Great Hoaxes of Science. Spoiler Alert: Most are about Evolution and/or early man

[Hollie]

The London Peppered Moth Hoax​

This one is the unique in the history of evolution hoaxes in that it was (and still is in some textbooks) touted as not just an example of evolution, but as downright proof of Darwinianism.

My source is not the Creationist Institute, nor the Flat Earth Society, nor the Association of American TeeVee preachers. No, my source is the New York Times.

The Times was late to the story of the London Peppered Moth Hoax. I read about it being a hoax when I was a kid, soon after I read about it being factual in my 6th grade science book (I was such a little skeptic). But NYT ran it like breaking news so at least the Dems on here will believe it:

A leading example of evolution given in biology textbooks has come unglued, evoking jeers and jubilation in the camp of creationists, who have been trying for years to expel Darwin from the classroom.

The case is that of the peppered moth, which over the course of a few decades has changed its wing color from pale-peppered to black and back to peppered again in parallel with the rise and fall of industrial pollution.

Textbook writers have long held that the dark form of the moth grew much more common when soot from industrial activity blackened the trees and killed the lichens, making the pale form more conspicuous to birds. But with the passage of clean air laws, the lichens returned, the pale form regained its camouflage, and the black form reverted to rarity.

This account of events became an instant hit with Darwinian advocates. The story caught evolution in unusually speedy action, and flagged bird predation as the mechanism of natural selection that drove it. The moths made a striking illustration because in a typical pair of photographs, one with lichen covering a tree trunk and the other with soot, the reader could hardly spot the pale moth in the first or the dark form in the second, and it was easy to imagine a bird being similarly deceived.

Example provided by OP:

View attachment 595870

For generations of biologists reared on the peppered moth story as perfect proof of Darwin's theory, it came as a shock to learn of certain problems the textbooks ignored and which a new book is interpreting in sinister light.

For one thing, the moths in the famous photos were not alive. Like the parrot in the Monty Python skit, they were ex-moths, winged members of the choir invisible, firmly glued or pinned to their perches.

And they were glued in place for good reason: the peppered moth almost never rests on tree trunks, its preferred hideaway probably being under twigs in the high canopy of trees.

''My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve,'' wrote Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, in a 1998 review of a book, ''Melanism: Evolution in Action,'' which noted the moth photos were staged.

Oh noooooes! There's no Santa Claus, and no proof of Darwinism either?

How sad for them . . .

Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case (Published 2002)

Article on theory of moth evolution, put forward from mid 1950's onward by Oxford University researcher Dr Bernard Kettlewell, that has been debunked; textbook writers, apparently with no intent to deceive, failed to mention that famous photographs of peppered moths that changed wing color to...

www.nytimes.com

Funny that you're so desperate you are reduced to cutting and pasting from a non-scientific source.

Nothing found at the Disco'tute?

 

[Hollie]

A History of Religious Hoaxes

When fraud mixes with religious fervor, as happens in religious hoaxes, the results can range from the comical to the deadly.

www.livescience.com

The Cardiff Giant

When farm workers digging a well in Cardiff, N.Y., uncovered a fossilized man in 1869 they found something remarkable. The Cardiff Giant, as the figure became known, was a somewhat realistic figure with roughly human dimensions — except that it was nearly 10 feet tall. It was clearly something unique — but what exactly it was divided the public. Some believed it was a stone carving, but who would have made it so long ago that it was buried so deep in the ground? Others, including a local reverend, were convinced it was proof of the literal truth of Biblical scripture, specifically Genesis 6:4 ("There were giants in the earth in those days" KJV). Here, finally, was one of those Biblical giants, discovered on a rural New York farm! It was in fact a clever hoax by a man named George Hull who had planted the carved stone where it would later be found by the farm hands, partly to prove the Bible literalists wrong.

 

[Seymour Flops]

A History of Religious Hoaxes

When fraud mixes with religious fervor, as happens in religious hoaxes, the results can range from the comical to the deadly.

www.livescience.com

The Cardiff Giant

When farm workers digging a well in Cardiff, N.Y., uncovered a fossilized man in 1869 they found something remarkable. The Cardiff Giant, as the figure became known, was a somewhat realistic figure with roughly human dimensions — except that it was nearly 10 feet tall. It was clearly something unique — but what exactly it was divided the public. Some believed it was a stone carving, but who would have made it so long ago that it was buried so deep in the ground? Others, including a local reverend, were convinced it was proof of the literal truth of Biblical scripture, specifically Genesis 6:4 ("There were giants in the earth in those days" KJV). Here, finally, was one of those Biblical giants, discovered on a rural New York farm! It was in fact a clever hoax by a man named George Hull who had planted the carved stone where it would later be found by the farm hands, partly to prove the Bible literalists wrong.

That's one of my favorites, also!

Your last sentence may be confusing to some, so here is a more clear explanation of the motivation of the hoaxter who created the Cardiff Giant:

Creation and discovery[edit]​

The giant was the creation of a New York tobacconist named George Hull. Hull, an atheist, decided to create the giant after an argument at a Methodist revival meeting about Genesis 6:4, which states that there were giants who once lived on Earth.[1]

. . .

Various stains and acids were used to make the giant appear to be old and weathered, and the giant's surface was beaten with steel knitting needles embedded in a board to simulate pores. During November 1868, Hull transported the giant by railroad to the farm of his cousin, William Newell. By then, he had spent US$2,600 (equivalent to $51,000 in 2020) for the hoax.

Cardiff Giant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yet another example of non-religious people who are desperate to dissuade religious people from their faith, resorting to a hoax. Imagine spending 51K to fool the religious.

Maybe some of the religion haters on here can explain this rather extreme obsession that has led to this kind of hoaxterism. Did a cross fall off of a church as you passed it, and kill a passerby? Did a clap of thunder once scare you while you were having impure thoughts about a cousin?

 

[Hollie]

That's one of my favorites, also!

Your last sentence may be confusing to some, so here is a more clear explanation of the motivation of the hoaxter who created the Cardiff Giant:

Creation and discovery[edit]​

The giant was the creation of a New York tobacconist named George Hull. Hull, an atheist, decided to create the giant after an argument at a Methodist revival meeting about Genesis 6:4, which states that there were giants who once lived on Earth.[1]

. . .

Various stains and acids were used to make the giant appear to be old and weathered, and the giant's surface was beaten with steel knitting needles embedded in a board to simulate pores. During November 1868, Hull transported the giant by railroad to the farm of his cousin, William Newell. By then, he had spent US$2,600 (equivalent to $51,000 in 2020) for the hoax.

Cardiff Giant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yet another example of non-religious people who are desperate to dissuade religious people from their faith, resorting to a hoax. Imagine spending 51K to fool the religious.

Maybe some of the religion haters on here can explain this rather extreme obsession that has led to this kind of hoaxterism. Did a cross fall off of a church as you passed it, and kill a passerby? Did a clap of thunder once scare you while you were having impure thoughts about a cousin?

Fortunately, the hoaxes perpetrated on behalf of religionism are often exposed by the science minded.

Do you have a tissue? That statue of the Virginia Mary is crying tears of blood again.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Fortunately, the hoaxes perpetrated on behalf of religionism are often exposed by the science minded.

Do you have a tissue? That statue of the Virginia Mary is crying tears of blood again.

Virginia Mary?

The waitress I "dated" in Roanoke? How did you even know about that?

 

[Dadoalex]

No, not at all.

Darwinian evolution is unlikely. That's what I believe.

If an unlikely theory is the only one, it is still unlikely.

I guess you could say that IF (big if) Darwinian theory is the only theory, then it is the most likely. But it is also the least likely, since it is the only theory (IF it is the only theory).

So, all that remains is for you to prove that Darwinism is the only theory. Or at least state as a fact that Darwinism is the only theory. Then I can pick that statement apart.

go away coward. Because the evolutionary tree left you short

Maybe now you can show us a couple.

 

[alang1216]

Since Hollie wants to see more example of scientific frauds before she will believe that they happen, and since I hate for Asia to be left out, now that we have frauds from America, England and Europe, let's look at one of the "greatest scientific advancements" in proving that birds evolved from dinosaurs:

View attachment 594761

View attachment 594763

There is big money to be made selling fossils so it should surprise no one that people will do whatever they can to get a piece of it. The flip side of that is there have been many legitimate fossil finds of feathered but non-flying dinos.

This is real fossil find. Is it a bird? It has feathers and what look like wings. Is it a dino? It has teeth and a long legs and tail.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is big money to be made selling fossils so it should surprise no one that people will do whatever they can to get a piece of it. The flip side of that is there have been many legitimate fossil finds of feathered but non-flying dinos.

This is real fossil find. Is it a bird? It has feathers and what look like wings. Is it a dino? It has teeth and a long legs and tail.

First of all, thanks very much for posting an actual photo of a fossil. It seems to be enhanced a bit, but at least it isn't a clay model or a drawing.

Second, that fossil looks to me for all the world like a prototype.

Make of that what you will . . .

 

[ding]

There is big money to be made selling fossils so it should surprise no one that people will do whatever they can to get a piece of it. The flip side of that is there have been many legitimate fossil finds of feathered but non-flying dinos.

This is real fossil find. Is it a bird? It has feathers and what look like wings. Is it a dino? It has teeth and a long legs and tail.

What is its size?

 

[abu afak]

The London Peppered Moth Hoax​

This one is the unique in the history of evolution hoaxes in that it was (and still is in some textbooks) touted as not just an example of evolution, but as downright proof of Darwinianism.

My source is not the Creationist Institute, nor the Flat Earth Society, nor the Association of American TeeVee preachers. No, my source is the New York Times.

The Times was late to the story of the London Peppered Moth Hoax. I read about it being a hoax when I was a kid, soon after I read about it being factual in my 6th grade science book (I was such a little skeptic). But NYT ran it like breaking news so at least the Dems on here will believe it:

A leading example of evolution given in biology textbooks has come unglued, evoking jeers and jubilation in the camp of creationists, who have been trying for years to expel Darwin from the classroom.

The case is that of the peppered moth, which over the course of a few decades has changed its wing color from pale-peppered to black and back to peppered again in parallel with the rise and fall of industrial pollution.

Textbook writers have long held that the dark form of the moth grew much more common when soot from industrial activity blackened the trees and killed the lichens, making the pale form more conspicuous to birds. But with the passage of clean air laws, the lichens returned, the pale form regained its camouflage, and the black form reverted to rarity.

This account of events became an instant hit with Darwinian advocates. The story caught evolution in unusually speedy action, and flagged bird predation as the mechanism of natural selection that drove it. The moths made a striking illustration because in a typical pair of photographs, one with lichen covering a tree trunk and the other with soot, the reader could hardly spot the pale moth in the first or the dark form in the second, and it was easy to imagine a bird being similarly deceived.

Example provided by OP:

View attachment 595870

For generations of biologists reared on the peppered moth story as perfect proof of Darwin's theory, it came as a shock to learn of certain problems the textbooks ignored and which a new book is interpreting in sinister light.

For one thing, the moths in the famous photos were not alive. Like the parrot in the Monty Python skit, they were ex-moths, winged members of the choir invisible, firmly glued or pinned to their perches.

And they were glued in place for good reason: the peppered moth almost never rests on tree trunks, its preferred hideaway probably being under twigs in the high canopy of trees.

''My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of 6, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve,'' wrote Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, in a 1998 review of a book, ''Melanism: Evolution in Action,'' which noted the moth photos were staged.

Oh noooooes! There's no Santa Claus, and no proof of Darwinism either?

How sad for them . . .

Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case (Published 2002)

Article on theory of moth evolution, put forward from mid 1950's onward by Oxford University researcher Dr Bernard Kettlewell, that has been debunked; textbook writers, apparently with no intent to deceive, failed to mention that famous photographs of peppered moths that changed wing color to...

www.nytimes.com

I see.
You don't want to respond to a short excerpt from Scientific American on Predictability . (WHIFFED THREE TIMES) but expect response to a long goofy "moth Hoax' in caps.
`

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 8, 10? (and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' (nothing to shoot at in Env this AM, so he's here. He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.)

 

[Seymour Flops]

I see.
You don't want to respond to a short excerpt from Scientific American on Predictability . (WHIFFED THREE TIMES) but expect response to a long goofy "moth Hoax' in caps.
`

I see your misunderstanding.

I did post from a source, but my post consisted of me commenting on what I copied and pasted, not just the copy and paste. You can respond to the copy and paste, respond to the comments, both or neither, just as you please.

Unlike you, I did not chase after people who responded to neither my comments, nor my copy and paste, to childishly accuse them of "whiffing."

 

[ding]

I see your misunderstanding.

I did post from a source, but my post consisted of me commenting on what I copied and pasted, not just the copy and paste. You can respond to the copy and paste, respond to the comments, both or neither, just as you please.

Unlike you, I did not chase after people who responded to neither my comments, nor my copy and paste, to childishly accuse them of "whiffing."

It's like dealing with a spoiled child.

 

[ding]

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 6, 8, 10? (and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' (nothing to shoot at in Env this AM, so he's here. He's GOT to have his Hate/endless losses sated.)

Hilarious.

 

[abu afak]

Hilarious.

Update/proof. "6, 7, 8" became"6, 8, 10" and now "10, 12, 14." EDIT: Now "12, 14, 16" Which were all zero before Monday but will easily top 20 (maybe 40 or more) today.
He's a machine of one-line NO CONTENT harassment.
And don't worry (you never do) when he asked you about what you beef with Darwinism is.
You didn't, and We both know you can't answer him but he'll give you likes anyway for being contrary.
Holly already busted you on that.
`

EDIT: and as Usual he now his name at the end of every one of the top 4 threads.
OCD.
Likes to 'run the whole section.'
One-line/no content Last-wording maniac.

 

[ding]

Update/proof. "6, 7, 8" became"6, 8, 10" and now "10, 12, 14." Which were all zero before Monday but will easily top 20 today.
He's a machine of one line harassment.
And don't worry (you never do) when he asked you about what you beef with Darwinism is.
You didn't, and We both know you can't answer him.
Holly already busted you on that.
`

So much for you putting me on ignore, eh?

But I can't tell what you are trying to say. Clearly English is not your first language.

Hollie is as big of a douche as you are.

 

[alang1216]

What is its size?

About the size of a chicken.

 

[alang1216]

First of all, thanks very much for posting an actual photo of a fossil. It seems to be enhanced a bit, but at least it isn't a clay model or a drawing.

Second, that fossil looks to me for all the world like a prototype.

Make of that what you will . . .

Not sure what a 'prototype' is? I do see they highlighted the bones to make them more easy to see.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not sure what a 'prototype' is? I do see they highlighted the bones to make them more easy to see.

Yes, they also airbrushed in the feathers in case we couldn't see them.

 

[ding]

About the size of a chicken.

Of course. Everything is like chicken.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, they also airbrushed in the feathers in case we couldn't see them.

Do you really think they took a crayon and drew some feathers where there weren't any? Or did they highlight was was already there but too faint to be easily seen?

View attachment 596985

So this fossil was the prototype for a bird? Maybe so.