In the context of this thread, the peer-review stuff is immaterial. This thread is about the slant evos put on the data they present to the public and students, and imo, using faulty artistic renditions designed to sway the reader that Pakicetus was aquatic when he was not, and there was insufficient evidence to even make a valid claim that he was, is misleading and deceptive.
Hi, rand. I'm glad I've finally found a sympathetic listener to my plaint. The dishonesty and deception of the artist renditions below speaks for itself. Will you join me in my attempt to find someone "man enough" to admit that?
This one is just silly--though we don't have photos or fossils, we know the subject couldn't have looked anything like this. But images of this kind have been used to brainwash
billions! He is kinda cute,though.
Blue-eyed Jesus
This one may have been well-intentioned, but it is certainly no more honest:
Black Jesus
Based on what some claim about the subject's geographic origin and time of birth, some say this image is more congenial to the truth, but it is still totally conjecture:
Semitic Jesus
Well, as you can see, we've got our work cut out for us!
Never mind those silly pakiwhatsits--people who truly think for themselvs don't read those stupid nature magazines, anyway, and these images impact far, far more people.
As you can imagine, these untruths, these willful deceptions, and many, many, many others, are what led me to reject the whole shebang.
Not only do such images have no basis in fact, their creators have the nerve to tailor them for each regional set of suckers!
As though we wouldn't notice! They are not only dishonest but downright insulting as well.
I look forward to working with you on correcting the record. If you are too busy with sneaky webbed feet, though, donations will do.
Edit: Converted images to links per Better Form.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-02-2005 01:25 PM