Tamara,
If you'd bother to say what's on your mind, perhaps I wouldn't have to try so hard to divine your intentions here. You have said:
quote:
But this is more of a fraud perpetrated ON evolutionists. It just raises the question of... how many other frauds are there undetected?
Oh and another point. Even if the Haeckel drawings were just very bad drawings, purporting to show how ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, then how come they have been foisted on students for nearly 100 years after being recognized so???!!! That in itself is pretty fraudulent in my book.
Everyone here is well aware that the Haeckel drawings are still used to prove a point that Darwinists abandoned nearly a century ago. We have agreed that they were certainly misleading, perhaps even fraudulent. Why are you still beating us over the head with this? No one here seems to believe that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, so to whom are these remarks addressed?
What do you believe, Tamara? If you have an issue with evolution by natural selection, tell us what that is. In the "Finches" thread and this one, you seem to be using Wells's conspiracy theories to prove that evolution is based on deceit. Then you accuse everyone here of paranoia for pointing out that you are overstating the case. We're trying to make the point that there have been instances where frauds have been perpetrated, but the theory of evolution by natural selection is well supported. Did you even read what Kenneth Miller said about embryonic similarities? Or are you satisfied that you've learned the entire lesson to be learned from the deceitful evolutionists?
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall