"It is plain again why this subject is called: The Evolutionist: Liar, Believer In Miracles, King of Criminals. Kevin O'Brien's strenuous attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel and the falsified embryo data proves again that evolutionists are gross liars and can only survive by supporting each other's lies with even more corpulent lies."
[Sigh.] It's a shame I don't have the time to sue Joseph for libel; it would be interesting to see how he would support this claim. As it is, Joseph has no desire to be confused by facts, so there is nothing more that can be said.
"Kevin ends with, '(In fact, a real court of law would have found Haeckel not guilty, because inaccuracy and carelessness are not criminal offenses.)' To believe Kevin, the audience must be completely ignorant of
laboratory procedures."
Talk about your non-sequitors. Laboratory procedures and the criminal code are about as far apart as you can get. A lab tech who makes an honest mistake cannot be convicted of criminal fraud, because scientific misconduct is not a criminal offense. More evidence of the wonderful, magical world of fantasy Joseph lives in. I also don't see how Joseph would know anything about correct "laboratory procedures", consider it is obvious he has never set foot in a lab in his entire life, except maybe to use the telephone.
"Even technicians are taught to observe and report in very accurate detail."
At least this time Joseph is much closer to the truth than the last time he said something like this. Even so, even Principle Investigators with decades of experience can make mistakes. It doesn't mean they were deliberately trying to deceive anyone. If Joseph had his way, any scientist who accidentally miscalculated a solution's concentration would be guilty of criminal fraud.
"It is common knowledge that a sloppy scientist or technician will produce large errors but those errors will be random."
Common knowledge in Joseph's fantasy world, perhaps, but not in the real world. In fact, sloppy scientists tend to commit the same errors kinds of errors over and over again. This does not produce random errors, but specific patterns that hopefully can be detected and corrected for.
"They do not fit a preconceived theory perfectly, like Haeckel's data did, unless the scientist makes them fit his theory."
So much misinformation in one sentence. First of all, even experimental data produced without error often does not fit the "preconceived theory perfectly", so I don't see what the same fact about experimental errors proves. Secondly, however, Haeckel's errors did not involve the collection or interpretation of data, but how that data was reported. This is proven by the fact that many of Haeckel's contemporaries looked through their own microscopes and verified Haeckel's conclusions for themselves, even though they found fault with his drawings. Even today, Haeckel's basic conclusions are still being verified by every graduate student training to be a developmental biologist. Joseph cannot even dispute these facts, which is why he doesn't try. Instead he ignores them as if I never said them, then heaps more scorn and rhetoric onto the subject. Quite pitiful really.
"If brought to trial, it would be a civil suit and there is no doubt Haeckel would be convicted. No doubt."
Civil courts are notoriously lenient regarding the kind of evidence they allow. Also, they allow the party bringing the suit to define terms like fraud. So if you define fraud as carelessness, then yes you could convict Haeckel of "fraud". But fraud in the true criminal sense, as someone who deliberately tries to deceive other people, would be impossible to prove, even in a criminal court. No doubt.
"Like the 'Piltdown man.' No doubt."
Except that no one was prosecuted for the Piltdown Man case either, so technically fraud was never legally proven. However, fraud is certain because there was actual physical evidence of fraud. There is none in the Haeckel case. If there was you would have produced it by now.
Kevin L. O'Brien