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.
It ain't the MEMORY of it, but the DETAILS of it.
It's the DETAILS we are disputing, so it would be paramount to have them displayed accurately; don't you think?
No; not quite right.
It is your INTERPRETATION of my behavior that is at issue.
Once finished, I can tell you if the code works.
Relating computer language coding to the coding contained in DNA - who cares if it is the 'most efficient' as long as it works.
They seem pretty objective to me.
I wouldn't, but you appear to be letting the claims about your behavior in this thread slide by, so I guess that you would.
Slide?
I think not.
If you do not wish to reiterate them, it's your choice.
(Wilful choice at that...)
Watch it!
You'll make him go ballistic again.....
Here is a question that I asked Elsie...
All well and good, I was looking forward to hearing the arguments that had persuaded a rational person in possession of the evidence to reject ToE... but what I got was stuff like this, and this.
I decided that Elsie's only desire was to wear me down, and Elsie then attempted to justify her behavior by pulling some kind of quasi-legal get out. I pointed out the fatuity of that and Elsie stopped posting.
BTW I note that the late-lamented JudyWillow was posting in that thread with the usual homosexuality jibes. Elsie even joined in. I wonder why male freepers like JudyWillow who are obsessed with homosexuality post under female handles? Can't be the obvious explanation, can it?
To: Thatcherite
Yup; I know it.
I know it don't seem right.
Just LOOK at what you just posted:
Mutations which would have been neutral or harmful in the old environment may be beneficial in the new one. When most creatures are well adapted to their current environment most mutations will be harmful or neutral and very few will be beneficial. A change in environment changes the proportion of beneficial mutations because now the organsisms are not so well adapted to their new environment and it is more likely that any given mutation will improve them for their new environment than previously.
In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good. How can this BE????
You guys CANNOT have it both ways!
823 posted on 01/15/2005 6:04:56 AM CST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
To: Elsie
In just TWO sentences you switch from harmful to good. How can this BE????
You see so many of these false dichotomies. I get the impression that you are busy looking for holes or contradictions in evolutionary arguments before you've properly understood them. Understand them first, then try to spot the flaws. Please read very carefully what I wrote, and think about it some more, not in terms of trying to pick holes, but in terms of trying to genuinely understand the argument. If you can't work it out in the next day or so ask me again, and I'll explain. I believe that you are clever enough to work out what I mean for yourself without me having to drag you through ever painful minute stage in the argument. Hint: Read the entire sentences which you have highlighted portions of. The highlighted portions are contradictory it is true, but the context removes the contradiction. |
Failure to defend yourself noted. I guess you don't have any answers that make sense.
Yet, here you malign me and another fellow, trying to assign a certain 'obvious' trait.
I am sorry Elsie, how was I maligning you there?
That screen name of yours.
Anything to do with MARGARET Thatcher; strong woman of England a few years ago?
Yes, I admire her political philosophy greatly. I am not sure of the relevance of your question though.
Elsie, it is very clear from the context of his first post that he was speaking of 'harmful' and 'beneficial' as being relative regarding an organism's environment, which means that the same mutation could be either harmful or beneficial depending on the circumstances around it. You are either a liar or incredibly stupid for not figuring this out.
only two from which to choose?
my, how you E types like to define the playing field!
What?
It's not OBVIOUS?
No, it isn't.
Be our guest if you want to suggest another possibility. In fact I'm prepared to discount "liar", because of your willingness to repeat in this thread the full details of posts that make you look so ridiculous. I don't see why a liar would do that.
from 828
Dang!
Ya coulda FOOLED me!
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.