+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    34

    Science Fraud Hall of Shame

    See a pictorial tribute to the high and mighty condoners of science fraud:

    SCIENCE FRAUD HALL OF SHAME
    http://dreamheron.wordpress.com/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Science Fraud Hall of Shame

    Then there is of course the fraud published a few years ago in National Geographic magazine, of the bird-lizard found in China. Totally discredited.

    There was the fraud Haekel, where he showed faked drawings of various animal types looking very much like humans in the early stage. Haekel made the phrase "ontogony recapitulates phylogeny" a mantra in biology classes. It was a Big Lie.

    Other evolutionary researchers on the Galapagos Islands faked their research the better to support Darwin's 1859 theory.

    And what one biologist called "the greatest example of evolution," the peppered moth:


    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.

  3. #3
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Science Fraud Hall of Shame

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Then there is of course the fraud published a few years ago in National Geographic magazine, of the bird-lizard found in China. Totally discredited.

    There was the fraud Haekel, where he showed faked drawings of various animal types looking very much like humans in the early stage. Haekel made the phrase "ontogony recapitulates phylogeny" a mantra in biology classes. It was a Big Lie.
    Regarding Haekel:
    Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)
    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Other evolutionary researchers on the Galapagos Islands faked their research the better to support Darwin's 1859 theory.
    Bull. Citation or shut up.

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    And what one biologist called "the greatest example of evolution," the peppered moth:


    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.
    Perhaps you should stay current with the science. The Peppered Moth exp have been proven valid.


    Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory

    By Steve Connor, Science Editor


    Saturday, 25 August 2007
    Share Digg It del.icio.us Facebook Reddit Print Article Email Article Text Size
    NormalLargeExtra Large
    For more than a century it has been cited as the quintessential example of Darwinism in action. It was the story of the peppered moth and how its two forms had struggled for supremacy in the polluted woodlands of industrial Britain.


    Every biology textbook on evolution included the example of the black and peppered forms of the moth, Biston betularia. The relative numbers of these two forms were supposed to be affected by predatory birds being able to pick off selectively either the black or peppered variety, depending on whether they rested on polluted or unpolluted trees.

    It became the most widely cited example of Darwinian natural selection and how it affected the balance between two competing genes controlling the coloration of an organism. Then the doubts began to emerge.

    Critics suggested that the key experiments on the peppered moth in the 1950s were flawed. Some went as far as to suggest the research was fraudulent, with the implication that the school textbooks were feeding children a lie.

    Creationists smelt blood. The story of the peppered moth became a story of how Darwinism itself was flawed - with its best known example being based on fiddled data.

    Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.

    He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.

    In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting.

    "I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline of carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007," Professor Majerus said.

    "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution," he said.

    Criticisms of the 1950s experiments with the peppered month, carried out by the Oxford zoologist Bernard Kettlewell, came to the fore in a 2002 book by the American author Judith Hooper. Hooper's book, Of Moths and Men, suggested that the scientists at the centre of these experiments set out to prove the story irrespective of the evidence.

    While the professor has also described drawbacks to Kettlewell's methodology, he was able to address all of these concerns and even tested an idea that Hooper had raised in her book - that it was bats rather than birds responsible for moth predation - a suggestion he dismissed altogether.

    Professor Majerus compiled enough visual sightings of birds eating peppered moths in his garden over the seven years to show that the black form was significantly more likely to be eaten than the peppered.

    A statistical analysis of the results revealed a clear example of Darwinian natural selection in action.

    "The peppered moth story is easy to understand, because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death," he said. "That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand."

    Natural selection in action

    The peppered moth comes in two distinct, genetic varieties: the black, melanic form (carbonaria) and the mottled form (typica). Against the background of a lichen-covered tree growing in unpolluted countryside, the typica form is well camouflaged. But in polluted areas where lichens do not grow, it is the melanic form that is difficult to see.

    The Victorian naturalist J W Tutt noted that 98 per cent of peppered moths caught near Manchester at the end of the 19th century were the melanic variety. He was the first to suggest that it was the result of higher predation of typica by birds. With cleaner air in the late 20th century, it was the turn of the melanic form to suffer from bird predation. Now it is the typica form that is more common in most areas of Britain.

    Again, you can't even keep up with debunked Creationist lies! Pathetic.....as usual, you are factually incorrect.
    Last edited by LogicallyYours; 04-12-2009 at 02:33 PM.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Science Fraud Hall of Shame

    This widespread scientific misconduct extends throughout all branches of science EXCEPT FOR evolutionary biologists. For some Darwinian reason, those guys are just scrupulously honest. One must suppose they just "evolved" that way.


    Faked research data surprisingly common, survey suggests
    June 19, 2008
    World Science staff

    Scientific misconduct, notably including falsification of data, may be far more common than suspected, according to the authors of a new survey of more than 2,000 scientists.

    Sandra L. Titus and colleagues at the Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Rockville, Md., surveyed 2,212 scientists at 605 institutions. They found that nearly 9 percent believed they had seen potential research misconduct in the previous three years.

    The findings are published in a commentary in June 19 issue of the research journal Nature.

    The results suggest as many as 2,300 observations of misconduct, 1,000 of them unreported, occur each year in the larger research community funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Titus and colleagues wrote. They added that it’s unlikely such behavior is confined to the United States.

    Survey participants described misbehavior ranging from scientists’ changing numbers to make results look more definite than they really were, to more creative fabrications. One participant told of a colleague using Photoshop to tweak results of chemical tests that appear as blots on sheets of paper.

    Suspected misconduct was seen “at all scientific ranks including postdocs, students, and tenured faculty members,” the authors wrote. Sixty percent of the cases involved fabrication or falsification, and 36 percent plagiarism “only,” Titus and colleagues added.

    The authors wrote that the problem arises partly because scientists are reluctant to turn in cheating colleagues, and commonly face ill consequences for doing so. They cited evidence that institutions often encourage whistleblowers to drop allegations.

    “Institutions must establish the culture that promotes safeguards for whistleblowers and establishes zero tolerance both for those who commit misconduct and for those who turn a blind eye to it,” Titus and colleagues wrote. Institutions may also want to consider auditing research records as part of renewed efforts to root out misconduct, they added.

    The number of cases reported to the Office of Research Misconduct is very low—about 24 investigations per year from institutions for cases that involve National Institutes of Health *******, Titus and colleagues wrote.
    Last edited by BarackZero; 06-22-2009 at 10:30 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. science church found guilty of fraud
    By consolidation in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-28-2009, 09:26 PM
  2. Yale University celebrates science fraud
    By aguest in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-17-2009, 08:03 AM
  3. NASA piling garbage science on science fraud
    By aguest in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 01:18 PM
  4. Exporting science fraud....
    By aguest in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2008, 12:34 AM
  5. Why science will shame religion!
    By enlightenment in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-02-2007, 09:15 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •