Disasters Darwinism Allegedly Brought to Humanity 2/6

this is responding to Dimensio...

No, I was exactly correct. There isn't any tangible solid evidence for evolution. Scientists still shoe-horn data to fit preconceived notions. They assemble fossils in a manner to "support" their "theory". It is nothing more. Evolutionism is surrounded by bait & switch, smoke and mirrors, ad hominem, and many failures such as nebraska man, lucy, piltdown man, Haekel's gill slits on human embryos, horse evolution, archaeopteryx, to name a few.

Evoltuionism is something that hasn't been observed in nature. That's the biggest problem evolution has.

Please explain the alleged "failures" of Archaeopteryx, Lucy and established horse evolution.

I am familiar with the discarded frauds of Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryo drawings which were created in support of a hypothesis that was discarded the 1920s. I am also familiar with the Nebraska Man error, which was never considered a confirmed find, and was disproven entirely within five years of its initial presentation. I am unfamiliar with the other three subjects that you have mentioned being the subjects of "failure".

...I am aware of the "failures" of Haeckel's embryonic drawings, which were exposed as fraudulent in his lifetime in support of a hypothesis that was discarded by the 1920s, and I am aware of the fraudulent "Piltdown Man" that never adequately fit with any genuine, non-fraudulent, hominid fossils and that was quickly exposed as fake once it was examined, and I am aware that "Nebraska Man" was a speculative find that was never accepted as a definitive hominid find and that was discarded within five years. I am not, however, aware of any failure involving Archaeopteryx, Lucy or any other member of Australopithecus afarensis or with horse evolution. Please explain those alleged "failures". Please also demonstrate that fossils are arranged to support the theory, rather than the theory being written to support the arrangement of the fossils. Describe examples of "bait and switch".

Apparently metacafe experienced a technical issue, resulting the multiple posting of a single comment. I never observed any posting of the comment, and so I recomposed the comment in a new browser session. I did not intend to flood the forum with so many identical postings.

...I am aware of the "failures" of Haeckel's embryonic drawings, which were exposed as fraudulent in his lifetime in support of a hypothesis that was discarded by the 1920s, and I am aware of the fraudulent "Piltdown Man" that never adequately fit with any genuine, non-fraudulent, hominid fossils and that was quickly exposed as fake once it was examined, and I am aware that "Nebraska Man" was a speculative find that was never accepted as a definitive hominid find and that was discarded within five years. I am not, however, aware of any failure involving Archaeopteryx, Lucy or any other member of Australopithecus afarensis or with horse evolution. Please explain those alleged "failures". Please also demonstrate that fossils are arranged to support the theory, rather than the theory being written to support the arrangement of the fossils. Describe examples of "bait and switch".

...I am aware of the "failures" of Haeckel's embryonic drawings, which were exposed as fraudulent in his lifetime in support of a hypothesis that was discarded by the 1920s, and I am aware of the fraudulent "Piltdown Man" that never adequately fit with any genuine, non-fraudulent, hominid fossils and that was quickly exposed as fake once it was examined, and I am aware that "Nebraska Man" was a speculative find that was never accepted as a definitive hominid find and that was discarded within five years. I am not, however, aware of any failure involving Archaeopteryx, Lucy or any other member of Australopithecus afarensis or with horse evolution. Please explain those alleged "failures". Please also demonstrate that fossils are arranged to support the theory, rather than the theory being written to support the arrangement of the fossils. Describe examples of "bait and switch".

think = thing

is the fossil record. There isn't any evidence that even remotely demonstrates that all life forms are evolved from each other. What we observe is an assembling of the fossils to fit a preconceived notion - and that notion is, evolution is true and all life forms evolved from one another, so let's "build our case" and hand pick fossils that "seem to fit". This isn't science. A good example is horse evolution. The bones were assembled and put in an order that would imply that the horses evolved from one another into what we know as a "modern" horse today. Nevermind the rib count fluctuated in between. It evolved supposedly another rib, then lost it, then gained it again later. This has been exposed as a fraud, but the same thing happens today. The ONLY think we can OBSERVE about a fossil is that it is dead. Anything further than that is pure speculation. And speculation or SWAG is NOT science. Lucy is an ape, not a human. But we are spoon fed that it is some early version of man. No, it isn't. It's an ape. Common design points to a common Designer.

Bait & switch - the most popular example is microevolution vs. macroevolution. "Scientists" point to minute changes or adaptations WITHIN species (which does not violate observation, or science) but then turn around and try to sell you macroevolution, where suppsedly all these little minute changes eventually pile up to a big one. This simply isn't true. It isn't observed, it can't be reproduced in the lab, and it simply doesn't happen, and didn't happen. That is a classic bait & switch. It is illegal in advertising. You can't advertise a brand new Lincoln in a car commercial but then try to sell everybody a Civic when people come to your showroom. You can get into serious trouble for doing that, yet some "scientists" do it all the time. That is what has shipwrecked science. The poorly constructed theory of evolution is wrought with error and examples like these, yet it is a popular theory because we are told it is true, even though the argument and support for evolution is 100 miles wide but only an eighth of an inch thick.

You have apparently conflated your personal ignorance of the extensive fossil record, the genetic record, evidence observe in mitochondrial DNA across species and observations of evolution up to and including events of speciation with an actual lack of such observations.

That you have not adequately researched the subject of evolution does not demonstrate that no tangible evidence exists in support of the theory of evolution. For example, the observed demonstrable patterns of ERV insertions as found across multiple ape species, including humans, appearing exactly as lineages previously and independently established through the fossil record is not negated by your lack of knowledge of the subject.