The Most Famous Fakes In Science

[PoliticalChic]

People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.

While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.

One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females. Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old. Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.

That is not evolution.

Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.

You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.

Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.

Gads, you're a moron.


Please....you clearly are as clueless about science as you are about everything else.

Stop infecting this thread with ignorance.

And try to stand downwind.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Whataboutism never dis"proves" anything. No theory is ever presumed perfect ("proven"). Each evolves into better theory through continued critical analysis. The way to challenge scientific theory is to expose it as falsifiable. That's done all the time and remains simply part of scientific methodology. The theory itself evolves. Only a narcissistic goober would presume otherwise. Propose a better theory if you dare. Gain the equivalent or better scientific consensus. Then you'll have something to crow about.

 

[Taz]

People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.

While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.

One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females. Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old. Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.

That is not evolution.

Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.

You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.

Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.

Gads, you're a moron.


Please....you clearly are as clueless about science as you are about everything else.

Stop infecting this thread with ignorance.

And try to stand downwind.

So how did we get all the different races from a common ancestor? Or don't you believe that either? So where do all the races come from?

 

[Hollie]

People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans.

While their are examples of human evolution in recent times, brown fat for example, but human average heights are more a function of changes and improvements in diets than with genetic mutation.

One interesting nutrition based changes has been onset ages of puberty in Asian females. Only two generations ago, the average onset of puberty in an Korean or Japanese girl was 17 or 18 years-old. Because of an increase in fat and dairy in the diet, that has gone down to be more in line with the Western onset of 13 or 14 years-old.

That is not evolution.

Humans getting taller over time IS evolution, they are changing over time, that's what evolution is. Even to deniers like you.

You're an ignorant fool, and waste no time in proving it.

Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.

Gads, you're a moron.


Please....you clearly are as clueless about science as you are about everything else.

Stop infecting this thread with ignorance.

And try to stand downwind.

It’s comical to watch. The entirety of posts devolve to juvenile tantrums as your cut and paste “quotes” are shown to be frauds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.

The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.

V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.

Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't make the science any less valid.

I never said that....you did.

I said that the erroneous Darwinian theory provided support for the erroneous Marxism of those two.


It is Marxist 'scientists' who advance Darwinism to this day.

Two of [Stephen Jay] Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science.



Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!



In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement, as part of the European Social Forum." Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/

 

[Crepitus]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

Hell, your feet are still evolving to better keep you upright and the human pinky finger is atrophying.

 

[Hollie]

The point is that Marx and Engels found in Darwin's theory the support for the atheism their views....all of Leftism....are built on.

The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.

V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.

Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't make the science any less valid.

I never said that....you did.

I said that the erroneous Darwinian theory provided support for the erroneous Marxism of those two.


It is Marxist 'scientists' who advance Darwinism to this day.

Two of [Stephen Jay] Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science.



Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!



In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement, as part of the European Social Forum." Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/

Cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog?

While the web can be an invaluable source to gather data and research historical information it can also be a playground for cut and pasters who have an agenda to promote their irrational fears and superstitions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog?

Seriously, wtf! Talk about "fakes in science":

TV | WorldviewTube

Built on the 35 years of worldview books, columns, research, analysis, high profile interviews, and the radio & television broadcasts of Brannon Howse.

www.worldviewweekend.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of interest is that Darwin himself thought the Haeckel vertebrate embryo diagrams were the greatest evidence for his theory…..not the fossil record, which he admitted did not support him.

Haeckel’s diagram is fake, and known from early on that it was a fake…..yet Darwinists continue to use it in school and in textbooks.
Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see the fabrication:

Ernst Haeckel's Phony Embryo Drawings

Ernst Haeckel Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was a German zoologist and physician, who discovered thousands of biological species and help...

www.acts17.net

The OP:
The Most Famous Fakes In Biology

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.

 

[Hollie]

I'll prove it in this thread.

Of course you will, dear.

Waiting patiently for you dumping your usual catalog of fake, edited and parsed ''quotes''.

 

[Hollie]

What if you believed....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?

That can be devastating to ''believers''. Such beliefs as a 6,000 year old planet are undeniably false except to believers.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The OP offers "proof" that evolution "is only supported with lies and fabrications."

Relying upon scientists arguing with each other over details of little demonstrated consequence, none even hinting of the entire theory being in question, let alone offering credible alternative theories.

 

[Hollie]

Of interest is that Darwin himself thought the Haeckel vertebrate embryo diagrams were the greatest evidence for his theory…..not the fossil record, which he admitted did not support him.

Haeckel’s diagram is fake, and known from early on that it was a fake…..yet Darwinists continue to use it in school and in textbooks.
Anyone but Stevie Wonder can see the fabrication:


View attachment 354813

Ernst Haeckel's Phony Embryo Drawings

Ernst Haeckel Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was a German zoologist and physician, who discovered thousands of biological species and help...

www.acts17.net

The OP:
The Most Famous Fakes In Biology

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.

Why would you believe ID'iot creationists are anything but frauds?

Haeckel's Drawings | National Center for Science Education

Explore Evolution incorrectly asserts that Haeckel s Biogenetic Law claims that the earliest stage of embryos are most similar.

ncse.ngo

Why are Haeckel's embryos focused upon in this section? Most likely because this diagram was found in many high school biology textbooks, and that Michael Richardson's research on vertebrate embryos rekindled an old controversy about whether the early embryos in the diagram are accurate. However, as Richardson and colleagues note, this hardly undermines the strong support for common descent from embryology, despite the claims of Creationists and ID proponents.

Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. Haeckel s famous drawings are a Creationist cause celebre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. 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. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms. (4)
Richardson et al. (1998) "Haeckel, Embryos and Evolution." Science, 280:983

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP offers "proof" that evolution "is only supported with lies and fabrications."

Relying upon scientists arguing with each other over details of little demonstrated consequence, none even hinting of the entire theory being in question, let alone offering credible alternative theories.

Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Bet you don't have one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Now….that vertebrate embryo diagram that they showed you in school…..

Years before Darwin published The Origin of Species, German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer designed it to show that the embryos of some vertebrates (animals with backbones) pass through a stage at which they look very much alike. Start simple, and go on to become more complex. One can see why Darwin latched on to it. Known as “von Baer’s law,” though von Baer himself knew of many exceptions to it.
See Arthur Henfrey & Thomas H. Huxley (editors), “Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: Natural History,” (London, 1853; reprinted 1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York), 214.



7. This particular version was by German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel to illustrate this distorted view, and Darwin relied on the diagram for his theory. It is still used as perfect evidence of Darwin’s beliefs……even though everyone using it knows it is fake.

“Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology,[32] demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[33]

But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[35] Embryo drawing - Wikipedia



"one of the most famous fakes in biology”….as is Darwinism.



Now....why would real scientists have to lie if their theory could stand up to inspection?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Eat worms all you want.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Eat worms all you want.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

It is based on empirical data.

You didn't know that????

No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the 'proof' of Darwin's theory.....

And the phrase is based on a diagram that I’ll bet you saw in school, and in textbooks:

Phylotypic stage - Wikipedia

But it's not. It's fake.....the most famous fake still being used.



8. “The embryos are (left to right) fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human. Von Baer did not regard embryology as evidence for evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory, von Baer explicitly rejected the claim that the various classes of vertebrates (i.e., fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) were descended from a common ancestor.

According to historian of science Timothy Lenoir, von Baer criticized Darwinists for having “already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos.”
Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 258.



And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?

And why is Darwinism so important that 'scientists' will lie to advance it????


It's not science....it's politics.

 

[Hollie]

This is the 'proof' of Darwin's theory.....

And the phrase is based on a diagram that I’ll bet you saw in school, and in textbooks:

Phylotypic stage - Wikipedia

But it's not. It's fake.....the most famous fake still being used.



8. “The embryos are (left to right) fish, salamander, tortoise, chick, hog, calf, rabbit, and human. Von Baer did not regard embryology as evidence for evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory, von Baer explicitly rejected the claim that the various classes of vertebrates (i.e., fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) were descended from a common ancestor.

According to historian of science Timothy Lenoir, von Baer criticized Darwinists for having “already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos.”
Timothy Lenoir, The Strategy of Life (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982), 258.



And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?

And why is Darwinism so important that 'scientists' will lie to advance it????


It's not science....it's politics.

It's comical that you cut and paste from 30 year old newspaper articles in desperate attempts to support ID'iot creation ministries.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?