There would not be Evolution Frauds if there was Evidence

Page Contents:

If Evolution has Proof, Why Make Fraudulent Proof?

In 1859, in his book Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said:

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.

This is from chapter six entitled Difficulties on the Theory. Scientists who believe evolution have been searching for transitional forms ever since but they have been not found. Therefore, fraudulent fossils have been made and presented as transitional forms.

The Archaeoraptor

National Geographic is the magazine of the National Geographic Society a scientific and educational institution according to their website. A fossil for a new find named Archaeoraptor was promoted in the National Geographic magazine as the missing link between dinosaur and birds. National Geographic later had to print a correction after further research revealed they had been fooled by the fraudulent fossil. Parts of two fossils, a dinosaur and a bird, had been glued together.

Piltdown Man

Piltdown Man was promoted as the missing link between ape and man. Piltdown Man was identified by a fossil skull. Piltdown Man was in science books and taught to children in school for almost 40 years before the skull was examined to see if it was authentic. When it was finally examined it was determined that the top of a human skull had been attached to the jaw of an orangutan. The phony fossil had been stained and painted to make it look old. For more information about Piltdown Man, please see this article: The Piltdown Man Fraud. For more information about the supposed missing links between apes and humans see the book:

Bones of Contention
Bones of Contention
Marvin L. Lubenow

Evolutionists believe that macro-evolution has been proven in the fossil record. However, if there is overwhelming evidence in the fossil record that macro-evolution has occurred then why is it necessary to make fraudulent fossils? The reason is because, contrary to what is commonly believed, macro-evolution has no proof in the fossil record.

The Peppered Moth

This is something that I was taught in science classes many times over the years. In this article entitled: What About The Peppered Moth? Dr. John Morris, Ph.D. describes it this way:

Here’s the well-told scenario. In the early 1800s, nearly all of the individual peppered moths (Biston betularia) were of a light grey, speckled color. Active mostly at night, they needed to hide by day from predatory birds. Since trees and rocks were typically covered with mottled light green, gray lichens, the moths were effectively camouflaged. A rare peppered moth exhibited a dark color and was easily seen by birds; thus they seldom survived. On average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, yet with both dark and light were of the same species and were fully interfertile.

Then came the industrial revolution and the air filled with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees. Soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged. By the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were dark. When English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell studied the phenomena in the 1950s, it became “Darwin’s Missing Evidence” natural selection in action. …

Several years ago, this study was found to be faked. Dr. Morris continues:

… And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell’s compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36). Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgeable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.

Even if this was a true study, all it would prove is that there was light and dark moths and then light and dark moths after the industrial revolution. Nothing evolved at all.

(This page is a work in progress. There is more fraudulent proof for evolution, but I have not finished this page yet.)

 

8 responses to “There would not be Evolution Frauds if there was Evidence

  1. Pingback: Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in his book “Origin of Species” | Reasons Why I Believe in God

  2. Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of X-Evolutionist.com | Reasons Why I Believe in God

  3. Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of my website X-Evolutionist.com | Life in Our Backyard

  4. Pingback: Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in his book “Origin of Species” « X-Evolutionist.com's Creation Blog

  5. Matt

    Pitdown man was a fraud and what’s more it was found by scientist and is acknowledged as such. Gee what more do expect? No one disagrees with you. For something that happened over a century you sure seem hung up about it or maybe you can’t find anything better.

    Peppered Moths. Not a fraud. For further information http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths . Oh and by the way are you a Moony like Wells?

    Archaeoraptor was not a scientific fraud. It was put together by the Chinese fossil hunter who discovered it. The pieces were assembled to make the fossil more marketable to collectors, not to researchers. Archaeoraptor was published in the popular press, not in peer-reviewed journals. The main author of the article about it was National Geographic’s art editor, not a scientist. Nature and Science both rejected papers describing it, citing suspicions that it was doctored and illegally smuggled (Dalton 2000; Simons 2000). Normal scientific procedures worked to uphold high standards. So not guilty on that one.

    • Gregg

      Wow Matt. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. We get it, despite holes and doubts in the Theory of evolution, your sold out for it. Starts to sound like you’re working hard to keep yourself convinced.

  6. Chris

    Matt,

    It seems you’ve missed the point entirely. Whether there are better examples or not, Pitdown man illustrates the fact that scientists only saw what they wanted to see, thus highlighting the philosophical/emotional investment that scientists have placed in their most treasured beliefs, which they claim to have arrived at objectively. Given that it went undetected for over 40 years is astounding, considering that the fraud was amateurish, and sloppy.

    Concerning peppered moths, all I can say is “wow”. Why are you defending this? Talk origins, to it’s detriment, attempts to justify the faked photographs, by providing an incredibly weak argument, in substituting the reasons why Kettlewell conducted his experiment, with a different reason, pertaining to the difficulty in photographing moths. This is muddying the waters. Excuse me for being rude, but simply providing a link to talkorigins, as if to say “case closed” is extremely arrogant. Tell me, how man scientists do you know of, who still publicly assert that the peppered moth is proof of evolution?

    This is a recurring theme. Scientists make a “discovery” “proving” evolution, which is then reported to the media, who jump all over it and report the discovery to the rest of the unsuspecting world, who don’t understand that micro-evolution, and macro-evolution, on a genetic level, travel in opposite directions. When the public hears the latest “proof” that evolution has been proven, what they don’t know is that the discovery is nothing more than natural selection, which proves a culling of genetic information, not a gain, which is what you need to prove microbes to man. Open you mind.

  7. GodIsLove

    the guy who executed the peppered moth fraud even admitted it was fraud… and, were it true, it wouldn’t prove macroevolution (the fake part of evolution) because white or grey, they are still moths of the same species. my twin sister has skin four shades lighter, so light in fact, that she looks white while i am African brown. is she a new species?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s