The point isn't who did or did not expose the hoax. The point is how well it was received and published in the scientific community before it was exposed. IOW, that community is not incapable of deceiving itself, and others for that matter. I can think of no other fields of philosophy where hoaxes have reared their heads except in the one that attempts to sew the head of Darwin on its shoulders.
But how long did it take to expose the Piltdown fraud? Why are Lamarckian drawings still being pushed in some quarters as truthful, a.k.a. "scientific," representations of evolutionary development?
Pardon my bluntness, but can you be that ignorant, or did you miss type that or something? I mean you earlier joined in scorning evolutionists for their (supposed) willful ignorance of fraud, so you couldn't then say something this amazing, could you? It would be just too ironic!
Where can I start on how crazy your assertion is? Probably the single most famous case of (widely accepted) scientific fraud outside of the physical sciences is the Cyril Burt affair: intelligence/twin studies having nothing to do with evolution. Even the most cursory survey of scientific fraud would indicate that it is overwhelmingly most common in the biomedical sciences (where the biggest chunks of grant money are dispensed) again having little or nothing to do with evolution. Then there's numerous cases of fraud in paraspsycological research. In physical science there's the famous case of N-rays and polywater (the first at least a mistake, not fraud, but then the same is true of most examples of "fraud" creationists cite).
I could go on, and on, and on.
Again, do you really mean this, or are you that myopically obsessed with evolution?
The only place where Lamarkian ideas were popular lately was in the Soviet Union. Stalin like Lamark and disliked Darwin so he had professors teaching Darwin'd ideas executed and promoted Lamark's ideas; head guy Lysenko.
I already answered you re Piltdown, 1912 (except for the Out Of England guys who wanted Early Man to be British.)
As I said it was poorly received initially (interpreted as material from two separate individuals, a human skull and an ape's jaw) then, when the hoaxer engineered a second find which "proved" the skull and the jaw belonged together, it was grudgingly accepted. Then, as genuine fossil evidence on human evolution accumulated, Piltdown became a seldom cited anomaly, a puzzle piece that didn't fit and would have to await further evidence to suggest where it belonged (presumably on some side branch to human evolution).
But how long did it take to expose the Piltdown fraud?
It took decades. In part, however, this was because Piltdown had become unimportant; just the opposite of the reason you (or was it another creationist?) suggested: That evolutionist are "rabidly" protective of their frauds. Piltdown didn't matter. Following the death of it's prime advocate, Elliot Grafton Smith, literally no one thought Eoanthropus was on the main branch of human evolution. It was eventually investigated more closely out of more-or-less idle curiosity, i.e., "what's up with this odd duck?"
IOW, that community is not incapable of deceiving itself, and others for that matter.
Well, Duh!
Hundreds of thousands of dead "witches" would beg otherwise.
Question? Were these "witches" denied Heaven?
It took until other intermediate fossils were found. The detective work took time, but it was thorough. From the perspective of a creationist, Piltdown is a valid find and not a hoax, since the find was witnessed. Witnesses trump science, don't they?
Here is what I found in a 1967 copy of "Biology" (Third Edition: Johnson, Laubengayer, DeLanney, Cole, page 685).
EVIDENCE FROM DEVELOPMENT
The embryos of higher animals repeat many of the stages passed through by embryos of lower animals. This has been referred to as recapitulation. This concept as originally used by von Baer indicated that some of the developmental stages of an organism are similar to some of the developmental stages of its ancestors. Unfortunately, however. Haeckel modified the concept to mean that the individual in its development passes through stages like the adult stages of its ancestors. Modern students of development insist that Haeckel's version is wrong and, as a matter of fact, our present knowledge of the hereditary mechanisms tends to support the views of von Baer. Several examples of recapitulation have been described in a previous section. In the development of any mammalian embryo, the heart is a four-chambered in-series structure as it is in fish embryos; then it has partitions of the auricles (atria) similar to those of amphibian embryos, followed by ventricular division that is incomplete for a period as it is in the embryos of reptiles.
As far as I am concerned, this is the only actual evidence put forward on the truthfulness of "Icons of Evolution", and until I see equivalent evidence to the contrary, the issue is settled.
Jonathan Wells is a liar.