Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

A great example of what? A Chinese farmer wanted to make money, a dubious American private museum owner fell for it, and National Geographic unwisely published an article on it without peer review then retracted their article just two months later when the fraud was exposed, and published an article about the fraud when they had researched it (within a year of the original article).An interesting fraud case, but that's all. And so you shouldn't. He should present evidence for his claims, and the evidence should be reviewed by other experts in his field whom he has not chosen, and even then, you do not accept it as probable fact unless it's been confirmed by other routes, and even then, it's only tentative.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).Here's Scientific American in January 2000 strongly suggesting the fraud just "three short months" after the claim was made. Is that your idea of an attempt by the evolutionary scientific establishment to fool the public, Flea? Really?The Jigsaw Fossil - Scientific AmericanOr is it that you desire evolution to be a fraud? Try being honest with yourself on that one, as we're talking about lies on this thread, aren't we?

Are you sure? Complain loudly to them if so!!!!! Popular magazines sell copies on sensation, scoops etc. Publishing without waiting for the real scientific world of peer review was silly, because, while true sensations sell magazines, a false sensation that turns out to be a fraud is damaging to them. They made a mistake, and paid for it quickly, but it didn't matter to the science world. You do realise that it was only a matter of three months before the fraud was exposed. I was replying to your comment about "blindly accepting" what someone says because he's a scientist by advising you not to do so. Check the evidence, and what other scientists think of it. Quill knobs were found on a specimen last year, so that could be why. Before that, the feathers were more speculative, based on their presence in creatures thought to be relatives of the Velo.Remember, lots of artist's impressions based on fossils can be speculative, and do not claim to be exactly how it was. If you're seriously interested in paleontology, take the popular stuff with a pinch of salt, and read peer reviewed scientific papers.I'm no expert, but what you'll find is plenty of debate about how birds evolved and what from, and how the existing fossils fit into the picture. Well, don't you think that if you found a dinosaur with a wishbone, hollow bones, and quill knobs that it might be a bit more than coincidence? I'd say that it would make the "birds from dinosaurs" theory fairly strong myself. So I don't think anyone's intentionally fooling the public, even if they turn out to be wrong. Try using scientific peer reviewed material as your main basic source, and even then, consider it all tentative.Bits of macro-evolution can be observed in real time. It looks like micro-evolution, logically, as you'd expect.

Bryan did not say this. You've made a mistake.The Nebraska tooth incident was a mistake, rather than a forgery, and who are you to complain about mistakes, my dear Flea, considering the number you've made so far on this thread?Are you sure the banner at the museum wasn't a picture of this tooth, visited by you in the year 2009?

What does the word "forgery" mean to you? Did someone make (or "forge") the tooth? Yes. There's a reason, as well (probably combined with Osborn's desire to have found something important and interesting!).You won't like the idea, but we're related to pigs and:

quote:

---

As mammalian omnivores, pig teeth are fairly good models for studying the development and aging of human teeth. Dental enamel is formed by the epithelial cells of the enamel organ including the ameloblasts, the cells that produce enamel matrix proteins.

​

As with humans, pigs feature molars, premolars (or bicuspids), canines, and incisors and similar to most mammals, pigs and humans are diphyodont or develop and erupt two generations of teeth into their jaws.

---

http://www.olympusmicro.com/...field/enamelformationpig.htmlOsborn had found the tooth of an omnivorous mammal, but the wrong one! And like us, he was much more familiar with human teeth than pig's teeth. If you found something that looked like one of your own teeth buried in your backyard, you'd probably make the same mistake.But as soon as other pig bones were discovered on the site, all became clear.

Summer is here. Do not let this creature irritate you. It knows not what it does.

quote:

---

The head of an ordinary dog flea (Ctenocephalides canis) was captured under darkfield illumination with a compound optical microscope using a 10x objective.

---

quote:

---

Fleas are a relentless summer pest throughout the world,.......

​

........The larva resembles a small legless caterpillar and it feeds on dried excrement, dried bits of skin, dead mites, dried blood, and other organic debris. Fecal matter from the parent flea is essential to the successful metamorphosis of some species of flea larvae. During this time the parent flea consumes a great deal of blood, up to 30 times its own weight, to produce a large quantity of feces for its larvae........

---

A summer pest full of shit, eh? From HereEdited by bluegenes, : title change

Hot news, that, Lucy!There was a Japanese archaeologist/anthropologist recently, I think.

Here's some for you, Lucy. 10 Frauds

The guy, Osborn, said the drawing was rubbish or fantasy or whatever. But he thought the pig's tooth was human. Lots of other experts did not. There was no big conspiracy to fool the public, and humans evolving in North America has never been the evolutionary view, has it?

I've re-Christened you. Flea suits you. You're welcome to use the picture as an avatar.

Foot print fraudAnd more, Lucy.

And the famous Paluxy fraud. Why lie? Flea asks in the O.P.http://www.geocities.com/...Canaveral/Hangar/2437/paluxy.htm{ABE}And EvC's own dating expert RAZD exposes a fraud hereEdited by bluegenes, : marked addition

The biggest museum/dinosaur fraud ever. And it's still going on!! See Massive $27,000,000 ongoing fraud here

I thought your O.P. was about fraud? Of course one accused fraud or proof of one does not negate another. Who suggested that they did?
You mention frauds like Piltdown man and the Chinese fossil Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis which were certainly intentional frauds, and I'm trying to help you find some more.You also made the (dubious) claim that a museum was still misleading you last year about the Archaeoraptor, and that reminded me that there are museums that mislead their visitors, like the one in Kentucky that presents scenes of Dinosaurs living alongside our own species.As you express concern for such things in the O.P., I assume that they are on topic.

Of course. I think that poster must be confusing Piltdown with Nebraska man, which was a mistake (although rather a silly one).Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

And I didn't say that, did I? Damn, boy, why you're complaining about fraud, I don't know. Don't put words into other people's mouths. Use the quote facility if you want to argue against something that I actually have said.