Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Now, as to why birds have the same basic features.

1. I would note that penguins seem to falsify that! They really aren't "birds" in the traditional sense anymore, are they?

EVOLUTION:
Complexity Matters

Günter Wagner

Are organisms like liquid droplets, infinitely malleable by the changing forces of evolution, or do they contain a "frozen core"--the Bauplan, or body design, which remains little changed under the varying adaptive pressures a lineage encounters during its history? Until quite recently, these questions have divided evolutionary biologists (as well as philosophers) into two almost nonoverlapping camps. On the one hand are the so-called reductionists, largely recruited from the ranks of population genetics and associated disciplines, who are strongly committed to the adaptationist program of evolutionary biology. This group tends toward a world view in which there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. On the other hand are those biologists who primarily study whole organisms or complex phenotypic traits of organisms. This second group emphasizes the need to understand the constraints on evolutionary change that arise as a consequence of the intrinsic functional and developmental complexity of organisms. On page 1210 of this issue, Waxman and Peck (1) present a new mathematical result that reconciles most of the differences between these two camps. Population genetic equations predict, so they show, that parts of the phenotype effectively "crystallize" as the complexity of systems increase. But what is the problem to which this result is the solution?

The intellectual history of the problem goes back to the synthesis of Darwinian evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics forged by the fathers of modern evolutionary theory, R. A. Fisher, S. Wright, and T. Dobzhansky. Through the marriage of genetics and Darwinism, it became clear that the process of evolution can be understood, or at least described, as changes in gene frequencies over time (2). New genes arise by mutation and are either lost (most likely) or they replace their parental genes, by selection or genetic drift. This, it turns out, is the most elementary level on which evolution can be explained. Consequently, a lot of effort was and continues to be invested in research directed at understanding these elementary processes. This remarkably successful research program has been pursued with the implicit assertion that evolution of real and complex organisms is just more of the same, and that no qualitatively new phenomena emerge as a result of increasing complexity (3). In this view, complexity is fundamentally irrelevant to an understanding of evolution. A corollary of this line of thinking is that all aspects and characters of the organism are variable and constantly changing (although at different rates), and the concept of a "Bauplan" (the body organization characteristic of a larger group of organisms) is an illusion (4).
A well-informed minority of organismal biologists, however, never were convinced of this radical view. Theirs is a more pluralistic view: yes, they agree, many characters are highly variable and their differences among species and populations can be understood as adaptations. But at some stages of evolution certain characters effectively "click in" and remain fixed in the descendent group of species (5-7). For instance, the chorda dorsalis (the embryonic precursor of our vertebral column) is absent in invertebrates, variably present in the relatives of vertebrates (ascidians and related groups) and absolutely fixed in vertebrates. The first who most clearly saw a connection between this pattern and increasing complexity was Rupert Riedl in the 1970s (6). He postulated that with increasing complexity some characters become more important because more and more new characters are functionally or developmentally predicated on them. Once such characters have accumulated many "responsibilities," mutational change will be detrimental and thus these characters become evolutionarily fixed. This increasing burden leads to fixation of characters. The problem with this view, however, was that it did not connect well with the then current population genetic theory.

Standard population genetic theory supports a liquid genome metaphor. In the balance between mutation and selection, each population settles into a state in which the most fit genotype is always surrounded by a sizable swarm of mutant genotypes buzzing around the best genotype (8), so much so that the concept of wild-type becomes meaningless. Variation is the name of the game. Only the amount of variation depends, in a continuous manner, on the relative strength of stabilizing selection, genetic drift, and mutation. Well, not exactly, according to the report by Waxman and Peck (1), which shows that there is a complexity limit beyond which genes can freeze into a fixed state and where the swarm of genetic variation suddenly disappears like fog in the sun. In the Waxman-Peck model, the complexity limit is reached once the genes affect more than two characters that are under simultaneous stabilizing selection.

To be precise, this freezing phenomenon has been described before (9), but it was seen as an arcane result of mathematical population genetics of uncertain significance and familiar to only a very few specialists. The significance of the present report is that Waxman and Peck have shown that this obscure property of mutation-selection equations has a connection to a generic property of organisms: complexity. Each gene has many effects and functions, each character is functionally connected to multiple others. Since this is the case, the freezing of genetic and phenotypic states is a necessary outcome, just as many organismal biologists have suspected for more than a century.

This sounds great and simple, but nothing in science is ever really simple. There is always the question whether the models are producing artifacts rather than pointing to fundamental insights. There is also no definite empirical proof as to whether the Bauplan concept is a perceptual artifact or a real pattern. Both are empirical questions that need to be settled. What makes the result by Waxman and Peck nonetheless exciting is that new emergent phenomena can be discovered that are not obvious from the study of simple models. More complexity is not just more of the same, but can lead to qualitatively new phenomena. This has long been know to physicists, but there are only a handful of examples where "complexity effects" were described in population genetic models (10). These and the report by Waxman and Peck show the need to study the population genetic theory of complex adaptations as a separate problem.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




References



1.D. Waxman and J. R. Peck, Science 279, 1210 (1998). 2.W.-B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1971). 3.M. T. Ghiselin, Metaphysics and the Origin of Species (State Univ. of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1997). 4.G.-C. Williams, Adaptation and Natural Selection (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1966). 5.G. B. Muller and G. P. Wagner, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 22, 229 (1991). 6.R. Riedl, Q. Rev. Biol. 52, 351 (1977) [Medline]; Order in Living Organisms: A Systems Analysis of Evolution (Wiley, New York, 1978). 7.S. C. Stearns, Acta Palaeontol. Polonica 38, 1 (1993); C. H. Waddington, The Strategy of the Genes (MacMillan, New York, 1957); G. P. Wagner, in Patterns and Processes in the History of Life, D. M. Raup and D. Jablonski, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986), pp. 149-165. 8.R. Lande, Genet. Res. 26, 221 (1975) [Medline]; M. Turelli, Theor. Popul. Biol. 25, 138 (1984) [Medline]. 9.J. F. C. Kingman, J. Appl. Probab. 15, 1 (1978); R. Burger, Math. Z. 197, 259 (1988); --- and I. M. Bomze, Adv. Appl. Probab. 28, 227 (1996). 10.M. Eigen, J. McCaskill, P. Schuster, Adv. Chem. Physics 75, 149 (1989); S. A. Kauffman and S. Levin, J. Theor. Biol. 128, 11 (1987) [Medline]; S. A. Kauffman, The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1993); G. P. Wagner, Biosystems 17, 51 (1984); J. Evol. Biol. 1, 45 (1988) [Medline].

Volume 279, Number 5354 Issue of 20 February 1998, pp. 1158 - 1159
©1998 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

In that case I'm looking forward to your detailed and insightful arguments against the data I posted.


Quite a fairy tale. Too bad it has no resemblance to evolution. I see you are using the typical creationist tactic: when you can't argue reasonably, pick a phrase and try to make fun of it. Too bad we've seen it before and know what it is.

LOL! Off to bed, huh? After all my posts of proof, you decide to go off to bed! Yep, if you can't deal with the data, just run away!

Say, I bet you are a fan of Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail.

"Run away! Run away!"

But don't worry, the posts will still be here tomorrow. And the day after. And the day after that. Data doesn't go away. You can run and ignore, but the data is still there.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Calvin, I thought you were off to bed! But here I still see you listed as viewing this thread. How about that?

But I truly am off to bed. Eastern US time zone here. See you bright and early tomorrow.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

The first sentence is vague...but not when you take it in context with the previous posts. Regardless, the second one (bolded) clarifies things. Besides, the 'scientific' nature of that evidence is implicit in this discussion, don't you think?




Again, I am talking about scientific data. Are you now saying that working with the data we have today, that we will one day prove God scientifically? Sorry lucaspa, but I don't think it works that way.

If we want to discuss anecdotal spiritual experiences, then we have plenty of evidence for God. But I was not referring to such experiences in my post.



Scientific data, lucaspa...not revelation data. In order to see God in the scientific data, I believe you need to have faith first. If someone looks at the beauty and complexity of a cell and realizes that God is real in that moment...they weren't convinced by the scientific data. They were convinced by a personal revelation. Otherwise, anyone who looks at such data would come to the same conclusion. You don't need faith to experience a revelation, but you need faith (or a revelation) to see God in the scientific data.

Thats an opinion, and should be qualified as such. Personally I think it was fairly obvious that I was referring to scientific data in my previous posts. This is especially true when you consider the entire content of the post and the context of our discussion. When did the 'evidence' for creation become anything other than strictly scientific within the context of this thread?

You don't need to read my mind to recognize the obvious, right?

Originally Posted by me, in another thread

Every repeated piece of punctuation reduces your apparent IQ by half.

I think this can extend to repeated letters as well. Someone looks synaptically challenged this morning.

__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."

Well, while we are waiting for evolutionary proof #2, I thought we could all read a nice Sunday sermon on the:

EVOLUTION IS A HOAX - DOCUMENTED!
by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr.

A sermon preached at the Baptist Tabernacle of Los Angeles
Lord's Day Evening, March 30, 2003

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

The Greek word translated "fables" here is "muthos." It means "fiction"
or "myths" (Vine's Expository Dictionary). Dr. Henry M. Morris points
out that

Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer and Dr. Morris pointed out that the theory of
evolution, with its idea of "the survival of the fittest," was the
viewpoint behind both Fascism and Communism. Darwin's ideas induced
Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews in World War II. Darwin's
theory was also the philosophy in back of Communism's slaughter of
millions - including the killing fields of Cambodia and the genocide in
Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union. Dr. Morris and Dr. Schaeffer
pointed out that Darwin's theory is what produced the mindset that
abortion is a woman's "choice." Forty-two million babies have been
killed in America alone as a direct result of a belief in evolution.
Yes, C. S. Lewis was right on that point. Evolution is the central lie
of our time. And it was predicted in Bible prophecy,

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

I. First, there is no real evidence for evolution.

It remains the "theory" of evolution after one hundred and fifty years,
simply because the evolutionists have no real proof, to make their
theory a scientific fact.

Oh, I know you have seen a chart called "the tree of life" in your
secular biology textbook. It looks very convincing. It has an amoeba at
the bottom, fishes and amphibians on the bottom branches, up higher
there are birds and reptiles, then apes toward the top, and man on the
highest branch.

But the fossil record does not support the evolutionary "tree of life"
picture at all. Dr. Joe White and Dr. Nicholas Comninellis say,

We would expect that the oldest and deepest layers of fossils would
contain the earliest, most primitive forms of life. As we search through
younger, shallower layers, we would expect to find gradual transition of
the most primitive life forms into more complex ones...Since the
transition from fish to amphibian would have required many millions of
years (during which time millions, even billions, of transitional forms
must have lived) fossils of many of these transitional forms should be
discovered.

But they have not been discovered! Dr. White and Dr. Comninellis
continue,

If reptiles turned into birds, as claimed, then we should also expect to
find fossils with gradually extending of the front feet of the reptile
into the form of wings like a bird...The fossil record ought to reveal
many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They should fill
museum collections (Joe White, Ed.D. and Nicholas Comninellis, M.D.,
Darwin's Demise, Master Books, 2001, p. 15).

But they do not! There is no credible fossil evidence to support
evolution!

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

II. Second, examples of hoaxes used to "prove" the theory of evolution.

I could give several of these hoaxes, but I have selected three, the
first one from fifty years ago, the second one from the 1990s, and the
third one from the early twentieth century. First, consider the hoax of
"Piltdown Man."

The American People's Encyclopedia (Chicago: The Spencer Press, Inc.)
was written in 1948. My father gave me a set of this encyclopedia in
1954, when I was thirteen years old. I still have this set of
encyclopedias in my library. Here is what that encyclopedia said about
"Piltdown Man" back in 1948,

A fossil human skull found near Piltdown, England, in 1912. It was taken
from a gravel pit cut into an ancient alluvial fan. The deposit itself
probably dates from the third glaciation but contains much older
materials washed in from higher levels. The skull while exceedingly
thick and showing some primitive characteristics is essentially that of
modern man (ibid., volume 15, p. 782).

Although the 1953 edition of this encyclopedia does throw some doubt on
"Piltdown Man," it still presented it that year as a credible proof of
the theory of evolution. But Dr. Don Boys gives us the rest of the
story. He tells us that, with the discovery of this skull,

The evolutionists, flushed and excited, pointed to their "missing link"
for more than 40 years [from 1912 until 1953], and boasted about it in
all the textbooks as being "proof of evolution." In fact more than 500
doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown Man, seeking to
establish him as one of the most impressive "finds" in the history of
science...[But] in 1953, three honest scientists found that the modern
ape's jaw and human skull had been "doctored" to resemble an ape man,
and the fake [had] fooled the world's greatest experts! The persons
responsible for the hoax (fraud) some allege, were [Charles] Dawson
[himself - the man who "found" the fossil] and Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin who had written several books trying to harmonize evolution and
[Catholicism] (Don Boys, Ph.D., Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith, Largo,
Florida: Freedom Publications, 1994, pp. 259-260).

Dr. Boys pointed out that the British Museum, where the "fossil" was
stored, prevented it from being examined by experts for over forty years
(ibid., p. 261). Dr. Henry M. Morris points out that Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin has been "implicated by a number of his fellow evolutionists as
one of the perpetrators of the infamous Piltdown Man hoax" (Henry M.
Morris, Ph.D., The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, p. 23). De
Chardin was one of the leading evolutionists of the twentieth century.

Dr. Michael Pitman writes:

Only in 1953, when a method for determining the age of fossil bones by
analyzing their fluorine content was revived, were critical tests
carried out on the Piltdown fossils. The human skull and ape-like jaw,
contradicting updated ideas about man's evolution, had aroused
suspicion. They were found to be of commensurate [equal] age but much
younger than the other fossils and articles which were supposed to have
been found. Most of the specimens had been artificially stained with
bichromate [a saline solution derived from potassium. The specimens had
been artificially stained to give them the appearance of great age]. The
canine tooth had been filed, coloured and packed [artificially] with
grains of sand. An elephant bone associated with the skull, of a type
found...in Egypt, had been cut with steel instruments into an improbable
"bat" shape. The Piltdown skull was a deliberate fraud. The faking of
the mandible and canine was skilful and deliberate: it was certainly a
determined and unscrupulous hoax. Sir Solly Zuckerman, who later
reviewed the story, considered the hoaxer knew more about primate
anatomy than the experts who were several times deluded (Michael Pitman,
Adam and Evolution, London: Century Hutchinson, Ltd., 1984; reprinted by
Baker Book House, 1987, p. 93).

Who was responsible for this hoax? Charles Dawson, a Sussex lawyer, who
led the excavation, was twice "surprised...in his office staining bones"
by two paleontologists who did not trust him (p. 93). Arthur Smith
Woodward was the head of the anthropology department at the British
Museum - who collaborated with Dawson. Although he was an expert on fish
bones, Woodward was "certainly not an anthropologist" (ibid., p. 91).
Teilhard is the third man. All three, Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard,
took part in the "discovery." The tooth, filed down from that of an
elephant from Tunisia, was almost certainly supplied by Teilhard, who
had visited the place where these elephants are buried in Tunisia.
Michael Pitman tells us,

Dawson was certainly at the bottom of it but probably didn't know enough
of primate anatomy to do the job well. Others from the British Museum
may have been involved [this would explain why the "fossil" was kept
under lock and key for so many years, and even such [leading]
anthropologists as Dr. Louis Leakey were not allowed to examine it,
ibid,. p. 93], and Teilhard de Chardin almost certainly planted the
[ground-down and stained elephant] tooth (ibid., p. 94).

Thus, Eoanthropus dawsonii (Dawson's Dawn Man) was proved to be a hoax.
Why did these men create this fraud? The answer is simple: they were
trying to find "missing links" to prove the theory of evolution. When
they couldn't find any in Britain, they created one - to try to prove
the theory of evolution. But you can't "prove" this theory with hoaxes!

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

Next, consider the case of "Nebraska Man."

On receiving a tooth [found in Nebraska] from a Mr. Harold Cook, H. F.
Osborn (head of the American Museum of Natural History) declared it had
characteristics which were a mixture of human, chimpanzee and
pithecanthropus. He named it Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (Harold Cook's
Evening Ape). In Britain Sir Grafton Elliott Smith fully supported him
and, on the basis of a single tooth, there appeared in the Illustrated
London Times (24 June 1922) a center-spread of an artist's impression of
"man-ape" Hesperopithecus cavorting with his wife. [Nearly everyone
believed in "Nebraska Man" in 1922].

You may have seen the classic movie, "Inherit the Wind," or the TV
movie, made in the 1990s, with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott. I hate
these movies - because they portray William Jennings Bryan as a fool,
which he was not, and Darrow as a champion of truth and decency, which
he was not. These movies are about the Scopes Trial of 1925, which
pitted Brian and Darrow against each other, in what turned out to be a
debate on evolution. A man named Scopes was being tried for teaching
evolution in a public school. Bryan was the special prosecutor. Darrow
was the chief counsel for the defence.

Nowhere in the trial did scientific problems receive any sensible
discussion. Darrow displayed ignorance both of the theory of evolution
and the teachings of the Bible, and leveled a barrage of insult and
vilification at fundamentalist Bryan. Bryan did not respond in kind.
Darrow was clearly the media favourite [What else is new?]. Darrow
[used] two main lines of evidence for evolution...the Piltdown Man and
Nebraska Man (Michael Pitman, ibid., pp. 99-100).

In the movie versions of "Inherit the Wind," you see the Darrow
character (played by Spencer Tracy in one movie and Jack Lemmon in the
other) waving a newspaper with a drawing of "Nebraska Man" in front of
Bryan's face - and telling him what a fool he was not to believe the
"latest scientific evidence." But Bryan gets the last laugh! And, as my
mother used to say, "He who laughs last laughs best."

Darrow's two great arguments against Bryan were Piltdown Man - which was
proved to be a forgery in 1953, 28 years after the Scopes Trial - and
Nebraska Man, discovered in 1922, three years before the Scopes Trial.

Oh, I forgot to tell you, in 1930, it was discovered that the tooth,
upon which Nebraska Man was based, was actually the tooth of an extinct
pig!

William Jennings Bryan is attacked as an ignorant fundamentalist
Christian to this day in your secular college - and Darrow is held up as
a great champion of modern thought. Yet Darrow's two main arguments
against Bryan were both based on hoaxes - the tooth of a pig, and some
chimpanzee bones and an elephant tooth, glued to a human skull, and
painted brown to make them look ancient!

My mother used to tell about a man she knew as a girl back in the
Ozarks. He believed in mermaids. When an enlightened person said that
there were no such things as mermaids, that old mountain man said, "Oh
yes there are! Grandma seen one at Barnum's circus!" You see, his
grandmother had been to the circus, and had gone to the old-time side
show, where she was shown a "mermaid," pickled in a bottle of
formaldehyde! I myself saw a photograph of this in a book on P. T.
Barnum. It is actually the head and torso of a monkey, sewed
unobtrusively to the tail of a fish! That old lady saw this hoax at the
circus - and was convinced. "There's no such thing as a mermaid!" "Oh
yes there is! Grandma seen one at Barnum's circus!"

I'm very much afraid that many people today are about as dumb as that
old hillbilly. Because they saw a drawing in a book, they think that
evolution is true and the Bible is false!

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

You see, the evolutionists just don't have any credible fossil evidence
for their theory! It goes right on today.

A skull, found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of [man] in
Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey [This was in
1984]. (Pitman, ibid., p. 100).

In 1983 an American anthropologist tried to pass off a dolphin's rib as
the collarbone of a prehistoric man (ibid.). "The problem with a lot of
anthropologists," says anthropologist Dr. Timothy White, "is that they
want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid
bone" (ibid.).

If there really were "missing links," or "transitional forms" between
the ancestors of apes and humans - there ought to be millions and
millions of fossils. But there aren't. They present a few scraps of
bone, and a tooth or two, and build their whole theory of prehistoric
man on that flimsy foundation. Most of these scraps of fossil bone are
from old people, or sick people, or from another animal. The whole
theory of evolution rests on a foundation of hoaxes and frauds!

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

III. Third, the recent examples of flying dinosaurs and
peppered moths are also proven to be hoaxes.

Do you think these hoaxes and frauds are a thing of the past? No, as we
saw with that donkey bone, and that dolphin bone, the same fraudulency
goes right on among scientists, trying to "prove" evolution by
doctoring, painting, and misrepresenting the fossil record.

A report from the Los Angeles Times recently had the byline, "Once
Hailed as a Missing Link, Forgery is Found to be Mosaic of Fossils from
Microraptor and a Bird" (Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2002, p. A12).
Here are the highlights of that news report:

NEW YORK - When the smuggled stone slab first surfaced at a Tucson
mineral show, it seemed the likely key to a mystery of evolution.

To the collector who paid $80,000 for it, the Chinese fossil had every
appearance of a feathered dinosaur that flew like a modern bird. The
purported missing link made headlines when National Geographic trumpeted
the find in 1999, then caused red faces when it was revealed as a
forgery a year later.

Researchers in China and at the American Museum of Natural History in
New York now have completely deciphered the deception.

The find wrongly hailed as a crucial link between the dinosaurs and the
birds actually does contain fossils of a dinosaur and a bird. But the
only connection between them is glue.

In a study published recently in the journal Nature, the researchers
revealed that the major part of the doctored fossil belongs to an
ancient, fish-eating bird called Yanornis martini. Its lizard-like tail
belongs to a small, carnivorous dinosaur previously identified as
Microraptor zhaoianus. Both creatures lived and died more than 110
million years ago.

Working with Julia A. Clarke at the American Museum of Natural History,
[paleontologist Zhonghe Zhou of Beijing] compared the front half of the
forged fossil with the only two known specimens of the long-extinct
bird. The researchers compared more than 200 features to pinpoint the
creature's true identity.

Suspicions about these bones of contention were first confirmed when
X-ray analysis revealed that the fossil was a mosaic made from 88
fragments of rock and fossil leaved together in three layers and glued
to a single supporting slab of shale. Grout had been used to fill any
gaps.... a hoax to deliberately mislead scientists, as was the case with
the infamous Piltdown Man.

In that 1912 incident, a researcher deliberately altered a set of human
and orangutan bones to make them seem to be remains from the same
creature, then buried them in an English quarry. When they were dug up,
they were hailed as a missing link between ape and modern mankind. The
hoax distorted scientific ideas on the descent of man for almost 40
years.

In the same way, the discovery of the Archaeoraptor forgery was a twist
in a scientific dispute over the origin of birds.

Publicity compounded the problem, turning the volatile mix of
paleontology and profit into something more toxic to sound science.

When the fossil find was made public, it did help buttress the argument
that birds are the direct descendants of carnivorous Theropod dinosaurs
such as Tyrannosaurus rex.

When it was revealed as a fake, however, it then served to discredit the
theory by calling into doubt the veracity of other fossils from China
that document the link between dinosaurs and modern birds. Moreover, the
fraud was exploited by religious fundamentalists eager to undermine any
evidence of evolution.

I need to say here that the last statement shows once again that the Los
Angeles Times is "eager to undermine any evidence of Christianity!" The
fact is that there really isn't credible fossil evidence for the link
between reptiles and birds. Remember, the article says there are "only
two known specimens of the long-extinct bird" itself. The whole thing is
a hoax, built on the flimsy so-called "evidence" of only two bird
fossils! Why aren't there millions, even billions of fossils connecting
birds and reptiles? There would be if that had been what happened. But
the fossils aren't there simply because evolution isn't true!

A fraud here and there - an occasional hoax - and a couple of teeth -
that's all they have to support their worn-out, musty old Victorian
theory! The two men behind uniformitarian evolution were Charles Darwin
and Charles Lyell. Darwin's only degree was in theology. Lyell's only
degree was in law. Neither one of them studied one thing about science
when they were in college! "Naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace admitted
that he received the basic tenets of the Darwinian...heresy while in an
occult trance in a Malaysian jungle. It does not take a theologian to
figure out the identity of the revealer...Modern evolution is simply the
continuation of Satan's long war against God" (Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.,
The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, p. 10).

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

James Perloff says,

The latest Darwinian "evidence" to bite the dust: the peppered moth.
Most high school biology textbooks today cite this creature as a proof
of evolution...According to the evolutionary scenario, the peppered moth
rests on tree trunks during the day. Industrial pollution blackened the
tree trunks, making the dark moths invisible to preying birds, which
caused them to become the dominant variety. Later, pollution controls
caused the light variety to resurge.

Biologist Jonathan Wells, who holds PhDs from Yale and Berkeley, exposes
the myth of the peppered moth in his book Icons of Evolution
(Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000). As it turns out, peppered moths do not
rest on tree trunks during the day. In some studies, this was faked by
gluing and pinning dead moths to trees and photographing them.

(James Perloff, The Case Against Darwin, Refuge Books, 2002, p. 59).

I remember studying about these moths at Los Angeles City College. They
said it proved evolution. No one told us students that it was a hoax,
that dead moths were glued to the trees and photographed to try and find
some proof for evolution - somewhere!

When you have to resort to painting chimpanzee jaws and gluing them to
human skulls; when you have to paint a pig's tooth to make it look old,
and glue it to a human skull; when you have to glue dead moths to a tree
and pretend they are alive; or glue two fossils together to prove birds
came from dinosaurs - then my friend, it shows you don't have any real
evidence for evolution.

"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned
unto fables" (II Timothy 4:4).

Dr. Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at
Erlangen, Germany says:

The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in
the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but
purely the product of imagination (Joe White, Ed.D. and Nicholas
Comninellis, M.D., Darwin's Demise, Master Books, 2001, p. 126).

Conclusion

Evolution is a lie, based on frauds and hoaxes. The Bible is the truth,
sent from God. Believe the Bible and turn to Jesus Christ, and believe
totally in Him. Jesus will save you from sin and from judgment. He died
to pay for your sins. He arose physically from the dead. He ascended
into the third Heaven, where He is seated on the right hand of God.
Jesus will save you. Receive Him now!

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God..." (John
1:11-12).

See how the world has been tricked and deluded by this monstrous hoax of
evolution! The Devil has bound the hearts of men against the glorious
gospel of Christ! Oh, young person, the wrath and judgment of God will
soon fall on this vile generation.

Awaken from your sleep! Soon judgment will come, and you will stand
before God without any hope! You must see your lost condition. You must
see that you will be swept away into everlasting flames with the godless
throngs of the city. Hell opens her mouth! Flee from the wrath to come!
Flee to Christ for refuge - before it is too late!

Ah, lol.

ok, so there are some forgeries. who finds those forgeried...


scientists.

what happensto the scientists who get caught doing that sort of thing?

their careers are over.

and what about all the fossils that aren't forgeries?

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

We are still waiting to be told why Mitochondrial DNA is not viable evidence.

__________________
Greatest Hovind quote of all time, as voted for by members of CF:
"Teaching the pagan religion of evolutionism is a waste of valuable class time and textbook space. It is also one of the reasons American kids don't test as well in science as kids in other parts of the world."