fraud
1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonyms see deception, imposture
But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired. “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.”
Yes, please let the truth be told. It's about time. But then, science isn't about truth, or so we've been told.
Anyway, I find it quite interesting that the evos on this forum are trying to excuse, justify, gloss over, whatever, the fact that deceit was knowingly perpetrated on the public, spinning, twisting, dancing like a kite in the wind to avoid admitting that fraud took place. The same thing that happens whenever Piltdown Man is mentioned.
Instead of admitting that someone did something wrong, the knee-jerk reaction is to declare *but it was a scientist who exposed the fraud*. No recognition of that fact that one of their own perpetrated it, no condemnation of him, no saying that this doesn't represent mainstream science.
The defense and silence is very condemning. If they won't admit wrong doing, that's more deceit so why should we trust them in other matters?
If there's no condemnation of the behavior as not representing mainstream science, then one can conclude that this does, in fact, represent mainstream science.
The unwillingness to admit to wrongdoing and lies, taints all of the scientific community and cuts deeply into their credibility.
They've told you you won't get radiation poisoning from you monitor. Why are you still sitting in front of it?
==The unwillingness to admit to wrongdoing and lies, taints all of the scientific community and cuts deeply into their credibility.
Thanks for your reply! That’s why we need to do our part to save real science and expose the Church of Darwin for what it really is: an unsupportable religion.
“The unwillingness to admit to wrongdoing and lies, taints all of the scientific community and cuts deeply into their credibility.”
That sounds more like the YEC community that you appear to support than it does modern science.