Evolutionist Frauds

Time to kill this thread? Skeptick has not shown up and gives indications elsewhere that he has fled the site. The Haeckel case seems to have been closed. There's no mileage in Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man or Archaeoraptor (unless one takes issue with Tamara's misrepresentation that Archaeoraptor was discovered to be fraudulent by "a very fortuitous event").Die!! thread Die!!

SylasFirstly, it would be stretching the story to say that any of those involved in the Archaeoraptor case intended to pass off something which they knew to be untrue as a scientific truth - a fraud. Even the original Chinese discoverer of the fossils was likely to have been motivated by a desire to create a marketable, attractive object for the collector's market rather than a deliberate attempt to create a fossil which was intended to support a scientific hypothesis. The scenarios is effectively identical to one where two individuals had died together and their fossil remains had become intermingled so that the resultant mosaic fossil had been misidentified as a strange individual. There is a world of difference between being careless, credulous and/or mistaken and being fraudulent.Secondly, the fossil never officially accepted the scientific world. The paper detailing Archaeoraptor did not pass peer review. The opportunity for other paleontologists to independently examine an apparently significant specimen never arose. Would others have perpetuated the errors and oversights of Czerkas et al? It seems unlikely. If they had had the opportunity to discover the errors and omissions and kept quiet then that would have been more like fraud. Xing's discovery and communication of the error of the fossil was fortuitous only in that it came about sooner rather than later.Thirdly, the fact that Xu Xing, one of the scientists involved, brought others' attention to the error is inconsistent with a conspiracy to commit fraud.Mentioning it as an "evolutionist fraud" is disingenuous.

Sylas, feel free to be thunderstruck but you seem to have missed the forest for the trees.In a thread titled Evolutionist Frauds, Tamara writes (bolds are mine):(referring to NosyNed's mention of Nebraska Man in message #1, "Haeckel's embryo drawings is the only other one I know of."(in message #12) "There are also other frauds like the bird/dino fossil found in China recently that was quickly discovered to be a fake." and"But this is more of a fraud perpetrated ON evolutionists.""It just raises the question of... how many other frauds are there undetected?"In these statements over a couple of posts Tamara has agreed that Nebraska Man was a fraud, nominated Haeckel's drawings as frauds, implied that there was still a smell of fraud from the paleontologists involved in the Archaeoraptor saga and speculated about other undetected frauds.

Silas, I wonder if the hot weather is getting to you.The crux of the issue is that I disagree with Tamara's assertion that Archaeopteryx was uncovered as a fake due to a very fortuitous event. However, on reading her material yet again she does not spell out the "very fortuitous event". And it is inapropriate to identify it as an evolutionist fraud for the reasons previously stated. As an example of the evolutionist frauds which the thread was intended to discuss it is a non-starter.