And the duck-billed Platypus is the transitional form between ducks and musk-rats. These creatures, like all creatures, appear in the fossil record as fully formed, integrated organisms and disappear as fully formed, integrated organisms.
Haeckel's embryo's
Not fraudulent:
On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history...
Why? You've assumed the conclusion.
Haeckel's inaccuracies damage credibility
They certainly do.
Peppered moths as evidence of microevolution
Also not fraudulent in the way you think. Certainly Kettlewell's pictures are fraudulent,
Well, that's what I was thinking. His pictures were fraudulent. He pasted the bleeping moths to the trees. His fraudulent photos also "damage credibility."
but some of the basic questions he sought to answer were answered, and supported evolution. Same as above.
He proved that more than one supporter of evolution is willing to fabricate evidence.
Panspermia
I mean, come on. This just pushes the problem back. It's also ludicrous. Which reminds me of another fallacious evolutionary theory that I was taught, the dudes at the University of Chicago who came up with the "building blocks of life."
The transitional forms of horses
Do you have any scientific theories refuting these two points? Or are you just articulating an opinion here?
Horse-like creatures of different sizes prove nothing. Again, these creatures, like all creatures, appear in the fossil record as fully formed, integrated organisms and disappear as fully formed, integrated organisms.
The transitional forms of humans including:
Pilt Town Man
Java Man
Nebraska Man
Neanderthal Man
Lucy
I doubt that Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Nebraska Man were ever taught to you in high school as fact, unless you are very old, and even then, I still call you on it.
You may be right. I don't have my old biology textbook. But the point is irrelevant because all of these examples that I have cited above are either fallacious or fraudulent and have been taught as fact to generations of students. And it is still illegal to teach "Creationism" or ID in a government classroom.
This entire list here puts your entire post in a false light.
Why? I don't see the logic. It's been proven that all of the examples that I have cited have been proven to be fallacious or fraudulent.
If ID has any scientific merit, let it stand on that, don't try to misrepresent evolution to prop it up.
How have I misrepresented these frauds and fallacies?
The YEC's do it all of the time, and they look foolish in their attempts to do so.
The fabricated nature of a large portion of the evidence for evolution is worse than foolish, it's malicious and immoral.
As compared to what? A fossil record of one-eyed one horned flying purple people eaters? Of course the creatures are going to be fully formed, integrated organisms. They have to have survived to propogate their lineage to the next generation.
On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history...
Why? You've assumed the conclusion.
Haeckel's original work was in the 1870's. I don't think he had assumed anything at that point. After the fact, we can look back and go, yeah, his drawings were incorrect, but he had some good ideas. The fact that they are incorrect do not invalidate the fact that mammal young go through several stages where they do form vestigial structures that other vertebrates go through as they mature. This has been borne out in other work. Why would a set of 130 year old drawings invalidate that?
Me:Haeckel's inaccuracies damage credibility
Aquinas: They certainly do.
Well, you are certainly indulging in deceitful tactics, and damaging your own credibility by selectively quotemining my posts, leaving out the point I was making, that is certain.
Me: Peppered moths as evidence of microevolution
Also not fraudulent in the way you think. Certainly Kettlewell's pictures are fraudulent,
Aquinasfan:Well, that's what I was thinking. His pictures were fraudulent. He pasted the bleeping moths to the trees. His fraudulent photos also "damage credibility."
I can see you have some comprehension problems. As I understand it, Kettlewell's pictures and placement for his moths were not where the moths normally lived. However, according to Professor M. E. N. Majerus in Melanism - Evolution in Action, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998. said: "My view of the rise and fall of the melanic form of the peppered moth is that differential bird predation in more or less polluted regions, together with migration, are primarilty responsible, almost to the exclusion of other factors." (p. 155). He is the principle scientific critic of Kettlewell's tests, and he reexamined the experiment. That Kettlewell performed one erroneous experiment out of many appears not to have any effect on his results. But, in the prior two examples, it was not creationists who did the legwork to correct the scientists mistakes, but two different groups of scientists.
He proved that more than one supporter of evolution is willing to fabricate evidence.
Do you have proof that he "fabricated" evidence? Or that he had no concept of the actual habitat of the moths? Why would he do such a thing?
The transitional forms of horses
I said:Do you have any scientific theories refuting these two points? Or are you just articulating an opinion here?
Aquinas said:Horse-like creatures of different sizes prove nothing. Again, these creatures, like all creatures, appear in the fossil record as fully formed, integrated organisms and disappear as fully formed, integrated organisms.
Please read my statements above.
Aquinas said:The transitional forms of humans including: Pilt Town Man Java Man Nebraska Man Neanderthal Man Lucy
I said: I doubt that Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Nebraska Man were ever taught to you in high school as fact, unless you are very old, and even then, I still call you on it.
Aquinas said:You may be right. I don't have my old biology textbook. But the point is irrelevant because all of these examples that I have cited above are either fallacious or fraudulent and have been taught as fact to generations of students. And it is still illegal to teach "Creationism" or ID in a government classroom.
Generations? Piffle. You exaggerate and distort. I doubt Neb. Man, and Piltdown Man were taught as fact by anyone, as they were discovered as mistakes during the cutting edge of paleontology at the turn of the century. There fore they were unlikely to be taught to anyone at the school level (except as a case where the sci. method corrects itself) after that. Again, you lie and distort to attempt to make a point, and you dig a hole that is harder and harder for you to get out of.
The others in the list have never been exposed as frauds in a scientific setting, unless you have scientific references??? Remember, a fraud is someone who willingly decieves or lies to someone. Where, is the proof that any of these are willful lies and deceptions?
I said: This entire list here puts your entire post in a false light.
Aquinas said:Why? I don't see the logic. It's been proven that all of the examples that I have cited have been proven to be fallacious or fraudulent.
Tisk, not all of them. Not even most of them. Give me a break. I know of no scientific refs discounting the basic results put forth by Kettlewell or Haeckel, or most of the above things you call "frauds" above. The only known fraud in your list is Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man, and the only frauds there are the shysters who put the evidence forth to the scientists as hominid bones.
Aquinas said: How have I misrepresented these frauds and fallacies?
Looks pretty straightforward to me. You persist in calling them frauds when you have posted no such scientific evidence to back up your statements. Most creationists do it all of the time, and they look foolish in their attempts to do so.
Aquinas said:The fabricated nature of a large portion of the evidence for evolution is worse than foolish, it's malicious and immoral.
No, I'd say Creationist and ID lies and misrepresentations are malicious and immoral. I very rarely see evolutionists lie and misrepresent opposing arguments, but I catch creationists and more than a few ID'ers doing it ALL THE TIME, why is that? Do they not understand the evolutionary theory? Or is it a malicious attempt of a believer of Christ to lie for his God?