Yecch

[vossler]

It certainly was not fraud. There was no attempt at deceit. Osborne never claimed the tooth was human, although he did think it was from a higher primate. But both he and every other scientist associated with it agreed that a proper identification could not be make without further evidence. The reason it took five years to come to a conclusive decision, is that the further evidence was not discovered for five years.

On the contrary it shows just what we expect of scientists. Not one scientist made a positive claim that the tooth was human. Even the most enthusiastic proponent of a human identification agreed it was not possible to do more than speculate until a positive identification could be made. The drawing was clearly labelled as imaginative and never had any scientific standing. And when the needed evidence showed up and the tooth was correctly identified as from a peccary, this was promptly publicized and the tooth reclassified.

I see no evidence of either low standards or fraud in this history. A tentative identification was made that the tooth was primate (not human), but held, even by Osburne himself, to be speculative pending new evidence. And when new evidence showed the true derivation of the tooth, the scientific community acted quickly to re-classify it, and to publicize the new evidence and the new identification of the tooth.

What else would you expect them to do, either in 1922 or in 1927?

How about make sure they were right? Remember all these "findings" came from a single tooth. How can any body that identifies itself as "scientific" make such a incredible assertion and then be surprised when found to be false that they're not considered fraudulent?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

How about make sure they were right? Remember all these "findings" came from a single tooth. How can any body that identifies itself as "scientific" make such a incredible assertion and then be surprised when found to be false that they're not considered fraudulent?

Okay... How are you defining the word fraud? Every definition that I have ever seen involves deliberate deception. If a person was wrong but did not know they were wrong it is not a fraud.

It must be nice to just make up new definitions to words just to make others look bad... Dishonest, but fun I guess...

 

[gluadys]

How about make sure they were right? Remember all these "findings" came from a single tooth. How can any body that identifies itself as "scientific" make such a incredible assertion and then be surprised when found to be false that they're not considered fraudulent?

What incredible assertion was made? If you were given a box of molars, some from pigs and some from apes, do you think you could sort them accurately? Add in that this particular one was so worn down that many distinguishing features were not available for accurate identification, what is incredible about tentatively identifying it as a primate molar?

What scientific findings were made other than that the tooth might be that of a higher primate?

Please don't confuse journalistic speculations with scientific findings. Newspapers--even respected ones like the New York Times--thrive on the spectacular. They do not have a good record when it comes to reporting on science. We saw that recently when the National Geographic was embarrassed by its article on Archeoraptor.

And where is there any evidence of deliberate deception?

Deliberate deception is a sine qua non of fraud. If you cannot show a deliberate attempt to deceive, the allegation of fraud ought to be withdrawn.

 

[Micaiah]

But the allegation was of "countless frauds", not of skeletons in the closet or fairy tales.



You have never shown this.

Which of the following claims have been discredited?

1. The peppered moth exists in two forms, one light and one dark.
2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.
3. During the industrial revolution the dark variety became much more common in regions of heavy industrialization, reaching at peak 95% of the affected population.
4. Since pollution controls have been established, the occurence of the dark form has been decreasing.
5. Dark colour provides better camouflage on soot-blackened trees, while light colour provides better camouflage on non-blackened trees.
6. A major predator of the moths in daylight hours are birds.
7. Birds are more likely to find and eat moths without camouflage rather than those which are well camouflaged.
8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

I would be very interested in knowing which of these statements has been discredited and how.

Are you suggesting this is the type of genetic change that resulted in people evolving from particles?

 

[vossler]

What incredible assertion was made? If you were given a box of molars, some from pigs and some from apes, do you think you could sort them accurately? Add in that this particular one was so worn down that many distinguishing features were not available for accurate identification, what is incredible about tentatively identifying it as a primate molar?

What scientific findings were made other than that the tooth might be that of a higher primate?

For one thing the name "Nebraska Man", I would never even come close to stating that this tooth was some transitional form and giving it such prominence.

You used words like "tentatively" and "might" which are words the scientific community should have used. Instead they gave a tooth a scientific name for a transitional species. I'm not interested in splitting hairs. I said before they were either inept or fraudulent, and since you don't like the word fraud I'll just go with inept and leave it at that.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Are you suggesting this is the type of genetic change that resulted in people evolving from particles?

Where was that claim made in the original study? Have you ever read the original study?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

For one thing the name "Nebraska Man", I would never even come close to stating that this tooth was some transitional form and giving it such prominence.

You used words like "tentatively" and "might" which are words the scientific community should have used. Instead they gave a tooth a scientific name for a transitional species. I'm not interested in splitting hairs. I said before they were either inept or fraudulent, and since you don't like the word fraud I'll just go with inept and leave it at that.

"Nebraska Man" is not a scientific name, and if I remember correctly is was given by the tabloids of the time. Much like trying to get the real story of science by reading one of the "Bat Boy" articles today.

Oh, and you have yet to give us the definition that you are using for "fraud" and to show that deliberate deception was used in the case of Nebraska Man.

 

[vossler]

Here's a link someone provided me for Neanderthal.

Here's an excerpt from the link:

"A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues.

Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle. "The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement..."

I highlighted the key words that say fraud. Again, whether they are a proven an outright fraud or just plain ineptness, it really doesn't matter to me, the end is still the same. False information being passed along as fact which is just another reason to question and not believe everything the scientific community produces.

BTW, just for fun here's another link showing a fraudulent Japanese archeologist named Shinichi Fujimura being caught.

For everyone else out there who isn't sure of what to think, let me just say if just a few cases are proven fraudulent one can probably surmize that many more are just as fraudulent but their tracks have just been covered better. Probably a skill that comes with the territory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i'm curious about what the fraud in science is meant to show.

there is fraudulent things published in science. often they are caught quickly, sometimes it takes longer, however there is a mechanism-reproducibility in place to fix errors and fraud. because there is fraud in science it doesn't show that science is fraudulent however. that is the error of mistaking a part for the whole....

interestingly, i could make the same argument with regard to religion.
Does one Pentecostal preacher being found with a prostitute make all pentecostals cheaters on their wives?

Does one TV preachers financial sins make all preachers thiefs and charlatans?

however, does religion in general, or Christianity in particular, have an equivalent mechanism to detect sinful behavior as science does in reproducibility of experimental results?


.....

 

[gluadys]

For one thing the name "Nebraska Man",

Nebraska Man was a name dreamed up by a journalist. It was not a scientific claim. As noted earlier, scientists did not even identify the tooth as human, only as possibly primate.

I would never even come close to stating that this tooth was some transitional form and giving it such prominence.

As far as I was able to determine, no scientist claimed it was a transitional form.

You used words like "tentatively" and "might" which are words the scientific community should have used.

Those are words the scientific community did use--as you would know if you had read the link I gave you.

Instead they gave a tooth a scientific name for a transitional species.

A fossil needs a name. Osburne made a reasonable guess that it was a higher primate and gave it a name. He did not place it in the genus Homo so he did not consider it human. Neither did he place it in the then existing genus Pithecanthropus (meaning "ape-man") which does suggest a transitional. (Pithecanthropus has been replaced by Homo erectus and closely related species such as H. ergaster).

The genus name Osburne actually assigned (Hesperopithecus) means "western ape" and does not suggest it is transitional.

I'm not interested in splitting hairs. I said before they were either inept or fraudulent, and since you don't like the word fraud I'll just go with inept and leave it at that.

It is not a matter of me not liking the word "fraud". You alleged fraud, and you have not substantiated that there was fraud. Since you have not substantiated any attempt at deceit, you ought to withdraw the allegation of fraud, not graciously bow to my sensitivities. I would be much more impressed by honesty than politeness on your part.

I see no substantion of ineptness either, but that's a judgment call and I won't quibble about it.

 

[gluadys]

For everyone else out there who isn't sure of what to think, let me just say if just a few cases are proven fraudulent one can probably surmize that many more are just as fraudulent but their tracks have just been covered better. Probably a skill that comes with the territory.

You are encouraging guilt by association?

 

[gluadys]

Are you suggesting this is the type of genetic change that resulted in people evolving from particles?

First, you answer my question. Which of those eight statements has been discredited? Please provide documentation of the discreditation.

 

[vossler]

i'm curious about what the fraud in science is meant to show.

there is fraudulent things published in science. often they are caught quickly, sometimes it takes longer, however there is a mechanism-reproducibility in place to fix errors and fraud. because there is fraud in science it doesn't show that science is fraudulent however. that is the error of mistaking a part for the whole....

interestingly, i could make the same argument with regard to religion.
Does one Pentecostal preacher being found with a prostitute make all pentecostals cheaters on their wives?

Does one TV preachers financial sins make all preachers thiefs and charlatans?

however, does religion in general, or Christianity in particular, have an equivalent mechanism to detect sinful behavior as science does in reproducibility of experimental results?


.....

Good points!!!

As you pointed out this isn't unusual and gave some logical arguments in defense of your point. The difference to me is that the vast majority of scientific findings are secular and have a flawed starting point. Their main objective seems to be; do whatever you can, however you can, in order to prove or substantiate the theory or idea you're pushing. Truth takes a back seat to $$$ and fame. What is important is a finding to substantiate their work that the world is looking for. What is the world looking for? Why the missing link of course, that's where fame and fortune is. So they have an agenda that in and of itself makes them extremely prejudiced and biased. That's also why many frauds/hoaxes take such a long time to exposed and/or withdrawn. So, if I'm a scientist and I want to make my own history I'm certainly not looking to disprove someone else's claims which in turn could hurt my own funding or public opinion concerning my area of study.

Now let's use your example of a preacher. Many people in the Christian community are also hesitant to expose a fraudulent preacher because it could distract others from the faith. Fortunately, Christians are more likely to put truth above personal desires and will expose a fraud more readily than say a non-Christian would in a similar situation. In addition, it's also harder to get away with because there is tough standard to be held against; the Word of God. There are many who are knowledgable of it.

Now within the scientific community I believe the problem to be much worse because they know that the vast majority of people have little or no knowledge of their craft and so therefore it more easily opens the door to fraud. This is compounded by the fact that their craft can, for long periods of time, be very unproductive which in turn makes receiving sufficient funding even more challenging.

 

[Numenor]

As you pointed out this isn't unusual and gave some logical arguments in defense of your point. The difference to me is that the vast majority of scientific findings are secular and have a flawed starting point.

Can you demostrate for us how the scientific method is flawed?

Their main objective seems to be; do whatever you can, however you can, in order to prove or substantiate the theory or idea you're pushing.

Are you going to substantiate this libelous statement?

Truth takes a back seat to $$$ and fame.

Rubbish. Why not get into movies instead of science? In fact try naming 20 film stars and then name 20 scientists and see which is easier to do.

What is important is a finding to substantiate their work that the world is looking for. What is the world looking for? Why the missing link of course, that's where fame and fortune is. So they have an agenda that in and of itself makes them extremely prejudiced and biased.

More unsubstatiation.

That's also why many frauds/hoaxes take such a long time to exposed and/or withdrawn. So, if I'm a scientist and I want to make my own history I'm certainly not looking to disprove someone else's claims which in turn could hurt my own funding or public opinion concerning my area of study.

Then can you care to explain how any frauds are ever exposed? Who exposes them? The media? You? No, other scientists.

It's plain to see that you are just extremely prejudiced and biased against the entire Scientific community. Many scientists are in fact Christians and are interested in truth and integrity and, now this may come as a surprise to you, even some non-Christians are!

Now within the scientific community I believe the problem to be much worse because they know that the vast majority of people have little or no knowledge of their craft and so therefore it more easily opens the door to fraud.

Ever heard of the peer-review process?

This is compounded by the fact that their craft can, for long periods of time, be very unproductive which in turn makes receiving sufficient funding even more challenging.

If something is unproductive then it doesn't get funding. The people who supply the funding are not idiots, they expect results.

 

[Micaiah]

It is deceiptful to take the story about peppered moths and claim this is an example of evolution in action. May I refer you to our recent discussion on farm yard genetics.

 

[notto]

It is deceiptful to take the story about peppered moths and claim this is an example of evolution in action. May I refer you to our recent discussion on farm yard genetics.

It demonstrates one of the mechanisms of evolution which is all it ever claimed to do. It is deceitful to take the research and claim that it tried to show anything outside of its predictions and conclusions. You claimed that somehow the research was discredited.

Which of the following claims have been discredited?

1. The peppered moth exists in two forms, one light and one dark.
2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.
3. During the industrial revolution the dark variety became much more common in regions of heavy industrialization, reaching at peak 95% of the affected population.
4. Since pollution controls have been established, the occurence of the dark form has been decreasing.
5. Dark colour provides better camouflage on soot-blackened trees, while light colour provides better camouflage on non-blackened trees.
6. A major predator of the moths in daylight hours are birds.
7. Birds are more likely to find and eat moths without camouflage rather than those which are well camouflaged.
8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

 

[vossler]

Can you demostrate for us how the scientific method is flawed?

First of all I never stated that the scientific method was flawed. I said it has a flawed starting point! The truth isn't what they seek but if they happen to come across it along the way and it supports they objectives then all the better.

Are you going to substantiate this libelous statement?

Here's a link that does just that. This is from the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of conservatism or fundamentalists.

More unsubstatiation.

Well here's another link entitled Ethical Lapses from the same Washington Post that says otherwise. It says, among other things, that: 15.5% of scientists have changed a study because they were under pressure from a funding source or 12.5% overlooked others' use of flawed or questionably interpreted data. I don't know about you but this should concern all of us.

Then can you care to explain how any frauds are ever exposed? Who exposes them? The media? You? No, other scientists.

I never stated that these frauds are never exposed. Once again you've misrepresented what I said. I said it takes a long time to do it.

It's plain to see that you are just extremely prejudiced and biased against the entire Scientific community. Many scientists are in fact Christians and are interested in truth and integrity and, now this may come as a surprise to you, even some non-Christians are!

Without a doubt there are scientists who are Christians and interested in truth and integrity, I've been exposed to and respect much of their work. AiG alone has quite of few of them. As for non-Christians that are interested in the same, well their numbers are few but I do admit they exist but their voice isn't very loud.

Ever heard of the peer-review process?

Yeah, it works real well for Doctors and Lawyers so I'm sure it would do the same here.

If something is unproductive then it doesn't get funding. The people who supply the funding are not idiots, they expect results.

As one of the links above so clearly demonstrate.

 

[notto]

It says, among other things, that: 15.5% of scientists have changed a study because they were under pressure from a funding source or 12.5% overlooked others' use of flawed or questionably interpreted data. I don't know about you but this should concern all of us.

If this is a concern for you . . .

Without a doubt there are scientists who are Christians and interested in truth and integrity, I've been exposed to and respect much of their work. AiG alone has quite of few of them.

Then why doesn't it concern you that AIG openly states that by definition no evidence can contradict their conclusions?

That seems to be a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? You have 100% of the AIG scientists that you claim are interested in truth and integrity claiming that they can't be wrong and if a conclusion from evidence contradicts their established religious beliefsthen by definition, the evidence must be reinterpreted.

Does not compute.

 

[vossler]

If this is a concern for you . . .



Then why doesn't it concern you that AIG openly states that by definition no evidence can contradict their conclusions?

That seems to be a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? You have 100% of the AIG scientists that you claim are interested in truth and integrity claiming that they can't be wrong and if a conclusion from evidence contradicts their established religious beliefsthen by definition, the evidence must be reinterpreted.

Does not compute.

Since I haven't seen this statement could you please provide a link.

 

[notto]

Since I haven't seen this statement could you please provide a link.

This is listed under their statement of Faith:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

This is not science nor should anyone who agrees to this be considered a scientist who is interested in truth and integrity. It is the opposite of science and the scientific method.

You should be concerned if you are looking to AIG 'scientists' for validity or truth. They wouldn't tell you what that is if they found it contradicted their preconceptions, would they?