Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 46 of 346 (469320)
06-05-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
06-04-2008 9:54 AM


Replication is a requirement for any research result to become validated, and if other scientists can't replicate it then that can't happen. Any scientist who lies will always be eventually found out. There's just no point to it.
Hate to rain on your parade, but this isn't entirely correct.
Oops!
Scientists fudge data. And get away with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 06-04-2008 9:54 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 4:10 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 06-05-2008 4:12 AM molbiogirl has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 47 of 346 (469321)
06-05-2008 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 11:29 AM


Re: I appreciate your reply, AZPaul3.
This thread however has nothing to do with creation or Intelligent design. It has to do with lies in evolution. Please stick to the topic and not try to take us down a rabbit hole.
You are being dishonest.
You are getting your informations from websites promoting Creationism. That is why the information you have is largely incorrect.
Since you are merely repeating the typical Creationist lies here, you don't get to also claim that pointing out that they are typical Creationist lies is out of bounds.
You are presenting lies as evidence of other lies - how do you not see the dishonesty in that?
I was looking for defense of what you believe not an attack
Too bad. You came here. You presented lies. You got called on it. We're not just going to sit back and let you falsely accuse us of doing exactly what you are doing.
Besides, arguing what may be lies in creation or ID does not erase them from evolution.
This is true. Piltdown was a hoax. Creationists can (and do) lie all they want, it won't change the fact that Piltdown was a hoax.
However, much of the rest of what you are talking about is based solely on Creationist lies.
As such, pointing out that they are lies from the Creationists is, in and of itself, sufficient to prove that they are not lies from evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:29 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 346 (469322)
06-05-2008 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 1:31 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
Then why was the banner still hanging in the Museum of Natural History last year? Why was National Geographic so anxious to publish this find?
Provide evidence of this banner. So far, all we have for it is your word that you saw it. I'm not convinced that any banner existed, let alone one that advertised Archaeoraptor in the context you are claiming.
As for why NG was anxious? They are a MAGAZINE. They want a cover story which is something "NEW" and "EXCITING". NG is NOT a peer reviewed journal (most of which have text and stock photos for their covers).
Why is US Weekly anxious to rush to press with rumors about the Olsen Twins? Because it sells copies.
I would love to believe that this is how it actually happens, but I find it hard. It seems more likely that whatever evidence would further a foundations’ funding would be more acceptable. I know this is a pretty tuff accusation, but I see it in the cases that I presented.
No. You don't. You CLAIM that that's the case, but you've present NO evidence for it.
In fact, your BEST example, Piltdown, had NOTHING TO DO with institutional funding whatsoever.
Yes, a scientist wants to have a big discovery. That's a boost to his career. But, if you can't make a big discovery, the next best thing is to prove that your collegue is wrong.
Scientists are CONSTANTLY clawing each others eyes out because it's EASIER to destroy someone else's work than to do work of your own.
Every significant find is scrutinized to death by COMPETING scientists which makes forgery not only a bad career choice, but virtually impossible to pull off.
Again, Archaeoraptor lasted for 3 months! And that's assuming that it was exposed the DAY the article was published exposing it. Not true, it was obviously exposed EARLIER than that so that the article could be researched and written.
I see pictures of Velociraptor with feathers now. WHY? There is no hard evidence supporting a Velociraptor having feathers! They lack quill knobs and feathers do not fossilize.
Imprints of feathers however DO fossilize. And there have been MANY excellent feather print fossils uncovered in the last decade.
Have you been reading up on these finds? No. Of course not. Why bother to research something when blanket accusations are soo much easier?
I find a plethora of holes, deception and lies in Darwinian evolution or “macro” evolution.
And by "plethora" you mean 3. One of which is nearly 150 years old and is present AS a deception by people TEACHING evolution.
Sounds more like politics to me!
More political than the Wedge document? Are you being honest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 1:31 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 49 of 346 (469325)
06-05-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 2:01 PM


Re: Hey Coyote, Ever heard of this?
The factors motivating Verner to bring Ota Benga to the United States were complex, but he was evidently much influenced by the theory of Charles Darwin, which led to the division of humankind into contrived races.
Here you are claiming that racism didn't exist prior to Darwin.
Darwin published in Nov 1859
Licoln's Emancipation Proclaimation was Sept 1862
Are you suggesting that ALL the slaves in America arrived between the time Darwin suggested "racism" and Licoln freed them? No, of course not.
Racism has been around for as long as people have been able to travel far enough to meet someone of a different race.
So, the fledgling theory of evolution in the early 1900’s was furthered as fact at the expense of the life on a human being claimed to be an intermediary link between man and ape to prove Darwinian evolution. I would say that this is a public fraud as thousands of people came and believed that Ota Benga was indeed an intermediary species and proof of the evolution of man from apes.
And we would say that this is a circus act.
Ota Benga wasn't being present by scientists to scientists, he was being exhibited by zoo keepers to a paying public.
Just because SOMEONE SOMEWHERE says SOMETHING is proof of evolution doesn't mean that they are speaking for the scientific community.
I'm sure PT Barnum said the Figi Mermaid was proof of evolution, doesn't mean we are bound by his claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 2:01 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 50 of 346 (469326)
06-05-2008 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 3:22 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
It certainly seems strange that all these specimans come from a single province of China, the same place as the Archaeoraptor hoax came from.
Hardly!
Certain types of materials preserve fossils differently.
If you took two identical turkeys and buried one in sand and one in ash and came back in a million years - the fossils left by each would have different information.
The fossils in the ash would have imprints of the feathers.
The region in China where most of the protoavian finds are coming from is an area which was rapidly buried in volcanic ash.
It's not that they had more proto-avians, or better proto-avians, they just have the best preserved stuff.
And, BECAUSE so many finds were happening, someone was able to find TWO fossils and glue them together - thus the Archaeoraptor forgery.
BOTH halves are ACTUAL fossils, they just aren't from the same animal.
“When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs
"superficially"? Yeah, because sooo many birds today have long tails and teeth.
By the way, Alan Feduccia's argument is NOT that dinos and birds are NOT related. He believes that BOTH dinos and birds evolved from a common earlier ancestor.
Citing his work as some sort of evidence of fraud on evolutions behalf is like citing "Luke" as evidence that "Mathew" was lying about the existence of Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 3:22 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 51 of 346 (469330)
06-05-2008 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 3:33 PM


Re: Rahvin
Have you ever seen a fruit bat?
Yes, at first blush a fruit bat skull SEEMS to be carnivorous.
But have you looked closer? Were is the edging on the teeth? Where is the grinding and slicing teeth necessary for processing meat?
Not there.
The fruit bats pointed but not edged teeth are for piercing and peeling fruit rinds.
It's hind teeth are for processing the mushy fruit inside.
If YOU found a fruit bat skull, you would be excused in thinking it was a carnivore.
However, if a chiropterologist found the skull, they would quickly be able to sort out the confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 3:33 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 52 of 346 (469331)
06-05-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by molbiogirl
06-05-2008 3:15 AM


umm....
Hate to rain on your parade, but this isn't entirely correct.
Oops!
Scientists fudge data. And get away with it.
Are you presenting evidence that scientists falsify data as evidence that they get away with it?
Wouldn't the fact that you HAVE the evidence nullify the 2nd half of your claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 3:15 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 4:31 AM Nuggin has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 53 of 346 (469332)
06-05-2008 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by molbiogirl
06-05-2008 3:15 AM


Scientists fudge data. And get away with it.
I know your right here but I think Percy's point is still valid in the end. The only research in which this can happen and people get away with it in the long term is research so insignificant and peripheral that no one will ever replicate the experiment or in any way test the system in a way which would reveal the data to be inconsistent.
This doesn't mean that intentional fraud will be the conclusion in such cases but it does mean that fradulent data will have little significant impact in the long term.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 3:15 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 4:33 AM Wounded King has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 346 (469336)
06-05-2008 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Nuggin
06-05-2008 4:10 AM


Re: umm....
Well. No. Because, until a few years ago, nobody checked the gels for Photoshopping.
Mr. Rossner became a leading crusader for such checks after he accidentally stumbled upon manipulated images in an article submitted to The Journal of Cell Biology six years ago, when he was the publication's managing editor.
Since then, The Journal of Cell Biology has checked 250 suspect papers and confirmed 25 that were faked.
I don't like this scientists-fake-stuff any more than the next girl, but there you have it. Who knows what slips thru?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 4:10 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Jack, posted 06-05-2008 10:42 AM molbiogirl has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 55 of 346 (469337)
06-05-2008 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Wounded King
06-05-2008 4:12 AM


This doesn't mean that intentional fraud will be the conclusion in such cases but it does mean that fraudulent data will have little significant impact in the long term.
I agree, WK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Wounded King, posted 06-05-2008 4:12 AM Wounded King has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 56 of 346 (469345)
06-05-2008 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 10:55 AM


Dont Be a Flea writes:
quote:
“Lucy” for example, who has no hands or feet bones but is claimed to walk upright. They have no proof of this, so why commission a museum to build a half man, half ape model for the world to ogle at when they have no proof only assumptions.
Ahem. Two problems.
First: What makes you think bipedalism is determined solely by the feet? You can determine bipedalism by looking at things like the knees and hips, both of which we have for Lucy. For example, the Lucy skeleton has a valgus, or "knock," knee. This means that when the legs are extended, the knees would bend in and touch.
This is not something you see in quadrupeds. Instead, it is found in bipeds. Thus, this is evidence that Australopithecus afarensis walked upright.
We also have an ankle joint. The morphology of the ankle is indicative of bipedal locomotion, not quadruped. The condyles on her femur are large, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Her sacroiliac joint is also large, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Her iliac alae are flared, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Her lumbar vertebrae are large and curved, indicative of bipedal locomotion. Apes usually have four lumbar vertebrae while humans have five. The fragments we have of Lucy indicate she had five or six.
However, she does have some signs of transitional morphology. In humans, the ratio of the humerus to the femur is 71.8. For chimpanzees, it is 97.8 (arms are longer compared to the legs). For Lucy, it is 84.6. Plus, her phalanges are more curved than a human, but flatter than arboreal apes.
Given all this information indicating bipedal locomotion, what is your basis for insisting it is "fraud" to so claim?
Second: What makes you think Lucy is the only A. afarensis skeleton we've found? Why don't you mention "Selam"? We have the entire skull and torso as well as a lot of the arms and legs, including a foot.
What about Site 333? There are 13 individuals to be found among the fossils. What about AL 129-1, a complete knee joint? What about the other specimens we have?
quote:
Why make displays and draw pictures of entire races of intermediaries that are merely fragmented incomplete fossils, for the laymen to misunderstand and just “believe” what they are told.
Because the "misunderstanding" is that you seem to think that the display of the entire dinosaur is being extrapolated from a single toe bone. That is not the case. Instead, we have a large number of fossil specimens, all of which point toward bipedal locomotion.
And to help clinch the deal:
We have footprints. The Laetoli footprints, made by A. afarensis, show a heavy heel-strike. The big toe is adducted and parallel to the rest of the toes. There is a significant arch. The weight transfer goes from laterally from the heel to the lateral metatarsal. There is a pronounced big-toe depression, indicating toe-off. All of which are signs of bipedal locomotion.
quote:
I think these are calculated moves, done deliberately to insure further funding for their studies.
So you're saying that the world community of anthropologists are engaged in a sophisticated scam?
Question: Just how much money do you think there is in anthropology?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 10:55 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Nuggin, posted 06-05-2008 11:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 57 of 346 (469370)
06-05-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
06-05-2008 4:31 AM


Re: umm....
Since then, The Journal of Cell Biology has checked 250 suspect papers and confirmed 25 that were faked.
quote:
So far the journal's editors have identified 250 papers with questionable figures. Out of those, 25 were rejected because the editors determined the alterations affected the data's interpretation.
These two things are not the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 06-05-2008 4:31 AM molbiogirl has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 58 of 346 (469371)
06-05-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 11:29 AM


Re: I appreciate your reply, AZPaul3.
This thread however has nothing to do with creation or Intelligent design. It has to do with lies in evolution. Please stick to the topic and not try to take us down a rabbit hole. I was looking for defense of what you believe not an attack at what others may believe. We can post up another thread on creation or ID somewhere else. Besides, arguing what may be lies in creation or ID does not erase them from evolution.
I am sorry, Flea. I misunderstood the shallowness of your OP.
From your examples I thought maybe we were talking more broadly of willful misrepresentation of facts. Like misrepresenting a few instances of human foibles in perpetrating fraud as ample justification to throw out a proposition or even an entire discipline regardless of the overwhelming body of other verified facts and a great preponderance of other efficacious evidence. I thought we might be talking about that kind of lying.
Having been embarrassed by this I will content myself with slipping back into lurk-n-learn mode.
Again, Flea, I apologize for misinterpreting the intent of your OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 11:29 AM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 59 of 346 (469383)
06-05-2008 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rrhain
06-05-2008 6:59 AM


Question: Just how much money do you think there is in anthropology?
Speaking as someone who holds a degree in Anthropology....
NONE.
AiG never let's that one out of the bag.
The MAJORITY of US archaeological digs are funded by construction projects who are mandated to have field archaeologists review areas prior to new construction.
These are FAST, DIRTY jobs where the only bias is "Please don't find anything, and if you do find something, PLEASE don't let it be bones."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 06-05-2008 6:59 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Brian, posted 06-05-2008 1:01 PM Nuggin has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 346 (469397)
06-05-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea
06-04-2008 1:31 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis.
I've fallen behind a bit, I started this reply yesterday but didn't get a chance to complete it 'til today.
Dont Be a Flea writes:
This story is actually the story of how a good Chinese scientist exposed a fraud by a Chinese farmer as soon as he got a chance to examine the fossil (or fossils, as it was made up of two).
An interesting fraud case, but that's all.
Then why was the banner still hanging in the Museum of Natural History last year?
What makes you think such a banner of Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis ever existed, let alone hung in the Museum of Natural History last year?
Your position is that scientists as a group cannot be trusted, but scientists are just people, and for that reason they are heir to all the weaknesses and foibles of people everywhere. The proportion of scientists willing to lie or cheat or mislead is no greater than the proportion in any other segment of society.
This is why the most appropriate response to your expressed distrust of scientists is the list of things about which creationists are dishonest, because if you apply the same criteria you used for scientists then you can only conclude that creationists can't be trusted, either.
What science has working in its favor is that it is based upon real world observations. The goal of science is the closest correspondence possible between theory and the real world. Any scientist who misrepresents what the real world says will eventually get caught. Always.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dont Be a Flea, posted 06-04-2008 1:31 PM Dont Be a Flea has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024