] All words in English originated by becoming commonly used during a certain period of time, thus there are many informal words currently regarded as "incorrect" in formal speech or writing. But the idea that they are somehow not words is a misconception.[95] Examples of words that are sometimes alleged not to be words include "conversate", "funnest", "mentee", "impactful", and "thusly".[96] All of these appear in numerous dictionaries as English words.[97]The word "fuck" did not originate in Christianized Anglo-Saxon England (7th century CE) as an acronym for "Fornication Under Consent of King"; nor did it originate as an acronym for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", either as a sign posted above adulterers in the stocks, or as a criminal charge against members of the British Armed Forces; nor did it originate during the 15th-century Battle of Agincourt as a corruption of "pluck yew" (an idiom falsely attributed to the English for drawing a longbow).[98] Modern English was not spoken until the 16th century, and words such as "fornication" and "consent" did not exist in any form in English until the influence of Anglo-Normanin the late 12th century. The earliest recorded use of "fuck" in English comes from c. 1475, in the poem "Flen flyys", where it is spelledfuccant (conjugated as if a Latin verb meaning "they fuck"). It is of Proto-Germanic origin, and is related to either Dutch fokken and German ficken or Norwegian fukka.[99]The word "crap" did not originate as a back-formation of British plumber Thomas Crapper's surname, nor does his name originate from the word "crap", although the surname may have helped popularize the word.[100] The surname "Crapper" is a variant of "Cropper", which originally referred to someone who harvested crops.[101][102] The word "crap" ultimately comes from Medieval Latin crappa, meaning "chaff".[103]It is frequently rumored that the expression "rule of thumb", which is used to indicate a technique for generating a quick estimate, was originally coined from a law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick, provided it was not thicker than the width of his thumb.[104] In fact, the origin of this phrase remains uncertain, but the false etymology has been broadly reported in media including The Washington Post (1989), CNN (1993), and Time magazine (1983).[105]"Golf" did not originate as an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden".[106] The word's true origin is unknown, but it existed in the Middle Scots period.[107][108][109]The word "gringo" did not originate during the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), the Venezuelan War of Independence (1811–1823), the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), or in the American Old West (c. 1865–1899) as a corruption of the lyrics "green grow" in either "Green Grow the Lilacs" or "Green Grow the Rushes, O" sung by US-American soldiers or cowboys;[110] nor did it originate during any of these times as a corruption of "Green go home!", falsely said to have been shouted at green-clad American troops.[111] The word originally simply meant "foreigner", and is probably a corruption of Spanish griego, "Greek".[112]"Xmas" used on a Christmas postcard (1910)"420" did not originate as the Los Angeles police or penal code for marijuana use.[113] Police Code 420 means "juvenile disturbance",[114] and California Penal Code section 420 prohibits the obstruction of access to public land.[113][115] The use of "420" started in 1971 at San Rafael High School, where it indicated the time 4:20 pm, when a group of students would go to smoke under the statue of Louis Pasteur.[113]Despite being commonly believed today, people during the Old and Middle English speaking periods never pronounced or spelled "the" as "ye".[116] The confusion derives from the use of the characterthorn (þ) in abbreviations of the word "the", which in Middle English text () looked similar to a y with a superscript e.[117][118]"Xmas" is not a secular plan to "take the Christ out of Christmas".[119] X stands for the Greek letterChi, the starting letter of Χριστός, or "Christ" in Greek.[120] The use of the word "Xmas" can be traced to the year 1021 when "monks in Great Britain...used the X while transcribing classical manuscripts into Old English" in place of "Christ".[119] The Oxford English Dictionary's "first recorded use of 'Xmas' for 'Christmas' dates back to 1551."[121]The expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not come from an ancient Arab saying. Instead it comes from the Indian Kautilya. [122]ScienceSee also: Tornado myths and List of misconceptions about illegal drugsAstronomyA satellite image of a section of theGreat Wall of China, running diagonally from lower left to upper right (not to be confused with the much more prominent river running from upper left to lower right). The region pictured is 12 by 12 kilometres (7.5 mi × 7.5 mi).It is commonly claimed that the Great Wall of China is the only human-made object visible from the Moon. This is false. None of the Apollo astronauts reported seeing any specific human-made object from the Moon, and even Earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it. City lights, however, are easily visible on the night side of Earth from orbit.[123] Shuttle astronaut Jay Apt has been quoted as saying that "the Great Wall is almost invisible from only 180 miles (290 km) up."[124] (See Man-made structures visible from space.) ISScommander Chris Hadfield attempted to find it from space, but said that it was "hard as it's narrow and dun-colored."[125]Black holes, contrary to their common image, do not necessarily suck up all the matter in the vicinity.[126] If, for example, the Sun were replaced by a black hole of equal mass, the orbits of the planets would be essentially unaffected, but in other situations a black hole can act like a cosmic vacuum cleaner and pull a substantial inflow of matter.[127]Seasons are not caused by the Earth being closer to the Sun in the summer than in the winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the Sun when it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere. Seasons are caused by Earth's 23.4-degree axial tilt. As the Earth orbits the Sun, different parts of the world receive different amounts of direct sunlight. When an area of the Earth's surface is oriented perpendicular to the incoming sunlight, it receives more radiation than when it is oriented at an oblique angle. In July, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun resulting in longer days and more direct sunlight; in January, it is tilted away. The seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere, which is tilted towards the Sun in January and away from the Sun in July.[128][129]Further information: Effect of sun angle on climateMeteorites are not necessarily hot when they reach the Earth. In fact, many meteorites are found with frost on them. As they enter the atmosphere, having been warmed only by the sun, meteors have a temperature below freezing. The intense heat produced during passage through the upper atmosphere at very high speed then melts a meteor's outside layer, but molten material is blown off and the interior does not have time to warm appreciably. Most meteorites fall through the relatively cool lower atmosphere for as long as several minutes at subsonic velocity before reaching the ground, giving plenty of time for their exterior to cool off again.[130]When a spacecraft reenters the atmosphere, the heat of reentry is not (primarily) caused by friction, but by adiabatic compression of airin front of the spacecraft.[131][132]BiologySee also: Common misunderstandings of geneticsVertebratesIt is a misconception that older elephants, sensing when they are near death, leave their herd and instinctively direct themselves toward a specific location known as an elephants' graveyard to die.[133]Bulls are not enraged by the color red, used in capes by professional matadors. Cattle are dichromats, so red does not stand out as a bright color. It is not the color of the cape, but the perceived threat by the matador that incites it to charge.[134]Contrary to popular belief, dogs do not sweat by salivating.[135] It is not true that dogs do not have sweat glands or have sweat glands only on their tongues. They do sweat, mainly through the footpads. However, dogs do primarily regulate their body temperature through panting.[136] See also Dog anatomy.Lemmings do not engage in mass suicidal dives off cliffs when migrating. They will, however, occasionally unintentionally fall off cliffs when venturing into unknown territory, with no knowledge of the boundaries of the environment.[citation needed] This misconception was popularized by the Disney film White Wilderness, which shot many of the migration scenes (also staged by using multiple shots of different groups of lemmings) on a large, snow-covered turntable in a studio. Photographers later pushed the lemmings off a cliff.[137]The misconception itself is much older, dating back to at least the late 19th century.[138]Bats are not blind. While many (most) bat species use echolocation as a primary sense, all bat species have eyes and are capable of sight. Furthermore, not all bats can echolocate and these bats have excellent night vision (see megabat, vs. microbat).[139]Ostriches do not hide their heads in the sand to hide from enemies.[140] This misconception was probably promulgated by Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79), who wrote that ostriches "imagine, when they have thrust their head and neck into a bush, that the whole of their body is concealed."[141]It is not harmful to baby birds to pick them up and return them to their nests, despite the common belief that doing so will cause the mother to reject them.[142] Some birds have limited sense of smell, and many species primarily rely on visual cues. It is however still best to leave a baby bird alone, as the parents will usually be close by.[143]The claim[144] that a duck's quack does not echo is false, although the echo may be difficult to hear for humans under some circumstances.[145]The notion that goldfish have a memory span of just a few seconds is false.[146][147] It is much longer, counted in months.A common misconception about chameleons and anoles is that the advantage of changing color is camouflage. In reality, changing color helps to regulate temperature and is used as a form of communication.[148] Some species, such as the Smith's Dwarf Chameleon, do change color as an effective form of camouflage.[149]Sharks can actually suffer from cancer. The misconception that sharks do not get cancer was spread by the 1992 Avery Publishingbook Sharks Don't Get Cancer by I. William Lane and used to sell extracts of shark cartilage as cancer prevention treatments. Reports of carcinomas in sharks exist, and current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in sharks.[150]InvertebratesBombus pratorum over an Echinacea purpurea inflorescence; a widespread misconception holds that bumblebees should be incapable of flight.It is a common misconception that an earthworm becomes two worms when cut in half. However, only a limited number of earthworm species[151] are capable of anteriorregeneration. When such earthworms are bisected, only the front half of the worm (where the mouth is located) can feed and survive, while the other half dies.[152] Species of the planariafamily of flatworms actually do become two new planaria when bisected or split down the middle.[153]Houseflies do not have an average lifespan of 24 hours. The average lifespan of a housefly is 20 to 30 days.[154] However, a housefly maggot will hatch within 24 hours of being laid.[155]According to urban legend, the daddy longlegs spider (Pholcus phalangioides) is the mostvenomous spider in the world, but the shape of their mandibles leaves them unable to bite humans, rendering them harmless to our species. In reality, they can indeed pierce human skin, though the tiny amount of venom they carry causes only a mild burning sensation for a few seconds.[156] In addition, there is also confusion regarding the use of the name daddy longlegs, because harvestmen (order Opiliones, which are arachnids, but not spiders) and crane flies (which are insects) are also known as daddy longlegs, and share the misconception of being venomous.[157][158]The flight mechanism and aerodynamics of the bumblebee (as well as other insects) are actually quite well understood, in spite of the urban legend that calculations show that they should not be able to fly. In the 1930s, the French entomologist Antoine Magnan, using flawed techniques, indeed postulated that bumblebees theoretically should not be able to fly in his book Le Vol des Insectes (The Flight of Insects).[159] Magnan later realized his error and retracted the suggestion. However, the hypothesis became generalized to the false notion that "scientists think that bumblebees should not be able to fly".PlantsSunflowers with the sun clearly visiblebehind them.Poinsettias are not highly toxic to humans or cats. While it is true that they are mildly irritating to the skin or stomach,[160] and may sometimes cause diarrhea and vomiting if eaten,[161] an American Journal of Emergency Medicine study of 22,793 cases reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers showed no fatalities and few cases requiring medical treatment.[162] According to the ASPCA, poinsettias may cause light to mid-range gastrointestinal discomfort in felines, with diarrhea and vomiting as the most severe consequences of ingestion.[163]Flowering sunflowers do not track the Sun across the sky.[164][165] The heads point in a fixed direction (East) all day long.[166] However, in an earlier development stage, before the appearance of flower heads, the buds do track the sun and the fixed alignment of the mature flowers is a result of this heliotropism.[167]EvolutionFurther information: Introduction to evolution and Objections to evolutionThe word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory andhypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, ascientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[168][169] "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",[170] and evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory or the theory of gravitation.[171]Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life[172] or the origin and development of the universe. While biological evolution describes the process by which species and other levels of biological organisation originate, and ultimately leads all life forms back to auniversal common ancestor, it is not primarily concerned with the origin of life itself,[173] and does not pertain at all to the origin andevolution of the universe and its components. The theory of evolution deals primarily with changes in successive generations over time after life has already originated.[174] The scientific model concerned with the origin of the first organisms from organic or inorganic molecules is known as abiogenesis, and the prevailing theory for explaining the early development of our universe is the Big Bangmodel.A reconstruction of Aegyptopithecus, a primate predating the split between the human and Old World monkey lineages inhuman evolutionHumans did not evolve from chimpanzees.[175] The two modern species (common chimpanzees and bonobos) are, however, humans' closest living relatives. The most recent common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived between 5 and 8 million years ago.[176]Finds of the 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus indicate the ancestor was a moderately competent bipedal walker rather than a knucklewalker, and was small and rather more long limbed than a chimpanzee and with a shorter snout. Contrary to the idea of chimpanzees as "primitive", they too have evolved since the split, becoming larger, more aggressive and more capable climbers.[177] Together with the other apes, humans and chimpanzees constitute the family Hominidae. This group evolved from a common ancestor with the Old World monkeys some 40 million years ago.[178][179]Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in an increase in complexity. A population can evolve to become simpler, having a smaller genome, but biological devolution is a misnomer.[180][181]Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A common argument against evolution is that entropy, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases over time, and thus evolution could not produce increased complexity. However, the law does not refer to complexity and only applies to closed systems,[182] which the Earth is not, as it absorbs and radiates the Sun's energy.[183]See also: Entropy and lifeEvolution does not "plan" to improve an organism's fitness to survive.[184][185] For example, an incorrect way to describe giraffe evolution is to say that giraffe necks grew longer over time because they needed to reach tall trees. Evolution does not see a need and respond, it is instead a goalless process. A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes. Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks.[186] In the giraffe example, the evolution of a long neck may equally well have been driven by sexual selection, proposing that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests over females.[187] The misconception is encouraged as it is common shorthand for people who understand how evolution works to speak of a purpose as a concise form of expression (sometimes called the "metaphor of purpose");[188] it is less cumbersome to say "Dinosaurs may have evolved feathers for courtship" than "Feathers may have been selected for when they arose as they gave dinosaurs a selective advantage over their non-feathered peers".[189]Humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs did not coexist.[190] The last of the non-avian dinosaurs died 66 million years ago in the course of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, whereas the earliest Homo genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago. This places a 63 million year expanse of time between the last non-bird dinosaurs and the earliest humans.Tyrannosaurus rex. Non-aviandinosaurs died out in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event at the end of theCretaceous period.Dinosaurs did not become extinct due to being generally maladapted or unable to cope with normal climatic change, a view found in many older textbooks. In fact, dinosaurs comprised an extremely adaptive and successful group, whose demise was brought about by an extraordinary event that also extinguished many groups of plants, mammals and marine life.[191] The most commonly cited cause is that of an asteroid impact on the Yucatán Peninsula, triggering the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[192] Also, not all dinosaurs went extinct. Birds evolved from small feathered theropods in the Jurassic, and while most dinosaur lineages were cut short at the end of the Cretaceous, some birds survived. Consequently, dinosaur descendants are part of the modern fauna.[193]Mammals did not evolve from any modern group of reptiles. Soon after the first reptiles appeared, they split into two branches, the sauropsids and the synapsids.[194] The line leading to mammals diverged from the line leading to modern reptilian lines (the sauropsids) about 320 million years ago, in the mid Carboniferous period. Only later (in the late Carboniferous or early Permian) did the modern reptilian groups (lepidosaurs, turtles and crocodiles) diverge. The mammals themselves, being the only survivors of the synapsid line, are the "cousins" rather than "siblings" of modern reptiles.[195]Human body and healthWaking sleepwalkers does not harm them. While it is true that a person may be confused or disoriented for a short time after awakening, this does not cause them further harm. In contrast, sleepwalkers may injure themselves if they trip over objects or lose their balance while sleepwalking. Such injuries are common among sleepwalkers.[196][197]In South Korea, it is commonly and incorrectly believed that sleeping in a closed room with an electric fan running can be fatal. According to the Korean government, "In some cases, a fan turned on too long can cause death from suffocation, hypothermia, or fire from overheating." The Korea Consumer Protection Board issued a consumer safety alert recommending that electric fans be set on timers, direction changed and doors left open. Belief in fan death is common even among knowledgeable medical professionals in Korea. According to Yeon Dong-su, dean of Kwandong University's medical school, "If it is completely sealed, then in the current of an electric fan, the temperature can drop low enough to cause a person to die of hypothermia."[198] Whereas an air conditioner transfers heat from the air and cools it, a fan moves air without change of temperature to increase the evaporation of sweat. Leaving a fan running in an unoccupied room will not cool it; in fact, due to energy losses from the motor and viscous dissipation, a fan will slightly heat a room.Eating less than an hour before swimming does not increase the risk of experiencing muscle cramps or drowning. One study shows a correlation between alcohol consumption and drowning, but there is no evidence cited regarding stomach cramps or the consumption of food.[199]Drowning is often thought to be a violent struggle, where the victim waves and calls for help.[200] In truth, drowning is often inconspicuous to onlookers. In most cases, raising the arms and vocalising are impossible due to the instinctive drowning response.[200] Waving and yelling (known as "aquatic distress") is a sign of trouble, but not a dependable one: most victims demonstrating the instinctive drowning response do not show prior evidence of distress.[201]It is a common misconception that hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant or antiseptic for treating wounds.[202][203] While it is an effective cleaning agent, hydrogen peroxide is not an effective agent for reducing bacterial infection of wounds. Furthermore, hydrogen peroxide applied to wounds can impede healing and lead to scarring because it destroys newly formed skin cells.[204]The caduceus, a symbol featuring two snakes around a staff, is often mistakenly used as a symbol of medicine instead of the Rod of Asclepius, which features a single snake around a staff. This error was popularised largely because of its adoption in the insignia of theUS Army medical corps at the insistence of an officer.[205][206]Human blood in veins is not blue. In fact, blood is always red due to hemoglobin. Deoxygenated blood has a deep red color, and oxygenated blood has a light cherry-red color. The misconception probably arises for two reasons: 1) Veins below the skin appear blue. This is due to a variety of reasons only weakly dependent on the color of the blood, including light scattering through the skin, and human color perception. 2) From the way diagrams use colors to show the difference between veins (usually shown in blue) and arteries(usually shown in red).[207]Exposure to a vacuum, or experiencing uncontrolled decompression, does not cause the body to explode, or internal fluids to boil. Instead, it would lead to a loss of consciousness once the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood, followed by death fromhypoxia within minutes.[208]Antibiotics do not cure the common cold, because it is caused by a virus infection against which antibiotics are useless. Using antibiotics against the common cold might contribute to antibiotic resistance.[209][210][211]A person doesn't become resistant to certain antibiotics. It is a strain of microorganisms that can become resistant, not a person's body.[212][213]SensesAn incorrect map of the tongue showing zones which taste bitter (1), sour (2), salty (3) and sweet (4). In reality, all zones can sense all tastes.All different tastes can be detected on all parts of the tongue by taste buds,[214] with slightly increased sensitivities in different locations depending on the person, contrary to the popular belief that specific tastes only correspond to specific mapped sites on the tongue.[215] The original tongue map was based on a mistranslation of a 1901 German thesis[216] by Edwin Boring. In addition, there are not 4 but 5 primary tastes. In addition to bitter, sour, salty, and sweet, humans have taste receptors for umami, which is a savory or meaty taste.[217]Humans have more than the commonly cited five senses. Although definitions vary, the actual number ranges from 9 to more than 20. In addition to sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing, which were the senses identified by Aristotle, humans can sense balance and acceleration (equilibrioception), pain (nociception), body and limb position (proprioception or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature (thermoception).[218] Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood carbon dioxide levels.[219][220]Skin and hairWater-induced wrinkles are not caused by the skin absorbing water and swelling.[221] They are caused by the autonomic nervous system, which triggers localized vasoconstriction in response to wet skin, yielding a wrinkled appearance. This may have evolved because it gives ancestral primates a better grip in slippery, wet environments.[222][223]Shaving does not cause terminal hair to grow back thicker or coarser or darker. This belief is due to hair which has never been cut having a tapered end, whereas after cutting there is no taper; the cut hair appears to be thicker, and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges. The shorter hairs being "harder" (less flexible) than longer hairs also contributes to this effect.[224]Hair and fingernails do not continue to grow after a person dies. Rather, the skin dries and shrinks away from the bases of hairs and nails, giving the appearance of growth.[225]Hair care products cannot actually "repair" split ends and damaged hair. They can prevent damage from occurring in the first place, and they can also smooth down the cuticle in a glue-like fashion so that it appears repaired, and generally make hair appear in better condition.[226]The redhead gene is not becoming extinct. In August 2007, many news organizations reported that redheads would become extinct, possibly as early as 2060, due to the gene for red hair being recessive. Although redheads may become more rare (for example, mixed marriages where one parent is from a group without the redhead gene will result in no children, but some grandchildren, with red hair), they will not die out unless everyone who carries the gene dies or fails to reproduce.[227] This misconception has been around since at least 1865, and often resurfaces in American newspapers.[228] (See also Disappearing blonde gene.)Nutrition, food, and drinkEight glasses or two to three litres of water a day are not needed to maintain health.[229] The amount of water needed varies by person (weight), activity level, clothing, and environment (heat and humidity). Water actually need not be drunk in pure form, but can be derived from liquids such as juices, tea, milk, soups, etc., and from foods including fruits and vegetables.[229]Sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children.[230][231] Double-blind trials have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or those considered sensitive to sugar.[232]Alcoholic beverages do not make one warmer.[233] The reason that alcoholic drinks create the sensation of warmth is that they cause blood vessels to dilate and stimulate nerve endings near the surface of the skin with an influx of warm blood. This can actually result in making the core body temperature lower, as it allows for easier heat exchange with a cold external environment.[234]Alcohol does not necessarily kill brain cells.[235] Alcohol can, however, lead indirectly to the death of brain cells in two ways: (1) In chronic, heavy alcohol users whose brains have adapted to the effects of alcohol, abrupt cessation following heavy use can causeexcitotoxicity leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain.[236] (2) In alcoholics who get most of their daily calories from alcohol, a deficiency of thiamine can produce Korsakoff's syndrome, which is associated with serious brain damage.[237]It is untrue that a vegetarian or vegan diet cannot provide enough protein for adequate nutrition.[238][239] In fact, typical protein intakes ofovo-lacto vegetarians and vegans meet and exceed requirements.[240] However, a strict vegan diet does require supplementation ofvitamin B12 for optimal health.[238]Swallowed chewing gum does not take seven years to digest. In fact, chewing gum is mostly indigestible, and passes through the digestive system at the same rate as other matter.[241][242]Human sexualityThere is no physiological basis for the belief that having sex in the days leading up to a sporting event or contest is detrimental to performance.[243] In fact it has been suggested that sex prior to sports activity can elevate the levels of testosterone in males, which could potentially enhance their performance.[244]BrainGolgi-stained neurons in human hippocampal tissue. It is commonly believed that humans will not grow new brain cells, but research has shown that some neurons can reform in humans.Mental abilities are not absolutely separated into the left and right cerebral hemispheres of the brain.[245] Some mental functions such as speech and language (e.g. Broca's area,Wernicke's area) tend to activate one hemisphere of the brain more than the other, in some kinds of tasks. If one hemisphere is damaged at an early age, these functions can often be recovered in part or even in full by the other hemisphere (see Neuroplasticity). Other abilities such as motor control, memory, and general reasoning are served equally by the two hemispheres.[246]Until recently[when?], medical experts believed that humans were born with all of the brain cells they would ever have.[247] We now know that new neurons can be created in thepostnatal brain. Researchers have observed adult neurogenesis in avians,[248] Old World Primates,[249] and humans.[250] Adults of these species retain multipotent (see cell potency) neural stem cells in the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles and subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus.[251][252] The newborn neurons generated in these areas migrate to theolfactory bulb and the dentate gyrus, respectively, and are believed to integrate into existing neural circuits. The function and physiological significance of adult-born neurons remains unclear. Some studies have suggested that post-natal neurogenesis also occurs in the neocortex,[253][254][255] an idea that is disputed.[256]Vaccines do not cause autism or autism spectrum disorders. Although fraudulent research by Andrew Wakefield claimed a connection, repeated attempts to reproduce the results ended in failure, and the research was ultimately shown to have been manipulated.[257]People do not use only ten percent of their brains. While it is true that a small minority of neurons in the brain are actively firing at any one time, the inactive neurons are important too.[258][259] This misconception has been commonplace in American culture at least as far back as the start of the 20th century, and was attributed to William James, who apparently used the expression metaphorically.[260]DiseaseSee also: Misconceptions about HIV and AIDSDrinking milk or consuming other dairy products does not increase mucus production.[261][262] As a result, they do not need to be avoided by those suffering from flu or cold congestion.Humans cannot catch warts from toads or other animals; the bumps on a toad are not warts.[263] Warts on human skin are caused by viruses that are unique to humans (human papillomavirus).Neither cracking one's knuckles nor exercising while in good health causes osteoarthritis.[264][265]Eating nuts, popcorn, or seeds does not increase the risk of diverticulitis.[266] These foods may actually have a protective effect.[267]The Trendelenburg position (lying on the back with the feet elevated) for treating hypotension or shock is not supported by evidence and may in fact be harmful.[268]Stress plays a relatively minor role in hypertension - contrary to common belief.[269] Specific relaxation therapies are not supported by the evidence.[270] Acute stress has been shown to temporarily increase blood-pressure levels.[269] Evidence from observational studies has shown a possible association between chronic stress and a sustained rise in high blood-pressure.[269] From the medical perspective, stress plays a small part in hypertension, whereas a recurring theme in studies of the attitudes of lay people was that stress was by far the most important cause.[269]In those with the common cold the color of the sputum or nasal secretion may vary from clear to yellow to green and does not indicate the class of agent causing the infection.[271][272]Materials scienceGlass does not flow at room temperature as a high-viscosity liquid.[273] Although glass shares some molecular properties found in liquids, glass at room temperature is an "amorphous solid" that only begins to flow above the glass transition temperature,[274] though the exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among theorists and scientists.[275] Panes of stained glass windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used at the time. Normally the thick end of glass would be installed at the bottom of the frame, but it is also common to find old windows where the thicker end has been installed to the sides or the top.[274][275] No such distortion is observed in other glass objects, such as sculptures or optical instruments, that are of similar or even greater age. One researcher estimated in 1998 that for glass to actually flow at room temperatures would take many times the age of the earth.[274][275][276]Most diamonds are not formed from highly compressed coal. More than 99 percent of diamonds ever mined have formed in the conditions of extreme heat and pressure about 90 miles (140 km) below the earth's surface. Coal is formed from prehistoric plants close to earth surface, and is unlikely to migrate below 2 miles (3.2 km) through common geological processes. Most diamonds that have been dated are older than the first land plants, and are therefore older than coal. It is possible that diamonds can form from coal insubduction zones and in meteoroid impacts, but diamonds formed this way are rare and the carbon source is more likely carbonate rocks rather than coal.[277]MathematicsWhen an event with equally probable outcomes comes out the same way several times in succession, the other outcome is not more likely next time. For example, if a roulette[note 1] ball ends up on black many times in a row, and not once on red (as reportedly happened 26 times on August 18, 1913, in the Monte Carlo Casino[278]), the next ball is not more likely to land on red; red is not "due"[279] For a fair wheel, neither is red less likely. This misconception is known as the gambler's fallacy; in reality statistical independence holds, and red is just as likely or unlikely on the next spin as always—sometimes expressed as "the system has no memory". If the event is physically determined, and not perfectly random, the repeated outcome may be more likely. For example, a die that has rolled a six ten consecutive times might be loaded or controlled by hidden magnets, and would be more likely to roll another six. The misconception is due to the true fact that, before starting to roll, probability theory predicts that a run of the same colour several times in succession is unlikely, increasingly so the longer the run.There is no evidence that the ancient Greeks designed the Parthenon to deliberately match the golden ratio.[280][281] The Parthenon was completed in 438 BC, more than a century before the first recorded mention of the ratio by Euclid. Similarly, Leonardo da Vinci'sVitruvian Man makes no mention of the golden ratio in its text, although it describes many other proportions.[282][283]PhysicsThe Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for the origin of the universe; rather, it explains its early evolution.[284]An illustration of the (incorrect) equal-transit-time explanation of airfoil lift.It is not true that air takes the same time to travel above and below an aircraft's wing.[285] This misconception, sometimes called the equal transit-time fallacy, is widespread among textbooks and non-technical reference books, and even appears in pilot training materials. In fact the air moving over the top of an airfoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply,[285] as described in the incorrect and correct explanations of lift force.Blowing over a curved piece of paper does not demonstrate Bernoulli's principle. Although a common classroom experiment is often explained this way,[286] it is false to make a connection between the flow on the two sides of the paper using Bernoulli’s equation since the air above and below are different flow fields and Bernoulli's principle only applies within a flow field.[287] The paper rises because the air follows the curve of the paper and a curved streamline will develop pressure differences perpendicular to the airflow.[288] Bernoulli's principle predicts that the decrease in pressure is associated with an increase in speed, i.e. that as the air passes over the paper it speeds up and moves faster than it was moving when it left the demonstrator's mouth. But this is not apparent from the demonstration.[289]The Coriolis effect does not determine the direction that water rotates in a bathtub drain or a flushing toilet.[290] The Coriolis effect, while it indeed exists, is induced by the Earth's daily rotation and is far too weak to affect the direction of water in a typical bathtub drain. The effect becomes significant and noticeable only at much larger scales, such as in weather systems or oceanic currents. Other forces dominate the dynamics of water in drains.[291]Gyroscopic forces or geometric trail are not required for a rider to balance a bicycle or for it to demonstrate self-stability.[292][293]Although gyroscopic forces and trail can be contributing factors, it has been demonstrated that neither are required nor sufficient by themselves.[292]The idea that lightning never strikes the same place twice is one of the oldest and most well-known superstitions about lightning. There is no reason that lightning would not be able to strike the same place twice; if there is a thunderstorm in a given area, then objects and places which are more prominent or conductive (and therefore minimize distance) are more likely to be struck. For instance, lightning strikes the Empire State Building in New York City about 100 times per year.[294][295]A penny dropped from the Empire State Building will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk.[296] The terminal velocity of a falling penny is about 30–50 miles per hour (48–80 km/h), and the penny will not exceed that speed regardless of the height from which it is dropped. At that speed, its energy is not enough to penetrate a human skull or crack concrete, as demonstrated on an episode of MythBusters. As MythBusters noted, the Empire State Building is a particularly poor setting for this misconception, since its tapered shape would make it impossible to drop anything directly from the top to street level.When the ambient temperature is low, temporarily decreasing the temperature setting on a building's programmable thermostat (e.g. at night or when it is unoccupied) rather than maintaining a steady temperature can save a significant amount of energy.[297] A common myth is that if the building is allowed to cool, its furnace has to "work harder" to reheat it to a comfortable temperature, counteracting or even exceeding the energy saved while the temperature was allowed to drop. Actually this practice can result in energy savings of five to fifteen percent as the heat lost by a warm structure in a cold environment is proportional to the heat difference between the inside and outside of the structure.PsychologyThere is no scientific evidence for the existence of “photographic” or eidetic memory (the ability to remember images with so high a precision as to mimic a camera).[298] Many people have claimed to have a photographic memory, but those people have been shown to have good memories as a result of mnemonic devices rather than a natural capacity for detailed memory encoding.[299] There are rare cases of individuals with exceptional memory, but none of them has a memory that mimics a camera. In recent years, a phenomenon labeled hyperthymesia has been studied, where individuals have superior autobiographical memory—in some cases being able to recall every meal they have ever eaten. One example is actress Marilu Henner.[300]Schizophrenia is not the same thing as dissociative identity disorder, namely split or multiple personalities.[301] Etymologically, the term "schizophrenia" comes from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind") and is ajuxtaposition proposed by the Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler, which may have given rise to this common misconception.SportsMarcos Torregrosa wearing a black belt with a red bar. In some martial arts, such as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Judo, red belts indicate a higher rank than black. In some cases, a solid red belt is reserved for the founder of the art, and in others, higher degrees of black belts are shown by red stripes.Abner Doubleday did not invent baseball.[302][303] (See Origins of baseball.)The black belt in martial arts does not necessarily indicate expert level or mastery. It was introduced for judo in the 1880s to indicate competency of all of the basic techniques of the sport. Promotion beyond black belt varies among different martial arts. In judo and some other Asian martial arts, holders of higher ranks are awarded belts with alternating red and white panels, and the highest ranks with solid red belts.[304]ReligionHebrew BibleThe forbidden fruit mentioned in the Book of Genesis is commonly assumed to be an apple,[305] and is widely depicted as such in Western art. However, the Bible does not identify what type of fruit it is. The original Hebrew texts mention only tree and fruit. Early Latin translations use the word mali, which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and John Milton's Areopagitica from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.[306] Jewish scholars suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, an apricot or an etrog.[307]BuddhismThe historical Buddha was not obese. The "chubby Buddha" or "laughing Buddha" is a 10th-century Chinese folk hero by the name of Budai. In Chinese Buddhist culture, Budai came to be revered as an incarnation of Maitreya, the Bodhisattva who will become a Buddha to restore Buddhism after the teachings of the historical Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, have passed away.[308]The Buddha is not a god. In early Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama possessed no salvific properties and strongly encouraged "self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving."[309] However, in later developments of Mahāyāna Buddhism, notably in the Pure Land (Jìngtǔ) school of Chinese Buddhism, the Amitābha Buddha was thought to be a savior. Through faith in the Amitābha Buddha, one could be reborn in the western Pure Land. Although in Pure Land Buddhism the Buddha is considered a savior, he is still not considered a god in the common understanding of the term.[310]ChristianityThere is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25.[311] The Bible never claims a date of December 25, but may imply a date closer to September.[311] The fixed date is attributed to Pope Julius the First because in the year 350 CE he declared the twenty-fifth of December the official date of celebration.[312][313] The date may have initially been chosen to correspond with either the day exactly nine months after Christians believe Jesus to have been conceived,[314] the date of the Roman winter solstice,[315] or one of various ancient winter festivals.[314][316]Nowhere in the Bible does it say exactly three magi came to visit the baby Jesus, nor that they were kings, rode on camels, or that their names were Casper, Melchior and Balthazar. Matthew 2 has traditionally been combined with Isaiah 60:1–3.Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. 2For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the Lord will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. 3And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.Three magi are supposed because three gifts are described, and artistic depictions of the nativity after about the year 900 almost always depict three magi.[317] The wise men in the biblical narrative did not visit on the day Jesus was born, but they saw Jesus as a child, in a house as many as two years afterwards (Matthew 2:11).[318][319]The Immaculate Conception is not synonymous with the virgin birth of Jesus,[note 2] nor is it a supposed belief in the virgin birth of Mary, his mother. It is the Roman Catholic belief that Mary, unlike all other humans, was not in a state of original sin from the moment of conception.[320]Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. She is often confused with a different, unnamed woman in the Gospel of Luke (immediately before Mary Magdalene's introduction) who indeed was a prostitute. The misconception stems from a 6th-century homily from Pope Gregory I, who assumed that the seven demons that Jesus cast out of Mary Magdalene corresponded to the still-nascent concept of the seven deadly sins.[321]Roman Catholic dogma does not say that the pope is either sinless or always infallible.[322] Catholic dogma since 1870 does state that a dogmatic teaching contained in divine revelation that is promulgated by the pope is free from error, although official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare. Otherwise, even when speaking in his official capacity, dogma does not hold that he is free from error.IslamA fatwā is a non-binding legal opinion issued by an Islamic scholar under Islamic law. The popular misconception[323][324] that the word means a death sentence probably stems from the fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran in 1989 regarding the authorSalman Rushdie, whom he stated had earned a death sentence for blasphemy. This event led to fatwās gaining widespread media attention in the West.[325]The word "jihad" does not always mean "holy war"; literally, the word in Arabic means "struggle". While there is such a thing as "jihad bil saif", or jihad "by the sword",[326] many modern Islamic scholars usually say that it implies an effort or struggle of a spiritual kind.[327][328] Scholar Louay Safi asserts that "misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the nature of war and peace in Islam are widespread in both the Muslim societies and the West", as much following 9/11 as before.[329]The Quran does not promise martyrs 72 virgins in heaven. It does mention virgin companions, houri, to all people—martyr or not—in heaven, but no number is specified. The source for the 72 virgins is a hadith in Sunan al-Tirmidhi by Imam Tirmidhi.[330][331] Hadiths are sayings and acts of the prophet Mohammed as reported by others and as such not part of the Quran itself. Especially the hadiths that are weakly sourced, such as this one,[332] must not necessarily be believed by a Muslim. Furthermore, the correct translation of this hadith is a matter of debate.[330]LiteratureSee also: Wikiquote: List of misquotationsFrankenstein was not the name of the monster in the novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley; rather it was the surname of the monster's creator, Victor Frankenstein. The monster is instead called Frankenstein's monster. Additionally, Frankenstein was a medical student in the novel, not a doctor as frequently portrayed.[333]MusicSee also: Mondegreen#In songs"Edelweiss" is not the national anthem of Austria, but is in fact an original composition created for the musical The Sound of Music. The actual Austrian national anthem is "Land der Berge, Land am Strome."[334]"Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" was not composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; he only composed variations on the tune, which originated from a French folk song.[335]TechnologyInventionsGeorge Washington Carver did not invent peanut butter, though he reputedly discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more for soybeans, pecans, and sweet potatoes.[336][337]Thomas Crapper did not invent the flush toilet;[338] flushing toilets were first used in the Indus Valley Civilization, around the 26th century BCE. Crapper, however, did much to increase its popularity and came up with some related inventions, such as the ballcockmechanism used to fill toilet tanks. The derivation of the word 'crap' is unrelated to his name; this is mere coincidence.[339]Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb.[340] He did, however, develop the first practical light bulb in 1880 (employing a carbonizedbamboo filament), shortly prior to Joseph Swan, who invented an even more efficient bulb in 1881 (which used a cellulose filament).Henry Ford did not invent either the automobile or the assembly line. He did improve the assembly line process substantially, sometimes through his own engineering but more often through sponsoring the work of his employees.[341][342] Karl Benz (co-founder ofMercedes-Benz) is credited with the invention of the first modern automobile,[343] and the assembly line has existed throughout history.Guglielmo Marconi did not invent the radio, but only modernized it for public broadcasting and communication.[344] For more about the controversy about who invented radio, see invention of radio.Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet, although Gore did say, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."[345][346] Gore was the original drafter of the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, which provided significant funding for supercomputing centers, and this in turn led to upgrades of a major part of the already existing, early 1990s Internet backbone, the NSFNet, and development of NCSA Mosaic, the browser that popularized the World Wide Web; however the history of the Internet predates these. Also see Al Gore and information technology.James Watt did not invent the steam engine,[347] nor were his ideas on steam engine power inspired by a kettle lid pressured open by steam.[348] Watt developed upon the first commercially successful Newcomen steam engine in the 1760s and 1770s; his new steam engine later gained huge fame.[349]ComputingComputers running Macintosh, Linux, or other non-Windows operating systems are not immune to malware such as trojan horses.[350]These operating systems are capable of being infected by malware designed for them; however, due to the market dominance of Microsoft Windows operating systems, most malware is designed to target them rather than other operating systems.[351]TransportationToilet waste is never intentionally jettisoned from an aircraft. All waste is collected in tanks which are emptied on the ground by toilet waste vehicles.[352] Blue ice is caused by accidental leakage from the waste tank. Passenger trains, on the other hand, have historically flushed onto the tracks; however, modern trains usually have retention tanks on board.Automotive batteries stored on a concrete floor do not discharge any faster than they would on other surfaces,[353] in spite of worry among Americans that concrete harms batteries.[354] Early batteries might have been susceptible to moisture from floors due to leaky, porous cases, but for many years lead-acid car batteries have had impermeable polycarbonate cases, and are maintenance-free, so they do not leak battery acid.[355][356]

TL;DR: Other answers have suggested that part of it may or may amount to a constitutional “power grab”, and/or subversion of the constitution. Without prejudice to whether that conclusion is right, and however you describe it, good or bad, then any grab that exists provably was planned by 2017 at the latest, and expressly made lawful in 2018 - to be triggered on exit day, exploitation postponed only by the transition period.Note: if it makes you feel more comfortable, feel free to recast any uses of the word “government” below to “executive” or “Whitehall”. Same difference. This really is not a party thing (despite my final Margaret Thatcher quote describing her own party, I also make it clear Jeremy Corbyn likely would have seized the same opportunities in exactly the same way)This answer began as a reply to Phil Booker’s very interesting answer to the OP. On reflection it’s better here…Sorry Phil. Don’t be alarmed. It’s just that one of the many pennies is finally dropping. I absolutely agree with you in principle, and constitutionally-philosophically you’re absolutely right. But legally? Up until 2017 we knew any such Agreement instantly would trigger a constitutional crisis and open up legal challenges by the ERG and any other pro-exit folk so inclined. But 2017 was the year everything changed...Post-exit rule by decree - 2017 origin and developmentI’ll briefly trace the mechanics, since 2017, of how rule-by-decree carefully and intricately has been embedded into the English and UK constitutions. I’ll do this mainly by some document snapshots - but feel free to read in any ordersnapshot - what the parliament reported in 2017 about the EUW Bill;snapshot - what the parliament reported in 2020 about two of the enacted EUW Acts; and a number of otherssnapshot - an academic analysis of the enacted EUWA 2018; andA (very brief!) guide to how a layperson might parse EUWA 2018 to see some of the issues for themselves and draw their own conclusions, via certain words used incessantly.These can be read in any order, but I’d suggest the final “guide” be read either first or last.What the Select Committee reported in 2017 (original emphasis)“We are concerned about the delegated powers the Government is seeking in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers would create what is, in effect, an unprecedented and extraordinary portmanteau of effectively unlimited powers upon which the Government could draw. They would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between Parliament and Government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence. We stress the need for an appropriate balance between the urgency required to ensure legal continuity and stability, and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and control of the executive.”Reference: HL Select Committee on the Constitution, Chapter 3, at paragraph 44The URL given above contains the whole of Chapter 3. It’s only 29 paragraphs in total, readable by layfolk. and well worth reading.Note the reference to government assurances re sunset clauses, in paragraphs 49–50!What the same Select Committee reported in 2020 (original emphasis)By 2020 an across-the-board trend had been identified, and become more severe. I limit myself to partial quotations from 15 paragraphs of the 80-paragraph document.“…[after specimen examples]…29. In our previous work on the use of delegated powers, we considered the trend for Government bills to include powers for ministers to create or vary criminal offences and to establish public bodies. We concluded that this trend was “constitutionally unacceptable” where such powers involve matters of public policy which warrant the scrutiny afforded to primary legislation. The process of the UK leaving the EU does not change this principle. Recent analysis suggests the creation of criminal offences using delegated powers with potentially significant penalties is neither a recent nor rare phenomenon.30. The creation of criminal offences and the establishment and empowerment of public bodies by delegated powers is in general constitutionally unacceptable. Nor should delegated powers be used to change in any significant way the category of a criminal offence or to increase the level of punishment applicable to any criminal offence beyond a maximum penalty, which should always be stated on the face of any bill. If, in exceptional cases, minor criminal offences are to be created or changed by statutory instruments, these should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.31. Another issue with the delegated powers in some Brexit bills was the use of illustrative language which sought to specify but not limit broad powers. The Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill as brought to the Lords stated “Regulations under subsection (1) may, for example …”, and went on to give a non-exhaustive list of uses to which the powers might be put. This was challenged by members of the House of Lords during debate as “unacceptable” on the basis that it meant that the power was effectively “unconstrained in relation to the type of healthcare which may be funded”. The words “for example” were replaced at report stage with “only do one or more of the following things …”.…33. The DPRRC drew attention to the use of the phrase “in connection with” a power in that Bill which made it effectively open-ended. The phrase “in connection with” was also used in respect of the broad delegated power in the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL], which we and the DPRRC concluded was inappropriate.34. Drafting techniques such as “for example” and “among other things” are not necessarily inappropriate. They become problematic when used in relation to broad delegated powers. Given the breadth of many of the powers sought in the Brexit bills, and the lack of policy to indicate how they might be used, such illustrative language emphasises the wide range of circumstances to which such powers might be applied. It is difficult for Parliament to predict how these powers might be used by a future government and where the line is to be drawn between their lawful and unlawful application. These concerns are compounded when the powers are not circumscribed by sunset clauses or other safeguards.35. Delegated powers should be sought only when their use can be clearly anticipated and defined. Illustrative language that does not meaningfully constrain broad powers is inappropriate and should not be used.…40. In exceptional circumstances when broad delegated powers are necessary, they should be constrained as far as is possible and subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In most cases such powers should be limited by sunset clauses or other means.41. We recognised that the Government would require some Henry VIII powers to deliver legal certainty and continuity after Brexit. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provided these wide powers but made the most significant subject to a sifting mechanism to allow for additional scrutiny where appropriate. We are concerned that the subsequent Brexit bills, including the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, contain further wide powers which are not subject to the same scrutiny process.Powers to amend retained EU law outside of EUWA scope and safeguards42. The powers in the EUWA to amend ‘retained EU law’ were accompanied by safeguards, in recognition of their breadth and the fact that they involved changes to policy in areas that had previously been determined at EU level. A feature of the Brexit bills that followed was powers to amend retained EU law without equivalent constraints and safeguards. For example, section 8 of the EUWA enables ministers by regulations to make such provision as they consider appropriate “to prevent, remedy or mitigate” deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal.43. However, other bills contained powers that were just as broad, and in some cases broader, than those in the EUWA, but subject to weaker safeguards. For example,……45. In our report on what became the EUWA, we were concerned about the lack of clarity on the status of retained EU law. Following our report and discussions with ministers, the Bill was amended to differentiate between retained direct principal EU legislation and retained direct minor EU legislation, roughly corresponding to primary and secondary legislation in the domestic context. This distinction is particularly important in relation to delegated powers to amend the different types of retained EU law and the scrutiny process for the exercise of these powers. Some of the Brexit bills introduced subsequently in the 2017–19 session failed to reflect this conceptual differentiation in the powers they contained.46. The Government must ensure that all legislation that provides powers to amend retained EU law includes the distinction between principal and minor EU law.47. Another feature of some of the powers in Brexit bills has been the Government seeking powers for convenience rather than necessity. For example,……48… We concluded that the procedure was being sought for non-urgent reasons as a convenient means of executive law-making. We agreed with the DPRRC that this procedure “should be confined to urgent cases”.49. The task of delivering Brexit should not involve the creation of delegated powers for executive convenience—or for issues not related to Brexit. These powers should be strictly limited in scope to address specific policy challenges. There should also be no proliferation of the made-affirmative procedure, which should be used only for urgent matters related to the process and immediate effects of Brexit.…”Reference: HL Select Committee on the Constitution, 6th Report of Session 2019–21.An academic analysis of EUWA 2018[Conclusion]“…It seems Brexit not only threatens economic prospects, the balance of executive and parliamentary power, clarity and legal certainty, human rights, and not least Northern Ireland and the Irish peace process, but the very integrity of the United Kingdom itself.The EUWA has serious implications for the British Constitution. It is an opaque statute, very difficult even for experts to comprehend. Many of its provisions lack legal clarity and certainty, such as the post-Brexit status of ‘retained EU law.’ This lack of clarity and certainty has serious implications for the rule of law. It shifts the balance of power in an unparalleled manner from MPs to Ministers, enabling a great deal of ministerial legislation… It also fails to protect human rights, most notably by explicitly excluding the EU Charter from its scope. Lastly, in its provisions on devolution, it fails to respect the logic of the devolution settlement, and threatens the integrity of the UK.And yet this is the piece of legislation set to become a crucial (perhaps the most crucial) element of the Constitution if we enter a post-Brexit world. Will the loser of the Brexit process be the British Constitution? … And the consequences may be extreme. An assessment of the EUWA does not suggest it is designed as a vehicle for Parliament to ‘take back control’, but rather to increase the power of the executive…” [my emphasis]Reference: The Constitutional Implications of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018: A Critical Appraisal(disclaimer: iirc I’ve communicated on occasion with Professor Douglas-Scott since 2016, but not about UK EUW legislation, only Sexit)Some lay hints as to parsing key implications from the primary source of lawThe EUWA 2018 is difficult for anyone to read, because everything is interrelated: too much spaghetti law and teleportation of the meat into squirrelled-away Schedule 8 and so on. Other than that, the 100+ pages isn’t too bad by UK standards (complex by EU law standards for obvious reasons, but we won’t be letting anyone but good British lawyers anywhere near our laws any more so hey ho that’s a good thing innit? ;))Link to European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018Click on “Print Options”Click on PDF in “The Whole Act” sectionOpen the pdfHave a quick look at section 20 which contains definitions. With that in mind, skim-read sections 7 and 8. Note the references to “primary legislation”.There follows am explanation of some key differences between primary legislation and “subordinate” (aka “delegated”) legislation (which for brevity I won’t fully explain so treat with caution!).… Primary legislation requires a vote. Delegated legislation does not. The vast majority of UK legislation is “delegated” by the parliament. Delegation (very broadly) was invented about five centuries ago by way of an arrangement with Henry VIII. “Delegation” is done within primary legislation, permitting Ministers to enact free-standing rules within a scope that (until now) has to be specified by the parliament. Over the last half-century or so, very few of these laws get to be voted on by anybody in the normal way. Parliamentary enactments each year include a handful of Bills being turned into Acts (depending on power conflicts in Whitehall), but literally thousands of laws per annum delegated to Ministers alone. Given that on average only about one of these thousands per annum get rejected in a parliamentary vote (if only because most fly past without MPs even noticing them), the delegation power is extremely powerful. It’s therefore also where parliamentary control over the executive is most crucial, by way of the parliament’s direct and Bill-specific scoping of Ministerial lawmaking powers.Once delegated legislation gets crunched through the parliamentary sausage-machine, whether voted or not voted, it’s law. It still can be challenged in Court as unlawful ab initio - if and ONLY if the Minister is judged to have gone beyond the scope of the powers delegated by the parliament (a subset of the “ultra vires” concept).Do a text search on “resolution” . There are 71 instances. Quickly track through them to get a feel (ignoring section 13). You’ll notice that every amendment to UK or (many) devolved laws must be passed through the material parliament / assembly by way of a “resolution”. This is perfectly normal in every way….…until you realize two things. First - that “resolution” (undefined in section 20) is in practical terms code for the parliamentary procedures associated with passing delegated legislation. For which voting is optional (“affirmative” as distinct from “negative” procedure for resolutions, normally stipulated in Bills but now effectively at government discretion.Secondly - remember the references to “primary legislation”? The effective government business process here is to take any or all existing primary legislation it wishes, and transmute it in any way it wishes into new law. As if it were delegated legislation, but without the parliament permitted to define the delegated scope. And without the parliament being able to “interfere” by debating, speechifying, reading, reporting, scrutinizing, or (mostly) even voting any more.On top of that, where there are no scope restrictions, then delegated legislation (generally) cannot directly be dis-applied (“struck down”) in Court (only its application to individuals, and no longer on the grounds of scope)If that is right, in constitutional terms we may have returned to the days before the amicable arrangements our cash-strapped Henry VIII made to play nice with his parliament (that so regrettably controlled the purse-strings). Instead of ruling entirely by decree. Full circle.In turn, it follows that from 1 January 2021 (exit day having been effectively if not technically postponed until then because until then our now abolished Charter rights arguably might have been used to strike down delegated legislation), parliamentary sovereignty has died. RIP.Pity about that, but hey, that’s we voted for? Innit?This is why for years I’ve been describing EUWA 2018 a parliamentary suicide note.Nobody in the nation except for a few geeky lawyers and academics appeared to notice that that the 2018 exit bill was about anything but the exit. Except for many MPs who begged that the cancelled sunset clauses be restored, and tried to amend the Bill accordingly. All such amendments were rejected by the UK government and defeated in the parliament.So. While Remoaners and Quitlings were snapping at each other over who was to blame for the government’s incompetence in supposedly restoring parliamentary sovereignty by means of exiting from the EU, the government was focusing its considerable energies on a very different exit. The exit of parliamentary sovereignty from the UK. Was the exit from the EU ever about anything more than a pretext?Why can’t any of this be constitutionally challenged?Theoretically it’s no longer justiciable in England by the English. The English ERG folk and other English pro-exiters can no longer do a “Gina Miller” judicial review on the government for unconstitutional legislation whether driven by Brussels or George Soros or The Joker or any other ERG hate figure du jour. Not even Gina Miller can do a “Gina Miller” judicial review on the government any more, in respect of any such legislation whether proposed or enacted. Unless of course she’s an EU citizen….Happily, however, about four million people in this country can. The beneficiaries of the New Apartheid legislation enacted by that nice Mr Johnson making English citizens second-class citizens in their own country. To whom? To the resident EU citizens, of course! That also started at the end of the transition period. Even the new media is starting to clock this - see. Let’s wait and see, hey? :) But there are dangers inherent in “Johnny Foreigner” acquiring a legally (as well as economically) privileged position over English nationals in England, Not least: the UK’s possible fissioning far more savagely and rapidly than we’ve already seen.So. That nice Mr Johnson comprehensively has stabbed his ERG “allies” in the back, along with pretty much everyone who voted for him. Impressive! But we mustn’t laugh at the remorseless rise of mediocrity to absolute power. The sad reality is that in 2018 parliamentary sovereignty, for which at least some of the pro-exit folk on this forum have assured us they were fighting, was given a series of lethal injections beginning in 2017. If the parliament’s reports are to be taken seriously, it can be inferred that nice Mr Johnson’s government has only accelerated thr trend. What once was obvious only to lawyers, and in fairness many MPs, slowly will start to become obvious to everyone. Sure, they’ll sensibly boil the frog slowly to delay and “normalize” public awareness - but now all UK governments, without exception, can now rule by decree. Pandora’s box is wide open. It’s the Jeremy Corbyn dream.What does “rule by decree” mean, in context?All primary legislation, indefinitely, now can be enacted (should any government so elect) without parliamentary scrutiny, debate, or even voting, via the negative resolution procedure for secondary (“delegated to Ministers”) legislation. Effectively, all legislation going forward can be Henry VIII powers, formally delegated by the parliament to the monarch, who now is even more a captive of the government than is the parliament. Which works just fine if you have an exceptionally brilliant person at the helm. Someone as spectacularly brilliant (foreign adventures aside) as Henry VIII himself. So long as they don’t start chopping heads off, or any of the other stuff that governments like doing but temporarily suspended after one monarch got the chop himself - by the parliament. Suspended until now, anyway - because, apropos parliamentary sovereignty over legislation, the parliament now is a dead parrot (albeit a zombie one).As a corollary, the terrible capriciousness of ministerial diktat, so accurately lampooned by Lord Atkin in his doomed Liversidge v Anderson - Wikipedia dissent, might now accompany every law, not merely badly drafted ones."When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master, that's all."Rule by decree didn’t have to be written into the January 2020 parliamentary enactments. It was already redundant then. Because it was quietly pre-written into our law in 2018, to be triggered by the exit itself, then inconveniently extended by the transition period until today. The government simply decided to double-down in 2020 by increasing its powers to rule without the parliament.Is this a power grab?Answers on a post card. I tend to go with Professor Douglas-Scott’s conclusion, repeated from above: “An assessment of the EUWA does not suggest it is designed as a vehicle for Parliament to ‘take back control’, but rather to increase the power of the executive”However there’s a more interesting issue. if you wish to describe it as a power grab (by anyone at all), or subversion of the constitution, or any other nasty names, then you also must face up to its corollary. That, from the documents set out above, this very carefully has been planned and managed since 2017. The government knew exactly the implications of what it was doing, throughout. It’s all there in black and white print, in the extracts and document references to parliamentary reports set out above.What does this mean for our understanding of UK parties and governments?Evidently, the party of government, over several decades, has morphed into the most radical revolutionary party in UK and English history; completed by the 2019 purges. Parliamentary sovereignty defines the constitution like literally nothing else. You break parliamentary sovereignty? You break the constitution. And along with it any sane claim to conservatism. This is why I, a mere jobbing lawyer, unlike my smarter colleagues, have become increasingly exercised by this exit frolic. Take back control? By eliminating Parliamentary sovereignty? Interesting method! Another possible reason that (vitally for the exit to occur) Jeremy Corbyn was so equivocal (“Hmm. Hey Diane, what might a future Labor government do now that those useful idiots have eliminated the only check on our power?”_…If you disagree as to the government party’s radical anti-conservatism, or when it first started shifting in that direction,(EDITED) I refer you to Jonathan Sumption’s lecture (from the day before exit), in which he expands on his casual Reith lecture observation regarding extremists (named on this occasion!) infiltrating, colonizing and purging both of the two major parties…… but I’ll leave the last word to Jeremy Corbyn’s centralizing soulmate:“We are not a ‘conservative’ party… The name is all wrong.” - Margaret Thatcher

Good Question!The revelations sent to the previous prophets were often committed to writing. But only three of them have been mentioned by name in the Qur’an. The Tawrat which was revealed to Prophet Musa, the Zabur which was revealed to Prophet Dawud, and the Injil which was revealed to Prophet ‘Isa (peace be on them all). Apart from those, there is a mention of “suhuf- books” of lbrahim (a.s.).Zoroastrians claim that the Zend Avasta is a divine book. Hindus claim the same about the Vedas. Allah had sent prophets to every nation and every region (Qur'an, 35:24.) Obviously they must have been given some books in their own languages (Qur'an, 14:4). However, we can neither confirm nor deny the claims made about the Zend Avasta or the Vedas because they are not mentioned in the Qur’an.The Books of Ibrahim (a.s.) are completely lost, as is the Injil of Prophet ‘Isa (a.s.). The two remaining books were all altered, added, subtracted and extensively changed by those very people who professed to believe in them. Some details of those alterations will be given in later chapters. Here this fact is mentioned just to explain why Allah sent a new shari’ah (Islam) and a new Book (the Qur’an). Our responsibility towards previous prophets and their books is that we should believe that they were true prophets sent by Allah and that they were given the books as mentioned in the Qur’an. But as we know that those books were either completely lost or extensively edited, we cannot accept anything written in them unless they conform completely with what is revealed in the Qur’an.As the subject of this booklet is not the review of the previous books, I will not go into details about all of them. However, in these days our youths are mostly confronted with Christianity; therefore, in the following chapters, I will mention some aspects of the Old and the New Testaments only.2. The TorahHistory of its Present CompilationThe Torah (Law) is the name of the book of Prophet Musa (a.s.). The Jews and the Christians use this name for the first 5 books of Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Together they are called ‘Pentateuch’. Pentateuch was believed to have been written by Musa (a.s.). He is probably to be dated in the fifteenth to thirteenth century BC and the belief that he wrote Pentateuch continued up to the 18th century CE; and this was in-spite of the inherent impossibilities of this belief, like the account of the death of Moses himself.In the 18th century, some Christian scholars started what is now known as ‘higher criticism’. Their views are now accepted by majority of Christians. They proved that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses; that it is not even work of a single man or single era; that it contains the works of unknown number of people right up-to 1,000 years after the death of Moses.Rev. W. K. L. Clarke in his Concise Bible Commentary1 gives the following timetable and sequence of editing:The book says that by the end of the 19th century, it was generally recognized that there were four main sources in the Pentateuch, to be assigned to 9th, 8th, 7th and 5th or 4th centuries BC respectively.“The first book at the Pentateuch shows three characteristic styles illustrated by Genesis l, Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy and the documents marked by these styles were first to be noticed.”"The obviously early source begins in Gen. 2:4. This source is called ‘J’ after the ‘J’ of Jehovah (pronounced Jahweh). 'J’ is generally thought to have been put into written form about 850 BC.“Another source...is D, so called from the book of Deuteronomy, which was the book law discovered in Josiah’s reign.“The third source is called Priestly document, P for short. The writer is particularly interested in legislation and most of the laws of Exodus and all those of Leviticus and Numbers belong to P. A large part of the Priestly Code is believed to have been composed in Babylonia and brought to Jerusalem by Ezra in 397 BC. How much of P was omitted in final compilation of Pentateuch we have no means of knowing. Nothing has been said yet about a subordinate source found in Lev. 17-28 and known as the Code of Holiness, H for short. It was adopted into P but evidently had a separate history... Opinion is divided as to its date, whether it was written before 586 or whether exiled priests after the fall of the city committed to writing the Temple traditions ..:”“Now comes the fourth source. After taking P, D and J from the Pentateuch a considerable amount of material remains, parallel to J, but in Genesis using Elohim for God and not Yahweh. This non-P Elohim matter begins in Gen. 20: 1-7... Altogether E is more mature religiously and is thought to have reached written form about 750 BC”These are the four main sources of Pentateuch. How they were compiled to form the Pentateuch?“The first step was to combine J and E. This must have been done after the fall of Samaria in 721 BC. The two were combined in a document which is called JE.”“Then in 621 Deuteronomy was discovered, or at least a large part of it. The next stage was to put JE, and D together. This will have taken place during the exile... A perceptible amount of editing of JE took place.”“P was written in Babylonia and brought to Jerusalem by Ezra in 397 BC. Later, editors used it as a frame work and incorporated JED, thus producing the Pentateuch ... in about 300 BC.”We might as well sum it up in the words of the commentator himself. “Probably a multitude of persons have combined to give us Genesis (etc.), covering in their lives a span of 1,000 years.” And this book, compiled 1,000 years after Moses is called the Book of Moses! But it appears from the same authorities that probably it was not attributed to Moses till 200 BC!Even that minority of the Christian scholars which still holds fast to the theory of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has to admit that it must have been re-written by the subsequent generations to modernize the language. This concession has to be given because “it is hardly probable that the Hebrew of Moses’ day was like that of Biblical Hebrew.” (See the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible under “Pentateuch”).Further Details about the TorahThe Bible itself states, explicitly or implicitly, that the Torah was destroyed twice: First, in the time of Nebuchadnezzer; after a long time, it was restored or re-written by Ezra. Second time, it was ruthlessly destroyed by Antiochus. Nothing is known as to how it was restored.The early Christian scholars believed that there was no proof of the authenticity of the Old Testament until Jesus came and confirmed it. But, in fact, Jesus has never confirmed the Old Testament (which comprises of 39 or 46 books). He speaks about the authenticity of the ‘Law’ only.If further proof is needed, one has only to compare the old manuscripts known as ‘Dead Sea Scroll’ with the relevant parts of the present Old Testament, to find out how great the differences are between the two.2 We are not concerned with the judgment as to which writing is more acceptable. What we are concerned with is the fact that the scribes were free long before the coming of Jesus to add, subtract, change and alter the texts of the books attributed to the Israeli prophets including the book or books of Prophet Musa (a.s.).Old Testament: Contradictions & AbsurditiesAllah has said about the Holy Qur’an:وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّـهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا“…Had it been from someone other than God, they would have found in it ample contradiction.” (4:82).This verse provides us with a sure way of verifying the authenticity or otherwise of a book claimed to have come from God. If it is from God, there would be no discrepancy in it.Judging the Pentateuch by this standard, we are astonished to find hundreds of wrong and contradictory statements in it. It is not a place to go in detail; yet I will give here a few examples. There is no need to go any further than the very first two chapters.Genesis 1 describes that Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day when, on the previous days, heaven, earth, seas, grass, herbs with seeds, fruits, stars, sun, moon, water creatures, birds, whales and earth creatures, cattle and beasts (in that sequence) were already created.Genesis 2 says that man was created before the trees and vegetables, beasts, birds and cattle.Which statement is correct?Then Genesis 1 says that God created man (male) and female both together on the same day. Genesis 2 says that man (male) was created before flora and fauna, and it was after he was put in the Garden of Eden that woman was created.The fact is that the writers have filled this book with all the trends of 1000 years during which time it was being compiled. Thus we find that to justify their own shortcomings they have put God and His prophets in such a bad light as leaves no room for any respect and dignity.The God of Bible has human form, hair and legs, is jealous of Adam, does get tired and needs rest, walks like a man in garden of Eden, Adam hides from him and he calls out “Where art thou?”; wrestles with Ya’qub (a.s.) whole night without being able to knock him down; comes down on a mountain, enters into a cloud, and resides in Zion; repents after doing a work; tells lies while the serpent tells the truth.The Qur’an pointedly ignores all such statements, which were paganistic in origin.Now let us see the narrations about the prophets of God, chosen by Him to lead their people onto the right path. If we read the account of the people of Lot (a.s.) in the Qur’an we will find that it does not mention the conspiracy of the daughters of Lot (a.s.) to cohabit with their father, and the shameful details of alleged fulfillment of that capital sin. The Qur’an confirms the prophethood of Lot (a.s.) and destruction of his people: This is Confirmation. But it rejects, by not mentioning or hinting even once, the interpolation of human mind: it is the guardianship. Another example is the narration of the calf-worship of Israel.In short, the Qur’an confirms the basic truths and rejects the interpolations of the scribes. It is musaddiq (confirmer), and it is muhaimin (guardian) of the previous books, all at one and the same time.3. The InjilWas it a Book?The Qur’anic expressions denote that Injil was a book revealed to Prophet ‘Isa (a.s.). But the Christians say that Jesus Christ did not leave any book behind him. They say that Injil (i.e. ‘Gospel’) means just “the good tidings,” brought by Jesus Christ. Thus they use the name ‘Injil’ (or Gospel) for the first four books of the New Testament which are supposedly written by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.The scholars of higher criticism agree that Mark is the earliest of these 4 ‘Gospels’. It was written in or about 60-70 CE.The ‘gospel’ of Matthew was written in or about 70-90 CE.The ‘gospel’ of Luke came later and that of John in or about 100 CE.Now the experts of higher criticism assert that a certain ‘written document’ was extant in the first half of the first century. They believe that there was a ‘written source’ of the gospels of Luke and Matthew which is called ‘Q’ in the Christian writings. Rev. W.K.L Clarke writes in his Concise Bible Commentary:“That Mark is the earliest gospel is agreed by scholars who are not bound by the authority to maintain the priority of Matthew. Only so can the close resemblances be explained…”“The arguments which convince us that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, point also to a written source to the sections common to the two gospels but not derived from Mark. This is called ‘Q’ (German Quelle = source)... How much narrative ‘Q’ contained is unknown ... Again, had ‘Q’ a Passion-story? If so, does it lie behind Luke’s or John’s Passion-story? If not, what kind of Gospel was it that said nothing about the cross?”3Now, a document which can be regarded as a ‘source of revelation’ cannot be denied a place in the list of revealed books itself. This source was extant in the first century; and we may presume that it was possibly the original ‘Injil’ brought by Prophet ‘Issa’ (a.s.).Also, there are various references to ‘gospel’ (Injil) in the letters of St. Peter and St. Paul which, undoubtedly were written before these four so-called Gospels came into being.Which ‘Gospel’ or ‘Injil’ do those letters refer to, if not to the written book of Prophet ‘Issa’ (a.s.)? Now that Injil is lost.It will be of interest to note that these four so-called ‘Gospels’ were not given this title upto the end of the second century CE.Who Wrote the ‘Gospels’?Coming to the present four ‘gospels’ the first thing which must be mentioned is that it is not certain who wrote the first and the fourth books.The first is the ‘gospel’ attributed to St. Matthew, who was one of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. But this ‘gospel’ is based mostly on the ‘gospel’ of Mark who was not a disciple of Jesus and had no first-hand knowledge of the events of the ministry of Jesus.Westminister Dictionary of Bible (under ‘Matthew’) mentions that according to many scholars it is difficult to accept that Matthew was the author of that gospel. “Matthew reproduces about 90 per cent of the subject matter of Mark in language very largely identical with that of Mark. Now it is highly improbable that an apostle would have used as a major source the word of one who in all likelihood had not been an eye witness of the ministry of Jesus.”Moreover, Papias wrote in about 140 CE that “Matthew collected ‘logia’ (sayings or oracles) in the Hebrew language and each one interpreted them as he was able.” But the original ‘gospel’ of Matthew is not in Hebrew; it is in Greek; and Greek was not the language of Matthew!It is thus clear that the book written by Matthew was lost and later his name was transferred to another edited work.Likewise, it is not known who was John, the author of the fourth ‘gospel’. But Christian public is led to believe that it was written by John, the apostle of Jesus Christ.But the above-mentioned dictionary (under ‘John’ the gospel according to) clearly says that many scholars believe that the author was some “disciple and follower of John the son of Zebedee (the apostle). His name is either unknown to us or, more likely, was John the Presbyter or Elder.”Writers of the remaining two ‘gospels’ were disciples and followers of the Apostles, and most probably had not seen or met Jesus Christ at all.Thus, not only that these four “books” were written decades after Jesus Christ, but also they were not written by his immediate disciples either. And at least two of them were written by unknown persons.The Gospels: Not TrustworthyApart from this dubious authorship, the texts of these ‘gospels’ show that their writers were not trustworthy. Let me point to a few examples of blatant alterations;The figure ‘7’ was considered very important by Israelites (no doubt, because of the paganistic idea that God was tired after creating the universe in 6 days, and rested on the 7th day). Thus they were fond of adjusting known historical facts to fit in the frame of ‘7’ or multiples of ‘7’. The author of the ‘gospel’ according to Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the first chapter. He divides it in 3 parts of 14+14+14. And to fit the names in this scheme of ‘14’, he omits 4 names in between. He has omitted the name of Jehoiakim between Josias and Jechonias (thus presenting the grandson as the son); and the names of Ahaziah, Goash and Azariah between Joram and Czias, (thus presenting a great-great-grandson as the son).It is quite apart from other known historical inaccuracies, which permeate this genealogy.Then if you compare this genealogy with that given in the ‘gospel’ according to Luke (chapter 3) you will find that the names between David and Joseph are completely different, putting one man in two different clans.In the ‘gospel’ of Matthew, Joseph was son of Jacob, son of Matthew who was from the clan of Solomon son of David, and between Joseph and Solomon, were 24 generations.According to the ‘gospel’ of Luke, Joseph was son of Heti, son of Matthat, who was from the clan of Nathan son of David; and between Joseph and Nathan were 39 generations.Naturally, one man cannot be born in two different lines of David: he cannot be at one and the same time from the progeny of Solomon s/o David and that of Nathan s/o David.This one example is enough to show that these so-called ‘gospels’ are not truthful. In this background the English phrase ‘gospel truth’ may mean anything from the news­bulletins of Goebels to the ‘informations’ of fighting countries. An observer has a right to ask that if the writers of these gospels could have changed the established facts to suit their whims, what assurance was there that they had not changed the creed to suit their fancy?The New Testament: MisinterpretationsThe New Testament was not free form serious ‘misinterpretations’. To give one most important example:‘Son of God’ was an expression in Hebrew language, which meant ‘beloved of God’ or ‘chosen by God’. Adam, Jacob, Efraim, the whole tribe of Israelites, the whole group of the followers of Jesus Christ, and the whole mankind have been called ‘Son of God’ or ‘the Dear Son of God’ or ‘the Children of God’ in the New and Old Testaments.This expression was never meant to be exported to other countries or cultures, because the Old Testament was a Book for the tribe of Israelites, and so was the ministry of Jesus who expressly limited his jurisdiction to the tribe of Israel and said: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:23); and sent his apostles saying, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles (non-Israelites), and into the city of Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'.” (Matthew 10:5-6).But St. Paul, who had never met Jesus Christ in his life, over­ruled the apostles who had spent their times with him and were conversant with his ministry. He took the Christianity to the Gentiles and this transplanting bore out such fruits, which could never be palatable to Jesus Christ himself.When that Hebrew expression reached the Greek civilization it naturally conveyed a different meaning to its people. The Greeks believed in scores of gods and semi-gods together with their wives, mistresses and children; they were used to hear about their rivalries, love and jealousy. No wonder they interpreted the Hebrew expression in their own terms and made Jesus Christ ‘Son of God’ in the literal sense.The differences of the Councils, in the 3rd and 4th centuries of the Christian era, about the relationship between Jesus and God, provide ample proof in themselves that the idea of Sonship of God (in its present sense) was not the original or universally accepted one. (The word ‘Trinity’ does not occur even once in the New or the Old Testament).When the Nicea Council (325 CE) adopted the Nicene Creed, which contained the statement that the son was ‘of one substance with the Father’, reaction in the Christian circles was very violent. At least 13 more Councils were held between 325 and 381 CE. Meanwhile persecution of one or the other party continued relentlessly.There emerged four groups:1. Homoousians (Orthodox) - believing that the son was ‘of one substance’ with the Father;2. Homoeans (Arian) - believing that the son was ‘like’ the Father;3. Homoiousians (Semi-Arian) - believing that the son was ‘of like substance’ with the Father;4. Anomoeans (Ultra-Arian) - believing that the son was ‘unlike’ the Father.Numerous Councils were held to decide the issue. Sometimes one group succeeded and at other times the other group swayed the council with it; and the Roman Emperors played a very active part in influencing the decisions of the Councils. It was just a chance of history that the emperor, who influenced the last council on the subject, favored the old pagan idea of “sonship” and thus the Greek meaning superceded the original Hebrew meaning. Here we may see what damage was done to the basic faith, by neglecting the command of Jesus Christ about going ‘not beyond the house of Israel’.Once that meaning was changed, it was just ‘natural’ to believe that the Son of God was himself God. I remember reading in the English Summa Theologica that “as son of man is man; son of horse is horse; likewise, Son of God is God.”Then as the interpolations in the Torah had necessitated the coming of Jesus Christ, the changes in the pure belief of Christianity necessitated the coming of Muhammad (s.a.w.) with the Qur’an to confirm the truths which were still extant in the Torah and Injil of his time (which incidentally, are still extant, with periodical changes!), and to correct the wrong beliefs which had crept into these books as a result of pagan influence.4. The Qur’an, Hadith Qudsi & HadithAccording to the Muslims, the revelations from God are of three kinds:(a) The Qur’an: where the words and meanings both are revealed from God, and it is meant to be a miracle in itself. The only example of such Revelation is the Qur’an. No other Revelation was meant to be a miracle, challenging the antagonists to bring its ‘like’ if they could, and prophesying that they could never do so.(b) Hadith Qudsi: where the words and meaning are both from God, but it is not intended to be a miracle. It is called hadith qudsi. It is found in the books of traditions and generally begins with these words: “The Holy Prophet said that Allah said”.These revelations are scattered in the books of traditions and have the same value as the traditions of the Holy Prophet and are subject to the same tests. One scholar has tried to collect them in a separate book. But that collection is obviously not complete.The tablets of Torah given to Musa (a.s.) come into this category, because therein the meanings and words both were from Allah, but they were not sent as a miracle or as a challenge.(c) Hadith: where only the meanings are from God but the words are of the prophet. Inspirations, and also traditions of the Prophet of Islam (s.a.w.) come into this category.Thus it will appear that according to the Muslims only the third kind of revelation is clothed in the prophet’s own wordings; and even then there is no suggestion or hint that the prophet could or did alter the meaning conveyed by Allah.It will be interesting to compare the above with the Christians’ idea of revelation.According to them, the message of God becomes tainted with human thoughts in its very origin, when it is received by the prophet. The above mentioned Concise Bible Commentary explains: “Note that there are three elements in revelation: God who initiates; the recipient who apprehends it according to his capacity and those who in each generation receive the message mediated through the first recipient. The corporate experience of the church, whether of the Old or New dispensation, is molding it all the time. In other words, revelation is continuous...”4To comprehend fully what is meant by the second and third stages, I quote from the same Commentary: “the third stage is when the disciples of the prophet, if not he himself, write down the message that has been circulating in oral form. Some editing and accommodation to current needs is inevitable, though we need not suppose that anything of value is lost... editors do sometimes improve the work submitted by authors, if only by making it intelligible to the reading public, and those who arranged the utterances of the great prophets did a great service”.5Thus revelation, according to the Christians thought, is bound to be modified by the prophets, as well as the subsequent scribes and writers, according to the needs of their times. For them, editing and changing does not affect the authenticity of revelation, while for a Muslim, this editing makes it ‘corrupt’. It is evident that the Muslims and the Christians are not speaking the same language when they converse about either ‘revelation’ or alteration:It just happens that the Christians cannot show any ‘revealed’ authority for their interpretation of Revelation. There is no sentence in the Bible to show that the words of God can be corrupted and still maintain their authenticity and originality. This interpretation, allowing for additions, alterations, editing and manipulations of scribes in the Books of God, is very late in its origin; and has been invented to accommodate the differences, historical inaccuracies and contradictory statements of the Bible. But for the Muslims such contradictions are definite proof that the text in question is not from God.Looking at the conceptions of revelation in Islam and Christianity, if we try to fit the Old and New Testaments in the frame of the Muslims’ belief, as mentioned earlier, we may be tempted to put it in the third category, in which the ideas come from God and the words are supplied by the prophet himself.But this attempt would be unjustified, because:(a) Though Muslims do know and accept the presence of a number of forged traditions in the books of traditions, they do not attribute them to the Prophet himself. They have never thought that the Prophet himself could ever make any mistake in comprehending the message of Allah. The Christians, on the other hand, say that the mistakes could have started at such an early stage of revelation as the prophets themselves.(b) Resulting from this attitude is their respective treatment of the traditions and revelations. The Muslims have set severe tests to verify the genuineness or otherwise of a given tradition. All traditions, which are not up to the mark, are rejected as fabrications of the narrators. The Christians are not free to reject any part of the Bible, because, according to their belief, every single word of it is revealed.Except for these two difficulties, the revelation of Christians’ conception might be placed in the third category i.e. ‘revealed thoughts’. Still they will not be the Torah and Injil of the Qur’an, which were ‘revealed books’.Anyhow, this difference in the conception of revelation is the basic factor in this whole argument. What is termed as ‘continuous revelation’ by the Christians is treated as ‘corruption’ in the academic world. Frankly speaking, if additions, mixing of different sources into one, changing the sequence of the events, and adjusting the facts to a self-imposed scheme, is not ‘alteration’ of a work, then the word ‘alteration’ should be removed from the dictionary.Chapter 2: Pre-Islamic Revelations