The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[Earthling]

The evolution chamber is a look back at classic science. An historical look at the theory of Evolution.

Today's episode: Piltdown Man

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community. After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***) it was discovered that it was human and ape bones put together and artificially aged. 40 years.

 

[Sunstone]

It was never accepted by all scientists, and was always significantly controversial. Your book sucks.

Besides which, solid science debunked it in a relatively short time, as humans go when it comes to these things.

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't it wonderful that claims in science are capable of being disproven.
This is the critical advantage of the scientific method(s), one which gives the boot
to many theories, even honest & useful ones, eg, Newton's theory of gravitation.
If something is "nicht einmal falsch" (ie, not even wrong), then it's usually not science.

Btw, the Piltdown Man fraud was discovered as early as 1913.
Far from a black eye for science, I say the fraud was useful.
Such things shouldn't be encouraged, but they keep science on its toes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The evolution chamber is a look back at classic science. An historical look at the theory of Evolution.

Today's episode: Piltdown Man

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community. After 40 years of prestige in the halls of peer reviewed reproducible observation (i.e. insert head in ***) it was discovered that it was human and ape bones put together and artificially aged. 40 years.

Your implication is obvious. I doubt that I go a day without reading something fraudulent coming out of Christianity.

 

[Earthling]

It was never accepted by all scientists, and was always significantly controversial.

That must have been awkward for them.

Your book sucks.

What book? The text book that depicted Piltdown Man as a human ancestor or the book that dared to point out the obvious error?

Besides which, solid science debunked it in a relatively short time, as humans go when it comes to these things.

Yeah. 40 years is fantastic. For science. I personally think if they hadn't artificially aged the skulls they would have gotten away with it. I guess that goes without saying.

 

[Earthling]

Your implication is obvious. I doubt that I go a day without reading something fraudulent coming out of Christianity.

Yeah, but Christianity isn't presented as peer reviewed, reproducible, irrefutable, blah, blah, blah . . . fact.

 

[Earthling]

Isn't it wonderful that claims in science are capable of being disproven.
This is the critical advantage of the scientific method(s), one which gives the boot
to many theories, even honest & useful ones, eg, Newton's theory of gravitation.
If something is "nicht einmal falsch" (ie, not even wrong), then it's usually not science.

Btw, the Piltdown Man fraud was discovered as early as 1913.

Interesting. And yet it remained all that time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. And yet it remained all that time.

And it remains still.
It exemplifies why I oppose sanitizing history.
There is great illuminating value in it.

 

[Altfish]

From 1912 to 1953 Piltdown man was accepted as genuine by the evolution community..

Piltdown Man was always thought of as doubtful.
The 1953 date is the year in which it was formally proved to be a hoax.
I think you will find that it was the popular press rather than the scientific community that ensured the myth continued as late as it did.

 

[Audie]

And it remains still.
It exemplifies why I oppose sanitizing history.
There is great illuminating value in it.

Kinda like I oppose taking stinkbaitt.

 

[Revoltingest]

Kinda like I oppose taking stinkbaitt.

I had to look that up.
What Is Stink Bait?
I still don't understand.

 

[Earthling]

And it remains still.
It exemplifies why I oppose sanitizing history.
There is great illuminating value in it.

What is your opinion of the ancient Greek philosophers who expounded upon Evolution?

My take on Darwin, other than that he was nuts, is that at that time they were so prudish that they thought that the legs of a piano should be covered with pants, and simultaneously, travel was beginning to make it easier for chimps and exotic animals to be put on exhibit. They used to dress the chimps in human clothing to cover their nakedness. It didn't take much of a leap of Darwin's insane imagination to come up with Origins under those circumstances.

I mean, once he failed at Religion.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What is your opinion of the ancient Greek philosophers who expounded upon Evolution?

My take on Darwin, other than that he was nuts, is that at that time they were so prudish that they thought that the legs of a piano should be covered with pants, and simultaneously, travel was beginning to make it easier for chimps and exotic animals to be put on exhibit. They used to dress the chimps in human clothing to cover their nakedness. It didn't take much of a leap of Darwin's insane imagination to come up with Origins under those circumstances.

I mean, once he failed at Religion.

Have you gotten around to reading Why Evolution is True yet, or are you just going to continue to post uninformed nonsense without ever actually researching the evidence for evolution?

 

[Audie]

I had to look that up.
What Is Stink Bait?
I still don't understand.

You know the idiom, "rise to the bait"

In this case the serving of rancid garbage being
dangled for "debate" is not worthy of response.

 

[Earthling]

Have you gotten around to reading Why Evolution is True yet, or are you just going to continue to post uninformed nonsense without ever actually researching the evidence for evolution?

I can safely say that I will never read Why Evolution Is True. I might read Why Evolution Is False, but never Why Evolution Is True.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is your opinion of the ancient Greek philosophers who expounded upon Evolution?

I have none.

My take on Darwin, other than that he was nuts, is that at that time they were so prudish that they thought that the legs of a piano should be covered with pants, and simultaneously, travel was beginning to make it easier for chimps and exotic animals to be put on exhibit. They used to dress the chimps in human clothing to cover their nakedness. It didn't take much of a leap of Darwin's insane imagination to come up with Origins under those circumstances.
I mean, once he failed at Religion.

I sense that you've a low opinion of Darwin & his work.
But he struck me as a tireless worker & insightful guy.

 

[Revoltingest]

You know the idiom, "rise to the bait"

In this case the serving of rancid garbage being
dangled for "debate" is not worthy of response.

Intelligent people don't take the bait.
But I do.

 

[Earthling]

You know the idiom, "rise to the bait"

In this case the serving of rancid garbage being
dangled for "debate" is not worthy of response.

Embrace your religion's past, Audie. Don't run and hide from it.

 

[Sunstone]

Yeah. 40 years is fantastic. For science. I personally think if they hadn't artificially aged the skulls they would have gotten away with it. I guess that goes without saying.

If you happen to know of a more self-correcting field of human inquiry than the sciences, feel free to mention it.

As for it "going without saying" that they would have "gotten away with it", that first assumes that they did (not the case, actually, since they only hoodwinked some scientists), and second that assumes they'd still be "getting away with it". Not only does that overlook the many ways Piltdown man would never have fit in with the rapidly expanding knowledge of the day, but it also overlooks the new investigative technologies, such as DNA sequencing, that would have eventually crushed the hoax (even if it had gone on as long as to reach the age of DNA).

 

[Sunstone]

Yeah, but Christianity isn't presented as peer reviewed, reproducible, irrefutable, blah, blah, blah . . . fact.

Because it's not.