Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

True but it's a watered down version of it, as I explained earlier. Evos have been using the same terms since Haeckel to concoct some sort of recapitulation theory. It keeps getting watered down but never quite abandoned. Is that true? Which Biogenetic law? That's just the first version of it. Let's see what wikipedia says. Recapitulation theory - WikipediaPlease note that the term recapitulation and the biogenetic law are synonymous. I think if you look around you will see evos still arguing for recapitulation as viable but they mean watered down versions such as the phylotypic stage. But the data they relied on was faked, and moreover the paper details that there are far more significant differences than evos claimed and so much so, the phylotypic stage so well accepted by evos uncritically was incorrect. So? You are missing the point. Haeckel's data was accepted after over 100 years of sustained criticism that it was faked, and yet evos kept on inisting it was not. They were wrong, and they based their beliefs of the phylotypic stage on that faked data according to Richardson. Well, gross incompetence and refusal to consider facts is another plausible alternative. You have got to be kidding. Have you read nothing of what I've posted? There was over 100 years of sustained criticism from creationists and others exposing this fraud long before Richardson, which explains his vague comment on it being "challenged."He didn't expose it. He was just one of the first evos to come clean on it and provide data from that camp in a long time. It had been exposed quite a bit in the 90s and 80s and in fact, every decade prior to that. Any informed creationist knew it was faked. It wasn't that hard to tell and tenured creationist professors and others pointed out it was a fraud.If they didn't know, why?Heck, I knew as an undergrad student in the 80s. It was widely publicized. How is it they were unaware?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Now I know this tract is not scientific, but I went and looked up a Jack Chick tract and it appears identical to the one I read in the 80s. I don't want to discuss the details of it, but take note that one part mentions Haeckel's data being faked. Now, of course, this isn't science, but it demonstrates that claiming Haeckel faked his data has been standard creationist criticism for some time, even on a low level such as Jack Chick material.Chick.com: Big Daddy? This book was published in the 80s and contained criticism that Haeckel faked his data. The author also publicly debated this issue quite a bit.Amazon.comIt's hard to see how anyone educated on this debate was not aware Haeckel had faked his data. In reality, the criticism of Haeckel originates all the way back to the 1880s, and scientists especially creationists were quite critical and adament the depictions were faked and the data wrong.I've debated this topic before and researched this, and Haeckel's data being forged was written about not just in the 1880s but in a book in 1910 and pretty much every decade since. In the 50s, a prominent creationist made a huge stink about it, but evos wouldn't listen, and many of these guys detailed specifically how Haeckel had fudged his drawings.In the 80s, a creationist included it in a chapter in his book and it was publicized on the internet in the 90s. This was thrown in the face, with data, of evos for well over 100 years and evos just wouldn't budge.If you were me, what would you think? Before Richardson, every evo I argued this point with insisted I and anyone making these claims was just a crackpot.Frankly, I just cannot see how you can overestimate the significance of evo obstinance that even something as small as this, it took well over 100 years to get evos to back off and admit at least the data was faked. In fact, they are now trying to resurrect Haeckel and some form recapitulation to some degree.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_it_02.asp

Richardson himself either lent his name or genuinely wrote the following in 2001 after bashing Haeckel in 1997, reversing his position almost entirely from his initial comments on Haeckel's stuff being the "biggest hoax" and "fraud" in biology. Also, MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichSo now one of the biggest frauds in the history of biology is a "good teaching aide" and even "evidence for evolution" despite being faked and doctored data. Guess he learned it's better for him to support the party line that admit creationists were correct all along on something. If you have a more charitable way to explain evos publishing in a peer-reviewed journal that faked data is "evidence", I am all ears....Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

It's worse than that. There was no scientific literature based on actual comprehensive analysis to support the widely accepted belief in the phylotypic stage that was indeed promoted by haeckel and others.So you can say, well, Haeckel wasn't used in the literature, and you may be right. Nothing was. haeckel was assumed to be right despite his bad track record.

Except in this case, evos did continue to use Haeckel. They admitted that. It was used in most textbooks and Richardson says relied upon to form opinion on the phylotypic stage. This occurred despite ample and sufficient, sustained criticism for over 100 years demonstratingn Haeckel forged his drawings.The college professor that first informed me of this also stated he had shown this fact to his colleagues. It was widely publicized.Why did evos keep using faked data after it was known it was faked?I'd like to hear a plausible and reasonable explanation for that. Miller's "everyone did it" defense meaning all the evos is not a valid excuse and suggests that evos refuse to hear factual criticism but as Richardson says, accepted it as something that needed no evidence for. Imo, this is generally true for evo "science." Claims are made and then when they are shown to be incorrect, evos just insist their critics have been refuted and keep on going.......at least that's how it looks to me. The Haeckel saga is a great example of that, and keep in mind they are trying to resurrect Haeckel as "evidenced for evolution" and "good teaching aides" right now, and that those claims were printed in peer-reviewed evo journals.How do you explain that? http://www.mk-richardson.com/PDFs/biolrevs.pdfHow is a scientific hoax and doctored data "evidence for evolution"? Heck, the whole paper is an exercise in trying to resurrect Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. They specifically use that term and talk about it's modern applications.Is this par for the course as far as "evidence" for evolution?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Creationist scientists, not evos. Problem is that it is still part of established evo thinking and evos are in the process of trying to resurrect Haeckel and a version of his biogenetic law. Keep in mind this isn't the first time we've been around this pole. Critics have consistently shown and pointed out Haeckel's fraud from near day one in the 1800s and evos have consistently promoted it anyway and are still trying to do so. Except evo science isn't really doing that as the 2002 paper trying to resurrect the biogenetic law demonstrates. This paper was published, peer-reviewed, and makes the astonishing claim that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution."Hopefully, as more and more critics continue to pile on and charge the evo community with irresponsible behaviour in promoting the fraud, it will eventually die but we are not there yet. Except it hasn't. The criticism just as with haeckel is swept under the rug and only consistent, sustained ridicule of such frauds, illogic, overstatements, etc,.....seems to work, and even then, the same old thing crops up again unless there is some vigilance in exposing it over and over again, especially to the public so that there is pressure to deal with the issue factually.

They flat out state that Haeckel's drawings themselves are "evidence for evolution" and they furthermore insist that Haeckel's biogenetic law is not adult form of recapitulation as many claim, and that it is relevant for modern embrylogy and evo theories.It's a straight-out defense and veneration of Haeckel, the biogenetic law aka as recapitulation and as such, is a stunning reversal considering just 5 years earlier one of the authors called it one of the "biggest frauds in all of biology."Notice they shamelessly deride creationist critics who were entirely accurate: Unbeleivable! First, note the date of 1915.....creationists pointing out Haeckel faked his data has a long history. Secondly, note their slur of "religious or political" motivations "which will not be discussed here." Their slur (anger?) at creationists who were right all along is noteworthy. Is this evidence the piece may well have been written to salvage the damage done to evo reputations in the 1997 paper which correctly pointed out the depictions were fraudulent, as oppossed to their claim here of being "evidence for evolution."How can anyone explain away or justify publishing and writing a paper insisting fraudulent data is "evidence for evolution."Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Evos are claiming that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution" so in fact, they are indeed trying to use faked data as evidence. If you notice the quotes, you'd see that despite creationists and perhaps others detailing Haeckel's fraud from the 1800s until this very day, evos have continued to try to use the fraudulent data during that whole time.As criticism becomes more intense (the internet helped), evos tend to back off but as we see in the 2002 paper, it's typically only a few short years before they are back at it again, trying to promote the biogenetic law in some form or another.

Have you read the whole paper and the 1997 paper? I have, and the 2002 paper is an attempt to undue the damage that the 1997 paper. It is not a rejection of Haeckel's theory, nor data. Actually, it's both as can be easily seen reading both papers. That's a good start. Too bad evos like Richardson aren't sticking to recognizing that. What makes it a legitimate one? The faked data? That's based on assuming mammals evolved from reptiles and so is circular reasoning.Back to a question I have repeatedly asked: how is it proper to claim in a peer-reviewed journal that faked data is "evidence for evolution"?

How am I lying? What is your explanation for why in 2002, these evos insist that Haeckel's faked data is "evidence for evolution"?Is it OK in your view to use faked data and call it evidence?

Is it acceptable then in your view to call faked data "evidence for evolution"?

Really? How can you say this when the 2002 paper states the opposite, namely that Haeckel's drawings are "evidence for evolution"?Is it your contention that faked data is acceptable as scientific evidence?

Von Baer for one and please take note he was adamently opposed to Darwinism. I suggest you take a little time to research the topic yourself and recognize that Haeckel's forgeries and false ideas have been consistently shown to be wrong for quite a long time, well over 100 years prior to and throughout the intervening period to the 1997 cave-in by Richardson.Can you answer my questions please. Specifically, how do you justify evos claiming faked data is "evidence for evolution"?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

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.