Message 1 of 52 (86751) 02-16-2004 6:31 PM

This is from Skeptick in another thread.

It is a shame that he didn't at least refer to one of the multiple sources.

I will take up the Nebraska Man issue later. I'm not aware of any other case that could be, even remotely, considered to be an evolutionist fraud.

If Skeptick would like to pull something off this lengthy rap sheet I would be interested.

Message 2 of 52 (86762) 02-16-2004 7:07 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed 02-16-2004 6:31 PM

On the other hand there are fakes and mistakes that creationists have used - the Paluxy tracks include both. One fake is the so-called Burdick track still promoted by creationists here http://www.bible.ca/tracks/burdick-track.htm and debunked here http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/wilker5.htm

Message 3 of 52 (86855) 02-17-2004 12:52 AM

Reply to: Message 2 by PaulK 02-16-2004 7:07 PM

I'd like to see the 'rap sheet' of scientific fraud here.

Message 5 of 52 (86945) 02-17-2004 9:26 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed 02-16-2004 6:31 PM

[This message has been edited by Tamara, 02-17-2004]

Message 6 of 52 (86956) 02-17-2004 10:18 AM

Reply to: Message 5 by Tamara 02-17-2004 9:26 AM

quote:

---

Haeckel was wrong, as the Life magazine article carefully points out. But it is an even greater mistake to maintain that development teaches us nothing about evolution.

The development of any animal is controlled by the unfolding of an internal genetic program. Haeckel believed that changes could only be added at the end of that program, the source of his well-understood mistake. Mutations that affect structure or timing can in fact occur at any part of the program, including the beginning. Because of this, there is no reason to be surprised at the fact that adaptations to the vastly different sizes of mammalian and avian eggs have produced "radically dissimilar" patterns of cell division in the early embryo. The chicken embryo develops on top of a huge store of nutritional yolk, which it gradually surrounds with an egg sac. The human embryo has no such store, and must implant in the uterine wall to obtain nourishment. Once both embryos surmount these early challenges, the rest of their development is remarkably similar, and that's precisely the point.

---

Message 7 of 52 (86965) 02-17-2004 10:42 AM

Reply to: Message 6 by MrHambre 02-17-2004 10:18 AM

quote:

---

So there's a significant difference between admitting Haeckel was mistaken and ignoring the lesson to be learned by embryological similarities.

---

And as significant a difference between admitting Haeckel was mistaken, and calling his work a fraud. (Skeptick's implication having been that evolutionists were conciously faking evidence for a theory they knew to be untrue.)

Message 8 of 52 (86972) 02-17-2004 11:03 AM

Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll 02-17-2004 10:42 AM

I had, with my biases, forgotten this one.

Message 10 of 52 (86979) 02-17-2004 11:20 AM

Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed 02-17-2004 11:03 AM

That is not so. I've got a copy of Haeckel's Evolution of Man featuring the famous plates. It includes an interesting preface in which Haeckel defends his drawings from his critics (it's a second or third edition I've got). Haeckel argues that they are diagrams intended to show the salient points and that all diagrams are simplified and therefor inaccurate. I think this is a fair point, open your favourite physics textbook, look up how a CRT works, then take the back off your TV and compare the two. Don't look much alike do they?

The features indicated in Haeckel's drawings do exist in real specimens - although they are not so clear or pronounced as he makes them and his drawings omit various complexities that make the features less obvious in real specimens.

I'd say they fall more under the category of bad illustrations than actual fraud.

Message 12 of 52 (86983) 02-17-2004 11:51 AM

Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed 02-17-2004 11:21 AM

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1134/2_109/60026710/p1/article.jhtml
----
There are also other frauds like the bird/dino fossil found in China recently that was quickly discovered to be a fake. Because a scientist happened to purchase the other side of the fossil plate and found the picture rather different. But this is more of a fraud perpetrated ON evolutionists. It just raises the question of... how many other frauds are there undetected? This particular detection was only due to a very fortuitous event.

Message 14 of 52 (86986) 02-17-2004 12:10 PM

Reply to: Message 12 by Tamara 02-17-2004 11:51 AM

Again, I have no idea what your point is. We're so glad you agree with Stephen Jay Gould that the Haeckel drawings are misleading. We're not surprised that you don't agree with Gould that evolution doesn't require such subterfuge. Above, I posted a quote from cell biologist Kenneth Miller explaining what we should and shouldn't learn from the Haeckel affair, and what we should realize embryology is telling us.

It seems you've made up your mind that all evidence for evolution is deceitful, and that all fossils are frauds. Forgive us if our views are a bit more informed and rational.

regards,
Esteban "In Fraud We Trust" Hambre

Message 15 of 52 (86989) 02-17-2004 12:18 PM

AM