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: 2MAR$ who wrote (35720)

4/30/2013 2:21:11 AM

From: Greg or e

1 Recommendation Respond to of 69300

Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation
From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Ernst Haeckel

A notable case of a scientists using fraudulent material to promote Darwinism was the work of German scientist and atheist Ernst Haeckel. Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

“

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!" [1]

”

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically". [2]

Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn

Creationists have written regarding the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's work and how a prestigious German science journal published his dubious work. [3] [4]

Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe publicly exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel's embryos in a NY Times article. [5] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in a manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community - namely though a high profile NY Times article. [6]

Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells contends that the book shows that "the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked." [7] [8] [9] [10]

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign. [11] It was found that he falsified dates on many "stone age" fossils which included a skull fragment named Hahnhöfersand Man which supposedly linked humans and Neanderthals. [12] The scientific fraud only came to light when he was caught attempting to sell his department's complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States. [13] An investigation later established that he had also passed off fake fossils as genuine ones. [14]

The most famous case of a hoax perpetrated on scientists in regards to the evolutionary view was the case of Piltdown man. [15] More recently, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the Archaeoraptor was a large embarrassment to National Geographic. [16] [17]

The Nebraska man (also called Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was a case of speculation. Nebraska man was promoted based on the find of a single peccary-like tooth (wild pig-like tooth). Dr. Henry Fairfield Osborn, head of the Department of Palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History, wrote the following in the press concerning Williams Jennings Bryan:

Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, gave the name " Flipperpithecus" to a supposed "humanoid species" arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of a dolphin's rib.

“

“The earth spoke to Bryan from his own state of Nebraska. The Hesperopithecus tooth is like the still, small voice. Its sound is by no means easy to hear... This little tooth speaks volumes of truth, in that it affords evidence of man’s descent from the ape." [18] [19]

”

Nebraska Man was debated vigorously among evolutionary paleoanthropologists for five years until Dr. Gregory King Williams published a refutation of the find in the journal Science which ended the debate [20] Nebraska man never gained wide acceptance by evolutionary scientists although it enjoyed coverage in the Illustrated London News. [21] [22]

In addition, the science journal New Scientist recently reported the following regarding the fossil which was dubbed " flipperpithecus":

“

"A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199 [23]

”

Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity see also: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience

In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position. [24]For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution. [25]

Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors. [26] [27]

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (35720)

4/30/2013 11:12:40 AM

From: longnshort

Respond to of 69300

California Bill Would Allow Students to Use Bathrooms 'Consistent with His or Her Gender Identity'

A proposed law introduced in the California State legislature would allow public school children to use bathrooms designated for members of the opposite sex, if that students' "gender identity" differed from the students biological sex.

Assembly Bill 1266, introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, who represents a section of the city of San Francisco would:

"...require that a pupil be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil's record."

While the bill does not specifically mention restrooms, restrooms and locker rooms are generally considered to be part of the "facilities" in schools throughout the country.

The bill would apparently also require that biological males be permitted to try out for, and play on, girls' sports teams if they identify themselves as females.

The Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense group that champions traditional causes has set up a website opposing the so called "bathroom bill."

The website, Gender Insanity.com warns against the bill with a statement that reads:

" Picture this ... your 7 year-old daughter comes home from school in tears. You ask her what's wrong and she says she's afraid to go to the bathroom at school because a boy comes in while she's there. Outraged, you call the school to demand an explanation. You're told that your daughter is telling the truth, but because the boy says he wants to be a girl, their hands are tied. "It's the law."The bill was amended in Assembly on April 25th, 2013.

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (35720)	4/30/2013 12:46:44 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 69300

Ummm, guy.... that's like presenting a baboon with a rocket ship and telling him "see, man can go to the moon". DAK

To: 2MAR$ who wrote (35720)	4/30/2013 1:11:56 PM
From: Greg or e	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

The business of progressive science The Left is forever attempting to cloak its evil lunacies in the veil of scientific authority. It has been doing so since Marx first claimed his socialism was "scientific". That is why they so ferociously defend St. Darwin and his holy theorum, why they try to portray political opposition as mental illness, and why, in the end, so many of the scientific studies to which they point turn out to be pure fabrications. Stapel was an academic star in the Netherlands and abroad, the author of several well-regarded studies on human attitudes and behavior. That spring, he published a widely publicized study in Science about an experiment done at the Utrecht train station showing that a trash-filled environment tended to bring out racist tendencies in individuals. And just days earlier, he received more media attention for a study indicating that eating meat made people selfish and less social.... Stapel’s fraud may shine a spotlight on dishonesty in science, but scientific fraud is hardly new. The rogues’ gallery of academic liars and cheats features scientific celebrities who have enjoyed similar prominence. The once-celebrated South Korean stem-cell researcher Hwang Woo Suk stunned scientists in his field a few years ago after it was discovered that almost all of the work for which he was known was fraudulent. The prominent Harvard evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser resigned in 2011 during an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services that would end up determining that some of his papers contained fabricated data. Every year, the Office of Research Integrity uncovers numerous instances of bad behavior by scientists, ranging from lying on grant applications to using fake images in publications. A blog called Retraction Watch publishes a steady stream of posts about papers being retracted by journals because of allegations or evidence of misconduct. Each case of research fraud that’s uncovered triggers a similar response from scientists. First disbelief, then anger, then a tendency to dismiss the perpetrator as one rotten egg in an otherwise-honest enterprise. But the scientific misconduct that has come to light in recent years suggests at the very least that the number of bad actors in science isn’t as insignificant as many would like to believe. And considered from a more cynical point of view, figures like Hwang and Hauser are not outliers so much as one end on a continuum of dishonest behaviors that extend from the cherry-picking of data to fit a chosen hypothesis — which many researchers admit is commonplace — to outright fabrication. Still, the nature and scale of Stapel’s fraud sets him apart from most other cheating academics. “The extent to which I did it, the longevity of it, makes it extreme,” he told me. “Because it is not one paper or 10 but many more.” On a Sunday morning, as we drove to a village near Maastricht to see his parents, Stapel reflected on why his behavior had sparked such outrage in the Netherlands. “People think of scientists as monks in a monastery looking out for the truth,” he said. “People have lost faith in the church, but they haven’t lost faith in science. My behavior shows that science is not holy.” What the public didn’t realize, he said, was that academic science, too, was becoming a business. Science, particularly academic science, is now a big business, and it is an unusually corrupt one that is primarily dependent upon the media and government funding. It has no practical external limitations upon it holding its businessmen accountable. As Stapel's example demonstrates, there is absolutely nothing - nothing - reliable about it. This point should be driven home every single time anyone makes the absurd claim that science is the best, or the only, arbiter of truth and reality. Here is how bad the corruption is: Stapel was actually teaching a graduate seminar on research ethics. Notice too that all of the established academics who caught wind of the fraud not only looked the other way, but advised others to do so as well. We have a word for real and genuine science that is reliable enough to be trustworthy. Engineering. "At the end of November, the universities unveiled their final report at a joint news conference: Stapel had committed fraud in at least 55 of his papers, as well as in 10 Ph.D. dissertations written by his students. The students were not culpable, even though their work was now tarnished. The field of psychology was indicted, too, with a finding that Stapel’s fraud went undetected for so long because of “a general culture of careless, selective and uncritical handling of research and data.” If Stapel was solely to blame for making stuff up, the report stated, his peers, journal editors and reviewers of the field’s top journals were to blame for letting him get away with it." Labels: science