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.
That is nonsense and you know it. Talkorigins uses real scientists and creationists don't know what one is.
Hear, hear!
I recall reading an article in Physics Today about a trial lawyer in an auto-collision case. As I recall the story (late 1980's or so), the opposition counsel had demolished him--running computer-generated simulations based on the mass and velocity (vectors) of the cars, laws, of motion, etc.
The trial lawyer being discussed then won the case during the summation to the jury, by saying:
"Everyone knows the laws of physics are obeyed in the laboratory but not in rural New Jersey."
Neanderthal bones show lots of healed breaks. Some web site I stumbled across says they have the skeletons of old rodeo cowboys.
That shows they cared for their sick and wounded. It supposedly also shows they hunted large animals, perhaps with thrusting spears (pikes) rather than throwing spears.
But if you're right it may only mean they were the inventors of skiing.
It doesn't matter if the something lived or not, for the forger it only matters if the forgery resembles something his mark very much wants to acquire, or to believe he has.
As P.T. Barnum said, "There's one born every minute."
And all this is happening outside of science and irrelevant to it.
It can muddy the water so to speak, as far as the lay person is concerned, who generally has to rely on popularizers of science (having neither the time nor training to read peer-review journals); and they are used to hearing statements such as "Dr. XX of University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople" (apologies to Prof. Peter Schickele, there) has "proved that blah blah blah...".
To the lay person, most pronouncements of science are statements of authority; and frauds such as the one that started this thread, politicization of global warming, Tobacco Institute scientists, and debacles such as Thalidomide and Vioxx don't help the reputation of science much.
Cheers!
However, I have a couple of nitpicky comments, about behavior:
Fourth, we do not have a "presumption of the 'truth' of evolution" if by "evolution" you mean (as do so many Creationists):
- that we believe we have absolute knowledge of the full sequence of changes in life from its pre-living origins all the way up to the present,/i>
- that we believe the theory of the origin of species in some way "disproves" the existence and participation of some supernatural entity
- that we believe that the current model is perfect
Some of the evo posters on these threads lean towards giving the impression of absolute knowledge--or at least close enough in principle. And some of the other evo posters seem to come across as athiests. My belief is that many of said posters just lose patience and so try to tweak the nose of anyone arguing with them.
"Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" and all that.
Depends on a number of things, including:
Their sources;
How much time and effort you have to exert to read and follow their sources;
The reliability and truthfulness of their sources;
The reputation of their sources among other people whom you trust;
How much effort the poster has put into verifying their own sources' trustworthiness--has the poster been cut'n'pasting without reading or verifying;
How the poster reacts when informed his sources are full of sh*t;
How the poster reacts when informed that (s)he is full of shit;
and many, many, more!
Cheers!
From my limited reading, I believe that after the Big Bang was the inflationary phase...
As a bicylist, I *know* this is wrong: Big Bangs (if not resulting from a nail or a thorn in your tire) are the RESULT of an inflationary phase, not the cause :-)
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Big Bangs can also lead to inflation in the special case of pregnancy--and thus the Big Bang relates to the beginning of life, in refutation of Shubi's earlier posts. ;-)
When he goes to pick up his date, knocks on the door, out steps Helen Thomas.
Hi Oztrich. What is your basis for this statement? Can you back it up?
Full Disclosure: If most of the people on this thread do not know what a word means, they probably have no good way to verify whether it was considered obscure some 160 or so years ago, either.
Cheers!
That's true. I got hammered from both sides with that one. But look at the bright side: It's not easy to get die-hard creationists and die-hard evolutionists to agree when you're discussing the subject, but I managed.
I'm sure he's as much a Native American as the incumbent.
Hahahaha
"Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "Teaching evolution is also a religious doctrine", says Mr. Carley, who expressed a desire that this reality continue to be kept secret from the students. Mr. Carley futher reports that it is only Christians who are militant about this subject. "Biology teachers are always a warm, fuzzy, and peaceful people, who never say unkind things about God, Jesus, or Christians", he said.
Politics and religion enter into evolution debate
"...Indeed, Wayne Carley, executive director of the NABT acknowledged as much, saying the change was made because they wanted "to avoid taking a religious position."
That is an admission that demonstrates the truth of what Christian critics have been claiming all along: The association's original platform - like Darwinism itself - exceeds purely scientific conclusions, and embraces distinctly religious ideas.
The NABT decision to change its statement is widely seen as a retreat from the secularist worldview of the "scientific" community.
"That perception may cause the Darwinists some worry...because they cannot afford to look as if they are losing confidence."
Stop being AFRAID of the truth. Have the courage to educate yourself
Does this mean that they believe that God created man through the process of evolution?
Some of the evos ARE atheists, some others (like myself) are agnostic. So far as I know, NONE of us would be so foolish as to advance the theory of evolution as a rational disproof of divinity. I would certainly hope not, since it ain't.
And similarly, many people who are pretty scientific tend to think everything is about science, e.g. the quest to know or explain.
Full Disclosure: Lotsa people are motivated by things other than a burning desire to know. Second Disclosure: How do we know petroglyphs in Arizona weren't just an attempt by the natives to leave a note for those coming after them that "this desert sucks" (Kokopelli)?
But that is the problem here, Neanbdethals would look just like me or you if you gave him a shave and a haircut, and so would cro-magnon.
People do NOT look so different.
All these differences between skull shapes show is genetic variation or disease or vitimin dificiency, all of these quite acceptable within the Creationist framework.
It is ONLY the theory of Evolution that says one form became another or is "related" to another because one died out or something.
Mankind has taken on may different body styles, all a person has to do is examine the size of men in this last century alone, because of increased medicine, healthier living, and some say artificial hormones, women mature sexually faster and men become large at a younger age, but NONE of that is evolutioon by chance, it is an artifial enhancement due to outside forces that act upon the existing gene pool.
I took it from Dictionary of Archaic Words complied by James Orchard Halliwell, introduction dated Feb 1st, 1847
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.