Subject:
|
The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:26:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
590 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > A fascinating discussion, from the POV of one who believes in both evolution
> > and creationism. It's also a bit amusing to find that so many on both sides
> > apparently (1) reject the notion that it's a little bit of both.
> I don't claim that God didn't make everything.
Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that one at anyone specifically -- just hoping for
some colattoral damage. An old nasty habit. :-,
> > But anyway, concerning the fake fossil that was published in National
> > Geographic:
> If it's fake, I'd *love* to verify that. Fakes are great fun. Just tell me
> your source (preferably before the Ice Age hits hell).
Wow, chilly. Touche. OK, I thought that since you were familiar with the
first Geographic article ("Feathered Dinosaurs", Nov. 1999, pp. 98-107),
you'd be familiar with the follow-up. Check out the article "Archeoraptor
Fossil Trail", National Geographic Magazine, October 2000, pp. 128-132,
which gives a fairly comprehensive summary of why the fossil was a fake and
how the NGS published the story in the first place.
The actual fossil is (I believe) back home in China, as of May 25, 2000.
I'd post another reference from the Salt Lake Tribune (it happened pretty
much in our back yard), but I can't find it just yet.
> > Motivation. Remember the motivation behind the fake. The fossil in
> > question was most likely faked to increase its black-market sale value, and
> > not with a goal of slyly filling in evolutionary blanks. The museum
> > curators who ultimately published their erroneous findings on the fossil
> > were also motivated by sales -- ticket sales for their BFE
> > middle-of-no-freakin-where museum. Once the findings were published and the
> > fossil was placed under scientific scrutiny, it didn't take long before it
> > was revealed to be the glue job that it was.
> Hmmmm, well, this is interesting. The National Geographic represented that
> the fossil-finder is a scientist of long-standing repute, and her
> arch-enemies are the black marketeers (this is in China). The fossils
> weren't on display (except to other scientists). Of course, they could have
> gotten it all wrong, but your explanation doesn't seem to fit with what they
> reported.
Um, perhaps we are thinking of different fossils then. The "Archeoraptor",
half-archeopteryx / half-dromaeosaur glue job, right? *If* that's what
you're referring to, I'm pretty much paraphrasing from the article I just
referenced above.
Several scientists of good repute were indeed involved with the sham. Many
half-truths and conjectures were also represented as truths in that article.
The original paper was rejected by magazines Science and Nature for lack of
peer review. Most involved have since re-assessed their positions. In
fact, coauthor Xu Xing wrote a retraction which was partially published in
the March 2000 National Geographic Forum (section "Feathers For T. Rex?").
As for the actual fossil-finder, I've never heard nor seen reference of
him/her except for the Oct. 2000 Geographic article.
The (coauthor) Czerkases, on the other hand, can be quite boisterous in
defending their ideas. They have to be -- they make lots of terriffic
claims without much evidence to back it up. I'm quite familiar with them.
Great paintings, weird ideas. They pretty much deny any progress in dino
study since the Victorian days. Their book "Dinosaurs: A Global View" is
sitting on my shelf next to Bakker's "Dinosaur Heresies"; the proximity of
the two sometimes causes sparks. Decent art, tho. Better sketches than
Bakker, too. :-,
> > Taken in the right perspective, this faked fossil really bears no relevance
> > in the whole evolution / creationism debate.
> Helps establish the link between dinosaurs and birds. Evolution.
Um, it just throws a known fabrication into the debate. I'm sure that it's
possible that it *could* benefit one side of the argument over the other,
but I fail to see how.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I don't claim that God didn't make everything. I'm only concerned here with the evidence on hand on what happened. I'm not addressing whether it was directed by God in any fashion or not, but simply what actually took place. (...) If it's (...) (23 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
