To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9224
9223  |  9225
Subject: 
Re: The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:31:01 GMT
Viewed: 
572 times
  
My God!  Someone actually noted a source!  Miracles do happen!  :-)

My wife has been on a anti-packrat campaign of late (me) and has been
tossing my National Geographics when the new one comes in, whether I've read
it or not.  I'll have to go back and check that one out at the library.
Thanks for the info (ah, a non-political scandal for once!).

Bruce



In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
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 is in Reply To:
  The Fake Fossil (Was: Problems with Darwin's theory)
 
(...) Sorry -- I wasn't aiming that one at anyone specifically -- just hoping for some colattoral damage. An old nasty habit. :-, (...) Wow, chilly. Touche. OK, I thought that since you were familiar with the first Geographic article ("Feathered (...) (24 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR