A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old.
As the Guardian reports:
"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."
Apparently Prof. Protsch began his career as a forger when he returned from studying in America decades ago and discovered that he was unable to work a carbon-dating machine. So he just started making up the ages of things.
Comments
I consider myself blonde...but I'm not really. 😉
Also, if he were a closet creationist, surely he'd have been faking results showing that humans are a *young* species, not an old one? If the point were to mislead the entire scientific establishment and then be found out, he'd have been willing to sacrifice an awful lot for the creationist cause. I doubt he's involved anyway, as I'm under the impression creationism mainly a hobby-horse of American branches of Christianity. http://www.geocities.com/fedor_steeman/deutschland.html seems to back me up on this (top Google hit for "germany creationism" without quotes).
I have two complaints about this discovery. First, it gives ammunition to those wanting to discredit science as a way of thought. And second, all the good (bad) jokes were taken before I read about it.
I'm not proclaiming to be all-knowing here or anything... but, my degree is in Biology (Ball State University 1995-2001) and anthropology was one thing I couldn't get enough of during my studies. To the point that if classes didn't fit the "required" role I would take them as electives. I am pretty sure that somewhere along the line you have become confused about what you were taught. Maybe not though, just guessing here. First we need to remember that MOST of what we're taught involves theories. Yes, some are more excepted than others which leads people to believe them lock, stock, and barrel, but in the end they're just theories. Some are more researched, testable, and make more sense (i.e. Evolution vs. DNA perfection) but never-the-less they are theories. In spite of all this information... in all my studies I was never taught that modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved from Neanderthals. I was taught that the theory was that modern human and neanderthals shared a common ancestor, which is vastly different than saying that one evolved from the other... so don't immediately start thinking that your anthropology class was a total waste. It wasn't if merely for the fact that it helped teach you how to think, analyze, and discuss as a means of coming by knowledge. 😊
"Couldn't agree with you more, Maegan... But it really bothers me that so many people are going around exaggerating differences between Christians and non-Christians these days (or making claims on behalf of all Christiandom or all secular-dom, or whatever)..."
If you were referring to my first comment, I was speaking about creationists, not christians, as all christians are not creationists. If you weren't referring to me, well then never mind.
Razela said;
"Joe, I think it's pretty significant...If these theories made it into mainstream scientific thinking, then it is probably incredibly significant that they were all faked."
This is my fear. The fact that some scientists make mistakes or, as in this case, commit outright fraud, does not diminish the overwhelming evidence (both fossile and living) that clearly demonstrates the mechanism of natural selection. Unfortunately, creationists will (as they have always done) use this as the example to assert that there is no evidence at all.
I just find it very upsetting when "scientists" fake their work for their own purposes. Science, when not in its applied form, is very much for the sake of knowledge itself. For a scientist to actually fake his/her findings and manipulate knowledge for his/her own benefit is a very sneaky and downright cruel thing to do. I wonder if Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten or whatever his real name is realized the extent of damage he would do to the body of knowledge in his field.
" I was never taught that modern humans (homo sapiens) evolved from Neanderthals."
I don't think she ment to imply that. She said;
"(W)e clearly learned that "modern humans and Neanderthals had coexisted". We even learned about how there is evidence that the two different cultures came in contact with each other."
which is significant.
At first I thought you were serious about the 'DNA perfection'. This would have been a longer post. LOL
Please don't take my reply the wrong way as you're one of my favorites among the regulars here... I didn't mean to imply that I knew exactly what he/she meant by that post just that they shouldn't let one charlatan ruin their whole view of anthropology and the classes they took relating to that subject. And yes, like you I did indeed read and understand those parts of the post but... immediately following those parts you quoted was this part...
So essentially, this theory says that Neanderthals are not even ancestors of modern humans. The fact that all these theories probably came from this one man who is apparently a chronic liar means basically that a lot of what I learned in my anthropology class is bogus.
😊 Just trying to encourage thinking without letting some boob of a scientist ruin it for an impressionable mind 😊 Because as you know, like a sixpack, a mind is a terrible thing to waste! 😊
When mentioning the Evolution vs. DNA perfection what I was trying to do was show what a "good" theory would be versus what a "stupid" theory would be... highly recognizable to most... however, in essence they are of the same breed... theories. Perhaps I could have stated my point better but then public speaking was never my favorite... C's get degrees! 😊
"So essentially, this theory says that Neanderthals are not even ancestors of modern humans. The fact that all these theories probably came from this one man who is apparently a chronic liar means basically that a lot of what I learned in my anthropology class is bogus."
Doh! I guess I didn't read as closely as I should've. Sorry. Now, back to that sixer...
"When mentioning the Evolution vs. DNA perfection what I was trying to do was show what a "good" theory would be versus what a "stupid" theory..."
LOL, when I first read it i was stuned, but when I saw who it was that wrote it I realized what you meant. Your point was well made.
And in reply to an earlier post (geez, how did I miss those??)...I'm not trying to say who is and who is not a Christian. Only God & the individual can do that.
I like this "overwhelming evidence" idea. It's cute. People give you a lot of "facts" and it overwhelms you. It's okay. Take it one day at a time, you'll get through it.
Here, an article from "Nature" (in 2004):
Anthropologist turns heads with mystery dates
Munich - A German anthropologist is facing accusations of misconduct from the University of Frankfurt, after concerns came to light about his research and apparent attempts to sell university property.
According to the German news magazine Der Spiegel, Reiner Protsch von Zieten carbon-dated several human skulls from Germany and found them to be up to 30,000 years old. Other labs date the bones at just 7,000
Is it my imagination, or is the entire EducationGuardian website <http://education.guardian.co.uk> a thoroughgoing hoax? I'm reading some of the stuff there and trying very hard to keep from busting a gut.
Skeptic's Dictionary--http://skepdic.com/protsch.html
Archaeo News--http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/001160.html
I'd like to call everyone's attention to several points that are apparent about this issue. First, it was scientists themselves who turned up this fraud. Second, it is scientists themselves who are publicizing this fraud. Third, the evils that this man is guilty of do not negate literally decades of anthropological and archaeological work by other (real) scientists.
The history of science is, sadly, replete with similar examples of shoddy research, poor methodology, and, as in Protch's case, outright fraud. But guess what? Science is still the best tool we have for testing claims. Science is self-correcting. And science is still here. Before anyone falls into the trap of crowing about the great victory of the forces of 'truth,' discovering that certain data--and the resulting conclusions--were faked doesn't make cretinist mythology true. It simply means that real scientists will have to keep checking researchers' claims. Generally they do. Sometimes however, bogus claims get by. That's what happened here.
Science has survived these types of assaults on it's veracity before. It will survive this one. And researchers will learn to be a little more careful in the future.
He is a real scientist though, he just happens to be a lying scumbag scientist.
I agree, though. It would be like saying because one person makes a false statement on the internet that ALL statements on the internat are false, or saying that one man's claim to the discovery of a new element, when proven false, proves that no elements have been discovered.
Faulty reasoning fits right in with the creation theory. Sometimes, though, it also fits right in with the evolution theory. The big thing to remember, though is that both of these things have the word THEORY in them.
Neither one has been conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that is why the word theory is still attached. Only one can have the word theory stricken from it, if either one ever can.
I know where my money lies.
There's a problem with that observation. In common, everyday English, the word "theory" means a guess. To a scientist, however, a theory is a systematic and orderly explanation of observed data, usually verified by observation. In that respect, the theories of evolution (and there are many) fit the definition. "Scientific" cretinism, however, does not. A misconception that many people have is that Darwin "invented" evolution. He did nothing of the sort. He simply offered AN explanation of something that many scientists had recognized for hundreds of years. Cretinism, on the other hand, explains nothing. It's a reaction to a world view that cretinists--almost exclusively fundagelical christians--find anathema. If the universe, the Solar System, Earth, life, even mankind, evolved, there could have been no place for special creation. With no special creation, there could have been no representative sinner (Adam), hence no representative savior (Christ). In addition, if mankind is imperfect and "sinful," there could be only one possible explanation for that flawed nature--God made us that way. Can't allow that now, can we? It's simply easier for cretinists to force the data to fit the "theory" rather than force the theory to fit the data.
The difference between real science and cretinist science is in the explanations that each offers up for the observed data. A scientist might say for example,
Noun
A congenital condition caused by a deficiency of thyroid hormone during prenatal development and characterized in childhood by dwarfed stature, mental retardation, dystrophy of the bones, and a low basal metabolism.
😊
I think you meant Creationism. You know, creation-ism? I'm curious as to how you got that spelling mixed up.
Did Word auto-correct it?
It was intentional. In the case of "Cretinists," the part of the definition referring to mental retardation seems to apply. 😊
Chris Stringer, head of the Human Origins Department at London's Natural History Museum, was misquoted in one British paper as saying Hahnhofersand was significant in establishing the Neanderthal presence in northern Europ, and that without it scientists would have to "rewrite prehistory." Hahnhofersand was never even considered Neanderthal Stringer tells ARCHAEOLOGY. The redating of the remains has a "negligible" impact on scholorship, he adds.
The situation left many anthropologists scratching their heads. Binshof-Speyer Woman? Who was that? Despite media reports to the contrary, the fossils were actually of little significance on the paleoanthropological playing field. Hahnofersand made a bit of a splash in the 1980s when some scholars identified in it both Neanderthal and modern human characteristics, but it was always considered conterversial. "The three related specimens were not as pivital as some reports imply," agrees Martin Street, who sees a bigger issues at hand. "Clearly, it would be ideal if the age of a whole range of other alleged Pleistocene hominid fossils could be confirmed by absolute methods (such as carbon-14 dating), but it remains to be seen whether this lesson will be learned by the anthropological community."
Maybe journalists need to be trained better so that they actually know what they are talking about when they report on science?
When a "Missing Link" is "found", it's considered sensational news, to be splashed all over *every* major newspaper and lauded on *every* TV news broadcast. When the, alleged missing link is later determined to be something other than *that*, the information is buried in the second or third section, on the next to last page.
If one has any doubts that this is true, please read 1. the Holy Bible; 2. "Evolution of a Creationist" by Dr. Jobe Martin; 3. "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe; 4. the Holy Bible.
Hahahahahahahahaha... finally you evolutionists are starting to see the truth more clearly! It's just a matter of time before you see how false, unbelievable and stupid evolution is.
Evolution=> Evilution => it's an Evil illusion.
While I respect that you have opinions of your own, I would ask that you tone down the arrogance and hate. If you whole-heartedly believe in Evolution, fantastic. I'm glad you've found something to put your faith in. But I don't appreciate being referred to as a 'cretin' simply because I interrupt data in a different way.
You are most certainly entitled to any opinion you desire. Just as I am. Just as the embarrassing elements of BOTH our world-views are. I, for one, am embarrassed by the people that will read the above article and use it as evidence to proclaim evolution bogus - for certain - and go and tell their friends.
I am a Christian and a Creationist, but I hardly see one small article speaking on a man lying to save his reputation as proof of any theory, of any world-view. People lie. I cannot count the number of times I have sat in church and heard a pastor misquote scripture, manipulate passages and deliberately take things out of context to prove his own 'theories' on theology. That doesn't make it all bogus. It means one individual doesn't get it, or has an ulterior motive. Shocking, I know, that Humans would manipulate something so many hold dear for their own gains.
'Science' is no different. It is open to interpretation. Point of view and perspective taint results as often as Human error. Your specific world-view, your specific ideas on why and how we are here will alter what you see. Where Evolutionist's see the work of random mutation and chance, a Creationist will see a guiding hand. But intrinsic to Science is an open-mind. I am NOT a scientist - despite my love for all things science - because I am NOT as open-minded as is needed. I do interpret things from a Judeo-Christian perspective. I admit this because there really is no point to hiding it, to arguing it.
My point is that men and women use the title 'Scientist' as a way of shutting others up; they declare themselves men and women of 'Science' and therefore unbiased. They claim they see only facts and data and extrapolate theories from them. This is not true. They are Evolutionists, Creationists or Other first, and Scientists last. We all interpret data. We all make 'educated guesses' based on what we see, hear, smell, taste and feel. Not all of our ideas are correct. What I am asking of you is to have an open mind and a little understanding. We do not all share the same beliefs, or 'theories', or whatever term you wish to place there. But we all do want something more, some explanation for how, and why, and what, and when. Rather than shut ourselves and our minds, rather than react with hate or contempt or any negative, non-constructive comments or thoughts, we should be striving to learn from one another. Many of the 'greats' of Science had a belief in a being, a 'god' that had a hand in our creation. It did not hamper their ability to dream or theorize. Hate, arrogance and contempt will.
Add this to Piltdown Man and "Piltdown Chicken" and you'll see that evolutionists are constantly distorting and exaggerating findings and facts to desperately try to "prove" their Theory of Evolution, despite the many missing links which should abound in both living and fossil form if evolution were indeed more than just a theory!
If God is omnipotent enough to create the universe and all of its contents, surely he didn't need to take any long period of time to do so! His Word states that He created each creature after its own kind and commanded them to go forth and multiply - that's good enough for me!