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.
But of course. Words don't mean what they mean, the mean what you say they mean. You'd make an excellent Clintonista.
"The last refuge of the scoundrel, the typo police!"
Are you an expert on scoundrels, now? Then why haven't you attacked Ken Ham, Henry Morris and Kent Hovind?
The thing that impressed me the most about your post is words like "overzealous", "jumping the gun", "sloppy journalism" when applied to your "scientists", but Calex's views are "dishonestly misleading", to be dismissed out of hand.
Such an approach wins few new adherents, serves only to maginalize your antagonist (ordinarily I'd say opponent, but let's call a spade a spade here!), and leaves the reader with a feeling of ennui as they try to navigate through rubbish you attempt to pass off as objectivity in an effort to ascertain exactly what it is you're trying to say.
This, apparently, is the crux of the evo's position - it's evolution, it's the truth, it's fact, and that's all there is to it. End of discussion. If you have another viewpoint, kindly be reminded there are no other viewpoints - and if you insist on maintaining this ridiculous posture, seriously consider resigning from the human race, for we have no use for you.
Baaaa! Baaaa! 2 legs good, 4 legs better!! Baaaa!!!!!!
CA....
I don't attack anybody, I defend truth, justice and the American way.:-}
a little bit older thread, but clearly there's no need for radiocarbon:
Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'
worldnetdaily.com ^ | February 19, 2005 | WorldNetDaily
Posted on 02/19/2005 4:36:58 AM PST by ovrtaxt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346603/posts
Words mean what they are understood to mean. You can use whatever words you like, and claim they have a specific meaning. But unless other people are prepared to give reconusaunce to that meaning, they will have no meaning.
Can we do the same thing with code?
Damn, it seems to be a legal term, and I have never heard it before. I hate when that happens.
Don't feel too bad. It was considered archaic in 1847.
Does anyone know of a "peer reviewed journal" in logic?
talkorigins.org is every bit as biased and "scientific" as ICR or even AIG.
as has Mendel's for that matter.
as has Mendel's for that matter.
That's a rather strong claim.
Have you looked under every rock?
Cheers!
I've never visited any of those sites.
Do they claim to be "peer-reviewed" in the sense that, say, Journal of Physical Chemistry is, or do they merely claim authority based on the scientific credentials of individual contributors?
Full Disclosure: Honk if you passed P-Chem...(bumper sticker)
So? Lotsa people in Northern Europe, Montreal, Minneapolis, Fargo, (not to mention Buffalo, NY) live in pretty much those conditions for much of the year. :-)
Full Disclosure: For that half of the year, I prefer Arizona.
Well, lack of credentials has never stopped lawyers from pissing all over everything else...
Full Disclosure: I represent the firm of Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe !! :-)
a dating disaster is when your date orders lobster. (according to Bill Macy)
If you're going to be a secular skeptic, you should have a reason for skepticism that doesn't come from ICR. Most people don't know Lucy's knee was found a mile from her skull and some layers higher or lower, I forget. (And anyway, it wasn't.)
Most people don't know Java Man was a giant gibbon. (And anyway, it wasn't.)
Most people ...
Well, you get the idea. I try to model what a secular skeptic would actually say. If he's really not that religious about religion, he probably doesn't think science is a religion. (The people who think everything is about religion tend to be pretty religious.)
You might say Stephen Jay Gould was almost but not quite a secular skeptic early in his career. In his arguments of the early and mid-1970s with more hidebound types he said some things which are still being quote-mined (but they were actually pretty original.)
I think that's a key. He would be original. He would be aware of the evidence and not bludgeoning with his ignorance of it.
The time is passing for such an individual to make sense, to not be an oxymoron. The 90s and this decade have brought us feathered dinosaurs, walking whales, a legged sirenian, more and more molecular data... There's too much evidence for evolution out there for someone to reject it--someone who has the motivation to study science and a lack of motivation from religious horror.
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.