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.

[shubi]

When creationists have been presented with factual science refuting their non-science repeatedly and still bring up the same tired arguments, that is lying.

The BIG LIE of creationists is that origin of life is in the ToE. You need to understand there is no science being done by creationists, just propaganda based on misinterpretations of the Bible.

[shubi]

There is no evidence for genetic inheritence of homosexual tendencies at this time.

Social Darwinism is the same sort of misinterpretation of science as creationism is of the Bible. Hitler and Ken Ham have a lot in common if your ideas are true.

[shubi]

You realize that anthropoligists are not necessarily biologists?

[VadeRetro]

Now, why WOULD you hear a lot about dismissed forgeries? There are probably millions of forged paintings, but the only ones you hear about are the few that have been accepted as genuine by major experts and have sat in museums for a long time.

OK. Feduccia's a semi-crackpot himself, but let's grant the premise and say there is a forgery mill selling fakes to amateurs. Maybe some of the fossils you can buy on the web aren't real. (Given the price on the particular thing I linked, though, it had better be real.) What is the nature of the forgery? Like those art forgeries, they would be copies, not originals. There is no motivation to do much of anything else. You don't want to fake something that never lived; it just makes your fake less valuable and more easily detectable.

And all this is happening outside of science and irrelevant to it.

[shubi]

He doesn't want to be shunned by his friends at church.

[shubi]

Alllriggghttty then...

It is nice to see someone with such an open mind. ROFL

[shubi]

What evidence is that, Race?

[shubi]

"Since none of what I posted is a lie like evolution is"

Since evolution is an observed fact, the statement above is untrue.

[King Prout]

Theo,

First, this is a case of a man falsifying evidence. Like the Piltdown Man and the few other cases of fraud in anthropology and paleontology, this fraud was exposed by scientists using the scientific method and technology. The discovery of fraud discredits the man and his claims, but validates the method and corrects the data.

Second, history is rife with the serial claims pertaining to the physical universe made by biblical literalists, every single one of which having been demonstrated to be significantly at odds with evidence. Such a history does not augur well for any current claims of biblical literalists.

Third, on the various CREVO threads we are inundated by "goofy" statements from not ONE Creationist but from almost EVERY Creationist who participates. Chief among these claims are intransigent insistence on misconstruing the purpose and applications of science, the scientific method, and theories.

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
- 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

None of the above are accurate depictions of the beliefs of scientists, no matter how many times Creationists claim them to be (see the third paragraph above: Intransigent insistence on misconstruing the purpose and applications of science).

We find the theory of the origin of the species, through serial branching and diversion from common ancestors over time/many generations of offspring due to the observably factual mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection, is at this time the most useful explanation available for the hundreds of thousands of individual evidence indicating serial origin and extinction of life forms over several hundred million years AND various indicators pointing to distal and proximal ranges of taxonomic and genetic similarity between species extinct and extant. This theory has also been repeatedly (exhaustively) demonstrated to be useful in predicting the discovery of new data not available at the time of the prediction. That is one of the pricipal purposes of all sciences - prediction of results based on extant data. Success or failure in these predictions is one of the principal proofs of utility of a theory.

IF a new theory is devised which explains the evidence better and serves as a better predictor of data not available when the theory is devised, we shall either modify evolutionary theory or abandon it altogether. That's how science works, Theo.

[Thatcherite]

Your post to Thatcherite was a little harsh.

Its OK. I'm harsh to creationists when they post ignorantly. If I hand it out I'd better be able to take it.

[Woodworker]

"This theory has also been repeatedly (exhaustively) demonstrated to be useful in predicting the discovery of new data not available at the time of the prediction. That is one of the principal purposes of all sciences - prediction of results based on extant data. Success or failure in these predictions is one of the principal proofs of utility of a theory.

Can you provide some references to satisfy my curiosity?

[King Prout]

nope.
I have better things to do than run google searches for others.

[Thatcherite]

This came up as the first hit when I tried google.

[jwalsh07]

Its OK. I'm harsh to creationists when they post ignorantly. If I hand it out I'd better be able to take it.

Now, here's a guy I can respect.

[King Prout]

very good.
doubt it'll make an impact, but very good.

[jwalsh07]

So did most other creation myths. It's the explanation most primitive peoples came to when they wondered, "where'd this Earth thing come from?" and crafted stories to imagine what might have happened, because humans tend to expect things to have beginnings.

Even the scientists? The Bible is is revelation, not a science text or even a history book. But it is interesting to lots of people that the Torah spoke of creation, disorder and order. Perhaps not to you but my reaction to that is really quite simple. So what?

Because at the time there wasn't a lot of evidence that there had been one.

There was Einsteins own theory which taken to its logical conclusion implied a creation event. My opinion is that until Hubble he let his own prejudices against such an event blind him to the obvious ramifications of his own theory.

Luck. That is, unless you want to credit all the other incompatible-with-Genesis creation myths with *also* being somehow infallibly dictated as opposed to just fortuitously correct on that one point also...

Thats one opinion, I don't happen to share it.

And you can't have it both ways -- if you're going to give Genesis "credibility points" for matching the conclusions of science on that *one* point (even though the actual *details* of the Big Bang differ hugely from the Genesis creation scenario), then you're also going to have to accept the fact that numerous *other* "predictions" in Genesis are quite wrong when compared to the conclusions of science.

I can have it any way I want. Unlike the determinist's and reductionists I possess free will, and I thank God for that greatest gift. But the fact that YOUR interpretation of Genesis and what it predicts or says is different than mine is evidence of nothing except we may interpret Genesis differently.

And as a side issue, it's amusing to note how many of the Usual Suspects among the creationists actually rail *against* the Big Bang theory for some reason. Go figure. Apparently they're not nearly as happy about the Big Bang's "confirmation" of Genesis as you are.

That's OK, it amuses me that the determinists on your side of the aisle embrace conservatism, the two are thoroughly incompatible.

[jwalsh07]

He stated a fact: "Creationists don't do science." If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

Hey Junior, none are so blind....

The statement is so eggregiously wrong, I'm surprised you choose to argue it.

[jwalsh07]

I find it amusing you would even debate C14 dating.

ANy particular reason why?

Your post to Thatcherite was a little harsh.

My post to Thatcherite was exactly in the same tone Thatcherite uses toward those he disagrees with.

[jwalsh07]

The BIG LIE of creationists is that origin of life is in the ToE.

I already posted you quotes illustrating just that in biology textbooks. Neither you nor Ichy have debunked tha quotes yet. You've called me a liar and he has call me a cheat but no debunking. You have seen the enemy Shubi and it is you. But that's neither here nor there. You don't get to set the terms of the debate. If folks want to include pre replication in the debate, that is their perogative.

You need to understand there is no science being done by creationists, just propaganda based on misinterpretations of the Bible.

The statement is so far removed from truth that you'll be doing penance from now until judgement day. There are plenty of people who belive in God's creation who do science. You just choose to smear them because they are theists.