Posted on 01/26/2009 9:13:21 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. [1] But what if fundamental predictions are consistently falsified? As we shall see this is the case with Darwin’s theory of evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at darwinspredictions.com ...
Okay, just wait right where you are.
And yet, you keep failing to come up with any evidence of hoaxes, other than the handful that we've already discussed.
disinformation disseminators as gun-jumpers
National Geographic was left with egg on its face after the Archeoraptor affair. But, again, there was no evidence of intentional fraud.
frauds as oversights
What frauds are you talking about?
Duckter Mike, we love your portrait!
Are you still in the cave?
Look at who is cooking goo in a flask and stirring chemicals in hopes of recreating the primordial soupe de jour.
(Hint: They're called evolutistists)
There was another more recent and less publicized fraud involving a professor and some chimpanzee skulls.
By the way coyote, you hardly have any room to be demanding considering all the challenges you ignore or run away from.
“There was another more recent and less publicized fraud involving a professor and some chimpanzee skulls.”
Could you possibly give me a citation or source for this? Thanks.
“Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth
By David Biello (www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli )
The mutant chickens Harris studied bear a recessive trait dubbed talpid2. This trait is lethal, meaning that such mutants are never born, but some incubate in eggs as long as 18 days. During that time, the same two tissues from which teeth develop in mammals come together in the jaw of the mutant embryo—and this leads to nascent teeth, a structure birds have lacked for at least 70 million years. “They don't make a molar,” explains development biologist John Fallon, who oversaw Harris’s work. “What they make is this conical, saber-shaped structure that is clearly a tooth. The other animal that has a tooth like that is an alligator.”
Notice, among other things, “..This trait is lethal”, is a “mutant”, is “never born”. Clearly not a tooth.
Left unsaid is that a bird beak is mostly keratin like it's claws or rhino horn. When it's said those bird “teeth’ look like alligator teeth it's in the most superficial way, their conical appearance.
The chicken “teeth” are thus a deformity. Read the whole article at the address given above.
History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud
If it's that cold, can I build a fire?
Where did Coyoteman go?
You ask how scientists take it on themselves to tell creationists they are wrong, and ask “Wrong based on what?”
You answered your own question by the quotes you included. Wrong based upon evidence in the natural world.
The evidence of the natural world shows that predictions based upon a model of an ancient earth and development and differentiation of life forms allows one to explain and predict natural phenomena. Predictions based upon the model of a young earth and the near simultaneous creation of and contemporaneousness of all species lead nowhere.
Which still doesn't mean its wrong.
You answered your own question by the quotes you included. Wrong based upon evidence in the natural world.
More like wrong based on the interpretation of the evidence using a naturalistic worldview.
The evidence that evos use to support evolution is the same evidence that creationists use. It's not the physical evidence that's in question (outside of frauds) but the interpretation of that evidence.
What evos see as evidence of common descent from original one celled creatures, creationists see as evidence of common design and variation within kinds of created life.
Planting the evidence so that you can dig it up yourself and be the hero?
How stunningly pathetic....
Lying about the evidence?
How objective......
Good thing peer review is there to catch stuff like that.
Well fed, whoever he is. Could be Uncle Leslie back in his younger days before the war.
That is just one example.
We also have the fossil record of hominids in Africa that are either very human like apes or very ape like humans. The fossil record of bones from recent creatures but only fossilized rocks of ancient creatures.
We have the geological record of moving continents. Antarctica “frozen in time” in which we find warm temperature loving plants and animals frozen under the ice, but no modern species, just extinct ones. An example of biogeography, much like how we seem to find almost all living marsupials in Australia, and only extinct marsupial fossils elsewhere; exactly as if marsupials once dominated the earth only to be replaced by placental mammals everywhere but Australia.
We have the record of starlight that shows a very ancient universe.
We have the evidence of atomic decay that shows a very old earth and tells us a lot of evidence about the history of the earth and the sequence of events.
We have the evidence of evolution that can be observed around us and in the lab, calculated rates of which easily account for the genetic disparity observed related species and conforms to the timescale of their divergence, a discipline known as Molecular Evolution.
All the evidence points conclusively to an old earth, an ancient universe, and the expansion and differentiation of living species upon the Earth.
History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud
Shinichi Fujimura
Running Wolf, I'll give you that first one. That fellow was indeed practicing fraud in the field of hominid evolution. He was caught by his fellow paleontologists, but it was indeed fraud. That's two.
The Japanese example is archaeology, not human origins.
I am responding to this post, after ignoring hundreds of other posts you have made to me, because in the case of the German "scientist" you are correct. That was indeed fraud. His career is now ended and he is disgraced. As it should be.
That is the reward for fraud in science! And fraud or hoaxes will always be discovered--eventually. That's what happened with Piltdown Man. That find seemed great to start, but as additional discoveries were made it just didn't fit. Several scientists pointed this out quite early, and the find was increasingly marginalized until someone figured out exactly why it didn't fit.
OK, that's two frauds/hoaxes in hominid evolution. We need five.
I've been doing science. This afternoon was spent in putting a paper into the specific format required by a journal, in preparation for submission.
But thank you for noticing my absence. Should I check out with you next time I have something else to do?
(And do I need to display one finger or two, like in the old days?)
Nah, just think warm thoughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.