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.
. Nonesense, I just quoted you accurately, and it made you look quite bad, in fact.
You really need to give up, Evolution never happened, it isnt happening, and it wont happen.
By this I take it to mean that you belive theists are not as smart as you. Would that be a correct reading? I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.
In fact, your gaff on that on is almost as bad as mine last week when I said Whales had Gills! :)
Almost as bad as mine...(...sigh...)
Your statement stands Shubi. It was false. Write more clearly and then you won't have to whine so much. It is unbecoming a grown man.
What word would you like used to characterize those who reject those parts of mainstream science that contradict their creationist religious beliefs? To put it another way, how should those of us who the "???'s" refer to as "evolutionists" describe our rhetorical opponents? (I can think of a few other ideas, but I'd get banned from FR ;) )
Personally I think you are just trying to score a debating point with this particular issue. You know full well that within these debates "creationist" is used as a convenient label for those modern people who reject mainstream scientific interpretation of the evidence (almost always because they feel that their religion requires them to). Just as the invented word "evolutionists" is used for those on the other side. The debates are even referred to as crevo debates.
By this I take it to mean that you belive theists are not as smart as you. Would that be a correct reading?If by "smart" you mean being able to deduce the meaning of a statement from the context, the most "prominent" creationists (from whose websites we see many quotes on these threads) obviously aren't very "smart".
My oh my. A threat and a cryptic remark. No links. No evidence. Just like your average creationist. Now, either put up or shut up.
When Shubi or anybody else makes a statement that "there are no creationists who do science", the statement is simply false. I'll continue to point that out.
Which makes the story a lot of hearsay mumble mumble. Not good documentation for calex's recital of ICR talking points.
Oops, you're " bearing false witness" Junior. I made no threat. Nor is it my style. Now post the threat or admit you are lying for all those "lurkers" so intent on our little tete a tete which means absolutely nothing in the big scheme of things.
No links. No evidence. Just like your average creationist. Now, either put up or shut up.
More tough talk? I already put up. I'm amazed that you need a link for George LeMaitre. But I won't be providing one, if you're interested let your fingers do the walking.
"When Shubi or anybody else makes a statement that "there are no creationists who do science", the statement is simply false. I'll continue to point that out."
You have offerred absolutely no evidence that creationists do any science to refute evolution. Your twisting and turning on this issue is hilarious.
You have pointed out anything except a propensity for getting angry that you don't have a rational position.
Wow, is that the only mantra you know?
J'Accuse!
about what?
Who cares? Just call him a liar! That'll stop him!
That's not the statement you made Shubi. Why don't you act like a man and simply say you misspoke?
Your twisting and turning on this issue is hilarious.
LOL, my twisting and truning? I didn't make a stupis statement such as "all scientists are atehistic marxists who don't do conservatism".
You have pointed out anything except a propensity for getting angry that you don't have a rational position.
My position is eminently rational and you mistake amusement for anger. But then again, you make a lot of mistakes, you are after all human.
Maybe I should have said, "implied threat" Mr. Tough Guy.
Lurkers, please note. Evolutionists post links or excerpts to support their positions. Creationists post cryptic remarks and then refuse to support their contentions. Who are you going to believe? The folks who supply you with their sources or those who do not?
Far be it from me to tell you what to say Junior but I will anyway.
What you should have done was simply stowed the "put up or shut up" thing in your duffle bag. Put up or shut up, where I grew up, was an implies threat. I was simply scoffing at your threat on an internet forum.
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.