Evolution's hall of shame.

The reason I bring this up, even though I did a Earnest Haeckel section earlier. Is because evolutionists still like to beat a dead horse. The picture above shows what became of the claimed gill slits as the embryo became older. For if we humans are forming gill slits, then you could say the same for the picture below. I wonder if that Buick was always a land lover? Them gill slits sure make it look like it was driven in water before land at one time.

The pic below is the actual fraudulent drawings of Earnest Haeckel. The words used in the picture is showing where he actually fabricated the drawings.

What is the general comment about what Haeckel did by evolutionists?

The Haeckel textbook drawings were indeed rescaled, but to demonstrate a general truth, not to promote a falsehood.

And if a creationist had done this to pictures to demonstrate truth, what would it have been called? Falsifying evidence. And that is what Haeckel did. The crime does not change because it was done by an evolutionist. They just think it's ok because lying to prove evolution has become such a normal thing. A little twist to truth here and there, not big deal. It just brings out the truth that should have been there. What a joke.

Example: If evolutionist want to play this game, I can fabricate some pics as a joke, and when they say: You are falsifying evidence... I will refer them to this comment and excuse they use for what Haeckel did. And then ask the question: If it's ok with Haeckel (evolutionist), why is it wrong for me (creationist)? So why do they see it as not being wrong when they do it? Because a theory is not an absolute truth, the person who believes it never has to tell the truth while explaining it. Even though he will claim it to be truth and fact. But the truth in only in degrees of percent. Anything beyond that takes faith.

Here's where it will be brought back to our textbooks, and Haeckel will soon be a re-seated hero for the evolution theory:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

The textbook fraud test where Haeckel is concerned:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-embryology-earnst-haeckel-biogenetic-law.htm#test

This is also where the human tail claim came from.

To keep this from linking to Haeckel, they used a cat instead of a dog for comparison. Truth be known, the spinal cord is longer than the body in the early stages of the embryo. The body quickly catches up, and the so called tail disappears. And there is no trace of it when the baby is born. For if the tail is so obvious at this stage (an actual mutation of evolution), would you not think that some people would keep this trait, and there would be people with tails today? But where are they?

So if this is the tail that relates us to chimps and evolution, why did not this hit the news? And why did not evolutionists spend a bunch of money to examine the tail and prove evolution once and for all? Because it was not what it appeared to be. It was a tumor, you can read more about it below.

What about human tails? by Robert B. Sometimes evolutionists claim that the rare malformation during embryological development, which results in a protruding clump of skin near the buttocks, is a throwback to when our evolutionary ancestors had tails. But is this really a true tail which develops, or is it merely an embryological deformity caused by a genetic mistake? Well, these appendages are certainly not true tails, and are usually a fatty tumor having absolutely no relationship with a monkey tail whatsoever. For example, the Indian Tribune reported a case where a Muslim baby in India was born with one of these so-called "tails." They reported that many were flocking to this child because they thought he was a reincarnation of a monkey God within the Hindu religion. Sometime later, doctors were asking to examine the child, because they said it was probably a tumor, and the child's life could be in danger. Not a tail at all, but a dangerous tumor! Most of the reported "tails" are little more than fatty tissue with no vertebrae. Even if there are bony segments within the appendage, it still relates to genetic mistakes (e.g., certain genes relating to the development of the vertebrae column are erroneously replicated too many times during the developmental process, which results in an artificial "tail" like structure). Most of the time these appendages can be surgically removed without any problems, and that is what's recommended by most doctors. Many of the prominent and more educated evolutionists usually know better than to tout these abnormal growths as evidence of evolution, because they know it's simply not true. For example, well known evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education or NCSE, said this in a radio debate with Dr. Hugh Ross about alleged human tails: "Actually, that's [human "tails"] not an evolutionary issue at all ... It's a matter of developmental biology; it's a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn't give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesn't happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you don't think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. It's not really an evolutionary issue." -Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999 on "The Mike Rosen Show" Dr. Scott, who is an ardent proponent of evolution, knows that this issue doesn't relate to the evolution debate at all. If such a passionate supporter like Dr. Scott doesn't consider this relevant to evolution, then one wonders why others continue to flaunt this malformation as "unequivocal evidence" of evolution. It leaves you to wonder if they are simply trying to play on people's ignorance, and "wow" them with an artificial resemblance of a tail. If an evolutionist resorts to human "tails" as evidence of evolution, then you can probably be sure that they are desperate in their attempts, because they are not tails at all, and they are certainly not evidence of evolution in the slightest.  Reference: http://www.answersdepot.com/humantails.html

Then there was some prank pics that were circulated. To me, it looks like something glued on in these pics, or maybe photo enhanced. But these pics are used by evolutionists as jokes to see the uninformed creationists try and debunk it. Problem is, it's already a known lie. And this shows they will use any lie to support the evolution theory. Even to try and derail threads at forums where they are losing debates in, with such antics. This actually shows they are not really interested in truth. They want you to believe what they believe, and will go to extremes to accomplish this.

After looking at these weird pictures, I started to notice some things that were not right. The skin tone of the person in both pics is exactly the same, and different tails. This got me to looking for more of the same things on both. The yellow arrow is pointing at a vein that shows up in each persons arms, in the same exact place. The red arrow shows the same design on the wall in both pictures. And the blue arrow shows the same seams in the wall in both pics. Also notice the person in both pics, has the same waist size. If this tail thing is real, and as rare as is claimed. How did they get two people in the same room with tails to take these pics? Was it a tail convention? No, it was evolutionist making up something they could use to discredit creation. And derail on going debates at forums where creationists are getting the upper hand. Who else would come up with such an idea, and only they use it? Evolutionists. And who would be the only ones to benefit from this? Evolutionists. And where is the medical work up of all this? Nothing. Only pics? Thought so... Nice try evolutionists. More lies to prove a so called proven theory?

Notice this evolution website: http://www.dimaggio.org/Archive/tails_in_humans.htm They promote the human tail, but leave out that it was found to be a tumor. Leaving out information like this is a common tactic of evolutionists. Deception is the only way they can promote their theory. But while searching the site a little to see what else was there, look at what they complain about with creationists: http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/critical.htm The very same thing I just proved they did, they are accusing creationists of doing. I think that is called: being a hypocrite.

Here's another site that I had respect for because they usually don't go out on a limb in their answers. But I was surprised to read this:

name         Karl S. age          20s Question -   I read the following question and answer from your website, and I understand the explaination of recapitulating phylogeny,but is it actually possible for babies to be born with either something resembling "gill slits" or a "tail"?  Possibly flaps of skin or an elongated tail bone? Question -  Is it true that babies can be born with a congenital throwback i.e. born with fish gill/s and if so what is it called? All mammals have gill slits in their very early fetal development. We call this ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny..where the development of the individual goes through some of the characteristics of the animals lower in the evolutional development. When we look at early fetal development of various animals we see all having gill slits, and tails. Yes ... almost anything is possible.  Although usually not for the reasons that one might expect. What congenital anomalies of development show are often related to the time of delivery/parturition. PF Referrence: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00116.htm

If he is referring to what Haeckel did, he better read up on the history and outcome of Haeckel's faked drawings. Or read actual medical books that are not trying to promote evolution. He will find that the folds that are called gill slits, are later used in the development of the glands in the neck, and also become parts of the ears. They do not just disappear, neither do they develop any part of the respiratory system.

Here is a list of scientists that disagree with what Haeckel did.

Michael Richardson: "Although Haeckel confessed ... the drawings persist. 'That's the real mystery.' says Richardson.", (New Scientist, p23, 9/6/97) Michael Richardson: 'This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't ... These are fakes.' (Michael Richardson, in an interview with Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, August 11, 1997. ) Michael Richardson: "he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals." ... "Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts. (Elizabeth Pennisi, Michael Richardson, 'Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered', Science 277(5331):1435, September 5, 1997.) Pitman: "To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge." (Adam and Evolution, Michael Pitman, 1984, p. 120) NOTE: " to our knowledge, no respectable historical source mentions this conviction of Haeckel, we conclude that the claim for it must be based on hearsay, not fact." (SCIENCE, K Sander & R Bender, July 17, 1998) However even if the conviction story is untrue, he should have been convicted and deserved to be. Haeckel created the Piltdown man of embryology. Michael Richardson, St. George's Hospital Medical School, "What he did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development." They don't. ... There's only one word for this, and Dr. Richardson doesn't flinch from using it. 'These are fakes. In the paper we call them misleading and inaccurate, but that is just polite scientific language." The Times (London), p. 14, 8/11/97 Michael Richardson: "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered", "In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathways. 'It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology .. .... But Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts." (Science, p.1435, V.277, 9/5/97) Rutimeyer: 1868 A.D. "Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly. No one will quarrel with the first evaluation of the author, but the second quality is not one that he seriously can claim. These are works, clothed in medieval formalistic garb. There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs." (Referate, L. Rutimeyer, in Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868). [Notes: In 1868, L. Rutimeyer wrote an article, entitled "Referate," which appeared on pages 301-302 of the Archiv fur Anthropologie (Archives of Anthropology). In that article, Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, at the University of Basel, reviewed two of Haeckel's books, Natural History of Creation (Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte), and his Uber die Enstehung and den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts, both of which had been newly published the same year that Rutimeyer's review was published: 1868. Rutimeyer the fraudulent woodcuts. For example, the dog embryo and human embryo, shown on page 240 of Haeckel's book, are completely identical. Haeckel maintained that he faithfully copied the dog embryo from Bischoff (4th week). Rutimeyer then reprinted the original drawing made by Bischoff of the dog embryo at 4 weeks, and the original of human embryo at 4 weeks made by Haeckel. The originals were very much different! Then Rutimeyer notes that, elsewhere in Haeckel's book, that same woodcut is used to portray a dog, a chicken, and a tortoise! Rutimeyer was a well-known German scientist living at that time. He regularly had articles in each yearly volume of Archiv fur Anthropologie, yet his book review was never translated into English nor published in Britain or America!] Fleischmann 1901 A.D.: Another scientist, who at about the same time also protested against Haeckel's fakes, was Albert Fleischmann (Die Descenddztheoried, 1901, pp. 101-152). Rager: "Haeckel was not prudish in the selection of tools for his fight. In order to prove the validity of the law of biogenesis, he published several figures, the original and legends of which were faked up." ... "This fake is now shown in a few examples. For this purpose he used the same printing stock three times and invented a different legend for each copy." ... "There are a number of other figures, the originals of which were changed by Haeckel in order to demonstrate that human ontogeny successively passes through stages of development which repeat phylogeny." ... "This is not the first time that Haeckel's fake has been revealed. The well-known zoologist, Ludwig Rutimeyer (1868), protested against it." ... "The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory." (Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis, G. Rager, in Rivista di Biologia, Biology Forum 79, 1986, p 451-452) Singer: "His [Haeckel's] faults are not hard to see. For a generation and more he purveyed, to the semieducated public, a system of the crudest philosophy-if a mass of contradictions can be called by that name. He founded something that wore the habiliments of a religion, of which he was at once the high priest and the congregation." (A History of Biology, C. Singer, 1931, p 487) Thompson: Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this "biogenetic law" that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias throughout the world, distorted his data. Thompson explains: "A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the `convergence' of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The `biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." W. R. Thompson, "Introduction to The Origin of Species," p. 12. Stephen Jay Gould: "[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel's book]." Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Ontogeny and phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p430) Stephen Jay Gould: "... it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it, had been abandoned by science." (Ontogeny and phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p1) Stephen... Nothing has changed for students today! What will you do about it? Rusch: "The history of the so-called Law of Recapitulation is briefly examined from its inception down to Ernst Haeckel who finalized it as the "Biogenetic Law." Because of many short-comings discovered since Haeckel's day, the idea of "Recapitulation" is no longer generally recognized as a "Law" and some modern texts on evolution omit all reference to the topic. Some post-1960 textbooks, however, still present the illustrations of supposed embryological stages by Ernst Haeckel as support for the theory of evolution. Original criticisms of the honesty of Haeckel's arguments and illustrations are presented here, based on translated excerpts from the original German reviews by L. Rutimeyer, professor of science at the University of Basel, and early critic of Haeckel. These original sources indicate that Haeckel's woodcut series illustrating the ova and embryo were fraudulent. Articles by Wilhelm His, Sr., embryologist and anatomist of the University of Leipzig, also demonstrate that Haeckel's works contained distortions that were evidently perpetrated with the direct intent to deceive. It is suggested that future editions of science texts eliminate all use of Haeckel's questionable materials. Perpetuating these distorted drawings as true representations of the embryos in question and as having weight in the argument for evolution is certainly regrettable. (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27-34) Fix: ". . ontogeny recaptitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point." (The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, William R. Fix, 1984, p. 285) Milner: "When critics brought charges of extensive retouching and outrageous `fudging' in his famous embryo illustrations, Haeckel replied he was only trying to make them more accurate than the faulty specimens on which they were based." (Encyclopedia of Evolution, R. Milner, 1990, p 206) Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Montague-Gish Prinston Debate, 4/12/80 G.G. Simpson and W. Beck, "Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. it is now firmly established that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny." INTRODUCTION TO BIOLOGY, p.273, 1965 G.G. Simpson and W. Beck "It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny." [emphasis in original] George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241 Biogenetic -LANP-, DOTT, Univ. of WI, & BATTEN, Columbia Univ., A.M.N.H., "Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.86 K S. Thompson: Recapitulated Error, , Pres., Academy of Natural Sciences, "Surely the 'Biogenetic Law' is as dead as a doornail It was finally exorcised from biology test books in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry, it was extinct in the twenties." American Scientist, p.273, 5/6/88 Ehrlich and Holm: "This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology." Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66. Gavin R. deBeer: "The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the `biogenetic law' and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species." Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38. Gavin R. deBeer: ". . . the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology." Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10. Walter J. Bock: "Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars." Walter J. Bock (Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University), "Evolution by Orderly Law," Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684-685. Frings: ". . . we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history." Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267. Waddington: "The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists." Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10. Thomson: "Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail." Keith Stewart Thomson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist, Vol. 76, May-June 1988, p. 273. Montagu: "The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1922 by Professor Walter Gasbang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel." Ashley Montagu, as quoted in Sunderland, p. 119. Oppenheimer: In her book Jane Oppenheimer said that the work of Haeckel "was the culmination of the extremes of exaggeration which followed Darwin." She lamented that "Haeckel's doctrines were blindly and uncritically accepted," and "delayed the course of embryological progress." (Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (MIT Press, 1967 p. 150)           Referrence: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-embryology-earnst-haeckel-biogenetic-law.htm#informed

If evolution is such a proven fact, why do evolutionists keep insisting on using proven "falsified" evidence, and information?

And why do they insist on printing this same fraud year after year, as if they present the lie long enough, people will believe it. Do you know who else had that mind set? Hitler was once over heard saying: If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will soon start to believe it. Can you see the same tactic being used here? Just keep printing, and teaching it. Soon people will forget it was ever a lie. At least that's what they hope.

1) First they refuse to admit to the lie, until they just have to (twisting truth, and making excuses). And the excuse is that it was scientist that revealed fraud.

2) But, They allow it to continue in our textbooks, as they try and vendicate Haeckel and make him some type of evolutionist Hero. Making a admitted fraudulent person into some type of Hero, just shows what is really behind this belief.

For if they were truly sorry, and remorseful for what Haeckel did, I would not be putting up the information about this subject. Why? Because if the right thing had been done (removing completely Haeckel's works from science), it would not take 4 whole webpages to explain why it is wrong to continue teaching this. Why did it take 4 whole pages? Because evolutionist are so convinced that what Haeckel did was ok (fraud), the subject has to be broken down in such a fashion so they cannot say: I did not know that. Why would they say that? Because another evolutionist is surely not going to give them all this information.

Click next to see part two of where this fraud is still being taught today.