The rise and fall of Piltdown Man, a 20th-century hoax

Washington Post ^ | 09 November 2003 | Guy Gugliotta

[PatrickHenry]

As scientific hoaxes go, few have matched it. Sometime early in the 20th century, someone -- it is still unclear who -- "salted" a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England, with what were purported to be the 500,000-year-old fossil remains of a human ancestor -- half human, half ape.

The timing couldn't have been better. Darwin's "Origin of Species" was barely 50 years old, the French and Germans had found Neanderthals, and the race was on to discover the storied "missing link" in the evolution from apes to humans.

"In Britain we had some early modern humans, but nothing really old," paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer said in a telephone interview from his office in Britain's Natural History Museum. "There were stone tools, though, so there was almost a national expectation that we should have something."

And suddenly, there it was. Piltdown Man made his appearance in 1912 and held a place of honor in the museum until Nov. 21, 1953, when a new generation of scientists announced that the famous fossil was a fraud.

[See the original article for the rest: HERE.]

[PatrickHenry]

We can't copy entire articles from the Washington Post, so you'll have to follow the link to read the whole article.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[null and void]

Thinking of you...

[Jemian]

PILTdown man = MELTdown man!

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Goes from 50,000 years old down to less than 1000? Could dating back then be that innaccurate?

[tet68]

Hillery! Clinton the original "Peltdown Woman".
That pantsuit goes backt to the "crusty" age.

[keithtoo]

They believed it because they WANTED to believe it. Evolution is a religion.

[StatesEnemy]

Goes from 50,000 years old down to less than 1000? Could dating back then be that innaccurate?

No. Dating methods (like all science) gradually hone their precision.

[StatesEnemy]

They believed it because they WANTED to believe it. Evolution is a religion.

Complete balderdash.

Evolution may or may not be true, but it is based upon observation - like any science.

[keithtoo]

If it was based upon observation, we would have transitional forms in every museum. Seen any lately?

Add to Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Archeopetryx (sp?) and many others.

[MattAMiller]

If it was based upon observation, we would have transitional forms in every museum. Seen any lately?

All forms are transitional forms if you want to use such terminology. As soon as a new species branches off from your species you're tranisitional form between that species and whatever species your species branched off from.

[Stultis]

They believed it because they WANTED to believe it. Evolution is a religion.

Yeah, that's the creationist comicbook version, but it bears little resemblance to reality. The truth is that, apart from a few scientists in England, there was widespread skepticism that the Piltdown material represented a single creature. A scientific consensus was rapidly developing that it was a fortuitous association of a human skull and ape jaw. This, of course, was correct, except for the "fortuitous" part (no one suspected fraud).

The hoaxer had to engineer an find in order to silence the critics.

[keithtoo]

A 'new' species by definition cannot mate with its old species, right????

Who is this new creature gonna make whoopee with? It takes two to tango and it takes two of the same species to make junior.

[PatrickHenry]

If it was based upon observation, we would have transitional forms in every museum. Seen any lately?

Right. No transitionals: VadeRetro's multiple links to transitionals.

[Stultis]

"to engineer an find" should be "to engineer a second find"

[StatesEnemy]

If it was based upon observation, we would have transitional forms in every museum. Seen any lately?

Yes, quite a bit actually.

Getting some interesting observations about the original denizens of the Americas lately...

And all of them predate the old testament.

[Doomonyou]

Evolution may or may not be true, but it is based upon observation - like any science.

Right. Observation, and repeatable in a laboratory, thus provable. No one, as far as I know has "observed" a fish turning into a lizard. Natural selection (Peppered moth, etc.) has been observed, but evolution? Hardly.

[PatrickHenry]

No one, as far as I know has "observed" a fish turning into a lizard.

Well, that's certainly true. If anyone spots such a thing happening, it will certainly be the downfall of Darwinian evolution.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

*****it is still unclear who ******

My money is on Thiliard de Chardin (sp?). It is reported that he suggested bones might be found at the Piltdown site several years before the "discovery" was made . He was also in China near the site where the Peking man was found. Anyone ever seen a Peking Man bone? You won't. Only parts of skulls were found and they disappeared at the beginning of WWII. All reconstructions are made from notes and one man at the dig said the reproductions were made to look more human than skulls were.
Some believe the skulls were of a giant gibbon or macaque ape.

[StatesEnemy]

You are supposing that an "observation" only includes a present state.

Actually, you have highlighted a flaw in my argument.

It should be: Observation paired with a idea that the laws of physics are as they are... and not tweaked for the amusement of an almighty.