Posted on 02/19/2005 7:36:30 AM PST by Woodworker
Panel says professor of human origins made up data, plagiarized works
A flamboyant anthropology professor, whose work had been cited as evidence Neanderthal man once lived in Northern Europe, has resigned after a German university panel ruled he fabricated data and plagiarized the works of his colleagues. Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a Frankfurt university panel ruled, lied about the age of human skulls, dating them tens of thousands of years old, even though they were much younger, reports Deutsche Welle. "The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years," the university said of the widely recognized expert in carbon data in a prepared statement.
Protsch's work first came under suspicion last year during a routine investigation of German prehistoric remains by two other anthropologists. "We had decided to subject many of these finds to modern techniques to check their authenticity so we sent them to Oxford [University] for testing," one of the researchers told The Sunday Telegraph. "It was a routine examination and in no way an attempt to discredit Prof. von Zieten." In their report, they called Protsch's 30 years of work a "dating disaster."
Among their findings was an age of only 3,300 years for the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found with unusually good teeth in Northern Germany, that Protsch dated to 21,300 years. Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750. The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."
Protsch, known for his love of Cuban cigars and Porsches, did not comment on the commission's findings, but in January he told the Frankfurter Neue Presse, "This was a court of inquisition. They don't have a single piece of hard evidence against me." The fallout from Protsch's false dating of northern European bone finds is only beginning.
Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." "Anthropology now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 B.C.," added Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the University of Greifswald. Frankfurt University's president, Rudolf Steinberg, apologized for the university's failure to curb Protsch's misconduct for decades. "A lot of people looked the other way," he said.
Belief in Evolution made Hitler do what he did
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387abb210180.htm
Her ID said one thing, reality was another! :D
This has probably been posted 161 or 162 times, but "Only this guy has done this?" Name me one who HASN'T been doing the above.
That appears to be what he is saying!! However, he should be allowed to clarify his statement before any further comment, just in case.
No, not all scientists. My statement was alluding to anthropologists who make false statements about the origins of man and "age" of items found.
Are you saying that most/all anthropologists and students of human origins are fabricating and/or cooking their data?
So did most other creation myths. It's the explanation most primitive peoples came to when they wondered, "where'd this Earth thing come from?" and crafted stories to imagine what might have happened, because humans tend to expect things to have beginnings.
As late as the 1920's the most brilliant scientists in the world, including Mr E=MC^2, held to a static universe, ie: no creation event.
Because at the time there wasn't a lot of evidence that there had been one.
Genesis was correct. How can this be?
Luck. That is, unless you want to credit all the other incompatible-with-Genesis creation myths with *also* being somehow infallibly dictated as opposed to just fortuitously correct on that one point also...
And you can't have it both ways -- if you're going to give Genesis "credibility points" for matching the conclusions of science on that *one* point (even though the actual *details* of the Big Bang differ hugely from the Genesis creation scenario), then you're also going to have to accept the fact that numerous *other* "predictions" in Genesis are quite wrong when compared to the conclusions of science.
And as a side issue, it's amusing to note how many of the Usual Suspects among the creationists actually rail *against* the Big Bang theory for some reason. Go figure. Apparently they're not nearly as happy about the Big Bang's "confirmation" of Genesis as you are.
There's no reason to post anything. All the real scientists have already shown up screaming d@mn those Creationists before any creationists posted anything.
I wasn't aware that some scientists regard the shroud dating as contentious.
I stand corrected. (Don't hold your breath waiting for any creationist to admit that they got anything wrong, that's the major difference between the participants in this debate)
In Racebannon's case we'll be waiting a long, long time if we wait for that.
Liar, Liar, he's a liar, they're liars.
You all sound like a pack of little Al Frankens and his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
Can I start referring to you all as "Al" or "Son of Al" or Frankenclone
I like to read the information, but it does get old having to wade through the name calling reminscent of a 6 year old brat.
Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, liar........Liar, Liar, pants on fire.
He lies, they lie, he's a liar, you liar, I told you to stop lying you liar, its all lies, those lairs...sheesh, you sound like a bunch of sniveling crybabies and Bill Clinton whiners.
If Shelly could write a new book about this childishness, she could call it "Frankenclones"
You've been around the block on these threads long enough to know that the arguments & sources you've been posting have been totally discredited. Why repeat them over & over like you're doing? Why do you fear evolutionary theory so?
Disregarding the evidence that proves I am right only proves you have no credibility.
Since none of what I posted is a lie like evolution is, You owe me an apology.
But, like a Democrat, you are allowed to call me a liar while being one yourself.
Hows it feel?
--------------------
Lawyers have a stock in trade of evaluating argument and evidence across disciplines. They must represent clients and handle evidence in various fields and know how to put expert witnesses under questioning without themselves being experts. That's what they do. Biologists need have no similar training. Their intellectual expertise can be very narrow indeed.
The many scientists who walk into his logical traps prove themselves to understand neither credentialing, nor debate, nor logic.
When you say "formal understanding of logic" I suspect you mean "understanding of informal logic." But I'll wager most scientists have never studied either discipline, have no peer reviewed journal articles in either discipline and are really out of their depth in both respects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.