Evolutionist Fraud

[JohnR7]

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

 

[notto]

You should link to your sources John. Especially when you copy them word for word.

As for this being an 'evolution' fraud, I think Steven J Gould put it best.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/print

Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): 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.

 

[Garnett]

The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

John, how much weight did scientists put on these drawings after they were discovered to be fake, over 100 years ago?

 

[dawiyd]

Next he is going to say Darwin recanted.

 

[SLP]

Hey - a creationist spammer AND plagiarist!

I was wondering when those two common creationist traits would unite in John...

Whats the matter, John?

Got too hot in the other dozen threads you started?

 

[Jet Black]

This is really weird. John is dragging up arguments like Haeckel and Nebraska man. Has his database been corrupted or something?

 

[JohnR7]

John, how much weight did scientists put on these drawings after they were discovered to be fake, over 100 years ago?

They does not falsify the fact that a lot of the so called evidence for evolution is "fake". This is just a example to show that the so called evidence can not alway be trusted. Esp when a artistic sketch is a part of the evidence. There are lots of creationist sights that deal with the fraud claims, we could go though them one at a time, but evos defense is always the same whenever they get caught trying to use "faked" evidence.

 

[JohnR7]

This is really weird. John is dragging up arguments like Haeckel and Nebraska man. Has his database been corrupted or something?

Not really, my arguement has been the same from the beginning. The scientific evidence is simply not there. To much of the so called evidence is fabricated and is a fraud. Claiming that a tooth is a new species and drawing up a artistic sketch of what this species looked like is typical stuff for evos.

Science makes lots of claims about lots of different things and it does not have much of a effect on the christian community. But when it comes to evolution that sparks a lot of discussion.

 

[Garnett]

Science makes lots of claims about lots of different things and it does not have much of a effect on the christian community. But when it comes to evolution that sparks a lot of discussion.

Yeah - no complaints when the scientific method contributes to a vaccine or cancer drug. Most Creationists don't seem to stop to question science then, but contradict one possible interpretation of an certain old book, and they're over you like a rash...

John, if your point is to have any validity you're goinna have to do better than a 150 year old case of someone who was only tangentally connected to the history of ToE...

 

[Asimov]

Ah, I seee.....so one drawing is faked = all drawings are fakes. Interesting how "evolutionists" DON'T use Haeckel's drawings as evidence, John.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not really, my arguement has been the same from the beginning.

And that's the problem -- you haven't learned a thing.

The scientific evidence is simply not there. To much of the so called evidence is fabricated and is a fraud.

A few frauds were perpetrated, and exposed -- Can you guess by whom?

Claiming that a tooth is a new species and drawing up a artistic sketch of what this species looked like is typical stuff for evos.

You need to paint with a bigger brush, Johnny.

Science makes lots of claims about lots of different things and it does not have much of a effect on the christian community. But when it comes to evolution that sparks a lot of discussion.

Yes, yes... "Science is evil... Biblical Creationism is good... yada yada yada."

The only true or relevent thing you've said here is that your arguments haven't changed -- more is the pity.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ah, I seee.....so one drawing is faked = all drawings are fakes. Interesting how "evolutionists" DON'T use Haeckel's drawings as evidence, John.

Interesting how the only living human using Haeckel's drawings as evidence is John himself.

 

[Hydra009]

This is really weird. John is dragging up arguments like Haeckel and Nebraska man. Has his database been corrupted or something?

Don't forget the "but it don't look like no tree" argument regarding the tree of life. It's like he's not even trying anymore.

 

[TK2005]

Evolutionary theory is not good science. A key element of good and true science is observation, and since no one can go back in time, then evolution moves from the realm of observation to speculation. Or better yet..........fantasy.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Eh, this thread highlights a bigger issue regarding creationists than evolution. Creationists keep trying to discredit evolution, but they're stuck repeating the same arguments from half a century (or more) ago.

It also highlights the fact that creationists are reactionary. It's about discrediting this or discrediting that. But how has creationism been applied to the bio-sciences? It hasn't. Creationists are so busy telling us that science is wrong, they fail to see they have nothing to offer to replace it. Hence, science marches on.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolutionary theory is not good science. A key element of good and true science is observation, and since no one can go back in time, then evolution moves from the realm of observation to speculation. Or better yet..........fantasy.

It's not pure speculation, though. There seems to be this misunderstanding about science and history that the minute it is out of your sight, it ceases to exist.

Fact is, events in the past leave evidence in the present. We can observe that evidence and use it to reconstruct the past. Archaeologists do it all the time. Biologists, geologists, cosmologists do the same.

And btw, if evolutionary theory is not good science then why is there so much capital investment in it? Why are biotech companies doing research (i.e. comparative genomics) that hinges on evolutionary principals? Why is it being used in conservation biology, medicine, agriculture, and other areas of applied biology? These are the tough questions creationists don't want to think about.

 

[Split Rock]

They does not falsify the fact that a lot of the so called evidence for evolution is "fake". This is just a example to show that the so called evidence can not alway be trusted.

How do you get to "a lot" from this one example that is over 100 years old, and was not even used by Darwin as one of his agruments for evolution by natural selection?

There are lots of creationist sights that deal with the fraud claims, we could go though them one at a time, but evos defense is always the same whenever they get caught trying to use "faked" evidence.

Yeah, a lot of sites, and they all regurgitate the same outdated stuff... Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embyros... then they get to... Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embyros. Then if they have the time, they go over.. Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embyros. Lots and Lots of examples, John..

 

[Edx]

Evolutionary theory is not good science. A key element of good and true science is observation, and since no one can go back in time, then evolution moves from the realm of observation to speculation. Or better yet..........fantasy.

Yea forensics isnt science at all.

 

[Edx]

They does not falsify the fact that a lot of the so called evidence for evolution is "fake".

Haeckel got carried away with the drawings, yes.

But that is why we dont use those inaccurate drawings anymore John, we use real photographs to say the same thing.

 

[Split Rock]

To much of the so called evidence is fabricated and is a fraud. Claiming that a tooth is a new species and drawing up a artistic sketch of what this species looked like is typical stuff for evos.

You have been told before that this is a lie told by LCWs. A tooth was misidentified as hominid and this misidentification was corrected before anything was published in the scientific literature. The sketch you claim was "evo fraud" was by an artist hired by a London newspaper, and did not represent an attempt by scientists to commit a fraud.

How many times do you need to be told this before you stop posting disengenuous diatribes about it?