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.

[Thatcherite]

Do you sell any good drugs to suppress the angel genes?

Best not give any to any young girls called Mary.

[Dimensio]

C14 dating only works if you know that the organism got its C14 from the atmosphere, not from groundwater or some other source. Ocean-dwelling creatures (and more land-based creatures that have a diet high in seafod) will end up getting C14 from their aquatic environment, which will give you totally wrong results if you're assuming that it all came from the environment.

C14 dating is admittedly very limited. It's easy to throw off, and only has a usable range of around 50,000 years. That's why most fossils aren't dated with it, but its weaknesses make for good strawman creationist arguments from those who pretend that there aren't any other dating methods out there.

[Dimensio]

It is a conceit of the fragmented modern mind that "only subject matter experts" are qualified to discuss any particular subject matter. In fact, any of us who are familar with logic as it applies to evaluating the internal consistency of truth claims are qualified to discuss the biologists' interpretation of their evidence.

So how can you discuss the biologists' interpretation of their evidence if you don't acutally understand the underlying science behind their interpretation?

(If you're familiar with assembly language -- especially Motorola 68HC11 E9 ASM, then please ignore this and let me know so that I can find something more suitable)

http://members.iglou.com/darkstar/G9L4-2.txt

Examine that and tell me if you think that I could have coded it in a more efficient fashion.

[shubi]

I don't sell drugs as far as you know. ;-)

[shubi]

Its the one opinion is as good as another fallacy. ;-)

[PatrickHenry]

Demonic placemarker.

[longshadow]

Demonic placemarker.

No fair waiting for the right moment to get the "reply number" you wanted to go with that.....

;-)

[PatrickHenry]

Wouldja believe it was an accident? I was responding to RightWingNilla's phrase, and I didn't notice the post numbers. (Really. I just got back from dropping my car off for repairs, and I somehow left my glasses with the car. So I'm using an older pair.)

[longshadow]

"The facts" never speak for themselves;....

"Res ispa loquitur."

I rest my case.

[nasamn777]

Would I be going too far by suggesting that science is based on naturalism because we can (in principle at least) reliably, repeatably test natural things to double check our ideas of what makes them work?

ID makes the claim that it is possible to detect intelligence by examining the information content of patterns. If the pattern is specified and complex, it is designed. ID uses only natural methods in the determination of design. The philosophical assumption behind ID is that there may exist processes designed by intelligence. Naturalists don't allow the possibility that there may exist non-natural processes -- which limits science.

[longshadow]

....ispa ipsa.....

That's better.

[longshadow]

Classic stuff. An absolute gem of a post.

You just can't make this stuff up....

;-)

[Dimensio]

ID makes the claim that it is possible to detect intelligence by examining the information content of patterns.

And how do they justify this claim? "It just is?"

Naturalists don't allow the possibility that there may exist non-natural processes -- which limits science.

How does not addressing subject matter beyond the scope of scientific inquiry limit science?

[Thatcherite]

ID makes the claim that it is possible to detect intelligence by examining the information content of patterns. If the pattern is specified and complex, it is designed. ID uses only natural methods in the determination of design.

Interesting, have you any examples of the methods ID uses to "determine design"? How successful have these methods (if they exist) been in differentiating between designed objects (such as a piece of nonrepresentational modern art) and natural objects (such as a snowflake)?

The philosophical assumption behind ID is that there may exist processes designed by intelligence. Naturalists don't allow the possibility that there may exist non-natural processes

You made an curious jump here from "designed by intelligence" to "non-natural". Do you think that intelligence cannot have a natural explanation? If it turns out that life on earth was recognizably designed then what basis would you have for excluding intelligent aliens (who evolved naturally on their planet) from being the designers?

[grey_whiskers]

Do you think that intelligence cannot have a natural explanation? If it turns out that life on earth was recognizably designed then what basis would you have for excluding intelligent aliens (who evolved naturally on their planet) from being the designers?

Depending on how it is suggested that intelligent aliens are involved, Occam's razor.

And we don't yet KNOW, nor do we yet have "good evidence" (SETI as opposed to National Enquirer) that there are such aliens.

Don't run too far ahead of the evidence...

Cheers!

[RightWingNilla]

Wouldja believe it was an accident?

Maybe you were demonically posessed for a moment.

[Thatcherite]

Intelligent aliens operating naturally is a less complex explanation than a supernatural deity, in my opinion, so I think Occam's razor would be on my side in that argument.

We don't know that there is a deity either. I was merely taking issue with nas's contention that ID necessarily involves a supernatural explanation. The ID crowd should probably thank me for that as they try to pretend that ID has nothing to do with religion, when it has everything to do with religion (again IMO).

[longshadow]

Wouldja believe it was an accident?

You take us for fools? What are the odds of you losing your glasses on this particular day, and RWN making that post to you at that particular time, and you choosing to write what you wrote at that particular moment such that it was posted under reply # 666??????

Clearly, the odds are more than 1 in 1^720th, so you can't chalk that up to chance! Nay; this is proof positive of supernatural intervention!

< /nutcase mode>

[PatrickHenry]

You take us for fools?

It may well be that the devil made me do it. But then, you must agree that this absolves me of personal responsibility.

[Condorman]

Preach on, Brother!