Further, the garbage spouted from it about development of species following the evolutionary tree is absolutely false and no decent scientist would make such a claim any more. It is a lie, it was never science and evolutionists are still 100 years after the fraud was shown to be a fraud lying about it.
I tell ya G3k, I couldn't have refuted any of your own statements better than you did with this one:
me:Did you read the article
You: No, I read the drivel posted here, it was one insult after another which had nothing to do with the truth of the points made in the Wells article.
Well, kiddo, my posts to you had no insults, and if you can't answer my points without resorting to insults, perhaps you'd best stop responding at all, eh? After all, if you had read the link I gave to you above, you would have read this:
The charge that Ernst Haeckel intentionally "faked" his drawings is irrelevant. Regardless of his intent, the drawings that Haeckel made are incorrect, especially in what he labeled as the "first stage." But it really does not matter what Haeckel thought or whether his drawings are accurate: modern comparative embryology does not stand or fall on the accuracy of Haeckel any more than modern physics stands or falls on the accuracy of Kepler or Newton. Historically, Wells actively ignores the accurate work of many of Haeckel's predecessors and contemporaries (such as William and Jeffrey Parker, Hans Gadow, Hans Selenka, Heinrich Rathke, Virgil Leighton, Hugo Schauinsland, Alfred Voeltzkow, to name a few). Haeckel and von Baer were not the only embryologists in nineteenth-century science, but you wouldn't know that from reading Wells. Worse, Wells speciously extends his critique of Haeckel to the present day. Wells implies that textbooks misrepresent the study of developmental programs as evidence for evolution by accusing them of using Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, in effect accusing textbooks that show any embryos of "mindlessly repeating" Haeckel. The important question is whether textbooks, and more importantly developmental biologists, still rely on Haeckel's work. The answer is no, but that doesn't stop Wells from acting as if they do. or:
Wells uses phylogenetic trees to attack the very core of evolution -- common descent. Wells claims that textbooks mislead students about common descent in three ways. First, Wells claims that textbooks do not cover the "Cambrian Explosion" and fail to point out how this "top-down" evolution poses a serious challenge to common descent and evolution. Second, he asserts that the occasional disparity between morphological and molecular phylogenies disproves common descent. Finally, he demands that textbooks treat universal common ancestry as unproven and refrain from illustrating that "theory" with misleading phylogenies. Therefore, according to Wells, textbooks should state that there is no evidence for common descent and that the most recent research refutes the concept entirely. Wells is completely wrong on all counts, and his argument is entirely based on misdirection and confusion. He mixes up these various topics in order to confuse the reader into thinking that when combined, they show an endemic failure of evolutionary theory. In effect, Wells plays the equivalent of an intellectual shell game, putting so many topics into play that the "ball" of evolution gets lost.
But don't take my word for it. Read the whole article here:
You'd be surprised, you might learn something.
I'd be shocked.
Ok, fraud does not matter to evolutionists, it is normal stuff for you guys. That is the best reason not to believe in evolution. Fakes are okay, fraud is okay.
Not from a writer who believes that fraud is okay and insults are evidence.