Skip to comments.Tom, The Dancing Bug
Posted on 07/05/2005 7:07:57 PM PDT by balrog666
click here to read article
Genesis 1:27 - period. End of discussion, right?
Well... Not quite. :-)
Genesis 1:27 - So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Are you positive that it was not the image of perception (i.e. how we perceive this universe with wonder etc)? Or possibly evolution is God's image? Just two of many interpretations I can come up with.
Biblical interpretation is murkier than some may think.
"Creationist Patrol Man" looks like Al "creationism should be taught in schools" Gore. Coincidence?
Mega-kudos. An awesome post.
I was nearly there myself, but since the Almighty chats with me on a regular basis I figure this might be a bad move.
Creationism is Satan's greatest ploy to discredit Christianity.Junior, I respect you for your faith. And I also think that it is people of faith, like you, who have to be the vanguard in this fight. The bull-headed creationist types can imperil both science and faith. And someone like you can attend to both.
Creationism is not only discrediting Christianity, but discrediting conservatism as well, as the great FReeper PatrickHenry has repeatedly noted.
That cartoon has been posted here many times before, and there's nothing incendiary about it, so the only reason I can think of is that the webmaster of the original site complained to the mods, either about copyright violations or the "stealing" of bandwidth (it's a pretty data-heavy graphic; takes a long time to download on dial-up).
I've had some cartoons/captions deleted by the mods, even though I thought they were pretty damn funny, namely this, this, and this. That first one is an appropriate response to creationut quote salads.
Oh, please. Biblical interpretation is simplicity itself. The Bible means exactly what it says, except when it doesn't, and you can tell which is which because everyone who knows the Bible knows the difference even when no one agrees on what any of it means or what the differences are.
You'd probably appreciate this website:
you can put in one verse and select all the different verisons/translations of the Bible. Find which interpretation suits you best and go with that verison of the Bible! (Actually, it's a pretty interesting site. You can see where the confusion between different Christian sects comes in)
Advice from that paradigm of book-banning, indulgence-selling, jew-baby-kidnapping social virtue, the medieval catholic church: the inventor of forced jewish ghettoization, the crusades, the inquisition, the 100 years war, and the wholesale torture, murder or persecution of jews, scientists, witches, Anabaptists, and innumerable other who happened to entertain philosophical disagreements with the Vatican. The institution the burned Geordono Bruno, and imprisoned Galileo for life, even though the persecutors knew they were speaking the truth.
My guess would be that God is vastly ashamed of you.
Good grief right back. Ever heard of an example? Or do you posit that that it not something claimed by evolution's teachings?
That's exactly my problem with evolutionary philosophy.
A rat is only a rat. Except in evolutionary terms, where they can become cats.
Periodically, a burr under the saddle is worth its weight in gold.
Actually, I've been there, but an overly-ambitious program to clean out my cache erased my record of the site. So thanks. I've been able to save it again.
They're certainly "fringe", but they're hardly a small group.
I don't recall EVER reading in a newspaper that creationists were trying to put forth an effort to stop studying bacteria in an effort to better our health.
You're taking the cartoon way too literally, and thereby missing the point.
For that matter, even the *cartoon* doesn't suggest that any creationists are going to try to "stop" anyone from "studying bacteria". Read it again and see for yourself.
Note that instead, the creationists "educated" the scientists by explaining to them that an evolutionary view of microbiology was "deluded", and enlightened them by showing them that only through the Bible can one gain a true understanding of nature's ways, because all in nature takes place due to God's will and plan. The scientists, having seen the errors of their ways, commence gaining a better understanding of pathogens and disease by abandoning the faulty paradigm of evolutionary genetic change being responsible for the reactions of bacteria to exposure to antibiotics, and instead pursue the study of bacteria by examining how God's will drives the bacterial ecologies, and how God's plan for mankind is what's really in control of the spread of disease, the changes they undergo to become more virulent and resistant to treatement, and so on. This will be a *much* more fruitful line of study than that misguided evolutionary biology, don't you think?
Just because a strain shows resistance, doesn't make it "evolved" it makes it "adaptable" to those surroundings.
It "adapted to those surroundings" by mutating, chancing upon a novel DNA-encoded protein which happened to interact with the rest of the bacteria's cellular machinery in a way which gave it a new ability to resist the deadly action of the antibiotic, and natural selection then amplified this mutation and spread it throught the population in subsequent generations.
Please explain how that is *not* evolution.
Hint: It is. If you persist in your false assertion, you will only reveal your lack of understanding of biology in general, and evolution in particular.
Proving that it can resist certain things can save lives on that fact alone.
However, only evolutionary biology can correctly *predict* how quickly such evolutionary changes will arise under different conditions (and why) -- and predict which treatment methods will minimize the speed at which disease pathogens will become resistant to existing treatments, thus maximizing the length of time existing treatments remain effective (and saving the most lives in the long run).
*Your* method, on the other hand, would just "test" pathogens after the fact and say, "yup, they're resistant to our current drugs now, dang."
Only through evolutionary biology is there the *understanding* of the specific bacterial response to antibiotic exposure (and other kinds of treatments). Only through evolutionary biology is there an *understanding* of how the HIV virus constantly mutates to evade the body's immune system response (which *itself* employs the power of evolution to develop antibodies to intruders into the body).
This is why even Creationists do not disapprove of these studies.
But they *do* disapprove of teaching students that evolutionary biology is anything more than "just a theory" that actually describes how biological systems work. They *do* disapprove of spending money on research in the field of evolutionary biology. They *do* disapprove of research which results in further support of any sort for the reality of evolutionary change.
In short: The cartoon was more insulting than informative, and definately not honest.
Of course, that may have been why it was brought to us by this particular Freeper.
That's a very strong personal attack -- implying that he has a track record for willful dishonesty. Can you substantiate it, or are *you* perhaps the one being "more insulting than informative, and definitely not honest"?
As for the cartoon, I feel that it makes a number of important, valid points about the arrogance, the foolishness, and the vapidity of many creationsists. Like the ones in the cartoon, they would seek to replace evolutionary biology as a way of understanding biological systems, and replace it with... with *what*? Bible-"copatible" research, apparently, whatever the heck *that* would be. As I've pointed out to other posters on this thread already, if you think that's a laughable notion -- take a look at what happened in the Soviet Union when the "ideologically correct" paradigm of Lysenkoism replaced the "false doctrine" of evolutionary biology, and millions died due to the subsequent crop failures and starvation. Or look at how the Nazis rejected "Jewish science".
Don't think it can happen here? Don't kid yourself. There are literally millions of creationists who would be extremely happy to banish all mention of Darwin or natural selection from schools if they thought they could pull it off -- or failing that, they're pushing to confuse the issue in the minds of the next generation of students by "teaching the controversy", which really means highlighting anything they can think of (and whatever they can make up) in order to sow as much doubt as possible about evolutionary biology (and also geology, nuclear physics, cosmology, and any of the many other fields of science which produce results which they find threatening to their religious views), in order to slam minds shut against ever having a chance to consider evolutionary paradigms and natural mechanisms. Does that sound like a way to produce the next generation of productive science researchers?
Or is it more like this?
And if you think *that's* overstated, then you've never taken a real good look at the hundreds of creationist websites out there, read the creationists tracts, attended any creationist lectures or debates, or read any creationist books. They're not about understanding the world, doing research to learn more about how it works, or doing science. They're about using every rhetorical trick in the book (including outright lies) to poison the listener's mind into believing that evolutionary biology and related fields are tricks of Satan to turn people away from God, that it's "lies, all lies", that not only is there nothing of value in it, but that it's a mental trap, is barking up the wrong tree, and is the result of a conscious conspiracy by "humanists", blah blah blah.
There's not a fig's worth of difference between that, and denouncing Relativity as "Jewish science"...
The folks over at the "Panda's Thumb" make some other good points about the relevance of the comic in their own thread on the comic:
Brings up another good point, though (again). Creationists of all varieties love to crow about evolution being useless. But whats the use of ID, YECism, and other creationist explanations?And:
very funny indeed. The Bible should be taken seriously but not literally, and in this sense shares a key feature with other religious texts. Making fun of Christians (or any devout person) is not a goal of PT.And:
At last, the much vaunted, long-awaited ID research program is underway! Congratulations, Dr. Wells!And:
But while creationists concede things like antibiotic resistance evolution - because they really have no choice - they need to explain this supposed barrier between micro- and macro-evolution. As far as I can tell, the real difference between them boils down to the presence or absence of plausible deniability.And:
Whether or not creationists concede antibiotic resistance is not clear. Most concede that it happens, but Philip Johnson, for example, has denied that it serves as an example of new information evolving. This based on his claim that the antibiotic resistence was preexisting somewhere in the population, presumably since the bacteria were created. This of course is wrong, because resistance will evolve de novo in a monoculture. But the point being, even something as obvious as antibiotic resistence gets distorted by creationists.And:
So Johnson believes that a created ur-bacteria came factory-equipped with the mechanism to defeat antibiotics, huh? And he WORSHIPS this creator? A planet covered in landmines, and Johnson just kneels and kisses the enthroned engineers tarnished diadem. A truly horrifying conceit.And:
Mosnar, your blithe dismissal of the cartoon is rather petulant. First of all, it is meant to be humorous. If you find it offensive, perhaps thats why everyone else finds it funny.
Secondly, as I pointed out above, creationists say things which are plainly wrong about antibiotic resistance, so its not a straw-man to poke fun at them about it in general. The whole point of humor of this sort is to take some tendency that people have and poke fun at it by blowing it out of proportion. If the cartoonist used something normal and mundane, it wouldnt be funny.
Third, what I see as the target of humor here isnt the creationist attitude towards antibiotic resistance, its the strident and aggressive means by which creationists push themselves on others. While theres obviously no such thing as the Creationist Patrol (again, exaggeration is what makes it funny), creationists in recent years have conducted a heavy-handed lobbying campaign aimed at using the political system to overcome their rejection by the scientific community. See for example William Dembskis bizarre fantasy about forcing evolutionists to testify in front of McCarthy-style Congressional hearings. A real-life Creationist Patrol would probably be less bothersome than what Dembski proposes.
Fourth, there isnt always (or even that often) a distinction between creation/evolution and bible/science. Noahs Ark and the Tower of Babel are indispensible parts of the YEC worldview, which is by far the most popular form of creationism.
Fifth, the cartoon says nothing about ID, so I dont know why you bring it up. Unless you believe that ID is the same thing as creationism, which would be a nice admission. Nor is there anything which could be construed as anti-Christian unless you assume, quite wrongly, that all Christians are YECs.
Gee, Mosnar. As a Christian, I didnt find the comic insulting to Christians at all. Anti-Christian propaganda? I saw none. What ARE you talking about ?And:
Anti-nutcase propaganda maybe, but I didnt see anything that offended me and Im Christian. Mind explaining what is anti-Christian about the cartoon, rather than simply having a shot at evangelical hypocrites?And:
Go to Answers in Genesis, or trueorigins.org, or some of the creationist nutjob sites, mosnar, and youll see that what is described here at PT isnt an over-exaggeration or caricature. Turn on your local Christian broadcast radio station and listen for a few days youll hear that evolution-bashing is a key element of modern fundamentalism.
Yes, emotions run high. There are a lot of individual reasons for that. Many people here are scientists, and they are (and should be) angry that morons are deliberately belittling and misrepresenting their lifes work. Others have different reasons, of course.
But trust me: these creationists really are out there. If anything, most of the people here are under-reacting.
Your example, regarding stem cell research, ought to tell you something, but apparently doesn't. The only thing that stops creationists from eliminating vast fields of biological study is their lack of political power. For an example of how creationists behaved when they had political power, see the Trial of Galileo.
Another stupendous Ichneumon post placemarker
Often, the rule of thumb appears to be, "if what it la passage iterally says is something I agree with, then it means exactly that, and if what it literally says is not something I agree with, then it's figurative, or needs to be considered in a larger context, or allegorical, or a different convenant, or... just one of those parts we try to put out of our minds".
So, you approve of stem cell research of humans? From the 2nd trimester fetus, zygote, and all steps in between?
And so what about the Trial of Galileo?
This was performed before simple things like "innocent until proven guilty" came about.
Talking about the judgement of someone so long ago is foolish. Especially if it's your only example.
Why don't we modernize that a bit, Eh? How about the 1930's in Europe. Evolutionary theory has been around for a while by then. As a matter of fact, many politcal parties adopted it as part of their platforms. Can you think of any of them? I sure can.
Or even a step away from evolution: secular thought and reasoning. Hmm, yup, got another party just east of that first one that came to mind.
DUH! If the biogenetic law were true it would have to mean there is some mechanism which ensures that modifications in embryological development are always appended to the end of the process. IOW there would have to be some mechanism the actively prevents variations from occurring and becoming fixed in earlier stages of development.
Absent such a mechanism Haeckel's law would (if anything) tend to cast doubt on evolution, at least as a natural process, because it would appear that something had chosen to make modifications occur only at the end of development.
BTW, I missed the part where you refuted any of Ichneumon's rebuttal points.
This one isn't.
I got something to say about that one too.
And it's the same problem I ahve with the first toon.
It's incomplete and arrogant.
I disagree with the simple statement "h2o freezes at 32 degrees farhenheit" based on this: You aren't accounting for pressure.
Half-assed statements like that, that are then used to smear other people are crude, deceitful, and igotistical.
I am yet to meet any one who believes that the Bible says that bacteria can't adapt. I am also yet to find one who disagrees with the fundamental idea of gravity.
I DO, however, find Darwinists who are willing to put forth only enough effort into making alternate thoughts look childish... but only to a child.
Hell, I'll agree with that, RA. (Is this a first? or did we find one in our history before?)
Evolution may indeed be a factor in our being that God put in us.
I only ask that (for Empericism's sake) we are presented with a direct observation of this theory. Not inferred thoughts about dead things with no DNA evidence remaining.
But the fact remains:
We agreed on something. The Bible may have been taken too literally (in English, anyway) by some,and for to long.
A rat becoming a cat would contradict the TOE.
Yes (the later). A rat evolving into a cat, or vice versa, is incompatible with what is universally claimed and accepted by evolutionists. Rats and Cats both represent Orders of mammals (Rodentia -- rodents, about half of all mammal species; and Carnivora -- dogs, cats, bears & weasels, seals, etc). They are equal level taxa which (I believe) make their first appearance at roughly the same time. It has never been proposed, nor is it plausible, that one evolved from the other. They both share some earlier last common ancestor which would not be classifiable as either a "rat" or a "cat".
The damage done to science in general and to the ToE by those drawings is immeasurable; furthermore, to make excuses for Haeckel is kind of silly, IMO.
Slovokian priests, dressed in their livery, loaded slovakian jews up for the camps for Hitler's ovens. Followed by confession, and mass absolution. German and Austrian catholic churches collated and delivered their birth and death records to the SS, to help ferret jews out of the general population--something they were able to refuse to do, when it came to jews who had converted to christianity. Is that contemporary enough for you?
That's because it was a conscious FRAUD....
Stamping your feet and declaring it so isn't the same thing as being able to support your belief, I'm afraid. Nor does the material you quote provide adequate support, since they are also consistent with the kind of unintended fraud I describe above. You should be really familiar with that kind of fraud, since creationists have done it *countless* times -- they make the mistake of believing that their presumptions are fact, and then cheerfully publish these unconscious frauds for the public. For just one example (out of literally *thousands* I've read), see Duane Gish's confident (but wholly fraudulent) claim about proteins:
One example is Gish's "bullfrog proteins." In 1983, in a PBS show on creationism, Gish claimed that while humans and chimpanzees have many proteins which are identical or differ by only a few amino acids, there are also human proteins which are more similar to a bullfrog or a chicken than to chimpanzees. Gish was repeatedly pressed to produce his evidence. Two years later, Philip Kitcher challenged Gish to produce his evidence or retract his claim in a debate at the University of Minnesota. Gish refused to respond. Kevin Wirth of Students for Origins Research (a pro-creationist organization) begged Gish to respond in the pages of Origins Research regarding the claim. He refused. (See Robert Schadewald, "Scientific Creationism and Error," Creation/Evolution XVII (vol. 6, no. 1, 1986).)And:
-- from Creationist Whoppers
Nothing you've posted indicates that Haeckel's errors were the result of *conscious* fraud, as you emptily assert, versus possibility of the kind of *unconscious* fraud (i.e., believing your own incorrect presumptions) that creationists make so frequently.
Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism's best-known spokesman. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins.
In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities of human proteins to chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and in others they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.
I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn't, either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.
Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was (he suggested) an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.
This bullfrog "documentation" (as Gish now calls it) struck me as joke, even by creationist standards, and Gish simply ignored his alleged chicken proteins. In contrast, Doolittle backed his televised claims with published protein sequence data. I wrote to Gish again suggesting that he should be able to do the same. He didn't reply. Indeed, he has never since replied to any of my letters.
John W. Patterson and I attended the 1983 National Creation Conference in Roseville, Minnesota. We had several conversations there with Kevin Wirth, Research Director of Students for Origins Research (SOR). At some point, we told him the protein story and suggested that Gish might have lied on national television. Wirth was confident that Gish could document his claims. He told us that if we put our charges in the form of a letter, he would do his best to get it published in Origins Research, the SOR tabloid.
Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and/or obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same -- if his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptical, I asked him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After 2-1/2 years, I still have neither sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.
In the same sentence, Gish claimed that he sent me his "documentation," and Wagner quite naturally assumed that meant at least the tape. But Gish sent me neither, nor has he sent copies of said tape or transcript to others requesting them. As with his chicken proteins, we have only Gish's word for their existence.
For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish's original statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions or incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement nor attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic doesn't count, but it took Gish 2-1/2 years to come up with that!) And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his chimpanzee protein, on what basis did he promise to send me its sequence at the 1983 National Bible-Science Conference? Gish has woven himself into an incredible web of contradictions, and even some creationists now suspect that he has been less than candid.
Gish's steadfast refusal to acknowledge the facts seems to characterize creationism.
For more information, see: Biology Textbook Fraud
Not surprisingly, since it's a creationist website. I counted over twenty blatant falsehoods before I gave up, and that was just on the first couple of screens.
Michael_Michaelangelo, again and again I have asked you to either learn enough about biology to be able to tell solid material from complete horse manure, or stop posting creationist material WHICH YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATED YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO VET FOR EVEN THE MOST MINIMAL LEVELS OF ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR CREDIBILITY.
Why do you keep ignoring this advice? I'm getting tired of you presenting huge servings of lies to your fellow Freepers. You're doing them a huge disservice.
When you can't tell s*** from roast beef, it's really not a good idea for you to keep trying to bring everyone lunch.
This was performed before simple things like "innocent until proven guilty" came about.
Let's just terminate this conversation, if you can't figure out why I mention the Trail of Galileo, with reference to what creationists are capable of doing to arbitrarily suppress scientific study if they become political ascendent. Innocent until proved guilty is a US constitional idea, and is not universally shared in Western Europe even as we speak. It is also, as best I can figure out, utterly unrelated to this argument.
OK, let me get this straight: A rat (or it's ancestors) diverging, and becoming a class of felines, and a class of rodents... contridicts TOE?
So, how would you say that two carnivor mammals do not share the same lineage? And that mammals did not start out small, and "rat-sized"?
(do keep in mind, this thread is read by othersthan us. This is why people use "Laymen's Terms")
I noticed you "terminated it" before coming to the part about politics.
I'll note that.
And was this... religious in nature? Or did the descent of man (and it's lineage) have anything to do with this?
It would be great if you had a copy on your personal page so the rest of us could refer to it from time to time.
There is more hard evidence in your single post than in all of creationism "science" and ID combined.
Please see post 135.
Though thank you, for your civility.
I don't believe we've met before. Odd given the amount of time we've both been on.
I'm not sure I get the question. Rats and cats, if you go back far enough, have a common ancestor. That ancestor, however, was neither a rat nor a cat. AFAIK, cats did not diverge from the rodent group (or vice versa).
So, how would you say that two carnivor mammals do not share the same lineage? And that mammals did not start out small, and "rat-sized"?
All those things are true- all mammals share a common lineage and they all come from small mammals. However, those original mammals weren't really cats, dogs or rodents.
OK, I'll allow that explanation. (again, Laymen's)
Lets go with... cat (earliest carnivores) to bear.
Now you're just being mean. ;)
Maybe you should take a deep-breath! The only lies we are talking about here would be those told and drawn by Mr. Haeckel, years ago, perpetuated by people like you and your atheist buddies. I'm sorry if the truth hurts. Why don't you cut and paste another 50+ paragraph post from talkorg or the P-thumb and calm down.
Genesis 1: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Not quite the end, actually. In Genesis 1:27 man is created on the sixth day. In Genesis 2:7 he creates man again. This is after the 7th day.
 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
LOL! That's complete baloney.
Darwin never adopted Haeckel's "biogentic law," nor did most (or any scientifically prominent) evolutionists following. Darwin, indeed most scientists of the time period, adopted Von Baer's views which were directly contradictory to Haekel's. (See "Baer's Laws" in the link above, especially 3 and 4.)
Do your own text search of The Origin and other writings by Darwin if you don't believe me, and see for yourself who's embryological theories he cites. Haeckel never achieved anything close to the status of Von Baer wrt expertise in embryology, and the same is even more true for his "biogentic law".
How can "immeasurable dammage" be done by a theory that was never widely accepted, immediately challenged, and soon universally abandoned?!
Around 50 million years ago, cats broke off from common line of descent that would lead to canines and bears. Bears and dogs split around 30 or so million years ago. The last common ancestors for cats and bears was at the 50 million year mark.
If you're asking whether a modern cat could evolve into the bear family. No, that would be pretty much impossible.
"If you're asking whether a modern cat could evolve into the bear family. No, that would be pretty much impossible."
How do you know that?
You mean to tell me, that in another 20 million years, cats will still be cats? Or is it possible that they could change?
Or did you mean to say "implausible"?
Then we could talk if that's what you meant.
More admissions of a fraud:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed.
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.