Monday, October 19, 2015

Evolutionary Fraud

            
“When Darwin presented a paper to the Linnaean Society in 1858, ProfessorHaugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism” (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159).

Some of the classic evidences given in support of the “fact” of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continue to be displayed as “proofs” for evolution. [The word “proofs” is set off because in science, this is a misuse of the word, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a “fact.”] 
Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that …

1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence,
2) this is the best evidence evolution has to offer,
3) most people will not know the difference, so use it.

To their shame, many scientists and educators do not correct the falsehoods or fallacies presented to students in textbooks. Can a theory be considered legitimate if it must be protected by deceit? 
The alleged missing links and evidences for evolution that are paraded before the public and unsuspecting students are often fraudulent claims. The remainder of the evidences are disputable and inconclusive interpretations or irrelevant to the debate.

The persistence of fraudulent evidence and one-sided presentations of disputable claims in textbooks to “prove” evolution reveals the extreme bias of evolutionists and their control of the educational and scientific communities. Having concluded that evolution is a fact, the evidence is obviously insignificant! The end apparently justifies whatever means is necessary to convince others to believe in evolution.

Check out your local school textbooks to see if students are being deceived by fraudulent examples and claims.

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny:  Haeckel’s Fraud 
In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the “Biogenetic Law”: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.

Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true. Haeckel falsified his drawings to depict the appearance of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. 
Above: Left to right: fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, human. 
Below: Comparison of Haeckel’s drawings with photos of the real shapes of each organism.
German scientist, Wilhelm His “… accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates …” (Stephen Jay Gould, 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p. 430).

“This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.” (Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14).

“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity” (Bowden, Malcolm, 1977, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).

“To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.”—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.

During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).

“The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory” (G. Rager, “Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis,” in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).

“Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly….There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs” (L. Rutimeyer, “Referate,” in Archiv fur Anthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).

Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: “Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” (G.G. Simpson and W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1965), p. 241).
As early as 1932, evolutionist H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago said that Haeckel’s works “did more harm than good to Darwinism” (Newman, H.H., 1932, 3rd edition, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 30).

“This generalization was originally called the biogenic law by Haeckel, and is often stated as `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology” (Paul R. Erlich and Richard W. Holm, 1963, Process of Evolution, p. 66).

“Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel’s day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution” (R. H. Dott, R. L Batten Evolution of the Earth, 1971, p.86).

Some claim that Haeckel’s fraud is history. “Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties” (Keith S. Thomson, Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist, 76:May/June 1988, p. 273).

However, the embryonic fraud lives on. “Although Haeckel confessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist” (New Scientist, 9/6/97, p.23). After seven decades, there is no excuse to continue this fraud in the books.

Why does it persist in the textbooks after so many years after being exposed as fraud? “The biogenetic law was widely accepted by biologists and served as the basis for the surge of embryological research that continues unabated to this day. Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Even today both subtle and overt uses of the biogenetic law are frequently encountered in the general biological literature as well as in more specialized evolutionary and systematic studies” (W. Bock, “Book Review,” Science, May 1969, pp. 684-685).
“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny” (Simpson & Beck,1965, Introduction to Biology,  p.273).

Persistence of Haeckel’s fraud in textbooks reveals the lack of integrity among evolutionists, the blind bias that justifies using fraudulent examples, and the control they have over social education. Such bias in science makes the teaching of evolution untrustworthy and scurrilous.

Vestigial Organs
Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof” of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history.
What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

“There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities” (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).
“Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: “I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….

“There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….
“Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution” (S. Scadding, “Evolutionary Theory,” quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).
Below are a couple of examples of “vestigial” organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function.

Appendix:
Evolution myth: “The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.” Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264

Fact: “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149).

‘Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.’ “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory – Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.

Leg bones in whales: “Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall.” —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 8Some “vestigial” examples cited by evolutionists are of organs for which no purpose is known at this time. The point is that the so-called vestigial organs are considered evidence for evolution only if one has a bias for evolution. A question to ask your teacher is: “How is it determined that a vestigial organ is a remnant of evolutionary ancestry rather than 1) an organ of unknown function at this time or 2) an organ of lost function within the same species?”

“The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”—*S.R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.

“Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology” (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).
The peppered moth See J. Well’s article published in The Scientist.  To demonstrate the camouflage of the dark moths, many books, when explaining evolution, have pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks. The dark moths blend in and the light moths stand out clearly. This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well. 
     
As ridiculous as it may seem, the pictures are themselves faked. Peppered moths do not land on tree trunks in nature; they light on the undersurface of small horizontal branches higher in the trees. One researcher (Cyril Clarke) noted that in 25 years of observation he had only seen one peppered moth on a tree trunk. So where did the pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? Dead moths were glued or pinned to the tree trunks. This fact has been known since about 1980, and still the faked pictures are being published in textbooks as proof of evolution.
Dr. Kettlewell published results from his 1955 experiment on natural selection in peppered moths in Birmingham, England concluding that, “birds act as selective agents, as postulated by evolutionary theory,” and that industrial melanism was “the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism.”

“It seems that the classical example of natural selection is actually an example of unnatural selection. The fact that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks invalidates Kettlewell’s experiments and poses a serious problem for the classical explanation of industrial melanism in peppered moths” (Jonathan Wells, The Scientist 13[11]:13, May. 24, 1999).

“The importance of industrial melanism in the peppered moth as one of the first, and still most cited examples of evolution in action, places emphasis on the need to be sure that the story is right. In the 40 years since Kettlewell’s pioneering work, many evolutionary biologists, particularly in Britain, but also in other parts of Europe, the United States, and Japan, have studied melanism in this species. The findings of these scientists show that the precised description of the basic peppered moth story is wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete, with respect to most of the story’s component parts. When details of the genetics, behaviour, and ecology of this moth are taken into account, the resulting story is one of greater complexity, and in many ways greater interest, than the simple story that is usually related (Melanism: Evolution in Action, Michael E. N. Majerus, 1998, p116).

Why does it persist in spite of the fraud being exposed? One evolutionist writes that the peppered moth is, “the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed” (Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. p. 186).

“Until now, however, the prize horse in our stable of examples has been the evolution of ‘industrial melanism’ in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, presented by most teachers and textbooks as the paradigm of natural selection and evolution occurring within a human lifetime” (Jerry Coyne. 1998. Not black and white, Nature 396:35-36).

“I unearthed additional problems when, embarrassed at having taught the standard Biston story for years, I read Kettlewell’s papers for the first time. … Finally, teachers such as myself often neglect original papers in favour of shorter textbook summaries, which bleach the blemishes from complicated experiments” (Jerry Coyne. 1998.Not black and white, Nature 396:35-36).

Homology 
Evolutionists presume that similarity among organisms suggests genetic relationship. However, as comparative anatomist Michael Denton points out, this reasoning is not always applied. “But the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development.  Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.    “There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hind limbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins.  Here is a case of profound resemblance which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent.    “Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correspondence to evolution while refusing it in the other” (M. Denton, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153).

  “The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes and followed homologous patterns of embryological development.  Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship”; of inheritance from a common ancestor.”  But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way.    “Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology.    “In some ways the egg cell, blastula and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, were it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum.

“There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis.  In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes” (M. Denton, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 145).

“The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes in different species.” (M. Denton, Evolution:  A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pg 149).
“It is the rule rather than the exception that homologous structures form from distinctly dissimilar initial states.” (P. Alberch Systematic Zoology, 34(1), 1985, 46-58). 
“Although mice have a gene very similar to the one that can transform a fly’s antenna (Antennapedia) into a leg, mice do not have antennae and their corresponding gene affects the hindbrain.” (J. Wells and P. Nelson, Homology: A Concept in Crisis, Origins and Design 18(2), 1997 pg 15).

The question to ask is whether homologies are the basis for concluding genetic relationship or if the theory of evolution is the basis for concluding that genetic relationship is evidenced by homologies. Obviously, evolutionists pick and choose features they deem consistent with evolution.

In defending evolutionary interpretation of homologies, Berra wrote: “If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious.  This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people” (T. Berra, Evolution and the myth of creationism,1990, pg 117-119). Unwittingly, he cites an example of similarity by creative, intelligent design not by genetic relationship. Similarity is not automatically evidence for genetic relationship. 
As for molecular homologies, the theory predicting such similarities:   “began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone” (J. Lake, R. Jain, M. Rivera, Science283 (1999), p 2027-2028).

“With more and more sequences available, it turned out that most protein phylogenies contradict each other as well as the rRNA trees” (H. Philippe and P. Forterre, Journal of Molecular Evolution 49 (1999), p509-523).

Incongruities found in organisms: “are sufficiently frequent and statistically solid that they can neither be overlooked nor trivially dismissed on methodological grounds.” …  “It is time to question underlying assumptions” (C. Woese, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (1998), pg 6854-6859). “One of the key assumptions about the origin of life is under fire.  The widely held belief that all life on Earth today originated from a single ancestor cell is being challenged by a theory that several different lineages evolved independently.      In his ‘doctrine of common descent’ Darwin was the first to argue that all life on the planet began with single ‘primordial form,’ generally interpreted nowadays as the first living cell.  Not so, says Carl Woese of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  In a controversial new theory published this week, he argues that the three fundamental types of cells that form the building blocks of present-day life actually evolved independently, not in an orderly succession from a common ancestor” (Andy Coghlan, New Scientist, 22 June 2002, pg 10).

Stanley Miller 
Textbooks include Stanley Miller’s experiment as an example of how early life could arise contrary to the law of biogenesis. However, his experiment did nothing of the sort.

Stanley Miller was the first to show that in a simulated early earth atmosphere (which is not considered valid today), amino acids could naturally form. Though his experiment was herald as a break through in evolutionary discoveries, and some claimed that life had, indeed, been created in the laboratory, Miller had done nothing more than demonstrate that in an intelligently designed and carefully controlled experiment it was possible to produce amino acids.

This is hardly spectacular since high school students do this all the time in chemistry class. What excited people about Miller’s experiment was that he did this in what was supposed to be conditions similar to the early earth. The atmospheric model he used at the time has since been abandoned. 
Upon closer examination of his experiment, one discovers that Miller’s results showed that the evolving of life was not possible.

First, Miller utilized a cold trap for his experiment to prevent the destruction of the newly formed molecules because the rate of destruction was greater than the rate of formation. 
Second, the products of Miller’s experiment contained a variety of molecules that had greater reactivity for amino acids than the amino acids did for each other. This is significant because the formation of protein molecules requires that amino acids react together, but Miller’s experiment resulted in the formation of molecules that would preferentially react with amino acids and prevent the formation of polymers.

Third, the “naturally” occurring mixture of amino acids that formed was racemic, meaning both left and right handed molecules of amino acids had formed in equal quantities. This was predictable, as well as unfortunate, for the evolution model because only left handed amino acids occur in living cells. But, right and left molecules are naturally equally reactive with each other. One would logically predict that in simulated conditions proposed by evolutionists that evolved cells would naturally possess near equal numbers of right and left handed amino acids, but they do not.

The unnatural exclusive presence of left handed amino acids in living cells, the formation of molecules with greater reactivity for amino acids, and the necessity of a cold trap in Miller’s experiment suggest that the formation of monomers required for the evolving of living as observed today cells is improbable. Further, experiments, since the efforts by Miller, have failed to add credibility to the possible evolving of cells by natural means. The known evidence at this time leads the honest and objective observer to conclude that the evolution of the cell is not possible at stage one, and that the creation model is the preferred model of cellular origins.

Sidney Fox 
Another experiment often found in textbooks is Sidney Fox’s polymer formation, the second step in the progression from non-life to life. Like Miller’s experiment, Fox’s experiment shows that life could not arise by chance.

Polymers are complex molecules made of long chains of monomers. There are four major kinds of polymers found in living cells: (1) proteins made of amino acids, (2) carbohydrates made of sugars, (3) lipids made of glycerol and fatty acid chains, and (4) nucleic acids made of nucleotides. 
Evolutionists propose that monomers reacted to form polymers. Sidney Fox gained fame for demonstrating that he could produce proteins in his laboratory. As with Miller’s experiment, Fox’s experiment is not spectacular because it is done in laboratories everyday. Though Fox’s experiment was touted as a break through for evolution (and the accompanying spurious claim that life had been created in the laboratory) a review of his experiment shows that the formation of polymers is even more improbable than the formation of monomers.

To begin his experiment, Fox used an unnatural pure solution of reactants, namely, left-handed amino acids. One may wonder why he did not use a racemic mixture since that would be more representative of natural early earth conditions. In fact, one may legitimately wonder why he did not use the naturally formed products of Stanley Miller’s experiments since those would represent the molecules most likely to be naturally present in the early earth as hypothesized by evolutionists of the day. Though using Miller’s natural products would have been ideal and presented continuity for the experiments on evolution, the collection of these molecules would have prevented the natural formation of proteins containing left handed amino acids, which are found in living cells. Thus, Fox demonstrated from the very start of his experiment, that proteins can be formed under intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions. He avoided designing an experiment to simulate early earth conditions altogether.

His experimental procedure also showed the improbability if not the impossibility of forming proteins in natural, chaotic conditions suggested to have occurred in the early earth. In order to produce proteins, Fox discovered that he had to heat the proteins to 175° in dry conditions for not less than two hours and not more than four prior to dissolving them in hot water and subsequently immediately cooling the products in cold water. The required timing and involvement of changing conditions more than suggest that such occurrences would not happen naturally. Rather than support the evolution model, Fox’s experiment showed that supernatural creation is the most reasonable and preferred explanation for the origin of life.

Nebraska Man:  the Pig-tooth Man 
In a 1922 issue of Illustrated London News, an article was published featuring a picture of Nebraska man drawn by Amedee Forestier saying the, “reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius.” Imaginative was correct because this man and his mate were concocted from a single tooth. It turns out that the tooth was that of a pig. 
 In 1917, Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, unearthed one molar tooth in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. In 1922, he sent the tooth to Dr. Henry Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, who claimed that it belonged to an early hominid and determined that the tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. He wrote Cook saying: “I sat down with the tooth and I said to myself: ‘It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid'” (Osborn, Henry Fairfield, 1922, “Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America,” American Museum Novitates, 37, p. 2 ). One month later, Osborn announced that Hesperopithecus haroldcookii was the first anthropoid ape from America; a missing link in human evolution.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F.R.S., Professor of Anatomy of Manchester, England, supported Osborn saying, “I think the balance of probability is in favour of the view that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska may possibly have belonged to a primitive member of the Human Family” (Smith, The Evolution of Man 1927).

Piltdown man:  Orangutan Man
Piltdown man is one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. For forty years, the fraud went undetected. Charles Dawson, and amateur archeologist, claimed to have found bones of a  primitive hominid (a missing link) in a quarry near Piltdown Common in Sussex, England. Piltdown man was named Eoanthropus dawsoni and was constructed from parts of a modern-looking skull and an apelike lower jaw.
In 1953, Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orangutan jaw. More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man. (Nature vol. 274, #4419 (10 July 1954) pp. 61-62).

Oakely’s “… radioactive flourine test proved the skull fragments were many thousands of years older than the jaw. They could not be from the same individual unless, as one scientist put it, `the man died but his jaw lingered on for a few thousand years’ ” (R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 363).
How did this fraud continue for so long before being exposed? Harvard paleontologist Stephen Gould suggests wishful thinking and cultural bias on the part of evolutionists.

The editor of Research News, Science, wrote, “How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones – the cranial fragments – and ‘see’ a clear simian signature in them; and ‘see’ in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. … It is, in fact, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. If this were the case, then each scientist faced with the same data would necessarily reach the same conclusion. But as we’ve seen earlier and will see again and again, frequently this does not happen. Data are just as often molded to fit preferred conclusions” (Roger Lewin, 1987, Bones of Contention, pp.61, 68).
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: “Skull fragment may not be human”, Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)   
                                                                                                                                                 
  Archeoraptor was heavily promoted by National Geographic Society and Nature magazine as a “feathered dinosaur” and was claimed to be an intermediate evolutionary link between a reptile and a bird. However, it has been shown to be an intentional fraud where two fossils were placed together giving the appearance of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s head.
Astralopithecus (Lucy)    Lucy is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton found many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans. According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of Plaster of Paris.” Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.  This is the most recent and the most complete ancient “human” skeleton ever found. However, the skeleton is missing most of the skull, shoulders, hands, feet, and knees, which are the key identifiers that separate man compared from ape. The pelvic bone is another good indicator, but Lucy has an ape pelvic bone. After further study, Lucy has now been shown to be a true ape, an extinct type of orangutan, however, our young people today are erroneously being taught that Lucy is proof of man’s evolution from an ape.
The Archaeopteryx 
fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since. The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws. 
The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers.
The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. “Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement” according to Dr. Walt Brown’s book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page148. 

 The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman’s net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years. It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct.  Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs. That was a lie. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all. The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years the fish still doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Neanderthal Man
 was found in Neander Valley in Germany in 1856 by Johann Fuhlrott. The find consisted of a skull and several bones. He was portrayed to the world as a semi-erect, brutish subhuman creature that was supposed to be the “missing link” in the evolutionary chain to show man evolved from earlierancestors. It is now believed that these creatures were real people who suffered from rickets, a vitamin D deficiency, and arthritis!
Creation Insights Material from this site may be freely copied and distributed for non profit use provided acknowledgement is made for material written by the author.Articles and content on these pages are authored by and property of Patrick R. Briney.The Creation Insights web site is under continual development and improvement. Known errors will be corrected. Notification of such is appreciated. ©Patrick R. Briney, 2004. All rights reserved.
http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law.

In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.
Christian News Service – Worthy News Link to worldwide Christian news organization
Net Bible Link to Net Bible Translation and Commentaries
on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)