In law, an admission by someone against his interest is considered to be compelling evidence. People typically don’t lie against their own interest.
Statements in favor of one’s interest are not as credible. People frequently do mislead or even lie in order to advance their interests.
So when a defendant says he’s guilty, then that typically closes the case. When a company official tells a courtroom that his employer was at fault, the jury usually takes his word.
The logical starting point in most investigations is to ask this: are there any admissions by prominent evolutionists against their interests?
Admissions by Evolutionists.
“Evolution requires intermediate [i.e., transitional] forms between species and paleontology does not provide them,” wrote David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma (emphasis added).
Currently there are vast differences between most species. For evolution to work, there must have been “transitional forms” in the past that represent species in between the different species we see today.
Darwin himself admitted this. But he expected posterity to find the missing links between the species that his theory requires.
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so,” admitted anthropologist Edmund R. Leach.
The admissions by evolutionists of an absence of transitional forms are too lengthy to list here. While they cling to the dogma that evolution must be true, they have also admitted the lack of evidence for it.
The senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, put it this way: “Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.”
Like defense attorneys, evolutionists are horrified by these incriminating admissions that slip out. Often they seek a retraction, but despite the pressure, Dr. Colin Patterson and others never retracted their observation that there are no transitional fossils.
The Missing Link for Humans.
There continues to be no evidence for a transitional form or “Missing Link” between humans and our alleged ancestors. Under evolution theory, humans supposedly evolved from ape ancestors, who in turn evolved from simple species, and so on.
Evolutionists seeking great fame or fortune have searched high and low for the Missing Link that evolution requires to have existed.
The trouble is, it cannot be found. In the late 1800s, only decades after Darwin’s Origin of Species, evolutionists could dismiss this lack of evidence based on the short duration of the searches.
But now another hundred years have gone by. Archaeologists have combed countless digs and settlements looking for the find that would put them on the cover of magazines and bring them lucrative book and movie deals.
Into this great demand walked a fraudster, and many evolutionists willing to play along. In December 1912, evolutionists claimed that a skull called the “Piltdown Man” was the elusive Missing Link between humans and apes.
The New York Times trumpeted the find on its front page under the headline “Darwin Theory Proved True,” although buried back on its editorial page was a bit more caution. Not much has changed – the New York Times today continues to promote evolution. Several popular science magazines thrive by doing likewise.
For over 40 years some evolutionists defended the authenticity of the alleged “Missing Link,” before admitting it was a fraud. The Piltdown Man was part of the textbook challenged at the Scopes trial. Two generations were misled.
An orangutan’s jawbone, with crudely filed teeth, was attached to a medieval skull and planted near some older materials in a gravesite. The Piltdown Man was subsequently kept under lock and key, thereby preventing public scrutiny. A plaster substitute was put on display to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors to the British Museum.
Similar Frauds Today.
Frauds like the Piltdown Man permeate the field of evolution even to this day, because the process that allowed it to happen has never been reformed. Claims of artifact age continue to be based not on the found bones, but on independent material found in the vicinity. Often the basis for a dating claim is not even disclosed.
Last year the Los Angeles Times reported on the defective dating system used by archaeologists, and how it led to a massive fraud in Japan. “Most of the ‘proof’ for discoveries is determined by the age of the soil in which the items are found” rather than the age of the artifact itself, according to the L.A. Times.
It reported that “in September and again last month, Mainichi [newspaper] reporters hid video cameras in the ruins of [Shinichi] Fujimura dig sites. Shots taken Oct. 22 show him driving up at 6:18 a.m., looking around furtively and removing a plastic bag from his pocket. He then digs several holes, buries stoneware and stamps the dirt down for ‘discovery’ later when his colleagues are presumably around to witness the find.”
By simply burying newer items in older soil, Fujimura facilitated false claims that items were much older than they really were.
How many Darwinian artifacts have been distorted by this defective dating procedure? Japan’s Cultural Affairs Agency said it would reexamine more than 150 sites at which Fujimura has worked over the past two decades, but even that has done nothing to eradicate false museum claims elsewhere.
The con game in evolution takes other forms as well. Market demand for evolution artifacts has led to the fraudulent reconstruction of fossils in a manner to suggesting a transitional form.
A partial dinosaur fossil was joined with a partial bird fossil in an attempt to indicate that birds somehow evolved from dinosaurs. This hybrid then commanded enormous market value, expected to reach a million dollars.
Although researchers could and did easily detect dozens of obvious fractures in the fossil, the allure of fame and fortune proved to be too powerful. National Geographic featured it as a “true” missing link.
Months later, the story was completely retracted when the fraud was publicized. But scientists have done nothing to prevent its recurrence – or eradicate other frauds in the past like it.
Many are surprised to learn that evolutionists themselves do not claim to have found any human skeletons older than about 9,000 years in North America. Nor have credible human skeletons far older than that been found anywhere else.
An Australian anthropologist recently claimed to have a 62,000 year old skeleton named “Mungo Man.” However, evolutionists themselves hotly dispute this claim, for several reasons. See, e.g., http://www.theage.com.au/news/2001/01/10/FFX8GXG6RHC.html
First, evolutionists claim that man originated in Africa about 100,000 years ago, making it implausible that man would turn up far away in Australia 62,000 years ago. It’s possible that the testing of Mungo Man’s age has been distorted by contaminants.
Second, the DNA testing on Mungo Man was recently shown to be different from man’s DNA.
Third, while this is a flaw in all evolution claims, there has been very little independent or public scrutiny concerning Mungo Man. Direct evidence is not available for review on the internet, for example.
So while claims are made about various ape-like skulls found here and there, where are the older skeletons that evolutionists claim must exist?
Evolutionists themselves admit a lack of essential evidence. Darwin admitted the lack of evidence when he proposed his theory. 140 years later we still have a lack of evidence. Why is the theory still taught?
* * * * * *
You’ve just read the lecture….now it’s your turn to participate!
On our Discussion Board, you’ll share your thoughts and questions with your fellow students and instructor….. it’s simple!
Here’s just a sample of what you’ll find:
|MESSAGE TITLE: Reply to “Left also has facts”|
|POSTED BY: andy1|
|MESSAGE TEXT: You said “You cannot deduce the truth of a statement just by whether it is said by right-wingers or left-wingers.” I agree. But something is unlikely to be “scientific fact” if its believers have a strong political correlation. That’s the case for evolution theory — its proponents are strongly correlated to the political Left. You cite the fact that “most of those on death row are poor.” Nobody denies this. The believers in this fact are not strongly correlated to one end of the political spectrum. What conclusions may be drawn from that fact are disputed, of course. If I said that belief in a certain factual claim is highly correlated to one end of the political spectrum, is that claim likely to be “scientific fact”? I don’t think so. Andy|
|RESPONSE TO: The Left also has facts: I question the reasoning in the statement: But if evolution is a fact, then why is it so highly correlated to the political Left and to abandoning religion? No other recognition of a scientific “fact” shows such correlation. There are a lot of facts that the Left likes to cite much more than the Right. Eg, facts about inequality, racism, poverty, ecology, etc. Suppose I say, “Logging reduces the habitat for spotted owls.” or “Most of those on death row are poor.” Assuming that these are facts, they are a lot more likely to be said by left-wingers than right-wingers. The Right has its favorite facts also. You cannot deduce the truth of a statement just by whether it is said by right-wingers or left-wingers.|
Now, we’d like to hear from you ….
To get you started, tell us what you think about some of the following?
- Assuming no genuine transitional fossils or missing links are found over the next 100 years, will evolution still be taught?
- Why were evolutionists able to teach that the Piltdown Man was authentic to two generations of students?
- Did admission that the Piltdown Man was a hoax cause a loss of influence and revenue to the British Museum?
- Why was a newspaper investigation needed to uncover the Fujimura fraud?
- Why wasn’t the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud admitted upon discovery of the many dozens of fractures in the fossil?