David Seegobin has already pointed out how Daniel Singh repeatedly distorts the words of his opponents in his attempts at hacking up a rebuttal.

Singh, an alleged pastor who desperately hides his religious qualifications, has now resorted to redrafting parts of writer’s sentences so that he can misrepresent their ideas. This is bald faced fraudulence.

In his June 29th (GC) letter Singh behaves as though he’s caught me at something!

Singh says Justin De Freitas wrote, “in his June 27th letter to me (and I quote), ‘None of his debunkers said that the Darwinius masillae was the missing link’”.

He is trying to tell readers that I am now denying that Ida is the missing link. But this is not true. Singh edited my words to create a false impression. So much for Christian honesty.

My full sentence reads: “None of his debunkers have ever said that Darwinius masillae is ‘the missing link’ between monkeys and humans.”

Daniel Singh corruptly left out the last three words (even while claiming to use a quote) because those last three words stood in contrast to the lie being crafted.

Now, having set up a false premise based on unethical edits, Singh, the so-called Christian pastor, and then goes on to show the various places where I did actually say Darwinius masillae is a missing link.

In other words, Singh edited what I said, taking out the three most important words. He then uses his corrupted sentence as if it is a direct quote of mine. Then he tells readers see, de Freitas is saying different things at different times.

What Singh doesn’t say is that he is actually misquoting me in a vain effort to paint a misleading scenario. How totally dishonest is that?

My point has always been that Ida is indeed a missing link in the long chain of evolution, a link, a transitional form that came just before our ape lineage. Corrupting my words doesn’t alter that belief.

Here’s another example of Singh’s mendacity. He writes: “In his letter on May 23rd in this column, “Justin de Freitas” called “Ida” a “transitional fossil” and then said “we had “Ida” and today we have humans”. He was clearly making the connection that “Ida” was the link between lower and higher primates.”

My full quote, which Singh again corrupted, spells out an evolutionary outline, not a link.

I said, “The scientific trace is becoming clearer: billions of years ago we had chemicals forming RNA, millions of years ago we had “Ida” and today we have modern humans.”

I have been contributing to the letters column for the last fifteen years and never before have I encountered such crass duplicity from any writer, much less one claiming to be Christian. This will be my last letter in regards to Singh; anyone can debate ideas, but contesting clumsily crafted lies and sly distortions are a waste of my time.
JUSTIN de FREITAS.