Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (10485)	12/5/2010 3:00:02 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 69300

Scientists are a diverse lot, and many who have become famous are not above extrapolating to a greater or lesser extent in support of their pet causes. Most scientists are complete people, with their charms and foibles. This provides plenteous grist to the mills of those who want to discredit scientists as a class. The scientific method enjoys a certain rigor. The people doing it are as vibrant and occasionally exasperating as a barrel of monkeys on Red Bull.

To: Solon who wrote (10485)	12/5/2010 3:11:15 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Piltdown man

To: Solon who wrote (10485)	12/5/2010 3:14:19 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

The Most Unnatural of Selections In the mid-1800s pollution from factories in Britain was darkening trees by killing the lichen, and scientists also noted a decline in the ratio between lighter-colored peppered moths and darker varieties. It was hypothesized that the lighter moths were easier to spot and thus were eaten by more birds. Here was evolution in action. Bernard Kettlewell sat in the woods and watched to see whether birds preferred the lighter version to darker, and he reported that indeed they were twice as likely to eat the lighter moths. Three problems, though: (1) Kettlewell was responsible for nailing dead moths to the trees for the birds to feed on, (2) peppered moths rarely alight on tree trunks, and (3) birds don’t normally feed on months moths that are on the side of trees. Even after scientists were informed of these inconsistencies, many still clung to the validity of the experiment, perhaps because they wanted to believe it as the canonical example of observed natural selection.

To: Solon who wrote (10485)	12/5/2010 3:14:56 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Sex and the Seedy Alfred Kinsey’s landmark studies of the 1950s, known as the Kinsey Reports, were the major emphasis on late-20th-century views of human sexuality. The incidence of homosexuality, bisexuality, adultery, and childhood sexual behavior were higher than previously thought, which helped lead to different views of adult and childhood sexual behavior. According to Judith Reisman, however, Kinsey’s research was fraught with very bad scientific method and possibly fraud. He obtained much of his data by interviewing prisoners, his interviewing technique was biased, and he used reports from pedophiles to hypothesize about childhood sexual behavior. Kinsey’s estimates on the extent of homosexual behavior (38.7% in males ages 36 – 40) have not been validated in subsequent studies. In contrast, a Batelle report found that 2.3% of men reported having sex with another man. Nonetheless, Kinsey’s landmark study still remains one of the primary sources for current sexuality discussions.

To: Solon who wrote (10485)	12/5/2010 3:15:34 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Anything for Albert Arthur Eddington was so convinced of the theory of general relativity that he altered his data to support it. Eddington set out to put Einstein to the test by carefully measuring how light was bent during a solar eclipse. But apparently the examiner went soft. When the results were in, Eddington threw out 16 photographic plates that didn’t support Einstein’s theory. Even worse, he then published his research without those 16 plates and showed how Einstein’s theory accurately predicted the resulting data. It was this experiment that helped launch the public acceptability of relativity. Strangely enough, the hoax still has legs. You can still find the experiment listed in current textbooks as "proof" of Einstein’s theory.