Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Ramoss, despite their admitting that the data was faked, they nonetheless claim the data is "evidence for evolution."How do you explain that?It appears they are trying to put a better face on a bad situation and try to resurrect the biogenetic law which they speak favorably of.Have you read the paper?Here is where they do that for those that are just jumping in here. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichEdited by randman, : No reason given.

I added "in this instance" so you could avoid dealing with suggestions that evos do this elsewhere or all the time.Can you answer now?Here is where they do that for those that are just jumping in here. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichEdited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Ramoss, despite their admitting that the data was faked, they nonetheless claim the data is "evidence for evolution."

​

How do you explain that?

---

I would explain that by saying the preservation of ancestral development stages is a legitimate field of inquiry in evolutionary biology.For example, the human body is divided into bands along its length, dermatomes, which mimic the segmentation of annelid ancestors. This feature is shared by pretty most animals that evolved from annelids.All scientists are doing is applying this same logic to certain features of the embryo. Where's the fraud in that?

quote:

---

Here is where they do that for those that are just jumping in here.

---

And in the very next section, the writers argue that "While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, others are tendentious." Which is perfectly fine... don't throw the baby out of the bathwater so to speak, and don't abandon the embryological analysis of evolution just because Haeckel screwed up one approach to it.

Now for extra credit, see if you can get Randman to point out those errors from the Haeckel etchings by comparing them to the photos now used in Millers textbook. Specifically any that would make using the etchings a gross misrepresentation of the facts ... especially in those textbooks that show these etchings with the comment that Haeckel's 'recapitulation theory' has been falsified.Haeckel's Embryosbtw, Randman is an oldtimer here, and Haeckel's etchings are one of his favorite strawman arguments (that and whales and transitional fossils and ...)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Greetings,

quote:

---

Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution"

---

Rubbish.Whilst
the drawings are still USED (as examples of bad science usually)
they most certainly are NOT claimed as "evidence for evolution".The thing is -
You keep confusing "using" the pictures
with claiming Haeckel's theory was right.Haeckel's theory (O.R.P.) was wrong,
but
there ARE certain similarities of growth stages in embryos.And Haeckel's pictures were based on this reality of embryonic similarity,
but -
he doctored them slightly - exaggerating certain features to push his incorrect theory.Nonetheless - Haeckel's theory being wrong dosn't stop embryos having similarities.Embryos DO show similar developmental stages.
It's a fact.These similarities can be seen quite well in photos, or less well in Haeckel's exaggerated but largely correct pictures.Meanwhile some lazy text-book editors used these out-of-date pictures to show the facts of embryo similarities.Embryos DO show similar stages.
Haeckel's pictures DO show those stages (albeit less than perfectly.)Nothing in evolution is based on Haeckel's incorrect O.R.P. theory.
Nothing in evolution is based on Haeckel's exaggerated pictures.IasionEdited by Iasion, : No reason given.

1) Do you still claim it was creationist scientists who unearthed Haeckels fraud rather than standard established scientific empirical methods and bodies? This was my main starting point.
I.e. That if anything the whole Haeckels debacle demonstrates that science is interested in, and has methods to ensure that, discovering the truth rather than supporting ideology is the ultimate aim.
Thus it actually refutes the main thrust of the overall point you are making.2) Do you deny that embryology provides evidence for evolution? Not in repsonse to me you did not. However I am equally to blame for not reading the rest of this thread thoroughly enough before commenting. Having read the paper more thoroughly and having seen the full line you quote in part, I think that acknowledging Haeckels fraud whilst arguing that the evidence provided by embryology for evolution is worth re-examining in this context is perfectly legitimate.In short they are saying that Haeckels drawings were fradulant but that aspects of his conclusions were not necesarily wrong as a result of this.However........
Hiding fraud is dishonest.
If there are textbooks and teaching aids that use these drawings as bone fide examples of the link between embryology and evolutionary theory without the history of Haeckels fraud also being explained to students then I would utterly agree that this is wrong and should be stopped.Is there any evidence that this is actually happening?Frankly I would have thought that we now have enough photographic evidence of embryos to make these drawing unnecessary anyway.I'll ask again as you have failed to answer the question thus far.......
Do you deny that embryology provides any evidence at all for evolutionary theory?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No, it doesn't. However, since you are alleging things which are
NOT fraudulent as being so, AND since you are getting this erroneous information from Christian Fundamentalists sources, pointing out that THOSE SOURCES are bigger sources of fraud than the subjects you are criticizing is fair game.Get it?Yes, in the ENTIRE HISTORY of science, there HAVE BEEN one or two unfortunate mistakes and or forgeries.Fortunately, science has a methodology DESIGNED to weed out these missteps.The same can not be said for the Creationists who CONSTANTLY lie and never admit, let alone correct, those lies.

But, you've given a list that includes things which are NOT lies.So, your list is a LIE. And your list comes FROM the Creationists.So, here you are complaining that we are pointing out that you are lying in a thread you desperately hope to be "on topic" about how we always lie.I'll make a deal with you. YOU stop LYING, we'll stop POINTING OUT that you're LYING.

But you DID say "so many forgeries", then proceeded to give 2 valid examples.In what world does 2 mean "so many" especially compared to the hundreds of millions of fossils uncovered.Further, as I have pointed out before, and as I will continue to point out every time you bring it up: Since you are SOURCING your material off Creationist websites, their inability to tell the truth is FAIR GAME.You don't get to post lies and demand we answer to them. I don't care what the name of the thread is.

Who is "they"?The uneducated rancher who was hoping he'd made a big find?
The illustrator who was asked to draw pictures of cavemen than even the ONE scientist involved thought was misleading?
Or the scientists who declared that the tooth had features similar to early humans (which IT DOES)You keep pretending (lying?) about the facts of the case, implying that
a) Nebraska Man had some sort of impact on evolutionary science - it didn't.
b) A single tooth is a sufficient find to draw conclusions.The ONLY solid conclusion drawn from this tooth was this: "We should dig up more at that ranch and see what we find."And THEY DID. And they discovered it was a pig.THAT'S science working. "Interesting, let's go find out more."If there was ANY fraud in this case it was fraud created by the magazine editor who instructed the illustrator to draw the picture. Neither of which can be considered "scientists".Do you accuse scientists studying bats of fraud because the National Enquirer runs stories of "Bat Boy"?Well, what am I saying, given the evidence here, of course you do.

Here's another great example -You are EITHER being dishonest, or mistaken.According to your original post, clearly you've put mistakes in the same category as lies, so I'm going to go with that.You are "LYING". (emp mine) (emp mine)My grandmother is APPROXIMATELY 80 years old. She is NOT EXACTLY 80 years old.The Civil War was APPROXIMATELY 150 years ago. It was NOT EXACTLY 150 years ago.The Earth is APPROXIMATELY 4.55 BILLION years old. It is NOT EXACTLY 4.55 billion years old. Here's a tip, if you are going to LIE. Don't provide the quotes that prove you are LYING in the same post. More LIES from you, simply reposting LIES from Creationists.Though, I will point out that the Creationist LIES are ACTUALLY LIES where are your LIES are merely what I would call "mistakes". However, since you insist that the "mistakes" given in the OP are LIES, then I will continue with your definition.Firstly, C14 does NOT date things back to 100,000 years. Responsible archaeologists use C14 for dates back to 30,000 years or so.That's because C14 only measures back a certain distance. Anything OLDER than that comes up with the same age.Just like a ruler ONLY measures 12 inches. Anything LONGER than a ruler will come out as "12 inches".HONEST scientists KNOW this. THAT is why they use one of the MANY other dating methods to date things they suspect are older than 30,000 years. (like dino fossils).DISHONEST scientists ALSO KNOW this. That's why Creationist websites (like AiG) routinely misuse dating methods to confuse simple minded Creationists.They ALWAYS use C14 to incorrectly date fossils.THAT in and of itself could be an honest "mistake" (what you would call a LIE).However, they ALSO ALWAYS use Potassium dating to incorrectly date archaeological remains.If C14 is a 12 inch ruler, then Potassium dating is an odometer. The smallest measurement is "1/10th of a mile".For Potassium dating, the margin of error is sometimes in the millions of years. So, "this dinosaur lived 150 million years ago +/- 3 million" is REASONABLE. However, "this town was built yesterday +/- 1 million years" is NOT.The fact that these Creationists ALWAYS use the wrong method to date things is telling.Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can make 2 mistakes. It takes a special person to make the same 2 mistakes OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER consistently despite numerous people point out the mistakes multiple times each and every time they make them.You are the one complaining about "LIES" on this thread, yet here you are posting them over and over and over and over again despite these "LIES" being pointed out to you.What does that say about you as a person?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Nuggin was suspended because of this message.

Straggler, I already gave you Von Baer who in today's context would be either a creationist or IDer. He was anti-Darwinian, and if you look at his beliefs, they are ID beliefs. So I answered you and you refuse to acknowledge that. Ok, so your answer is it's OK to call fraudulent data "evidence for evolution." I am not that surprised. Will you further admit I was correct then in characterizing the paper as an attempt to reevaluate and restore some of Haeckel's ideas and the biogenetic law, that indeed evos, at least these guys, are already back to trying to use and indeed are using Haeckel's faked data and the biogenetic law as evidence for evolution, contrary to what many have stated here.As far as embrylogy, no, I don't think it is strong evidence for evolution. I don't think it belongs in textbooks as evidence for evolution and that the history of using it as evidence for evolution has been rife with fraud. I am well aware of some of the arguments, characteristically overstated as evos generally always do, but they are very weak arguments.Since this thread is not about embryology per se, I'd suggest starting a new thread, but just to give you one example of evo illogic, evos will often present some feature like a potential whale limb (as a leg) and say, look, this is vestigal. Only that explains it. But that's basically bull crap. First off, if you are an evo, you'd have to say it's entirely possible this is a new evolutionary development, not a vestigal organ. It could also be a parallel evolutionary development, and lastly, it could be none of the above. It's sheer lunacy to insist it can only be vestigal, if not an outright deception. If you want to say it could be vestigal, fine, but to say it could only be there as a result of a vestigal situation is absurd and just downright false, and yet this is how evos present "evidence" along with many other fabrications such as Haeckel's faked data, recapitulation, human gill slits that don't exist, etc, etc,.....

Doh.. didn't you read it. Are you that blind that you can not understand what is being said?It is not the diagram that matters. Yes,the old diagrams were exaggerated, yes, the main idea the diagrams were drawn were falsified within the lifetime of the person who drew them, but a very valid principle remains. Embryology DOES indeed provide evidence for evolution. It is the embryos that do, not the diagram. Richardson was pointing out that even the concept that the drawings were meant to represent were incorrect, the various stages an embryo goes through do indeed constitutes evidence for evolution. The data isn't falsified, since the data is the embryos themselves. You are mixing up the map from the territory. The drawings are not the embryo.The specific errors that were included in the drawing were pointed out, but that does not mean that all the features of the embryo were false, just exaggerated.The question remains why you misrepresent what is provided. You claim that they said the drawings are the data, while they do not. WHy are you misrpresenting them? Curious minds want to know.

I read it. Why don't you take your insults elsewhere and address the topic.Do you consider it acceptable to call faked data "evidence for evolution" or not?Here is the quote again where they call the faked data evidence for evolution. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichEdited by randman, : No reason given.

That's what you'd like to believe but the facts speak otherwise. Please note the following quote where evos specifically argue in a peer-reviewed journal that the drawings are "evidence for evolution." They also have some glowing things to say about the biogenetic law. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich