Your list of "frauds" is itself a fraud.
You presume to demonstrate massive fraud in evolution, and all you can find is the standard few examples always used by creationists.
Lets take a closer look:
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of manuntil it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Piltdown was a hoax. It was designed to fool the British paleontologists! It wasn't something they perpetrated to fool the public or anyone else.
And it didn't fit! Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit with the rest of the evidence. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. Piltdown was increasingly ignored until it was finally disproved in the early 1950s.
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
A pig tooth fools one guy and an illustrator, and is quickly figured out, and that's a major fraud? Surely you creationists can do better than that if there are thousands of frauds, eh?
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Don't even bother citing creationist nonsense. They have made fools of themselves for years over Java Man.
Creationist Arguments: Java Man
As science has figured out the details of these finds, creationists have continued to stick to their early disbelief. They continue to let belief overrule evidence (creation science as usual).
"Knowledgable creationists" may not claim that Java Man is an ape any more, but there still seem to be quite a few non-knowledgable creationists out there, such as Duane Gish (1995). Old lies die hard, however. An article published in 1991 in Creation, the popular magazine of Weiland's organization Answers in Genesis, suggested that the Java Man skullcap was probably that of an ape. That article is still on the AIG website as of 2005...
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
More creationist nonsense.
Creationist Arguments: Orce Man
From this source:
Two French scientists had suggested the fragment "may have come" from a donkey. Another scientist quoted in the news report admitted there was some doubt as to the bone's identity, but thought it was still quite likely human. A third scientist quoted in another news report from Associated Press claimed it was definitely humanoid. Instead of it being a "fact" that the fragment is "most likely" a donkey, a fairer assessment would be that it was still unidentified, but possibly an equid (not necessarily a donkey).
By the next paragraph, Gish is exaggerating even further, and is calling the disputed fragment a "donkey's skull". It is not a skull, and it was not necessarily from a donkey.
It is easy to score cheap rhetorical points by implying that scientists are so incompetent that they cannot tell the difference between a human and a donkey. A more charitable explanation, which turns out to be the correct one, is that the bone is genuinely difficult to identify, as proved by the fact that debate over its status has continued for over 10 years.
So it looks like it is creationists that have egg on face rather than paleontologists. Some specimens are genuinely difficult to figure out. (Often those are transitionals, with characteristics of earlier and later populations.) But creationists take any tiny thing they think supports their beliefs--whether it does or not--and run with it. And, once formed, they are very reluctant to ever change those beliefs.
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Still more creationist nonsense, coupled with major errors.
The first Neanderthal remains were found in the Neander Valley of Germany in 1856. (Duh!). At that time there were virtually no hominid fossils known, and folks didn't know quite what to make of them.
So that is a fraud?
Is that the best that creationists can do? There are thousands of evolutionist frauds and that's all you can come up with? What a joke.
I guess that's creation "science" for you, eh?
Edited by Coyote, : Additional details on bare links
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
