On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 17:56:36 +0100, Jørgen Farum Jensen
Post by Jørgen Farum JensenNævn bare en berømt og fremtrædende videnskabsperson
fra dette århundrede der har "indrømmer at ET intet har med
videnskab at gøre, og at al logik, observation og ganske almindelig
sund fornuft peger på ID."
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only
a variety of wishful speculations." -- Franklin Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colorado State
University, in an Oxford University Press text.
Post by Jørgen Farum JensenDine personlige oplevelser er jo bare det.
Det beviser intet andet end at du siger du
Hvad kan menneskeheden bruge det til?
En dag vil menneskeheden takke Hare Krishna for at have fortalt dem
sandheden.
Post by Jørgen Farum Jensen"Alle fremstående, berømte videnskabsfolk indrømmer at ET intet har med
videnskab at gøre, og at al logik, observation og ganske almindelig
sund fornuft peger på ID."
Nogle af disse må nødvendigvis fungere på universiteterne.
Så kan det da ikke være en kendt sag, at der diskrimineres
imod dem.
Det er ukendt for de almindelige brede masser, men det er en kendt
sag, for de der gider sætte sig ind hvad der virkelig foregår i
verden. De ved at almindelige mennesker bliver indoktrineret og
manipuleret af propagandamaskinen til at tro, at meningen med livet er
at tjene penge og bruge dem.
This article originally appeared in The American Spectator - December
2000 / January 2001
If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley
whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would
have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a
question would be asked in the first place. One might find tiny
errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always
discovering new things. But I believed - took it as a given - that my
science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available
at that time.
It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development
biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange
anomaly. The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of
vertebrate embryos - fish, chickens, humans, etc. - where similarities
were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Indeed,
the drawings did appear very similar. But I'd been studying embryos
for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I knew that the
drawings were just plain wrong.
I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings,
and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the
embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the
embryos look very different from one another.
Like most other science students, like most scientists themselves, I
let it pass. It didn't immediately affect my work, and I assumed that
while the texts had somehow gotten this particular issue wrong, it was
the exception to the rule. In 1997, however, my interest in the embryo
drawings was revived when British embryologist Michael Richardson and
his colleagues published the result of their study comparing the
textbook drawings with actual embryos.
SURVIVAL OF TH FAKEST
Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are
either false or misleading Yest Biology texts continue to present
them as factual evidence of evolution What does this imply about their
sceintific standards? -- Jonathan Wells
Richardson himself was quoted in the prestigious journal Science: "It
looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in
biology." Worse, this was no recent fraud. Nor was its discovery
recent. The embryo drawings that appear in most every high school and
college textbook are either reproductions of, or based on, a famous
series of drawings by the 19th century German biologist and fervent
Darwinian, Ernst Haeckel, and they have been known to scholars of
Darwin and evolutionary theory to be forgeries for over a hundred
years. But none of them, apparently, have seen fit to correct this
almost ubiquitous misinformation.
Still thinking this an exceptional circumstance, I became curious to
see if I could find other mistakes in the standard biology texts
dealing with evolution. My search revealed a startling fact however:
Far from being exceptions, such blatant misrepresentations are more
often the rule. In my recent book I call them "Icons of Evolution,"
because so many of them are represented by classic oftrepeated
illustrations which, like the Haeckel drawings, have served their
pedagogical purpose only too well - fixing basic misinformation about
evolutionary theory in the public's mind.
We all remember them from biology class: the experiment that created
the "building blocks of life" in a tube; the evolutionary "tree,"
rooted in the primordial slime and branching out into animal and plant
life. Then there were the similar bone structures of, say, a bird's
wing and a man's hand, the peppered moths, and Darwin's finches.
And, of course, the Haeckel embryos. As it happens, all of these
examples, as well as many others purportedly standing as evidence of
evolution, turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just
slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution, the texts
contained massive distortions and even some faked evidence. Nor are we
only talking about high-school textbooks that some might excuse (but
shouldn't) for adhering to a lower standard. Also guilty are some of
the most prestigious and widely used college texts, such as Douglas
Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, and the latest edition of the
graduate-level textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell, coauthored
by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts.
In fact, when the false "evidence" is taken away, the case for
Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks at least, is so thin it's almost
invisible.
Life in a Bottle
Anyone old enough in 1953 to understand the import of the news
remembers how shocking, and to many, exhilarating, it was. Scientists
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had succeeded in creating "the building
blocks" of life in a flask. Mimicking what were believed to be the
natural conditions of the early Earth's atmosphere, and then
sending an electric spark through it, Miller and Urey had formed
simple amino acids. As amino acids are the "building blocks" of life,
it was thought just a matter of time before scientists could
themselves create living organisms.
At the time, it appeared a dramatic confirmation of evolutionary
theory. Life wasn't a "miracle." No outside agency or divine
intelligence was necessary. Put the right gasses together, add
electricity, and life is bound to happen. It's a common
event. Carl Sagan could thus confidently predict on PBS that the
planets orbiting those "billlllions and billlllions" of stars out
there must be just teeming with life.
There were problems, however. Scientists were never able to get beyond
the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordial environment,
and the creation of proteins began to seem not a small step or couple
of steps, but a great, perhaps impassable, divide. The telling blow to
the Miller-Urey experiment, however, came in the 1970's, when
scientists began to conclude that the Earth's early atmosphere was
nothing like the mixture of gasses used by Miller and Urey. Instead of
being what scientists call a "reducing," or hydrogen-rich environment,
the Earth's early atmosphere probably consisted of gasses released by
volcanoes. Today there is a near consensus among geochemists on this
point. But put those volcanic gasses in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and
the experiment doesn't work - in other words, no "building blocks" of
life.
'
What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact? By and large, they
ignore it and continue to use the Miller- Urey experiment to convince
students that scientists have demonstrated an important first step in
the origin of life.
This includes the above-mentioned Molecular Biology of the Cell, co-
authored by the National Academy of Sciences president, Bruce Alberts.
Most textbooks also go on to tell students that origin-of-life
researchers have found a wealth of other evidence to explain how life
originated spontaneously - but they don't tell students that the
researchers themselves now acknowledge that the explanation still
eludes them.
Faked Embryos
Darwin thought "by far the strongst single class of facts in favor of"
his theory came from embryology. Darwin was not an embryologist,
however, so he relied on the work of German biologist Ernst Haeckel,
who produced drawings of embryos from various classes of vertebrates
to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages,
and become noticeably different only as they develop. It was this
pattern that Darwin found so convincing. This may be the most
egregious of distortions, since biologists have known for over a
century that vertebrate embryos never look as similar as Haeckel drew
them. In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos
that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored
his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really
were.
Haeckel's contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these
misrepresentations, and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime. In
1997, British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international
team of experts compared Haeckel's drawings with photographs of actual
vertebrate embryos, demonstrating conclusively that the drawings
misrepresent the truth. The drawings are misleading in another way.
Darwin based his inference of common ancestry on the belief that the
earliest stages of embryo development are the most similar. Haeckel's
drawings, however, entirely omit the earliest stages, which are much
different, and start at a more similar midway point. Embryologist
William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is "only by semantic tricks and
subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature,"
that one can argue that the early stages of vertebrates "are more
alike than their adults."
Yet some version of Haeckel's drawings can be found in most current
biology textbooks. Stephen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory's
most vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be "astonished
and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the
persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of
modern textbooks." (I will return below to the question of why it is
only now that Mr. Gould, who has known of these forgeries for decades,
has decided to bring them to widespread attention.)
...to be continued
Have a look at my art -
http://youtu.be/SqNDERZSp7w - Big Apple
http://youtu.be/5_Q4HgqOVK4 - Microbes
http://youtu.be/YHcWgSevItk - Poster Boy
http://youtu.be/2uRbsf9Vzg8 - Sudder street
http://youtu.be/y9KqLPCWR1E - Krishnart
www.picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
www.facebook.com/groups/138462029613179/
http://youtu.be/Fq-n0bbhpaA - George
http://youtu.be/C5QIX5h8y1w - TOVP