Evolutionist Frauds

No misrepresentation: Tamara is quite correct. In her post Message 12, she said: The full story is fascinating. The scientist who located the counter slab of the fossil was Xu Xing, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology in Beijing.Xu Xing was brought in at the suggestion of the Institute in Beijing to be one of several scientific experts to make the first examination of the fossil after it was purchased at sale of gems and minerals in Utah, by the owner of a small museum. However, Xu Xing's initial examination was quite brief, before his return to China.After this, a chain of events was set in motion. National Geographic committed to writing up the discovery, confident that this would appear after formal announcement in peer reviewed journals. Then papers describing the fossil were rejected by Nature, and by Science (twice). National Geographic was out on a limb, and went ahead with publication anyway.While scientists in the USA were studying the fossil, handicapped by lack of any proper field work description or knowledge of its original locality; Xu Xing went on a search for more evidence in China, on his own behalf. It was clear that the fossil had come from the Liaoning province in Northern China, the source of many magnificent fossils which have helped show a close link to birds. After two months, Xu Xing got lucky. He is quoted by a BBC Horizon transcript: He did get lucky. A local farmer who was involved also in fossil collecting did have something similar... similar right down to small cracks and marks on the rock. It was the counter slab of the same fossil. The program goes on to describe what happens next: The story of events leading up to publication is told in "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail" by Lewis M. Simons, in the National Geographic October 2000 issue. Simons was given the task by the magazine editors of finding out just how and why National Geographic went so horribly wrong. His report makes amazing reading. Simons describes it thus: It would be churlish to blame the Chinese finders and dealers for this hoax. They generally receive only a fraction of what fossils are really worth. The aim of the original constructor of the composite was quite likely not primarily to deceive, but mainly to present material with the best possible appearance for market.It is is likely that the forgery would have been uncovered even without the counter slab discovery; but it may have taken much longer. There were already many warning signs of problems; but a reluctance to look at those signs by some scientists who should have known better. The CAT scans in particular had already indicated the possibility of fraud, and this was communicated to Nature magazine, but not to National Geographic. For full defails of the communications failure, check out Simon's article.It should be noted that the problem was not with scientific review, but with a popular magazine that somehow avoided or lost or just failed to hear the review.Cheers -- SylasPS. Welcome Tamara. You've had some excellent things to say here, and have somehow managed to be completely misunderstood. Your critical approach will be a valuable contribution, and what I have seen of your contributions, on a number of topics, has always been right on the money.

I do not think anyone here has mentioned it as evolutionist fraud.I'm a bit thunderstuck at this response; it simply does not make sense as a reply to my article, or to Tamara's comments. We all agree with the above obvious points, and the contributions of both Tamara and I have both made similar comments to what you are saying above.It bothers me if people can't deal with even the slightest hint at some criticism of scientists involved, and confuse it with creationist inflations.This can perfectly reasonably be called a fraud perpetuated on evolutionists, which is how Tamara described it. As you and I have pointed out, the objectives of the forgery were probably to enhance market value, not to push any particular scientific model. As I said, it would be churlish to simply put all the blame on the unknown forger given their likely circumstances; but it was certainly a deliberate and skillful forgery.It did fool the scientists who examined it -- some more than others. The story is a useful cautionary tale, and it is legitimate to wonder if there are other cases in which we have been mislead by altered fossils.Here is a discussion, from New Scientist:F is for Fake, by Jeff Hecht (New Scientist, 19 February 2000) that gives legitimate consideration of this serious problem.On the other hand, the very fact that such a forgery is even possible is due to the close relationships of ancient birds and dromaeosaurs. The so called Archaeoraptor fossil remains a valuable find. The two parts are now identified as Yanornis martini, an ancient fish eating bird for which some other fossils also exist; with the dinosaurian tail added from a species now called Microraptor zhaoianus, possibly the smallest known non-avian dinosaur. (See Fossil forgery's front half revealed, from the Nature news service.)Cheers -- Sylas

Larry Martin is right about that; although the commercial market is well recognized as being of limited scientific value. The scientific worth of a fossil drops precipitously when it is removed from its geological context.Unfortunately, the value in the collector's market is not nearly so adversely affected; and scientists have limited budgets. This means that there remains a strong financial incentive to trade in fossils without regard for the negative impact this has on scientific value. It's a serious problem.There is, however, a bit of minor irony in Larry's comments. Larry Martin is one of a very few remaining scientists who still hold on to the BANDwagon (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs). Alan Feduccia is the most vocal, and Larry Martin thinks he has a point but does not say as much about it. The BANDwagon has been becoming more and more marginalized over time as the fossil evidence from China continues to mount. The Microraptor page I cited last time includes comments from Martin deprecating Xu Xing's interpretations of the counter slab fossil. Larry Martin performs a useful service, being the voice of skepticism for the new theory. Martin does not charge that all the evidence for bird dinosaur linkage is fakery; he simply disagrees on interpretations (to the point where he now appears quite idiosyncratic).Larry raises a useful caution on misleading fossils... and the minor irony is that scientific consensus now appears to be that fossils are showing Martin's comments on bird ancestry to be misleading. It's probably just about time for him to throw in the towel and recognize the linkage.Cheers -- Sylas

This is surreal... Both Ned and Tamara use the word other, and neither one reads credibly as acknowledging Nebraska Man as a fraud. Ned said, in Message 1: (Do you think Ned's use of the word "other" means that he is calling Nebraska man a fraud?)Tamara's reply, Message 5, which you have quoted, is raising Haeckel's drawings as another point for discussion of what could be frauds.Some more others we could discuss include Java man and Onyate man. Java man is not fraud, and Onyate man is fraud -- a hilarious and deliberate April fools prank aimed at creationists. It worked. Check it out; if you have not heard this story before, you'll love it!Haeckel is a much more serious and legitimate other example to consider. Gould (one of my favourite writers) calls it fraudulent; and Tamara's citation of Gould's article was introducing a high level of scholarship into that issue. I tend to avoid the term fraud in this instance; but that may just be excessive caution. It is not remotely sensible to say Tarama agreed that Nebraska Man was a fraud. She did nominate Haeckel's drawing's as fraud, and good on her for that. Her comments on Archaeoraptor are also right on. This was fraud, but it was more a case of fraud perpetrated on evolutionists than by evolutionists. If you read the details in the articles I have supplied, especially the one by Lewis Simons, you will see that some of the actions by scientists involved were less than satisfactory; they do have a major share in responsibility for the impact of this fraud, and the inflated claims published in National Geographic; though their actions were not fraudulent in isolation.It is entirely right and proper to speculate about other frauds of the same kind as Archaeoraptor, and to be vigilant in testing and finding them. As Tarama has also said: Cheers -- Sylas

The crux of the matter I am trying to resolve is unfair comments about our colleague Tamara.I am pretty damn sure that I have done this to the satisfaction of most readers. This is one last attempt to let you see the problem. I'm not trying to cause offense in doing this.Tamara was accused of calling Nebraska man a fraud. However, she did no such thing; it was an invalid inference on your part from the word "other". Ned used the word first, in the same way, and in neither case is there the remotest basis for inferring a presumption that Nebraska man really was fraudulent.Tarama has been criticised for speaking of a fortuitous event. It is a matter of public record that she is absolutely correct, and for those unaware of this, the specifics have since been described in some detail in references which should have settled the matter.Tamara has been criticised for failing to spell out the fortitous event. That is unfair on two counts. First, she did spell out the fortitous event: it was a scientist who stumbled across the other half of the slab containing the very dinosaur whose tail was incorporated into the forgery. Second, even if she had omitted this matter of public knowledge, it is boorish to berate others for failing to give you the full story in a short post. If you really needed more details; then ask.She never called this an evolutionist fraud; she said it was more of a fraud on evolutionists. She was right about that also.The whole point of this thread was to discuss things which Skeptick had in his putative rap list of evolutionist frauds. Since Skeptick's rather amusing self-destruct we have used this as an opportunity to air some known cases habitually cited by clowns like Skeptick. Archaeoraptor is a perfectly valid example of something which creationists like to cite as an evolutionist fraud, and Tamara concisely stated what is wrong with that estimation, and gave a plain statement of the real problem that exists with fossil forgery.Basically, the crux of the matter is that you owe Tamara an apology. Several, in fact. That is not the end of the world, or a personal attack on you. Anyone can make a mistake. What is more significant is whether or not we are capable of recognizing them!Cheers -- SylasPS. I'm not a team player in the sense of excusing anything by an evolutionist and criticising anything by a creationist. But I am a team player in the sense of happy to meet up with anyone involved in this area. I'm in Brisbane, and my email is in my profile. Drop me a line and I'll shout you a drink.