The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Hoaxing Hitchhiker, 1941
Jernegan's Gold Accumulator Scam, 1898
Female thieves hide money in their bras, 1950
The Great Wall of China Hoax, 1899
The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals, 1959
Monkeys pick cotton, a 19th-century urban legend
The worms inside your face
Rare planetary alignment decreases gravity, 1976
Cat that walked 3000 miles to find its owners, 1951
Tourist Guy 9/11 Hoax, Sep 2001
Peppered Moth Evolution Kit
image In 1953 Bernard Kettlewell performed a set of experiments that proved that predation by birds was responsible for the peppered moth population changing from mostly white to mostly black. The reasoning was that industrial pollution had caused the barks of trees to turn dark. Therefore black moths resting during the day on the darkened trunks of trees had a selective advantage over white moths, because the birds could see the white moths more easily and prey on them. Kettlewell released both white and black moths into the wild and demonstrated that the black moths survived at a higher rate in the polluted areas. Now you can duplicate Kettlewell's experiment with the Evolution of the Peppered Moth Science Kit, available from Boreal Laboratories. There's just one problem. Some are beginning to say that the case of the peppered moth may be one of the biggest cases of scientific fraud of the twentieth century, up there with the Piltdown Man. You see, moths tend not to rest on tree trunks during the day; their main predators are bats, not birds; and anyway, birds see more in the UV range than people do, so what looks camouflaged to us may not look so to a bird. Given this, how did Kettlewell achieve his suspiciously perfect results? Rumors of fraud are in the air. Kettlewell definitely still has his defenders, but if his experiments do end up in the Science Hall of Infamy, then those science kits are going to be collector's items.
Categories: Science
Posted by The Curator on Fri Mar 12, 2004
Comments (4)
Evolution is bunk.
Posted by J  on  Tue Mar 16, 2004  at  04:07 PM
Flamer
Posted by Charybdis  in  Texas  on  Wed Mar 17, 2004  at  11:45 AM
It always has been. Darwin was mistaken when he suggested natural selection..., it's more natural deselection. As one "race" so to say of a species is eliminated the gene pool shrinks weaking the genetic strength for that given species. This is especially seen on small islands which no animals have left from for thousands of years. Case in point the dodo. Just simply being weakened by it's environment brought forth it's extinction in only a few years
Posted by J  on  Wed Mar 17, 2004  at  12:25 PM
Be very skeptical of these claims as there is strong religious feeling involved.

As for those posts who suggests that Darwin was mistaken in regards to Natural Selection, I ask this- Where did variation in modern humans develop from? Would not natural selection homogenise the gene pool according to your model?
Posted by Anonymous  on  Fri Mar 19, 2004  at  08:30 AM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.