1. Piltdown man : Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike one

And you have the gall to call me a liar????

REPORTS ON THE FINDS: 1912-1917

Geological Society Papers

The "discoveries" of what had actually been fabricated and planted were reported to

the Geological Society of London in four papers, delivered by two or all three

of the major investigators: Charles Dawson, Arthur Smith Woodward, and Elliot

Smith.

• On the Discovery of a Palæolithic Human Skull and Mandible.(1913)

Dawson, Woodward, and Elliot Smith, talk delivered Dec. 1912 at Geological Society on first finds

• Supplementary Note on the Discovery (1914)

Dawson, Woodward and Elliot Smith on finds of 1913:

• On a Bone Implement from Piltdown (Sussex)(1914)

Dawson and Woodward on the last find from the pit, an implement made from an elephant femur to look like a cricket bat

• Fourth Note on the Piltdown Gravel (1917)

Woodward and Elliot Smith on "evidence of a second skull" at Sheffield Park

Relevant publications by

Charles Dawson

The Piltdown Skull. (Eoanthropus dawsoni ). (1913)

The "Restoratios" of the Bayeux Tapestry. (1907)

Prehistoric Remains. History of Hastings Castle (1909)

Arthur Smith Woodward.

Note on the Piltdown Man. (1913)

Woodward, Sherborne Horse's Head. et al. Letters to Nature (1926)

The Second Piltdown Skull. (1933)

The Earliest Englishman. (1948)

B.B. G[ardiner] . Lady Smith Woodward's tablecloth. (1987)

+ letter from George Gaylord Simpson history of this tablecloth and of the hoax, with suggestions on suspects

On an Apparently Palæolithic Engraving.(1914)

Woodward on find of a horse's head, which was probably another hoax he fell for

C. B. Stringer, et al. Solution for the Sherborne Problem (1995)

not by Woodward, but relevant to this event - fake a recent one

On the Lower Jaw of an Anthropoid Ape [Dryopithecus].

Woodward providing background with description of a fossil primate (1914)

Keith, Smith, Woodward, Duckworth on The Fossil Anthropoid Ape from Taungs. (1925)

The Second Piltdown Skull. letter to Nature (1933)

The Earliest Englishman in its entirety (1948)

Lewis Abbott

This CD-ROM presents the only (though partial) anthology of Lewis Abbott publications.

The Section Exposed in the Foundations of the New Admiralty Offices. (1892)

Plateau Man in Kent. (1894 )

The New Oban Cave.(1895)

"diminutive Forms of Flint Implements from Hastings Kitchen Midden and Sevenoaks."

Worked Flints from the Cromer Forest Bed. (1897).

Primeval Refuse Heaps at Hastings. 2 parts, (1897)

ƒ On the Classification of the British Stone Age Industries (1911)

Pre-Historic Man: The Newly-Discovered Link in His Evolution. (1913)

The Piltdown Skull. Letter to the Editor of the Morning Post (1914)

The Discovery of British Palaeoglyphs 1914.

Abbott Letters

includes letter ( n.d.) from Ian Langham and 1981 and 1984 letters from Glyn Daniel

to C. Blinderman

Barlow ?

W. Ruskin Butterfield

Folk-names for Marine Fishes and Other Animals at Hastings. Hastings and St. Leonards Observer ( August 1913)

Teilhard de Chardin

ƒ The Case of Piltdown Man. (1920)

• Status of Australopithecines. On the Zoological Position and the Evolutionary

Significance of Australopithecines (1953)

other hominds, but no mention of Piltdown

The Idea of Fossil ManKroeber, A. L. (1953). Only one very quick mention of Piltdown

K. Oakley and T. de Chardin. L'Oeuvre Scientique (1971)

correspondence between Kenneth Oakley and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on Teilhard’s remembering Piltdown case, includes letter from K. Oakley to C. Blinderman

Arthur Conan Doyle

Challenger and Other Fossils. The Lost World (1912)

J. T. Hewitt

Note on the Natural Gas at Healthfield Station (1898)

Martin A. C. Hinton

The Pleistocene Mammalia of the British Isles and Their Bearing upon the Date of the Glacial Period Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society (1926)

Piltdown mentioned in paper read before British Association on Pleistocene mammals

Arthur Keith

• 1913 debate in Nature between Elliot Smith and Arthur Keith:

Smith: The Piltdown Skull (October 2 ) + Keith: The Piltdown Skull and Brain Cast (October 16) + Smith. (October 30) + Keith (November 6) + Smith (November 13) + Keith (November 20). With article by Waterston disputing both.

Royal Anthropological Institute. Nature (Oct 1914)

Keith vs ASW on skull

The Significance of the Discovery at Piltdown.Bedrock: A Quarterly Journal of Scientific Thought . (1914)

Keith on Reconstruction. Nature (October 1914)

Review of Osborn Men of the Old Stone Age Man (1917)

Osborn "at sea as regards the discovery at Piltdown" because he believes skull is human but jaw chimpanzee

The Antiquity of Piltdown. Antiquity of Man (1925 ed)

Keith, Smith, Woodward, Duckworth on The Fossil Anthropoid Ape from Taugns. Nature (1925)

Revival of the Piltdown Controversy New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man (1931)

The Piltdown Man Discovery Unveiling of a Monolith Memorial Nature (1938)

Australopithecinae or Dartians. Nature (1947)

recommends "Dartian" rather than "Australopithicine" for fossil hominid

Piltdown Man: a Re-examination. Nature (1938) comment on Keith

Piltdown Recollections.An Autobiography (1950)

Grafton Elliot Smith

Presidential Address 1912 (September 1912)

• 1913 debate in Nature between Elliot Smith and Arthur Keith:

Smith: The Piltdown Skull (October 2 ) + Keith: The Piltdown Skull and Brain Cast (October 16) + Smith,. (October 30) + Keith, (November 6) + Smith,. (November 13) + Keith, (November 20). With article disputing both by Waterston.

The Cranial Cast of the Piltdown Skull. (September 1916)

The Problem of the Piltdown Jaw: Human or Sub-Human? (1917)

• Primitive Man The Evolution of Man (1924) + The Origin of Man

Keith, Smith, Woodward, Duckworth on The Fossil Anthropoid Ape from Taugns, (1925)

The Discovery of the Men of Heidelberg and Piltdown

The Search for Man's Ancestors (1931)

Human Palæontology (1931)

on Smith talks:

Literary and Philosophical Society (December 1913)

Royal Society, February 19 (February 1914)

Literary and Philosophical Society (March 1916)

ƒ Man of the Dawn How Our Ancestors Live. Professor Elliot Smith in Sydney

(July 1914)

The Piltdown Skull. (1922 )

Smith on new reconstruction of skull showing it aligns with cranium

W.J. Sollas

• Ancient Piltdown Ancient Hunters and their Modern Represenatives.. (1924 3^rd ed.)

A. G. Thacker. Science Progress in the Twentieth Century

Human Palæontology and Anthropology (1915)

Woodward. Sherborne Horse's Head. Letter to Nature (January 1926) answered by W. J. Sollas + C. J. Bayzand. The Palæolithic Drawing of a Horse from Sherborne, Dorset + R. Elliot Steel. Drawing of a Horse from Sherborne

+ E. A. Ross Jefferson. Letter on Sherborne Horse's Head.

Back to the
MAP

[1. Piltdown man : Not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Strike one]

And you have the gall to call me a liar????

Yup, when the shoe fits, I sure do. Although I didn't in this particular case -- I disagreed that this example of yours was a valid example of what you were attempting to demonstrate. If you can actually provide support for your case, I'll be glad to revise this one item to a "hit" instead of a "strike". But your following list-o-links (none of which actually *work*) doesn't qualify:

REPORTS ON THE FINDS: 1912-1917

That's sweet and all, but the formal peer-reviewed journal submission process didn't begin until around the 1950's. Before that there was sometimes informal review by a panel before publication, but it was by no means consistent or even applied at all in many cases. Any professional journal publications before 1950 or so should be considered as unreviewed, unless there is existing documentation of such a review process for a particular article's publication process. See the following, for example, which is the most cited article on the history of the modern peer-review journal publication process:

The evolution of editorial peer review.

Burnham JC.

Department of History, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210-1367.

Practically no historical accounts of the evolution of peer review exist. Biomedical journals appeared in the 19th century as personal organs, following the model of more general journalism. Journal editors viewed themselves primarily as educators. The practice of editorial peer reviewing did not become general until sometime after World War II. Contrary to common assumption, editorial peer review did not grow out of or interact with grant peer review. Editorial peer review procedures did not spread in an orderly way; they were not developed from editorial boards and passed on from journal to journal. Instead, casual referring out of articles on an individual basis may have occurred at any time, beginning in the early to mid-19th century. Institutionalization of the process, however, took place mostly in the 20th century, either to handle new problems in the numbers of articles submitted or to meet the demands for expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world.

Publication Types:

Historical Article

PMID: 2406470 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Now, do you have any actual documentation that any of the "complete sh!t" (as you so charmingly put it) material about "Piltdown Man" was actually peer-reviewed in the sense that it means in modern terms? Because if not, I'm still going to have to mark this one as a "strike". You asserted that, "Creationists have been seeing complete sh!t published in peer reviewed so-called scientific journals for decades". Clearly you were claiming that "complete sh!t" regularly passes the peer-review process as we know it. Clearly your example of "Piltdown Man" has yet to be substantiated by you as an actual example of what you claimed. Feel free to actually document it, or retract it. Until then, you earn a "strike" for making yet another unsubstantiated accusation against science and its institutions.

Even if you manage to pull this one out, and I don't think you can, the best you've managed is to show just two examples over 80 years apart. If the creationists were that reliable in the long run, I'd be *ecstatic*. So your broad accusation which implied a constant run of such "sh!t" for "decades" is still a falsehood.

Maybe you should actually have some sort of valid case before you shoot your mouth off with accusations again.

Now let's look at a few of your (non-working) links:

REPORTS ON THE FINDS: 1912-1917
Dawson, Woodward, and Elliot Smith, talk delivered Dec. 1912 at Geological Society on first finds

A talk is not a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Nice try.

Woodward, Sherborne Horse's Head. et al. Letters to Nature (1926)

Letters to a journal are not peer-reviewed publications. Nice try.

The Second Piltdown Skull. letter to Nature (1933)

Letter.

Lewis Abbott This CD-ROM presents the only (though partial) anthology of Lewis Abbott publications. The Section Exposed in the Foundations of the New Admiralty Offices. (1892) Plateau Man in Kent. (1894 ) The New Oban Cave.(1895) "diminutive Forms of Flint Implements from Hastings Kitchen Midden and Sevenoaks." Worked Flints from the Cromer Forest Bed. (1897). Primeval Refuse Heaps at Hastings. 2 parts, (1897) ƒ On the Classification of the British Stone Age Industries (1911)

What in the hell are these? The Piltdown specimen was discovered in 1912. None of these pre-1912 publications could have anything whatsoever to do with it. So what are you doing here -- posting irrelevant random links in the hopes that no one will notice that you're just padding out your "case" with irrelevancies? Nice try.

Significance of Australopithecines (1953) other hominds, but no mention of Piltdown

Um, okay... See the above note about irrelevant crap in your list.

Arthur Conan Doyle: Challenger and Other Fossils. The Lost World (1912)

ROFL!!!

Let me get this straight -- as "support" for your claim that peer-reviewed science journals published "sh!t" on Piltdown Man, you're listing A NOVEL BY ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE????? Let's look at the opening paragraph, shall we?

"MR. HUNGERTON, HER FATHER, REALLY WAS THE MOST TACTless person upon earth-a fluffy, feathery, untidy cockatoo of a man, perfectly good-natured, but absolutely centered upon his own silly self. If anything could have driven me from Gladys, it would have been the thought of such a father-in-law. I am convinced that he really believed in his heart that I came round to the Chestnuts three days a week for the pleasure of his company, and very especially to hear his views on bimetallism -- a subject upon which he was by way of being an authority."

Oh, yeah, *THAT* helps your case and credibility. ROFL!!! I repeat the question I find I have to frequently ask you -- are you sure you know what in the heck you're talking about?

The "Challenger and Other Fossils" you mention in this context is not an actual reference to real *fossils*, it's a playful poke at one of the NOVEL's colorful characters, Professor Challenger, who is rather an old fossil himself.

This novel (repeat *NOVEL*), by the way, is the basis for the following cheesy TV series:

The red-bearded fellow in the pith helmet in the upper right is Professor Challenger, by the way.

THIS IS THE KIND OF FLUFF YOU USE TO "SUPPORT" YOUR ACCUSATION? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try again when you might have a clue.

ROFL!!!

*THIS* IS THE KIND OF FLUFF YOU USE TO "SUPPORT" YOUR ACCUSATION? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE KIND OF FLUFF YOU USE TO "SUPPORT" YOUR ACCUSATION? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!