Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes

Dave Thomas, president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, is the perpetrator of this hilarious joke. Some of the people photographed are him and his kids.One of the first people I met when I transferred to New Mexico Tech, we share the same circle of friends although he and I are just acquaintances.He also plays a mean bass guitar as a member of the Vigilante Band.

If someone included a link to the page revealing the hoax I somehow missed it, so here it is: http://www.nmsr.org/april_fool.html--Percy

dwise1 writes:

quote:

---

like the English misnomer, "asshole" (formed, I believe, from confusing meanings of "ass", causing it to shift from a donkey to an anatomical feature).

---

No. "Ass" in American English is a derivation of British "arse." This dropping of the "r" isn't that uncommon (compare "cuss" with "curse" and "passel" with "parcel.")"Ass" the animal comes from a different root word than "ass" meaning buttocks.We now return you to the regular topic.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

these were brought up as scientific frauds by some creationists in another discussion:- Paul Kammerer, who allegedly manufactured nuptial pads on the feet of midwife toads- Reiner Protsch, who falsified and manipulated dating of human fossils- Viswat Jit Gupta, Indian professor, who also falsified some fossils- Charles Darwin, who retouched photographs of human and ape's facial expressions- the stuff already discussed here - Piltdown skull, Archeraptor, Haeckel's embryos, pepper moth-------------I think, that Kammerer's case is not so clear and maybe it was not his fraud or perhaps it was not any fraud after all(Lamarckian Experimentalist Paul Kammerer - Fraud Or Founder Of Epigenetics? | Science 2.0)Protsch - OK, fraud
Gupta - don't know any details
Darwin - don't know what is supposed to be fradulent in this case

Hi Velky Vezir, and welcome to the fray. Interesting list. To bad he didn't live to see validation. Got any links for that? Also for his purpose in so doing? Perhaps someone else here knows.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Ignoring whether these are frauds or not, what is the relevance?Would a few fraudulent scientists disprove science?
Would a few fraudulent preachers disprove religion?
I can find lists of both.IMHO, it just proves that humans can be dishonest.

Hi Panda, That this is a tread devoted to listing both scientific and creationist frauds. See Message 1.To qualify it only needs to be shown that it was done on purpose: the intent was to deceive. And some are dishonest in a way that gets them money or fame.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

My bad.
I should have gone to bed and not posted.
(I still stand by my comment, but I can now see that it was off-topic.) I often feel that the fame is more important to them than the money (but they do usually want both).

Well, what I should like to ask these creationist you've been talking to is --- where are their citations.Otherwise: Newton lied about the orbit of the moon. Look, someone said it on the Internet!

Reiner Protsch. Seems to have been an all-aroound fraud.Viswa (not Viswat) Jit Gupta was also a fraud, although his fraud was not so widespread a Protsch's. He faked finding marine fossils in the 1960's in the Himalayas. The case was poorly handled, he didn't get what he desrved. See Skeleton that won't fossilise.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And in both cases it was peer review and the scientific method that exposed the frauds.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Thank you for the link, JonF.More information on Darwin's manipulation of photographs of human/ape facial expressions should be in J. Bergman: Charles Darwin’s Faulty ScholarshipA Review , but I don't have an access to the full text. As far as I know, this "fraud" was based on the simple act of photograph retouching, not on actual distortion of information presented by the pictures (if the latter was the case, it would have been trumpeted by creationists all around, I guess).

Do you have any documentation for Darwin's "fraud" from reliable sources ? Jerry Bergman is not a man I'd trust. This may be just another creationist slander.

This site has not been listed on this thread before, but it has been used (attempted anyway) on a number of other threads.Scientific Evidence for Creation Home pageAs an example of the false information they present I have looked at this common creationist falsehood:http://www.bible.ca/...-fraud-horse-fetal-vestigial-toes.gif

quote:

---

Evolutionist argument: This diagram shows the fetal development of a horse foot. (a) is the foot at 6 weeks. Note, there are three toes. (b) is the foot at 8 weeks. The middle toe now dominates. (c) is the foot at 5 months. The middle toe is now the hoof. So, modern horses have vestigial extra toes, which are too small to be easily noticed.

​

Evolutionist argument rebutted: These structures are not vestigial but perform a critical function of assisting the horse to run with balance. These additional side structures not only reinforce the leg for strength, but aid in balance. Think of them as laminates that strengthen the leg in the same way the layers of plywood makes it stronger than unlamintated wood. The three sections are fused together in such a way as to resist breaking and increase torsion strength of the leg of the horse. Without such, the horse would break its leg more often.

---

Of course that "critical function" was not the original support function of the toes, so yes they are vestigial, and this secondary adapted function is why they have not disappeared.Vestigial Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

vestigial (vɛˈstɪdʒɪəl)

​

adj
1. of, relating to, or being a vestige
2. (of certain organs or parts of organisms) having attained a simple structure and reduced size and function during the evolution of the species: the vestigial pelvic girdle of a snake.
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009

---

Notice that it does not say the vestigial trait has no function (the creationist straw man), just that the size and function are reduced.The development of an organism from fetus to adult is also very instructive in determining the vestigial character of a specific trait.Amusingly you can see that the fetus has three toes (of the original five, two having disappeared in earlier evolutionary stages (that are easily linked to this by fossils) with the central one elongated slightly more than the other two) forming a three toed foot, and that these toes become reduced and redirected during development until the two side ones become splints in the final foot.Finally the function served by these remaining toes is not necessarily a benefit:
Page not found - Suite 101

quote:

---

If you were trying to convince someone of the theory of evolution, the horse would be a great example to use. Fossil remains of prehistoric horses provide one of the best documented examples of the evolutionary changes of an animal species. And if the fossil remains are not convincing enough, we can look at the anatomy of the modern horse and find possible evidence that the horse once had toes.
...
It is the three toes of the horse’s ancestors Mesohippus and Miohippus (which existed about 25-40 million years ago) that are most universally acknowledged in the anatomy of modern horse. Between the knee and fetlock joint (equivalent to your ankle) is the cannon bone. On either side of the cannon bone hang two useless bones that are called the splint bones. They are frequently injured and the resulting hard lump is called a splint. We will discuss splints more in future articles on leg and hoof problems. It is generally accepted that these bones are what remains of the two smaller toes of Mesohippus. Those of us who have had deal with horses popping splints wish evolution would hurry up and get rid of them all together.

---

Looks like that "Evolutionist argument rebutted" falls flat on it's face. They are vestigial rather than totally gone because they now serve a secondary function, and that poorly, because it is not their original purpose. This is what vestigial means.The splints are vestigial toes that serve no support function - their original function - for the modern horse.You may enjoy taking apart the other falsehood and fraudulent information on that site, but there are just too many (Gish Gallop?) to answer all of them at one time.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Here's the definition of vestigial taken from my evolution course:

quote:

---

Vestigial features, structures, biochemical pathways or behaviours are not currently adaptive, at least not in the free-living stages, although they may facilitate embryonic development.

---

it goes on to say:

quote:

---

... and their absence, whether from incomplete development or by surgical removal, does not detectably impair the function of the organism as a whole

---

If the toes perform an adaptive function (which I'm not convinced they do) then they are not vestigial.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.