Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Senator Akin SHATTERS Embryology Fraud
11 views
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
Oct 26, 2012, 5:40:25 PM10/26/12
to
In the 3rd edition of ORIGIN are found astounding
blunders by Charles Darwin who said that the
(forgery) embryo's of Ernst Haeckel were 'the best
possible evidence for Evolution'. In fact, those same
Embryo Diagrams were exposed as complete frauds.
Dr.Gould admitted this in his 1977 book ONTOGENY.
But the Pres of the Nat'l Science Foundation himself
published those (long discredited) hoaxes in The Cell.
Von Braun concluded, "Evolution is systemic fraud."
blunders by Charles Darwin who said that the
(forgery) embryo's of Ernst Haeckel were 'the best
possible evidence for Evolution'. In fact, those same
Embryo Diagrams were exposed as complete frauds.
Dr.Gould admitted this in his 1977 book ONTOGENY.
But the Pres of the Nat'l Science Foundation himself
published those (long discredited) hoaxes in The Cell.
Von Braun concluded, "Evolution is systemic fraud."
M.I.Wakefield
Oct 26, 2012, 5:51:06 PM10/26/12
to
"BroilJAB" wrote in message
news:776c6598-b56b-4f73...@k21g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> "Evolution is systemic fraud."
It's amazing that you can profess these views despite the fact that biology
can be broken down into two eras: "before Darwin", and "after Darwin", and
"before Darwin" really doesn't matter.
news:776c6598-b56b-4f73...@k21g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> "Evolution is systemic fraud."
It's amazing that you can profess these views despite the fact that biology
can be broken down into two eras: "before Darwin", and "after Darwin", and
"before Darwin" really doesn't matter.
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 27, 2012, 12:52:17 AM10/27/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:51:06 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:
Evolution was known about a couple of generations before Darwin, which
these loonies don't seem to understand.
Darwin's wasn't even the first explanation, just the first
scientifically derived one which replaced Lamarck's earlier one.
In fact Darwin first attempted to explain his observations in a
Lamarckian framework but there were too many discrepancies, which is
why he formulated his own.
I defy anybody to read Darwin and show how he could have come up with
anything else.
wrote:
these loonies don't seem to understand.
Darwin's wasn't even the first explanation, just the first
scientifically derived one which replaced Lamarck's earlier one.
In fact Darwin first attempted to explain his observations in a
Lamarckian framework but there were too many discrepancies, which is
why he formulated his own.
I defy anybody to read Darwin and show how he could have come up with
anything else.
SkyEyes
Oct 27, 2012, 4:12:34 AM10/27/12
to
Representatives. If polls are anything to judge by, he never *will*
be a senator, as Claire McCaskill has a solid lead.
(2) Evolution is *not* dependent upon Haeckel's embryo drawings.
Darwin published _On the Origin of Species_ in 1859. Haeckel didn't
publish his embryo drawings until 1866.
(3) Even though Haeckel did fudge his drawings, comparing of embryos
is a perfectly valid avenue of study.
(4) Haeckel wasn't a Darwinian, but a Lamarckian.
(5) Stop posting the same tired, oft-refuted shit over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over. No matter how many times you post it, it still isn't factual.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
0 new messages