Evolutionist Frauds

This is from Skeptick in another thread.It is a shame that he didn't at least refer to one of the multiple sources.I will take up the Nebraska Man issue later. I'm not aware of any other case that could be, even remotely, considered to be an evolutionist fraud.If Skeptick would like to pull something off this lengthy rap sheet I would be interested.

Let's not drift off topic to creationist frauds. If you want to discuss that please start another thread.I'd like to see the 'rap sheet' of scientific fraud here.

bump! You made a claim skeptick. Defend it if you can.

I think this is a real fraud. As I understand it the pictures were literally faked. The same one used for more than one animal.I had, with my biases, forgotten this one.

You mean, GASP!, i fell for creationsist lies!!! Damm

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".

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?

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.

Which is why the commercial fossil market should be restricted very severly. And why it is fortunate that we are not dependent on that for information.

I think that different levels of taxonomy are getting muddled here
from: http://erms.biol.soton.ac.uk/cgi-bin/hierarchy.pl?rank=su...I don't know if this list is complete or not.This is the old class list and now Aves must move under Reptillia in some way (or a super class must have been created).I presume aves would now be an order of reptillia. Which would not group it with lizards or crocodiles or fish. Does anyone have a difinitive list?12 groups within the subphylum Vertebrata:
class Myxini
class Cephalaspidomorpha
class Chondrichthyes
class Ostichthyes
class Crossopterygii
class Reptilia
class Aves
class Mammalia
class Mixini
class Osteichthyes
class Class
informal Tetrapoda

That other was not intended that way. I just didn't want to argue Nebraska man right off