Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:44 AM
132 online now:
CosmicChimp, Tangle (2 members, 130 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,449 Year: 3,486/19,786 Month: 481/1,087 Week: 71/212 Day: 1/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Evolutionist Frauds
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 31 of 52 (87376)
02-18-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by wj
02-18-2004 7:12 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor
wj writes:


Firstly, it would be stretching the story to say that any of those involved in the Archaeoraptor case intended to pass off something which they knew to be untrue as a scientific truth - a fraud. Even the original Chinese discoverer of the fossils was likely to have been motivated by a desire to create a marketable, attractive object for the collector's market rather than a deliberate attempt to create a fossil which was intended to support a scientific hypothesis. [...]

Secondly, the fossil never officially accepted the scientific world. The paper detailing Archaeoraptor did not pass peer review. [...]

Thirdly, the fact that Xu Xing, one of the scientists involved, brought others' attention to the error is inconsistent with a conspiracy to commit fraud.

Mentioning it as an "evolutionist fraud" is disingenuous.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by wj, posted 02-18-2004 7:12 PM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coragyps, posted 02-18-2004 9:50 PM Sylas has not yet responded
 Message 43 by wj, posted 02-19-2004 10:56 PM Sylas has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 32 of 52 (87394)
02-18-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sylas
02-18-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor
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.

Particularly as the forger/seller was likely a Chinese farmer committing a serious felony by selling fossils abroad. I gravely doubt that he gave even a half-second's thought as to whether he was aiding or injuring Feduccia's, or anyone else's, viewpoint.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sylas, posted 02-18-2004 8:29 PM Sylas has not yet responded

    
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 52 (87459)
02-19-2004 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Sylas
02-18-2004 3:11 AM


Re: Archaeoraptor
Gasp, Sylas, here I been on a roll as the enemy of all reason and you rush in to ruin my reputation! Nooooo!

Hey, thanks. I guess sanity still exists in the crazy ol' world of ours! Will be looking forward to more of your posts. The details of the story are very interesting.

The F is for fake article says that concern about fakes is real. Here are a few sentences from it:

Many early palaeontologists saw nothing wrong with adding a missing bone or two. Both the American Museum of Natural History and the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh acquired fossil skeletons of Apatosaurus with skulls from different dinosaurs in the 1880s. But the prices that well-preserved Chinese bird fossils fetch have made faking extremely profitable. Over the past twenty years, says Derstler, "adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot."

"The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery," complains Martin.

[This message has been edited by Tamara, 02-19-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Sylas, posted 02-18-2004 3:11 AM Sylas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2004 10:13 AM Tamara has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Sylas, posted 02-19-2004 12:01 PM Tamara has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 34 of 52 (87460)
02-19-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tamara
02-19-2004 9:58 AM


fakes
Which is why the commercial fossil market should be restricted very severly. And why it is fortunate that we are not dependent on that for information.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tamara, posted 02-19-2004 9:58 AM Tamara has not yet responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 35 of 52 (87479)
02-19-2004 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tamara
02-19-2004 9:58 AM


Re: Archaeoraptor
Tamara writes:


"The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery," complains Martin.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tamara, posted 02-19-2004 9:58 AM Tamara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Tamara, posted 02-19-2004 12:26 PM Sylas has not yet responded

  
Tamara
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 52 (87486)
02-19-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Sylas
02-19-2004 12:01 PM


classification
I recently saw a diagram claiming that the holy 5 of my remembered classification were redone: instead of fish, amphibian, liz, bird, and mammal we now have only 4 with the birds put in with the lizards. Hmm... Does that make sense? I don't want to seem an old fogey holding on to tradition for tradition's sake but somehow this just does not feel right...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Sylas, posted 02-19-2004 12:01 PM Sylas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2004 1:50 PM Tamara has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 52 (87510)
02-19-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Tamara
02-19-2004 12:26 PM


Re: classification
That doesn't seem right. As I understand it cladistics puts birds in with crocodiles and dinosaurs - and lizards and snakes in a different branch.

Doing a little more rresearch it seems that the order of the divisions is :

fish
amphibia
turtles
mammals
lizards & snakes
crocodiles
birds


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Tamara, posted 02-19-2004 12:26 PM Tamara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2004 1:58 PM PaulK has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 52 (87513)
02-19-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
02-19-2004 1:50 PM


Re: classification
I think that different levels of taxonomy are getting muddled here
from: http://erms.biol.soton.ac.uk/cgi-bin/hierarchy.pl?rank=subphylum&taxon=Vertebrata

I don't know if this list is complete or not.

This is the old class list and now Aves must move under Reptillia in some way (or a super class must have been created).

I presume aves would now be an order of reptillia. Which would not group it with lizards or crocodiles or fish. Does anyone have a difinitive list?

12 groups within the subphylum Vertebrata:
class Myxini
class Cephalaspidomorpha
class Chondrichthyes
class Ostichthyes
class Crossopterygii
class Reptilia
class Aves
class Mammalia
class Mixini
class Osteichthyes
class Class
informal Tetrapoda


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2004 1:50 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 02-19-2004 2:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2004 3:09 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 52 (87529)
02-19-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NosyNed
02-19-2004 1:58 PM


Re: classification
quote:
presume aves would now be an order of reptillia. Which would not group it with lizards or crocodiles or fish. Does anyone have a difinitive list?

Order is a subset of class. Aves and Reptilia are separate classes that share the same phylum (chordata).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2004 1:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Cthulhu, posted 02-19-2004 4:31 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 52 (87545)
02-19-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NosyNed
02-19-2004 1:58 PM


Re: classification
I wasn't trying to present formal taxonomy, rather to give a list of the branchings showing where the groupings would be.

If I wanted better I would start with the Tree of Life project
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

The Reptilia includes the Anapsids (including turtles), and the Romeriida which includes the Diapsids. Under the diapsids we (eventually) come to the Sauria which includes Archosauormorpha under which are the Archosaurs (including crocodiles, birds and dinosaurs),
Also under Sauria are the Lepidosauromorpha including the Lepidosauria under which are the Squamata (lizards and snakes).
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota&contgroup=Terrestrial_vertebrates


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NosyNed, posted 02-19-2004 1:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 3925 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 41 of 52 (87575)
02-19-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Loudmouth
02-19-2004 2:28 PM


Re: classification
Aves is now a superorder belonging to the superorder Theropoda, which belongs to the subclass Dinosauria, which belongs to the class Archosauria, which belongs to the superclass Reptilia.


Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Loudmouth, posted 02-19-2004 2:28 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 02-19-2004 5:07 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 52 (87580)
02-19-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Cthulhu
02-19-2004 4:31 PM


Re: classification
Ahh, thanks Cthulu. Darn taxonomists, they keep chaning things on me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Cthulhu, posted 02-19-2004 4:31 PM Cthulhu has not yet responded

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 52 (87635)
02-19-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Sylas
02-18-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Archaeoraptor
Sylas, feel free to be thunderstruck but you seem to have missed the forest for the trees.

In a thread titled Evolutionist Frauds, Tamara writes (bolds are mine):

(referring to NosyNed's mention of Nebraska Man in message #1, "Haeckel's embryo drawings is the only other one I know of."

(in message #12) "There are also other frauds like the bird/dino fossil found in China recently that was quickly discovered to be a fake." and

"But this is more of a fraud perpetrated ON evolutionists."

"It just raises the question of... how many other frauds are there undetected?"

In these statements over a couple of posts Tamara has agreed that Nebraska Man was a fraud, nominated Haeckel's drawings as frauds, implied that there was still a smell of fraud from the paleontologists involved in the Archaeoraptor saga and speculated about other undetected frauds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sylas, posted 02-18-2004 8:29 PM Sylas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 12:58 AM wj has responded

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 44 of 52 (87649)
02-20-2004 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by wj
02-19-2004 10:56 PM


others
wj writes:


In a thread titled Evolutionist Frauds, Tamara writes (bolds are mine):

(referring to NosyNed's mention of Nebraska Man in message #1, "Haeckel's embryo drawings is the only other one I know of."

(in message #12) "There are also other frauds like the bird/dino fossil found in China recently that was quickly discovered to be a fake." and

"But this is more of a fraud perpetrated ON evolutionists."

"It just raises the question of... how many other frauds are there undetected?"

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:

I will take up the Nebraska Man issue later. I'm not aware of any other case that could be, even remotely, considered to be an evolutionist fraud.
(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.

In these statements over a couple of posts Tamara has agreed that Nebraska Man was a fraud, nominated Haeckel's drawings as frauds, implied that there was still a smell of fraud from the paleontologists involved in the Archaeoraptor saga and speculated about other undetected frauds.

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:

That is the nice thing about science. Fraud is usually outed in the end.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by wj, posted 02-19-2004 10:56 PM wj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 02-20-2004 2:05 AM Sylas has not yet responded
 Message 46 by wj, posted 02-20-2004 2:59 AM Sylas has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 45 of 52 (87651)
02-20-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Sylas
02-20-2004 12:58 AM


Re: others
That other was not intended that way. I just didn't want to argue Nebraska man right off
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Sylas, posted 02-20-2004 12:58 AM Sylas has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019