NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC is lying all about this EVOLUTION stuff i mean a few years ago they has a issue about the so call missiong link between dinosurs and birds which was later proven a fake and they showed HINCKLES fake embryos and showed what looked more like a shaved little oranatang and TIME tried to comapare humans and chimps but TIME has been guilty in the past of using lies and fruad as real news
National geographic is an esteemed publication, written by and for people who can spell. It is not usually publishing factual untruths, since if they did they would be called out on it and have to retract articles. They have no interest in, nor motive for deceiving the general populace.
The link between birds an dinosaurs is purely supported by the fossil record which everybody knows is incomplete, but still overwhelming in size and weight of evidence. That frauds turn up fossils for fame and profit has been a fact of life for palaeontologists since forever, but I am very certain National Geographic published a retraction shortly after the fraud was uncovered.
In general, we cannot perfectly eliminate fraudulent claims from the news-media. This is a sad fact of life for everyone. We can however, admit we are wrong, a feat which large scientific publications often do in such situations.
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC is lying all about this EVOLUTION stuff i mean a few years ago they has a issue about the so call missiong link between dinosurs and birds which was later proven a fake and they showed HINCKLES fake embryos and showed what looked more like a shaved little oranatang and TIME tried to comapare humans and chimps but TIME has been guilty in the past of using lies and fruad as real news
National geographic is an esteemed publication, written by and for people who can spell. It is not usually publishing factual untruths, since if they did they would be called out on it and have to retract articles. They have no interest in, nor motive for deceiving the general populace.
The link between birds an dinosaurs is purely supported by the fossil record which everybody knows is incomplete, but still overwhelming in size and weight of evidence. That frauds turn up fossils for fame and profit has been a fact of life for palaeontologists since forever, but I am very certain National Geographic published a retraction shortly after the fraud was uncovered.
In general, we cannot perfectly eliminate fraudulent claims from the news-media. This is a sad fact of life for everyone. We can however, admit we are wrong, a feat which large scientific publications often do in such situations.
(I did not downvote you; I suspect that whoever did so was motivated by the norm against responding to trolls.)