Tuesday, 26 July 2011

A example of an old evolutionary hoax

For more than 40 years countless people believed a lie. Collected in 1912 from a gravel pit in Piltdown, East Sussex, England, Piltdown man is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever.

"The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence." source wikipedia

click to enlarge

One has to ask if for more than 40 years people can be deceived by such a thing, and modern deceptions happen in similar stead, how can we believe what we are told? Why would people believe such a lie?

Evolution is often used to hide from the reality of God. People do not want to find God for the same reason a thief does not run to a policeman. The conscience of a guilty thief would cause him to hide from the law: However, Your thoughts and actions are not hidden from God: and on the day of Judgment there will be no hiding place- every thought you have had, every word you have uttered, every action you have done "all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account." Hebrews 4:13.
Question. Have you ever taken God’s Name in vain? “the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.”Exodus 20:7. God sets the standards: what is right and wrong - He has written His moral law on your heart so you are “without excuse” Romans 1:18-32.

You know its wrong to lie, to steal, to lust: A good God will punish all the wrongs of this world by His standards. "He shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with His truth." Psalm 96:13. God's ‘prison’ is eternal punishment in Hell, a place of torment, where no good thing dwells.

So how can you be reconciled to God?

No good works will bribe a good God - “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight” Romans 3:20

God has made a way for you to get right with Him: Jesus Christ came and lived a perfect life, then died on the Cross to take the punishment you deserve. He was dead and buried, but rose from the grave on the third day, defeating the power of death. He calls you to turn from sin (repent) and trust in Him and His Word (The Bible). God can give you a new heart, Call out to Him for forgiveness. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17  Tomorrow is not guaranteed - Turn to Him today!

Talk to us today about the FREE gift of reconciliation through Jesus Christ: call: +44 (0)843 2894 765 for a FREE Bible


  1. This is just plain silly as an argument against evolution. We discovered the hoax because:
    a) it was crude and easy to discover (just an Orang Utang mandible and a human maxilla).
    b)We found fossil hominids that were genuine and showed that there was an alarming discrepancy. The Piltdown hoax made us think that humans developed big brains early one. The fossils showed us that this was not the case at all and that our large brains developed very gradually over the past few millions years.

    Why keep repeating the same old crude argument about Piltdown man showing evolution to be a hoax. Just because a Picasso is faked does not mean Picasso never existed. As long as people can see an easy way to get glory and fame they will find despicable ways to accomplish that goal. We were ignorant when piltdown man was presented to the scientific community because very few hominid fossils had been found at the time. Since then we have found a great many that are clearly no hoaxes. Please read the following.

    Sahelanthropos dates to around 6 million years closely resembles many of the apes we see today. Ardipithecus dates to around 4.5 million years ago and looks very much like an australopithcine, but is poor at being bipedal and was allocated to a different genus. Australopithecus anamensis is our oldest dated austrlopithecine (around 4 million years) and is clearly more human like than Ardipthecus, but is still somewhat transitional and has many similarities with older fossil apes (being far the most ape like of the australopithecines). Australopithecus afarensis is a typical bipedal australopithecine. Not yet walking upright, but clearly good at walking. It dates to between 3 and 4 million years ago.

    Many different australopithecine lineages existed and clearly not all of them could be our ancestor. Most palaeontologists believe that Australopithecus africanus is a good candidate for our ancestor, especially as many of the later forms of this species almost seamlessly blend into early Homo or other species of australopithecus that also look extremely similar to Homo. The generic division is an arbitrary one that had to be made somewhere to fit with the zoological code on nomenclature. Anyway, A. africanus dates to between 3 and 2 million years ago. I emphasize that early Homo looks very similar to the most recent australopithecines. Please look this up if you don't believe me.

  2. Homo habilis (dating to around 2 million years) overlaps both the austrlopithecines and later species of Homo in terms of brain size. Homo ergaster and Homo erectus (around 1.5 to just under a half million years ago) are clearly even more human and have brain sizes that are getting close to ours. These fossils show much more upright skeletons and skulls that are clearly much less ape like, but with some residual features. Early erectus has a brain size of 900 cc whereas later ones are close to 1100 cc.

    The most primitive Homo sapiens arrived on the scene around half a million years ago, but some other species of Homo are extremely similar in appearance to them. Homo ancessor dates to around 700,000 years ago and have some very human features, possibly enough to put it in with our own species. Therefore the dividing line between the humans that most closely resemble our own and the ones that we call our own is a highly arbitray one, but needs to be made in accordance to our classification system. The earliest "true" homo sapiens are therefore clearly very similar to the other species of Homo, even more so than they are to us. They now have brain sizes averaging in the 1200 cc region (e.g. Homo sapiens heidelbergensis, which dates to between 500 thousand and 200 thousand years ago). Modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) originated around 200 thousand years ago and have brain sizes averaging 1350 cc.

    The evidence is there for all to see. Go to a museum. The dating techniques are radiometric and robust. They complement many other dating techniques. In other words, their reliability is testified by the fact that they converge on similar dates.

    The point is that if God created all of these organisms separate he did it so that he made one extinct and then replaced it with another that was very similar, but ever so slightly more human like. He did this many many times so that we get a nice chronological sequence that complements the morphological sequence beautifully. You cannot hope for better data to support evolution and if creationists are not convinced by this then they never will be, they're just sticking their heads in the sand. There clearly are no more missing links, although that does not mean we cannot find ever so slightly more intermediate forms (although it is getting much more difficult). So if God created all life on earth, he wants us to believe in evolution. Why disobey him?

  3. Fossils are fossils and they only become part of evidence for evolution when you push your worldview into them. Then added to that, a dating system that lays an assumption on the past that says that everything has been the same in history. No account is made for a catastrophe for example where the dating system would be completely untrustworthy, becuase the history of the fossil has not been steady.

    You say this is silly to state as a reason to oubt evolution. However the whole science is riddled with hoaxes. Check out the Haeckels problem that is still in the text books today. What is funny is that I get different explanation as to why they are still in the text books. From 'i don't know why they are there' to 'they are not taught as fact' (when they clearly are in the books) to 'you know nothing about evolution, go study some books' - truth is, I am presenting the books as untrustworthy that I am told to go and study.

    Your comments at the end are quite strange. God does not want us to believe in evolution. Especially when the person who convinced Darwin of the idea of millions of years was driven by an agenda to rid science from Moses (i.e. Genesis):


    The quotes are referenced at the bottom of the page.

  4. Haeckel is old. Not going to address it in detail. Just because one evolutionist once slightly exaggerated a drawing and has been persecuted ever since, that does not mean the whole of the theory is wrong. He was wrong to do it, which is why we now use new and better drawings to show the same principle of recapitulation. I don't know of any textbooks that use the part of the illustration that he exaggerated although they may use the same illustration for the part that he did not. Forgive me if I am wrong on this, I find the haeckel argument old and stale and can't really be bothered to know if every publisher in every part of the world is up to date on it.

    Sorry, but in no way has any catastrophe been shown to alter the rate at which atoms decay. The decay of atoms is one of the great constants in our universe. And different types of radioactive decay that occur at different rates agree on the same dates. By this I mean that if you take uranium series dating of something and compare it with potassium series there is startling consistency. If decay rates were changing we should not expect this at all.

    Fossils are fossils and they are also the very evidence creationists have used to try to prove their ideas, so do not please pretend they are not important to your arguments. For example, creationists like to point to living fossils as evidence against evolution, but there are plenty of reasons for some organisms to hardly evolve at all whereas we expect others to evolve very quickly. The rate of organismal evolution is not nearly as constant as the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes.

  5. Hi Anon,

    Haekel is indeed old, but why still print a fake in the books? thats the issue here.

    You say you use new and better draiwings, but are you talking about the drawings that are shown in the other scans on the page? (http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.com/2011/11/another-modern-evolutionary-hoax.html) Because these look exactly like the haekels diagrams, but with a different pen and some colour. They still look nothing like the embryos that are shown as true representations on the newspaper article at the top of the page.

    Of course you find the haekel argument old and stale, because it is a big discredit to the theory of evolution in LOADS of sceince books. I would hate it too if I wanted to believe in the theory. But that does not deny the fact that it is STILL in the books that you can purchase off the shelf today and still is used to tout the lies of the evolution fairytale.

    Please keep checking the website, in fact join the facebook page at the top of the page to keep up to date with what is published here. I will publish, in time, an article about the age of the earth.

    I don't need fossils to prove my faith, if fossils did not exist today then there would still be overwhelming proof for what I believe and put my trust in.

    PS, have you taken the good person test yet?


    Take care,


  6. You seem a little obsessed with one person's bad science. More to the point, the issue of ontogeny recapitulating evolution is an incredibly peripheral one. The truth or falsity of this particular hypothesis in no way discredits evolution as a separate and well supported theory with a gigantic body of evidence from many different sources.

    I should emphasize that a theory means an explanatory framework that bridges multiple hypotheses and draws on many different strands of evidence. The Theory of evolution is exactly that. It is a very robust one and will not come crashing down just because some idiot back in the early twentieth decided it would be ok to bolster a separate but complementary hypothesis with an exaggerated drawing. The point is that evolution is far more than just Haeckel and to discredit Haeckel is a good thing if the guy deserved discrediting. If there is a hell I am sure he is in it rotting away. I would rather evolution persuaded people on the basis of good and credible research than because of lies and distortions.

    So to think that discrediting Haeckel discredits evolution is completely erroneous and at least evolutionists have learnt from past mistakes and exaggerations. We know Haeckel was wrong. We admit the error and now wish to move on. I have yet to meet a creationist who can own up to being wrong about anything, despite how very wrong they are about everything.
    But if that is the best you have over evolution when literally hundreds of thousands of credible papers have been written since then and before then you have a long way to go. Science is not infallible and mistakes will be made. But it is through scientific scrutiny and falsification that old ideas are shown to fail. Whereas Haeckel's ideas are amongst them, evolution is definitely not. To me it seems silly that evolution would be so accurately recapitulated by ontogeny in the way Haeckel claimed. There is simply no good grounds to expect it. So how does its falsification disprove evolution? I mean it is not as though everybody went allelujah, the theory of evolution is saved when Haeckel came along. It was doing perfectly well before him.

    But the biblical version of events has been falsified, now we are on the topic. The world is clearly billions of years old (this is supported by many different types of evidence). In genesis it says that birds were created before land mammals. We don't even need to date fossils accurately to discredit this. Bird fossils are consistently in higher stratigraphic layers than the oldest mammals. Of course you conveniently say fossils are no proof of anything. That is great for you, but why are so many other creationists using fossil evidence. They actually think they can use it to disprove evolution. As ever, creationists can never make up their minds about this stuff.

    1. hello again anon:

      I will quote your points starting with (you wrote-) ", followed by my responses under a line.

      (you wrote-)

      "You seem a little obsessed with one person's bad science."


      Nope, this is why there are more than one example on this blog of evolution hoaxes (I have many that I have not placed here yet).

      (you wrote-)

      "The truth or falsity of this particular hypothesis in no way discredits evolution"


      Then why call him an idiot and say he is probably burning in hell? Obviously you are angry about this hoax that is repeatedly in the books, otherwise why bring such strong emotions into it?

      I for one hope he is not 'rotting in hell'

      (you wrote -)

      "I would rather evolution persuaded people on the basis of good and credible research than because of lies and distortions."

      So how do you know when the text books teach you lies like these are true(and plenty of others)? Surely you must be glad in a way that this (haekels) is being exposed for the hoax that it is. But the question is, why was it put in the books in the first place when it was exposed as a fake back over 100 years ago? 1874 to be precise!

      (you wrote -)

      "at least evolutionists have learnt from past mistakes and exaggerations."


      Really? thats why this diagram is published in so many (i list at least 10 science books over decades), who was right here (http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.com/2011/07/modern-example-of-evolutionary-hoax_26.html), Dawkins or Grey's anatomy?

      (you wrote -)

      "I have yet to meet a creationist who can own up to being wrong about anything, despite how very wrong they are about everything."


      Well I definately think Creationists can be wrong, this is why this website is set up to show the conflict WITH evolution theory, rather than try to win the battle with Creationism on the whole.

      (you wrote -)

      "if that is the best you have"


      No, I have more than that, as I have already stated and have shown on this site (which is in early development)

      (you wrote -)

      "But it is through scientific scrutiny and falsification that old ideas are shown to fail. Whereas Haeckel's ideas are amongst them, evolution is definitely not."


      But yet we still see it taught as facts over decades even after 100 years of it known as a fake.

      (you wrote -)

      "But it is through scientific scrutiny and falsification that old ideas are shown to fail. Whereas Haeckel's ideas are amongst them, evolution is definitely not."


      Come on now, these are used as evidence FOR evolution and this is the problem: see this diagram as an example (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1252)

      (you wrote -)

      "To me it seems silly that evolution would be so accurately recapitulated by ontogeny in the way Haeckel claimed."


      THen you would agree that these books are silly, because they make the claim also, which just underlines my point.

      (you wrote -)
      "So how does its falsification disprove evolution?"


      Because its silly, as you have stated yourself.

      I will deal with biblical issues under your next comment. - Thank you

  7. But what basis do you even have to argue against fossils as evidence. I mean they are real are they are not. They testify to what happened and their dates show morphological evolution over time. This is hard and sound evidence. How can you simply say you don’t need fossils to prove your faith? Prove your faith to who? To me, really? I can’t go on your faith alone. You have only the bible as your evidence. Now how do you know that the bible was not written by manipulative politicians? How do you really know that this whole tradition didn’t start with somebody saying “I know, let’s write a book that will persuade the world that one mortal and ordinary man was capable of healing and magic, and that he was the son of God. If we can persuade them then they will give us donations and make us rich.”

    This is very similar to how scientology got started and it is probably the same as Christianity. But don’t tell me, you don’t believe this because you have faith.

    Well the next man replied “but how will we persuade them when others could try the same thing. Others could steer them to a different story and take away our donations”. The first man then said “We will use the idea of faith. All who doubt shall be forced to worry about living in sin. They shall be made to feel guilty for having thoughts that the way we tell them it is, is not the actual way. We shall tell them therefore that to doubt is to sin and that not to doubt is the way to heaven”. And thus was born faith. He who questions is made to feel like a sinner. Religion is for sheep that want to be in a flock. Evolution is not a religion. It offers no comfort. The truth is harsh and I am sure you believe in religion because you are afraid. Evolution is just questioning whether there really is a good basis for fairy tales. Giant floating menageries that housed millions and millions of species. Biologists know that this is physically impossible. We learnt to question the politicians and the books that told us to stick to their ways or there would be consequences later in some afterlife.

    Sorry, but I will not be convinced by your book. You keep to following the flock, but I will be out there contesting things until they are proven. And I am just as skeptical of my scientific colleagues who claim truth without evidence. We scientists are an argumentative lot with a healthy disrespect for authority. But strangely, we pretty much all agree on evolution (except a tiny minority of very religious scientists – a couple of hundred of them versus a million or so of us). So why is that? Why should we agree when we prefer to bicker? The answer is because the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

    1. Please see my response to your other comment before you read this one.

      thank you.

      (you wrote -)
      "How can you simply say you don’t need fossils to prove your faith?"

      Because my faith, unlike yours, is not founded on such things. Mine is founded on the Bible / Jesus Christ.

      (you wrote -)
      "You have only the bible as your evidence. "

      This is not true. Please refer to my other website here (www.proof4thetruth.com) to see why my faith has more than just the Bible as evidence (although without anything else, the Bible would be sufficient).

      Most of what you have wrote from then on is on my other website. If its not, then please start up some comments there and talk to me about why these evidences on the site are questionable (if you find they are).

      One of the biggest proofs you possess is your conscience, this was given to you by God and will be one witness when you give account of your life before Him when you die. You would do well to listen to your conscience and take the good person test here (www.thegoodpersontest.com) to understand why you need to be reconciled with your Creator. This is far more important than the age of the earth and evolution. Because Death is certain and you know not the last minute you will breath your last. This is not about getting money into a Church, this is about your soul. Nothing about this website is about money, have you noticed that? to which your urgument falls apart.

      look forward to hearing from you again.


  8. "Nope, this is why there are more than one example on this blog of evolution hoaxes"

    Haeckel, Piltdown man and Nebraska man. Three bad errors committed by bad science and bad biology. I admit it. But they were shown to be false by other biologists. None of this discredits evolution as a general theory. Nebraska man was only identified on the basis of a tooth and was never a strong case for a missing link in the first place (just one tooth). And Piltdown man did not fit well with the genuine fossils. It's incongruency is what revealed it for what it was. As for Haeckel, it might be use in the odd textbook erroneously, but evolutionists accept this error and the exaggertaion. Haeckel is not the bedrock of evolution, so quit going on about the small number of errors made by a very large community of biologists who are almost invariably producing good and authentic work.

    As for the Lemur, that is a real fossil. But many palaeontologists argued against it being a very early monkey and so it quickly got taken out of the lime light. It is instead a very primitive lemur that had probably already broken off into the lemur branch. It is still a real fossil. But we are talking about monkey fossils, for which we have many. Some indeed are more primitive than others. But the argument that we have found the most primitive primate on the monkey line (which is our ancestral line) was erroneous. Instead we found what was probably one of the most primitive fossils in the lemur line. So the news coverage stopped because we are only obsessed with our ancestors, not the ancestors of lemurs.

    Now I think I have addressed all of the claimed hoaxes on your blogs. I admit that Nebraska man, Piltdown man and Haeckel in no way support the theory of evolution. But we debunked this stuff a long time ago and I can't help it if some publishers are not good at taking the crap out of their textbooks. I think most are wary of putting Haeckel's diagrams but really don't worry about it too much. As I said, it is not a lynch pin of evolution. Now can we move on please because these really are ancient examples that creationists think are important when they really are not. What about Australopithecus (numerous fossils), Ardipithecus and earyl Homo fossils. We do not accept that these are hoaxes because they clearly are not. They provide a much greater threat to creationism than Piltdown man ever did. Piltdown man was just one missing link. Since we proved it a fraud we have found hundreds of missing links.

    1. I am in no way finished putting information onto this website. You missed one more article here: http://theevolutionhoax.blogspot.com/2011/07/modern-example-of-evolutionary-hoax_26.html

      You can see that even Dawkins pushes his agenda against other recorded sciences.

      (you wrote -)

      "What about Australopithecus (numerous fossils), Ardipithecus and earyl Homo fossils."


      I will deal with these, all being well, as I compile the website.

      I will now respond to your other comment

  9. "So how do you know when the text books teach you lies like these are true(and plenty of others)?"

    Textbooks are a summary of knowledge on a subject. They tend to omit things and sometimes get things wrong because they also tend to simplify things. That is no excuse for putting in antiquated and falsified diagrams (which very few do I think), but trust me, text books are not the basis on which scientists go out and learn about science. We don't claim that the written word is the holy truth. I have taken extremely little of my knowledge about science from text books and I am a scientist. I mainly read papers on science and then I go out and collect my own data and write it up. So textbooks are not my concern at all. They are just oversimplified summaries most of the time.

    If you want to be certain of something you go out and observe the evidence yourself. Failing that you should never rely on a single source. Go and read numerous science papers. Some will be awful and others will inspire you. After you have read many you will have a much better idea of the truth and you can then formulate your own hypothesis to show up others to be wrong on something. This is science. Haeckel was shown up by the scientific process and not by creationists. But this in no way presents a threat to evolution, in the same way that when a scientist finds data that falsifies a hypothesis about how evolution proceeds it in no way falsifies evolution. It just falsifies that hypothesis.

    1. (you wrote:)
      "but trust me, text books are not the basis on which scientists go out and learn about science."


      But science degrees come from a large portion of textbook study right?

      (you wrote-)

      "We don't claim that the written word is the holy truth. I have taken extremely little of my knowledge about science from text books and I am a scientist. I mainly read papers on science and then I go out and collect my own data and write it up."


      So its subjective then? I mean that is pretty much what we would call cherry picking in Christianity. Looking at the Bible and other books and just deciding ourselves what is the best truth.

      How can you collect your own data, especially on evolution, when it can't be observed? surely you just have to reproduce already recorded information? How can such things ever be correct on a paper if there is no ultimate standard to stick to? I suppose you might be lucky enough to be one responsible for 'progress' and invent / discover something new about the whole thing. But are you telling me that you will get a pass on something that is not inline with the textbooks or board of people... hmm, I don't see how this is not very frustrating. I am getting a headache just trying to work out how you pin down the truth here.

      So imagine you are doing a paper about The giraffe and end up conflicting with Grey's anatomy like Dawkins does, does that mean Grey's anatomy is wrong? Can you honestly not see how impossible it seems that you can arrive at actual FACTS?

      If a Christian were to dismiss half the things in the Bible, lets say the offensive parts, then I am sure you would be first to shout hyprocrite or jump on it in some way.

      (you wrote -)
      "If you want to be certain of something you go out and observe the evidence yourself."

      How do you observe the evolution of Australopithecus? because this is one of the major things this comes down to, its not observable. If its not observable then you have to trust in the textbooks surely....

      look forward to your reply


  10. "But science degrees come from a large portion of textbook study right?"
    No, I hardly ever read textbooks during my degree. I mainly read scientific papers. Some bad degree courses may mainly teach from textbooks, but this is not something that I would recommend or that is terribly common I think. Textbooks are more for students at secondary school. Of course some specialized textbooks are used at university, but you should be beyond basic biology by the time you are at university and learning more detailed science (reading papers, etc.) and actually doing science.

    “So its subjective then? I mean that is pretty much what we would call cherry picking in Christianity. Looking at the Bible and other books and just deciding ourselves what is the best truth. “

    No it is not subjective at the end of the day because the data should make a particular conclusion irrefutable. If it does not, more data is needed, but this is not the case for evolution. The point is that you specialize in a particular area of science (something way more specialized than just evolution) and you read all the papers pertaining to that area. You might find there is a difference of opinion or contradictory results and interpretations in that area. But the opinion is often based on insubstantial or conflicting data. Therefore you then go out and do the research and collect the data to test which interpretation or hypothesis is correct. At the end of the day you get to a solution and the people who were demonstrably wrong usually accept defeat. They do this because the data shows they are wrong. Therefore there is nothing subjective about it, although you might argue that there is until you reach the final goal of falsifying a hypothesis. And you never expose yourself to a biased selection of literature in your particular area. You read as widely as possible.

    The point is these are particular areas of science where we have question marks. We are not all agreed on exactly how evolution occurs to the finest detail. That is why evolutionists exist. It isn’t to prop up the theory or even test it. The theory has been tested to death and has been shown to be true. We now argue about the particulars and we all try to make sure that we are aware of eachother’s work. So I might argue about the way that a particular organism evolved from another whereas my colleague would have a different opinion and until we have formally tested it either of us could be right. On the subject of evolution that formal test has been done time and time again and evolution always triumphs. Look at the many cases of natural selection and speciation observed in a laboratory or field setting and the many dated transitory fossils and you will see this. Add to that the numerous cases of exaptation and it becomes ever clearer.

  11. “How can you collect your own data, especially on evolution, when it can't be observed?”

    No, evolution is actually observed all the time. Wikipedia the Lenski experiment for one of many examples. This shows bacteria adapting. But many cases of speciation have been observed in laboratories and in the field. Look up speciation in nematodes, fruitflies and Hawaiian wallabies amongst many. All these things are actually witnessed.

    You might argue that no new kinds of animals or plants have ever been observed, what you guys like to call macroevolution. If we ever saw a fish evolve into an amphibian it would actually be really bad news for Darwinists. It would prove an altogether different theory of evolution called saltationism. Admittedly, we do sometimes see unusually discrete steps in evolution that have led people to argue for it in the past. But evolution is actually very much more gradual most of the time, so we would not expect to see a fish evolve to walk on land for millions of years.
    Evolution is also about deduction. When people are convicted of crimes it is not always because they were witnessed undertaking the crime. Detectives can use their DNA and other types of evidence to reconstruct the scene of the crime. Although we witness what can sometimes be considered to be quite dramatic evolution in our own lifetimes, to understand how evolution works over long periods of time requires using the same types of techniques as detectives. We can find and date fossils for example. We can also undertake phylogenetic analyses on organisms and look at how much structure exists in our data. If we find the same or similar phylogenies or trees are generated from completely independent data sets (some of which are in no way functional) we have a very strong case for evolution. So if the molecular phylogeny is completely contradicting the morphological dataset it would look bad for evolution. But this does not happen. This does not involve waiting around for organisms to evolve but simply comparative anatomy, molecular sequencing, etc. We can also look at how particular characters evolve on a phylogeny. This can show how much certain characters change. So we find often find that a given character is highly similar to organisms it is closely related to, but very distinct for those it is more distant to. The phylogeny itself might be based on the mitochondrial DNA and have nothing whatsoever to do with the morphology, and yet the correlation is still highly apparent.

  12. "But are you telling me that you will get a pass on something that is not inline with the textbooks or board of people"

    Yes. There is no board of people deciding on what is true and what is not. We produce evidence and use formal techniques to undertake analyses of the evidence. The conclusions should be apparent from the results of that analysis. If they are not we will not get published. That is we need to support our conclusions with data. Data is all important here. A review panel will decide if we have overstepped what can be reasonably concluded about the data or if we have misinterpreted the results of the analysis because we did not factor some potential bias. But often you might discover something that contradicts what was thought to be true and even what is written in textbooks. That is why we call it science and not religion. There is no sacred keeper of the truth because we are learning and discovering more all the time. But at no point has anyone found a compelling reason or good data for ditching evolution. All the data points to natural selection so that the theory is getting stronger and stronger, not weaker. So it is never good to accept any book’s word on something. Even a textbook. If you really want to be sure you should go and read broadly on the subject. Get numerous scientific papers and look at the data that they have.

    Please don’t think scientists are freely interpreting their data the way they want. The point of the review panel is to stop them from doing this, to make sure they are not taking their interpretation into the region of wild speculation. The data says what the data says. You should not go much if at all beyond this and this is pretty much what we all agree is good. Interpretations that are not definite are acknowledged as being speculative when they are. So sometimes we might argue for tentative ideas, but then we have to spell out they are tentative and be very clear about how our interpretation (although tentative) is supported by data. Evolution itself is not one of those tentative ideas.

  13. "How do you observe the evolution of Australopithecus? because this is one of the major things this comes down to, its not observable. If its not observable then you have to trust in the textbooks surely..."

    Don’t ever just trust textbooks. Go and read the papers that have been written on the subject. They provide the actual data on the radiometric techniques. Then go to a museum and witness the fossils first hand. You can actually see these fossils. As I said before, detectives can reconstruct crime scenes, so why can’t scientists reconstruct biological history? All you need are a few fossils and a reliable dating method. We have tons of fossils and tons of different reliable dating methods. These show how earlier australopithecines are more like apes whereas some of the later ones are much more like us. When you put them together in chronological sequence telling any one of them apart from an adjacent one is very difficult. To deny this stuff is silly.

    Have you observed the parting of the red sea. But you still believe it because of a single document of unknown provenance. I am talking about numerous different types of evidence and numerous different sources. Not one, but many.

    1. Thank you for taking the time to write all of that, if i get time i will reply in more depth, but just on the note of Australopithecus, I am just about to publish a new article about the untrustworthy reports on this 'missing link' all I did was the research you have encouraged me to do. The information is from evolutionary scientists. See what you make of it.

      By the way, the parting of the red sea has a great deal of evidence, but when you are ready to listen to it, then I would be happy to provide it for you. (though some of the evidence is on the website I shared with you earlier.) Watch out for my new article within the next 10 minutes.


  14. Frogflydandelion25 January 2012 at 16:36

    Yeah, see my comments on your article. Try to find more recent sources. The ones you used are very old and not at all pertinent given more recent evidence and analyses.

  15. Frogflydandelion25 January 2012 at 18:05

    OK, so let us say you are right about the parting of the red sea. Let's say there is evidence for it, just for the sake of argument. But you have not observed it and yet there is evidence. I could make the exact same argument as you that because you did not see it and because nobody in our lifetime has seen it that your hypothesis that the red sea parted is not testable. But I won't make that argument because it is a silly one. If the red sea parted there may indeed be good evidence for it and we should be able to pretty much prove it. I am not going to produce data to contradict this because I am not interested in disproving that the red sea parted. For all I know it did and I will take your word for it. Now will you do the same for me. Will you accept that evidence can be used to deduce that something has happened when we have no witnesses. Or does the argument only go one way. Your evidence is credible but mine is not.

    1. Hello again, I will publish your other comments when I get through them, and respond also.

      In regards to this comment about the red sea and what you believe-

      I don't think I have used the argument that you are talking about "you were not there, therefore its not true" have I? Ok, so I have said what you are saying is not testable, but there is way more creditability to 'more recent' events in history than those events 'before history was written down' (which i think is a fallacy to deny true history that is traceable back to Adam and Eve (see the link at the top of the page). I have one of those history charts and there is not a break in the history Adam and Eve to the late 1800s. But that is another subject.). Would you not agree that we can verify historical events more so since the inventing of the printing press etc that increased the availability of the written word?

      We have nothing of a sort for history 'millions of years ago.'

  16. Frogflydandelion26 January 2012 at 07:49

    Can you please put my australopithecus comments on your link.

    1. I will do this once I have the time to read through and reply. I run a business and have a large family to attend to. I would like to reply at the same time. I would appreciate your patience.

  17. Frogflydandelion26 January 2012 at 07:58

    You said the problem is Australopithecus cannot be observed. The red sea's parting is not observable either. You have historical testimony, which has shown to be unreliable time and time again. There is a reason for the expression "history is written by the victors". Historians always question the reliability of their documentary sources. So should you.

    History that was written millions of years ago relies on the material record. The material record does not lie or exaggerate the truth. Although we have poorly resolved fossil records (only a tiny proportion of life fossilizes) what we do have gives us a very reliable picture of the past, even though incomplete and providing only some of the evidence that is needed for a really detailed view of the past. Despite being incomplete we still find many transition fossils (enough to prove our ancestry with other apes). So no, i do not agree. We may not be able to show the past with the same degree of detail as a historical record (providing that historical record is a reliable account), but what we do know is actually incredibly reliable.

    1. Good job my trusting in the red sea parting is not just based on historical testimony, although the Bible is the most reliable history book in antiquity when you consider it alongside other major events in history. But again, this is another subject.

  18. Frogflydandelion26 January 2012 at 10:57

    A book that speaks of giant arks housing tens of millions of species of animals is hardly a reliable testimony now is it? You think it is reliable, but it has been shown to be totally flawed. As for global floods, the arguments made by creationists that sedimentary deposits show evidence of flooding are clearly shown to be wanting and these deposits more often show aeolian forces. There is that and the fact that there is not enough water to cover this planet. The problem is that these arguments do not stand up to scrutiny in the same way the claims that Australopithecines were permanent knuckle walkers does not stand up to scrunity. But rather than publish my information on your website you would rather censor it I take it. This is just another typical creationist ploy, to pretend the flaws in your arguments do not exist and to block your ears to the real science. Why not publish it now and then respond to it later? Where is the harm in that?

    1. Thats a shame, I can see that the maturity of this conversation is declining, thats a shame, you sound quite angry. I have nothing to hide. Just wanted to be polite and reply at the same time, thats all. It might please you to know i have published the comments now. Hope you can be patient enough for my reply?