Evolutionist Frauds

As Gould states this issue has little relevance to evolutionary theory:

quote:

---

From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within.

---

What an opportunity for the creationists! They can examine the specimens more carefully and find all the fakes.I wouldn't hold my breath. The detailed scrutiny that a fossil is put under when a monograph is written is not likely to let very many fakes get by.It would be interesting to see some actual research (even of this sort) done by creation "scientists".

quote:

---

We're so glad you agree with Stephen Jay Gould that the Haeckel drawings are misleading.

---

Nice to have some agreement, MrH! (Is that a royal "we" or have you perchance cloned yourself -- perish the thought!)

quote:

---

We're not surprised that you don't agree with Gould that evolution doesn't require such subterfuge.

---

I see you are once again engaged in trying to read my mind, and doing poorly at it. I suggest you engage your mind instead.I have no problems with embryology as such, and disagree with Wells regarding photos or accurate drawings of embryos.

quote:

---

It seems you've made up your mind that all evidence for evolution is deceitful,

---

(cough, cough) I see you are once again engaged in trying to read my mind, and doing poorly at it. I suggest you engage your mind instead.

quote:

---

and that all fossils are frauds.

---

Unless you quit attributing to me stuff I never said, you might soon find YOURSELF of being relagated to frauddom, sir!

quote:

---

Forgive us if our views are a bit more informed and rational.

---

Ack! Don't you worry that if you puff up any more you'll burst?

-----
Moose, I saw that thread. I know a number of textbook authors are finally making corrections. Took 100 years, but what the heck. Better late than never, eh?

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Well then, nuff said, no? This thread was opened up to list the frauds. It has not been opened up to discuss what I believe, so I must demur for another time, tempting tho it may be to have such a showcase!As for me "accusing everyone here of paranoia" -- where in the world DO you get your information, MrH?

Yes, specifically it was opened for Skeptick to list the "rap sheet" he claimed exists.So far the rap sheet seems a bit short after working on it for over a century. Don't you think?

Tamara,

quote:

---

This thread was opened up to list the frauds. It has not been opened up to discuss what I believe, so I must demur for another time, tempting tho it may be to have such a showcase!

---

Oh, don't underestimate yourself. When the subject is dishonesty, equivocation, and evasion, you fit in very well.Rock on, T!regards,
Esteban "Lo Dudo" Hambre

quote:

---

So far the rap sheet seems a bit short after working on it for over a century

---

True, NosyNed. That is the nice thing about science. Fraud is usually outed in the end. MrH: Back to the land of ad hominems? Have a nice journey. But please note that the next time you accuse me of dishonesty, I will call you on it. Consider yourself warned.

Tamara,You never answered these questions I asked you in your "Galapagos Finches" thread:

quote:

---

Again, I wonder what you're getting at. Could you tell us whether you believe speciation has ever taken place? Should all organisms be classified as the same species just because laymen aren't comfortable with the amount of ambiguity in the definition of species?

​

Do you have a problem with the notion of common ancestry? If so, could you tell us what it is? Do you believe that certain groups of organisms popped into existence out of thin air?

​

Could you please tell us what the best explanation could be for the nested hierarchies we observe in life on Earth? Or why the family trees scientists have assembled using various methods all seem to correlate to a high degree?

---

You keep avoiding the issue of what you believe as if you're hiding something. Are you?regards,
Esteban "Ask a Silly Question" Hambre

Since dishonesty is a bit of a nasty charge, I suggest you call him on it now. It seems to be better than that. Because fraud seems to be outed sooner rather than later there is a significant deterrant to committing fraud (or even too much carelessness) in the first place.My biggest concern is with organisations like drug companies getting to much control on the research done that might affect them. Here the incentives for fraud are very large and perhaps more likely to be hidden because of the overwhelming resources they may be able to bring to bare.

Nah... everybody deserves one warning... why waste time with bluffers?

quote:

---

It seems to be better than that. Because fraud seems to be outed sooner rather than later there is a significant deterrant to committing fraud (or even too much carelessness) in the first place.

---

Exactly. That is what I meant. And I agree with you, there are too many areas in the society at large where the incentive to cheat seems to be built in. And then people wonder when the scandals are uncovered... It's a no brainer.MrH: Can you provide a cogent and coherent argument as to why I should continue talking with you after you impugn my integrity?

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!!

Brave Sir Robin!

No misrepresentation: Tamara is quite correct. In her post Message 12, she said: The full story is fascinating. The scientist who located the counter slab of the fossil was Xu Xing, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology in Beijing.Xu Xing was brought in at the suggestion of the Institute in Beijing to be one of several scientific experts to make the first examination of the fossil after it was purchased at sale of gems and minerals in Utah, by the owner of a small museum. However, Xu Xing's initial examination was quite brief, before his return to China.After this, a chain of events was set in motion. National Geographic committed to writing up the discovery, confident that this would appear after formal announcement in peer reviewed journals. Then papers describing the fossil were rejected by Nature, and by Science (twice). National Geographic was out on a limb, and went ahead with publication anyway.While scientists in the USA were studying the fossil, handicapped by lack of any proper field work description or knowledge of its original locality; Xu Xing went on a search for more evidence in China, on his own behalf. It was clear that the fossil had come from the Liaoning province in Northern China, the source of many magnificent fossils which have helped show a close link to birds. After two months, Xu Xing got lucky. He is quoted by a BBC Horizon transcript: He did get lucky. A local farmer who was involved also in fossil collecting did have something similar... similar right down to small cracks and marks on the rock. It was the counter slab of the same fossil. The program goes on to describe what happens next: The story of events leading up to publication is told in "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail" by Lewis M. Simons, in the National Geographic October 2000 issue. Simons was given the task by the magazine editors of finding out just how and why National Geographic went so horribly wrong. His report makes amazing reading. Simons describes it thus: It would be churlish to blame the Chinese finders and dealers for this hoax. They generally receive only a fraction of what fossils are really worth. The aim of the original constructor of the composite was quite likely not primarily to deceive, but mainly to present material with the best possible appearance for market.It is is likely that the forgery would have been uncovered even without the counter slab discovery; but it may have taken much longer. There were already many warning signs of problems; but a reluctance to look at those signs by some scientists who should have known better. The CAT scans in particular had already indicated the possibility of fraud, and this was communicated to Nature magazine, but not to National Geographic. For full defails of the communications failure, check out Simon's article.It should be noted that the problem was not with scientific review, but with a popular magazine that somehow avoided or lost or just failed to hear the review.Cheers -- SylasPS. Welcome Tamara. You've had some excellent things to say here, and have somehow managed to be completely misunderstood. Your critical approach will be a valuable contribution, and what I have seen of your contributions, on a number of topics, has always been right on the money.

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.