Anthropologist resigns in 'dating disaster'

Worlnetdaily ^ | February 19, 2005 | unattributed

[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.

[grey_whiskers]

Creationism not only has nothing to do with conservatism, it is directly opposed to it; conservatism is about the rejection of ideology and idealism, and the acceptance of reality, no matter how uncomfortable that reality may be.

Many Creationists are ardently politically conservative, many self-proclaimed "progressive-thinkers" (say Bill Maher, Pete Singer), or--dare I say it-- "brights" (athiests) are both anti-Creationist and anti-conservative.

But not all.

Perhaps it would be as well to say that "politics makes strange bedfellows"--

Let's take a vote on those definitions, shall we ? ;-)

[Just mythoughts]

Now now, literal interpretation of the Bible does back up that this earth and heavens are of OLD, ancient. Also literal interpretation instructs that those days of creation are not 24 hours.

Literal interpretation of the Bible tells the WHY of man in the flesh which makes evolution of man in the flesh from pond scum a lie.

[Dataman]

Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists? Have you noticed that the evo's hang on their every word and run with anything they say? It's sad, really, when one chooses to let someone else do the thinking for them.

Ironically, that is exactly the accusation made of Christians by them.

[grey_whiskers]

A lot of it is cognitive dissonance caused by fear. Fear is a key factor in a lot of mental illness. The sad thing is that for Christians, Jesus alleviates fear through love and gives us peace in all circumstances. This is why Christian belief often heals mental illness.

Hmm, for the first part of that paragraph you were beginning to resemble Bill Maher--but then went in a different direction in the second half ;-)

Cheers!

[Dataman]

"Have you noticed that the most vocal scientists here are atheists?"

A lie, but even if true, it has no bearing on the evidence they present.

I agree. I've never thought they were scientists either.

[bondserv]

Perhaps he's going by the oft-repeated creationist lie that all who accept evolution are atheists.

Let's just say they don't believe the things Jesus Christ said!

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

This rules out the Theory of Evolution for those believing in Christ.

[Dataman]

Perhaps he's going by the oft-repeated creationist lie that all who accept evolution are atheists.

Feel free to produce a few examples of the oft-repeated lie that all who accept evolution are atheists. Feel free to produce even one example.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[grey_whiskers]

Actually, if he were actually good at it, he'd cut-and-paste material that was both valid and relevant. Yeah, he can manage the following: invalid and irrelevant valid and irrelevant invalid and relevant Its just the remaining possibility (as you've pointed out) that proves out of his reach. ;)

Standing up for RaceBannon for just a moment--not all of his cut'n'paste about Newton was both invalid and irrelevant.

And he did have a valid point (for someone not versed in the sciences) about different forms of evolutionary theory.

To someone who hasn't had scientific training, and who is unaware of the progression of models / theories / whatnots, it *could* very well look confusing.

OTOH, given the number of links sent to him, he cannot necessarily plead ignorance in good faith any longer--unless he just got overwhelmed and didn't have time to investigate and digest the links given to him.

(But you know, he's been on a number of these threads for *months*, and has found time to search, cut'n'paste, and post regularly, so I dunno...)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

And the meaning of 'Conservative'. And the meaning of 'and'. That's the thing about sentences. They tend to depend on the meanings of words in them. 8)) You're both SO WRONG!!!!!

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. :-)

Full Disclosure: Ba-dum bum! (Hey, this IS Free Republic!)

[longshadow]

At pain of the rack, and the purification of the stake, no doubt.

I had the same thought. When a person starts telling you "you need to be saved." I begin to worry that he might be carrying the portable version of the "Malleus Maleficarum" in his shirt pocket.

[mike182d]

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.i>

Actually, this brings up an interesting angle that I hadn't though of before...

Did sexuality "evolve?" In order for procreation to exist amonst two opposite sexes of the same species, both sexes must exist or they fail to reproduce entirely. Thus, it would seem necessary to sexual reproduction for male and female to exist simultaneously, otherwise the system fails and, by natural selection, only species capable of asexual reproduction are dominant. In other words, you couldn't have an organism evolve into a male and carry-on this genetic makeup unless there existed female to compliment the male sex, and vice versa.

In evolutionary terms, it seems as though sexual reproduction is a freak accident. Any thoughts?

[Dimensio]

Feel free to produce even one example.

"Only the godless could take evoltuion seriously."

I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology.

[Dimensio]

Just to make sure that you realise that he never retracted his statement:

"That is correct and I stand by what I say, ONLY the godless accept evolution. I don't care what you label them or what their titles are ... to believe in evolution is for the godless whether they want to admit it or not."

I now await whatever lame excuse you fabricate to avoid admitting that I'm right.

[Ichneumon]

Michael_Michaelangelo, thank you for yet another example of creationist dishonesty.

You posted this image, from a creationist website (run by a creationist banned from FreeRepublic for making bizarre accusations against Jim Robinson, by the way):

But it has obviously been doctored -- the "Atheists for Evolution" sign is clearly Photoshopped, since the words don't line up with the angle of the sign, but do *PERFECTLY* line up pixel-perfect along the image's horizontal. The sloppy masking of the guy on the right is another dead giveaway (note the "edging" of pure white pixels in spots, especially on the upper left of his shoulder, not to mention the fact he's twice as big as anyone else). And that much was obvious even *before* I found the original, undoctored image with a Google search:

And now I can see that the sign on the left has been Photoshopped as well. And there was *no* mention of evolution on those signs, or in the larger group photo also on the same web page. So you're just FRAUDULENTLY PHOTOSHOPPING in out of NOWHERE any "connection" of these folks to "evolutionists".

If you guys allegedly have such a good case, why is it you always seem to be faking it and engaging in fraud?

[Dataman]

I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology.

In this case, the quote didn't say that all evos were atheists. So no apology yet.

[Ichneumon]

OTOH, given the number of links sent to him [RaceBannon], he cannot necessarily plead ignorance in good faith any longer--unless he just got overwhelmed and didn't have time to investigate and digest the links given to him.

That is absolutely NO excuse. If he doesn't have the time to read and accept-or-refute the point-by-point rebuttals made to him, then he should refrain from delivering additional blasts of material until he *does* have the time to clean up after the first ones(s). That's what an intellectually honest person would do, anyway.

His habit of jsut delivering "more of the same" without bothering to actually *read* the responses he has gotten is the mark of someone who is here to propagandize, and not discuss, not learn a thing.

In short, he's a typical creationist.

[Ichneumon]

In this case, the quote didn't say that all evos were atheists.

Not very good on your reading comprehension, are you?

Your lame dodge and failure to extend the apology you owe him is duly noted. And it's entirely in keeping with your long history of such behavior.

But keep it up, it makes it *really* easy for folks to see which side of this debate lacks honor and integrity.

[Dataman]

I now await whatever lame excuse you fabricate to avoid admitting that I'm right.

You're not right. You said oft-repeated. If I accept this example, it is but one and not oft-repeated. Even this example, however, does not claim all evos are atheists. It calls evos godless. Did you ask him what he meant by godless? One of the meanings of godless is "wicked or irreverent."

[bondserv]

It is tough for the Evolutionist to deal with this one. They have no evidence from when something like this began to arise. The billion year old circumstantial evidence doesn't hold much weight, because it isn't available. They are forced to deduce that it happened because we see it today.

Real evidence would envolve having a testable lineage of asexual organisms that we can observe transitioning from being asexual to having opposite sexes.

A disclaimer of "BEST GUESS" should be required on all Evolutionary papers and textbooks.