Odd Silence re: Mungo Man

12 views
Skip to first unread message

and...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
ZIMMER, CARL
Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
years ago.
....

OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
the odd silence since then?

There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?

Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
bird fraud!

Andy

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
> Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
> Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
> 62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
> previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
> modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
> years ago.

What's the problem? Man had 38 kyrs to get down to Australia.
Maybe an early Olympics were being held there then. <g>


glenn morton

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to

<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
> public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
> its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>
> Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
> bird fraud!


If the internet is the only place you think things are debated, then you
need to widen your perspective. In the literature there has been some
vitriolic debate about the age of the Mungo man. See: Ranier Grun, et al,
“Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton, Reply to Bowler & Magee and to Gillespie
& Roberts,” Journal of Human Evolution, 38(2000):733-741 and follow the
references back. This debate is a normal part of science. Someone proposes
something, someone else criticises it. That is what science is supposed to
do. And generally they do it in the scientific literature not on the
internet.

Glenn Morton
see
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution info.

and...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <39E093D7...@my-dejanews.com>,

Right -- perhaps he was competing in a swim event at Lake Mungo!
Synchronized swimming?

From the same Science article quoted at the top of the thread:

"Many researchers maintain that all modern humans descend from a single
population of Africans dating back perhaps 100,000 years; these
founders later spread out across the Old World, replacing any humans or
hominids they encountered. One of the last places they would have
reached would be Australia, so an early date for their arrival would
mean an earlier migration than some researchers had pictured--or
perhaps an alternative scenario of modern human origins. 'If
the dates are reliable, the implications are very substantial,' says
Stanford University's Richard Klein."

Hmmmmm. "Very substantial" implications. So why the silence?

and...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <8rq7k3$bsh$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,

The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
claims. Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
why isn't there debate about it on the internet? We'll reach the truth
a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor of a
journal with miniscule circulation.

It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to be
recognized. Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims like
Mungo Man from the internet.

Dick C.

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
and...@my-deja.com wrote in <8rq80e$7sq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:

Because they are not done studying it yet? Science, unlike religion
or rogerandy, does not pop up with a full analysis ready for instant
review and discussion within 2 or 3 days. It takes time to properly
analyze their findings. And to determine if the initial determinations
were correct or not.
And if someone is going to publish something that will change a bit
of scientific thinking they are going to make sure that they
are correct.

--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/


Mark T. VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>ZIMMER, CARL
>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>years ago.
>....
>
>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>the odd silence since then?

Its a conspiracy. Obviously.

>There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
>public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
>its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?

Are you aware how long it takes to do real science? Unlike
creationists like Johnson and Behe, real scientists actually have
ANALYZE EVIDENCE to reach conclusions. That takes time.

>Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
>bird fraud!

Yeah, I am sure that's it.

>Andy

Mark
--
Mark VandeWettering's .signature contains six As, two Cs, three
Ds, twenty four Es, eight Fs, seven Gs, six Hs, fifteen Is, two
Ks, two Ms, sixteen Ns, nine Os, eight Rs, twenty eight Ss, twenty
one Ts, five Us, five Vs, eight Ws, four Xs, and four Ys.


Mark T. VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <8rqaui$9vj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
>claims. Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
>why isn't there debate about it on the internet? We'll reach the truth
>a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor of a
>journal with miniscule circulation.

I must admit Andy, you are presenting me with a lot of chuckles. I tell
you what, if you want to debate the age of Mungo Man, feel free to create
alt.debate.mungo.man and start. I'm sure you'll reach the truth far sooner
than the scientists who actually have the skeletons and training to interpret
them will.

>It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to be
>recognized.

Actually, skepticism about Piltdown was almost immediate. It took years
for the fraud to finally be acknowledged.

>Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
>legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims like
>Mungo Man from the internet.

Who would have thought that talk.origins could be so funny?

Mark
>Andy

WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

> New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
> Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
> ZIMMER, CARL
> Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
> Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
> 62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
> previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
> modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
> years ago.
> ....
>
> OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
> the odd silence since then?
>

> There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
> public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
> its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>

> Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
> bird fraud!

If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just means
our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)

"Speeeeeed Walker!!!"

--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |


WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <8rqaui$9vj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <8rq7k3$bsh$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> "glenn morton" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > <and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rq083
> > $2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> > > There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet
> > > for public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about
> > > Mungo Man, and its implications, among evolutionists. What
> > > gives?
> > >
> > > Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent
> > > dinosaur- bird fraud!
> >

> > If the internet is the only place you think things are debated,
> > then you need to widen your perspective. In the literature there
> > has been some vitriolic debate about the age of the Mungo man.
> > See: Ranier Grun, et al, “Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton, Reply
> > to Bowler & Magee and to Gillespie & Roberts,” Journal of Human
> > Evolution, 38(2000):733-741 and follow the references back. This
> > debate is a normal part of science. Someone proposes something,
> > someone else criticises it. That is what science is supposed to do.
> > And generally they do it in the scientific literature not on the
> > internet.
>

> The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary
> claims.

Actually, it's the best place for nuts like you to annoy working
scientists.

> Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
> why isn't there debate about it on the internet?

To keep the net kooks out of proper scientific work.

> We'll reach the
> truth a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor
> of a journal with miniscule circulation.

You'll also generate so much unadulterated crap that no one will be able
to find the scarce nuggets of worthy discussion

Also, do you think that mere discussion is capable of reaching truth?
Andy, you are so droll. Science is not about talking -- it's about
doing. It's about getting your hands dirty and looking at the bones and
the rock around them.

> It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to

> be recognized. Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no

> legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims
> like Mungo Man from the internet.

Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be found
out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx I
think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail (NOT
A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In talk.origins I read <8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from
and...@my-deja.com:

>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>ZIMMER, CARL
>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>years ago.
>....
>
>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>the odd silence since then?
>

>There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
>public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
>its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>
>Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
>bird fraud!

My gosh, they did not put this stuff on the Internet where Andy could
find it right away, it must be a scam then.


--
Matt Silberstein

Let me ride on the wall of death one more time
You can waste your chances on the other rides
This is the nearest to being alive
Let me take my chances on the wall of death

R.T.


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
WickedDyno wrote:
> If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just means
> our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)

And boats and language and a few other things. Why would they be
going to Australia anyway, to set up a penal colony there? <g>


and...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,

WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
found
> out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
> honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
I
> think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
(NOT
> A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.

According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.

Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?

As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
fossil was a fake.

This is science???

Boikat

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
> Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
> ZIMMER, CARL
> Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
> Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
> 62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
> previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
> modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
> years ago.
> ....
>
> OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
> the odd silence since then?

What "bombshell?

>
> There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
> public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
> its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?

What "gives" is probably your interpretation of
the findings being a "bombshell".

>
> Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
> bird fraud!

Or maybe that you are trying to make another
mountain out of another mole hill?

Or is it maybe that you are laboring under the
false impression that theories should not be
changed or discarded when new evidence comes to
light? In the case of Mungo Man, new dating of the
sediment and the remains show that it was older
than originally thought, and implies that at least
some humans migrated out of Africa earlier then
thought So?

Boikat

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
> be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?

Over 40 yrs, according to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html
(1908 until 1953)


WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In article <8rqn9c$j31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
> 4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
> found
> > out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
> > honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
> I
> > think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
> (NOT
> > A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
>
> According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
> Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>

> Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
> be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?

You are erroneously presupposing that Mungo is a fraud. There is no
reason to believe he is at present. Of course, you silly creationists
love to believe things with no evidence for them, so that's to be
expected.

> As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
> account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
> scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
> pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
> over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
> were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
> only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
> fossil was a fake.
>
> This is science???

That it was found out to be a fraud is science. You creationists are
STILL going on about the Paluxy River man tracks when they've been
disproven for generations.

Richard Harter

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
On 8 Oct 2000 17:00:34 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
>found
>> out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
>> honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
>I
>> think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
>(NOT
>> A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?

Just as a note there are two different issues in the Piltdown Man
hoax. They are: (a) Was there significant perception that hoax was a
fraud before its final exposure and (b) Was the Piltdown find broadly
accepted as being a hominid fossil.

As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
was *discovered* to be a fraud.

As to (b) there was always quite a bit of controversy as to whether
the Piltdown finds (almost universally assumed to be legitimate
fossils) were from a hominid rather being a mixture of unrelated
bones.

Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur" - Iain Bowen


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
On 8 Oct 2000 10:27:22 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>ZIMMER, CARL
>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>years ago.
>....
>
>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>the odd silence since then?

ooohhh... a conspiracy mebbe?? you know...scientists just LOVE to
announce some discovery then hush it up...
>


raven1

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
On 8 Oct 2000 17:00:34 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:


>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???

National Geographic is hardly a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


Rebecca Ore

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
and...@my-deja.com writes:


>
> The internet is the best place for public scrutiny of extraordinary

> claims. Why aren't the details about Mungo Man on the internet, and
> why isn't there debate about it on the internet? We'll reach the truth


> a thousand times faster than relying on letters-to-the-editor of a
> journal with miniscule circulation.

Um, because they know how to evaluate the data?

The internet is just a faster way of back fence gossiping, which isn't
to invalidate back fence gossiping or yakking on the phone or hanging
in a bar. It's quite good for somethings, but the numbers of people
actually debating issues on line is relatively small, smaller than the
numbers reading _Science_ or _Nature_. I see some people here I
recognize from other groups. The active posters in English world wide
in all groups probably don't number more than 20K, if that. I've seen
estimates that the numbers are even as low as only 500 people active
continuously on line year in, year out.


>
> It took 30 or so years for the truth about the Piltdown Man fraud to be
> recognized. Let's use the internet to speed that up. There's no
> legitimate reason to withhold evidence about extraordinary claims like
> Mungo Man from the internet.
>

I seriously doubt anyone is not talking about those things -- I
believe people gave you some references.

If I remember correctly, Australia was always easier to get to from
Asia than were the Americas due to winter conditions at the only point
of connection between Asia and NA. Given that Native American
populations spread from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in circa 4K years
or so, with minimal differences in technology from the Australians
other than texiles and fur tanning, I think even if the date holds, it
doesn't invalidate the mitochondrial DNA work that points to a common
mother 100K years back.


--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.ogoense.net


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
Richard Harter wrote:
> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
> was *discovered* to be a fraud.

Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.


Boikat

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to

Does it hurt your head to be so obtuse?

Boikat


Richard Harter

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>Richard Harter wrote:
>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
>> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
>
>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.

Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?

In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it was
a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a hoax
during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30 years
for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax for
30 years.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In talk.origins I read <8rqn9c$j31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from
and...@my-deja.com:

>In article <amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>4C71DB.145...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
>> Mungo is hardly extraordinary. And if it is a fraud, it will be
>found
>> out very soon. Just look at the few hihg-profile recent frauds and
>> honest mistakes made -- the feathered theropod in china, Sinoapteryx
>I
>> think the name was, and the recent mistake with the dinosaur's tail
>(NOT
>> A FRAUD!) -- both were found out very quickly.
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
>

>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???

No, Andy, it is *not* science. National Geographic is *not* a
peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a popular press magazine. Now
do you think they should have repressed the work? Are you advocating
that they censor a possible finding until they can determine if it was
correct? Sounds like you need to re-think this. (Yes, we all have the
same punch line.)

sc...@home.com

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to
In <39e10df7....@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>Richard Harter wrote:
>>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913) that the
>>> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took 30 or
>>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is quite
>>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately after it
>>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
>>
>>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
>
>Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
>wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
>who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
>
>In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it was
>a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a hoax
>during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30 years
>for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax for
>30 years.
>
Indeed.

I though you made a very valid point.


Scott


Richard Harter

unread,
Oct 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/8/00
to

Thank you.

Dick C.

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 12:03:50 AM10/9/00
to
and...@my-deja.com wrote in <8rqn9c$j31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:

>
>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.

Actually no. A few things were learned from Piltdown. Among them were
not to trust fossils that are locked away so that scientists cannot
examine them. Nothing about Mungo will be accepted if it isn't put
out for other scientists to examine. And in science all new ideas
are met with skepticism, this is part of how science works.

>
>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?

Probably not, since this one is not being locked in a safe away
from anyone who wants to investigate.

>
>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic. The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???

So, tell me, how was it discovered that the dinosaur consisted of
2 different fossils? Science, wasn't it? That is what happens when
scientists do their jobs. One finds something and reports it, others
examine it and they all together determine what it is. I realize you
want to use this in an attempt to belittle science, but it really shows
how science works to weed out fraud and errors.
And of course, you have not mentioned that National Geographic
acknowledged and apologized for the error.

David Iain Greig

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 1:36:51 AM10/9/00
to
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read <8rq083$2dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from
>and...@my-deja.com:
>
>>New Date for the Dawn of Dream Time.
>>Science, May 21, 1999 v284 i5418 p1243
>>ZIMMER, CARL
>>Researchers claim to have found the oldest human remains ever dug up in
>>Australia at Lake Mungo. The age of the skeleton is estimated to be
>>62,000 years, which would put human beings in Australia earlier than
>>previously thought. This, in turn, throws doubt on the theory that all
>>modern humans descended from a single African population about 100,000
>>years ago.
>>....
>>
>>OK, the above bombshell was published in Science over a year ago. Why
>>the odd silence since then?
>>
>>There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the internet for
>>public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about Mungo Man, and
>>its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?
>>
>>Oh no, don't tell me this is another scam, like the recent dinosaur-
>>bird fraud!
>
>My gosh, they did not put this stuff on the Internet where Andy could
>find it right away, it must be a scam then.

Well, they did, but MCI suppressed it. Really!

--D.

Mark Isaak

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/9/00
to
In article <8rqn9c$j31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.

The same is also true of you.

>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?

And when will you be acknowledged a fraud?
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the state of doubt
is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, knowledge arises when
this feeling gives way to one of assurance." - John Dewey


and...@my-deja.com

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/9/00
to
In article <39e13e0e....@news.SullyButtes.net>,

c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:
> >In <39e10df7....@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
Harter) writes:
> >>On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
> >><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Richard Harter wrote:
> >>>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913)
that the
> >>>> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took
30 or

> >>>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is
quite
> >>>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately
after it
> >>>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
> >>>
> >>>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
> >>
> >>Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
> >>wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
> >>who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
> >>
> >>In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it
was
> >>a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a
hoax
> >>during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30
years
> >>for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax
for
> >>30 years.
> >>
> >Indeed.
> >
> >I though you made a very valid point.
>
> Thank you.

It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.

With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
and deplore any possibility of fraud.

In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.

Boikat

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/9/00
to

It doesn't matter that andy misrepresented what
was said, that *some* scientists *suspected* that
piltdown was a hoax, yet were denied access to the
fossils to examine the evidence

> or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud.

Some scientists did believe piltdown was genuine,
and did finally have to admit it (and they did)
when it was clearly demonstrated to be fake.

> Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> method was badly flawed,

No, it showed that if an artifact is in doubt,
it's a good idea to allow more than just the
people making a claim based on that artifact.

> resulting in deception of the public for 40
> years.

The only "deception" was on the part of the
hoaxer.

> No other branch of science has this deplorable record.

Except for creationism. And they top scientific
"fraud", hand down.


> Quite
> simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.

And it didn't, once better dating techniques were
used, and the materials were allowed to be
examined.


>
> With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
> a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible,

What fraud?

> while
> another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
> evidence over the internet.

You misrepresent what was said.

> Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
> and deplore any possibility of fraud.

Yes, however, they are not going to hand over the
evidence to morons before they've completed their
study first.

>
> In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
> research data to be made available on demand to the public.

Who is studying Mungo man? Isn't Mungo Man an
Australian discovery? What does the Shelby
Amendment have to do with Australians?

> This would
> minimize fraud in evolution

What fraud?

> if the public started invoking it.

However, that does not mean that every Tom Dick or
Harry has access to the materials, or can make
claims based on ignorance before the study is
complete, now does it? If scientists are still
investigating something, what do you expect them
to say anyway

How may dead horses are you going to be liquefied
before you are done clubbing it with pointless
blather?

Boikat


WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/9/00
to

> but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown


> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud.

False dicotomy. Typical.

<snip more nonsense>

Bonz

unread,
Oct 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/9/00
to
On 8 Oct 2000 17:00:34 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote in
message <8rqn9c$j31$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> :


>
>According to Mark T. VandeWettering, people were skeptical of Piltdown
>Man almost immediately. Looks like the same is true for Mungo Man.
>

>Trouble is, it took 30 or so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to
>be acknowledged. Will it take that long for Mungo Man too?
>

>As to the dinosaur-bird fraud, I suggest you read National Geographic's
>account (in its most recent issue) of what happened. Early on, the
>scientists X-rayed the fossil and found it actually consisted of 88
>pieces, some of which were not matched to each other and were pasted
>over. However, they proceeded with their evolutionary claims, which
>were subsequently published in National Geographic.

And not in a science journal. Imagine that.

> The claims were
>only retracted when a Chinese scholar insisted and proved that the
>fossil was a fake.
>
>This is science???

No, it is not. Their papers were REJECTED by the journals.

Why do you insist on calling it science?

PUBLISHING PICTURES IN A TRADE MAGAZINE IS NOT SCIENCE.


Bonz alt.atheism #1497


Rover

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 12:25:09 AM10/10/00
to
On 8 Oct 2000 15:26:14 -0400, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?

WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 12:47:35 AM10/10/00
to
In article <ov55us0dn302upn1h...@4ax.com>, Rover
<n...@sonic.net> wrote:

Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
Boats may have been unnecessary.

Rover

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 1:53:19 AM10/10/00
to

Doesn't the mitochondrial data indicate a common mother as much as
200k years ago? There isn't any threat to current ideas about the out
of Africa migration, but more questions are raised about the types of
technologies possessed 100k or more years ago. Apparently maritime
cultures are more ancient than previously thought. The settling of the
Americas seems to have involved migration down the coast. This may
have been a continuation of explorations begun much earlier.

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 2:20:31 AM10/10/00
to
WickedDyno wrote:
> > That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
> > modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
> > that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?

That is a matter of some debate.

> Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
> Boats may have been unnecessary.

In the last 100 kyrs? I doubt it.

thewilkins

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
In article
<amg39.REMOVETHIS-0B...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:

> In article <ov55us0dn302upn1h...@4ax.com>, Rover
> <n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Oct 2000 15:26:14 -0400, Roger Schlafly
> > <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >
> > >WickedDyno wrote:
> > >> If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just
> > >> means
> > >> our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)
> > >
> > >And boats and language and a few other things. Why would they be
> > >going to Australia anyway, to set up a penal colony there? <g>
> >
> > That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
> > modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
> > that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
> >
>
> Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
> Boats may have been unnecessary.


At all times there was a deep trench at the Wallace line, and in human
times the Timor Sea though narrowed was still there. At best it would
have been around a 60km sea trip. Australia was, however, connected to
Papua New Guinea by a land bridge, and the continental shelf was dry
land, and being the most likely migration route, evidence of migration
is sparse because it's under water and coral.


Stew Dean

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com added to the meme
pool:

>In article <39e13e0e....@news.SullyButtes.net>,
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>> On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:

>It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found

>out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite


>simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.
>

The most important thing was it was uncovered. The scientific method
isnt magic - it is used by people and people do the things people do.
Over time the scientific method does do a great job of weening out
what is correct and not correct.

>With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes

>a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while


>another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the

>evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,


>and deplore any possibility of fraud.
>

It's pretty hard to scutinize evidence over the internet. It can lead
to a lot of 'looks like' cases. For example if you saw a picture of
the 'face on mars' on the internet you'd say it looked like a face on
mars. From another angle it certainly doesnt.


>In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded

>research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
>minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
>
You paint this odd us and them picture. Scientists are part of the
public. Peer review is very important in science.

Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife


Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:

>It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.

Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)

Louann

Rover

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
On 10 Oct 2000 02:20:31 -0400, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>WickedDyno wrote:
>> > That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
>> > modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
>> > that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
>
>That is a matter of some debate.

Who is debating? I thought the behaviorists had pretty much given up
the fight. Associationist theories can't account for children's
ability to abstract general rules from insufficient data, the
universal phases of language acquisition, or the formation of creoles
and dialects. If you know of an alternative theory that accounts
parsimoniously for such phenomena, I would be interested in hearing of
it.

>
>> Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
>> Boats may have been unnecessary.
>
>In the last 100 kyrs? I doubt it.

Got any data on this?


Rover

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
On 10 Oct 2000 00:47:35 -0400, WickedDyno
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:

>In article <ov55us0dn302upn1h...@4ax.com>, Rover
><n...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Oct 2000 15:26:14 -0400, Roger Schlafly
>> <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>> >WickedDyno wrote:
>> >> If it turns out to be a scam, then it's a scam. If not, it just means
>> >> our ancestors developed speed-walking earlier than we thought. ;)
>> >
>> >And boats and language and a few other things. Why would they be
>> >going to Australia anyway, to set up a penal colony there? <g>
>>
>> That would more likely be rafts. And since these were behaviorally
>> modern humans, it's no surprise they possessed language. Do you know
>> that humans possess an innate faculty for language acquisition?
>>
>
>Australia was connected to Asia via a land bridge at numerous times.
>Boats may have been unnecessary.

I just read John Wilkin's post where he notes that Australia was
connected by a land bridge to the Solomon Islands. Even if there was
no uninterrupted bridge from the mainland, perhaps there was a chain
of connecting islands with those nearer the mainland being visited
first and possibly settled.


Craig Patrick Walsh

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
: In article <39e13e0e....@news.SullyButtes.net>,
: c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
: > On 8 Oct 2000 22:36:52 -0400, sc...@home.com wrote:
: > >In <39e10df7....@news.SullyButtes.net>, c...@tiac.net (Richard
: Harter) writes:
: > >>On 8 Oct 2000 20:06:03 -0400, Roger Schlafly
: > >><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
: > >>

: > >>>Richard Harter wrote:
: > >>>> As to (a) they were some speculation at the time (1912-1913)
: that the
: > >>>> find was a fraud but it was quite minor. The phrasing "it took
: 30 or
: > >>>> so years for the fraud of the Piltdown Man to be acknowled" is

: quite
: > >>>> misleading; it was *acknowledged* to be a fraud immediately
: after it
: > >>>> was *discovered* to be a fraud.
: > >>>
: > >>>Now there is some circular reasoning. He knows what he knows.
: > >>
: > >>Er, do you really think that there is some connection between what I
: > >>wrote and your comment? Why do you think that it makes sense? And
: > >>who is the mysterious "he" in your second sentence?
: > >>
: > >>In any event Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley discovered that it
: was
: > >>a hoax in 1953. It was widely and publicly acknowledged to be a
: hoax
: > >>during the days immediately following. The phrasing "it took 30
: years
: > >>for it to be acknowledged" implies that it was known to be a hoax
: for
: > >>30 years.
: > >>
: > >Indeed.
: > >
: > >I though you made a very valid point.
: >
: > Thank you.

: It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the


: Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
: but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
: Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
: out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
: method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40

: years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite


: simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.

: With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes


: a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
: another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
: evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
: and deplore any possibility of fraud.

: In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded


: research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
: minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.

You haven't presented a shred a evidence to suggest that "Mungo Man" is a
fraud. It's time for you to put up or shut up: What is your evidence for
thinking that either
1) Mungo Man is a fake, or
2) Mungo Man is real but was delibrately suppressed or distorted in some
way?

Keep in mind that fraud involves lying and deception. If you find new data
that challenges a previous theory, that's not fraud, it's just life.


--
Craig


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
Louann Miller wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
> >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
>
> Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
> science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
> religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)

I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
on the moon.

Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
a blooper like Piltdown Man?


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
Rover wrote:
> Who is debating? I thought the behaviorists had pretty much given up
> the fight. Associationist theories can't account for children's
> ability to abstract general rules from insufficient data, the
> universal phases of language acquisition, or the formation of creoles
> and dialects. If you know of an alternative theory that accounts
> parsimoniously for such phenomena, I would be interested in hearing of
> it.

Here are a couple of pages discussing the debate:
http://www.duke.edu/~pk10/language/neuro.htm
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Thinking.Psychologically96/0097.html


Henry Barwood

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> a blooper like Piltdown Man?

Moses?

Barwood


Mark T. VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
In article <8rttv9$3ig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <and...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40

>years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
>simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.

*sigh*

Science is still done by human beings. One of the reasons science
works so well is that ultimately it doesn't rely on human nature to
figure things out. Sure, one scientist could lie and falsify results.
But the next scientist to come along says "hey, that's not what I get"
and the fraud is exposed. The reliance on evidence and reasoning helps
keep science grounded.

Yes, mistakes are made. Cold fusion is an illustration of how well
scientists can fool themselves (particularly in fields where they
normally don't stray, there is a lesson there for creationists).
Piltdown was a fraud, which shows that science are not immune to
political or personal motivations. Golly, that's not exactly a
stretch. Such episodes are regrettable and deplorable abuses of
science. But science more than any other field of human endeavor
has defined ways of uncovering such deceptions, of separating the
wheat from the chaff, of good ideas from bad.

>With respect to Mungo Man, you can see that at least one poster takes
>a "So what?" view towards fraud that he admits is possible, while
>another poster seems to oppose allowing the public to scrutinize the
>evidence over the internet. Real scientists welcome public scrutiny,
>and deplore any possibility of fraud.

If you feel that fraud is being committed, by all means, you should
work to uncover it. Somehow I doubt you lack the training in
paleontology and techniques for dating fossils that will allow you to
make meaningful criticisms.

In academia, real scientists welcome public scrutiny after publication.
Until they are published, they'd like to have time to fully develop their
ideas, as these publications are the principal way that they are judged.

>In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
>research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
>minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.

The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily and
unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of victims
of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby Amendment,
the private medical information of these patients must be made available
under the FOI. Issues of privacy and confidentiality which are essential
to certain kinds of research are not well considered by this amendment.

And of course, the implication that there is fraud in evolution should be
addressed. Do you have evidence that there is fraud in the dating of Mungo
Man? Or fraud in other spheres of evolutionary thought? Turn this
from a political discussion into a scientific one.

Mark

>Andy
--
Mark VandeWettering's .signature contains six As, two Cs, three
Ds, twenty four Es, eight Fs, seven Gs, six Hs, fifteen Is, two
Ks, two Ms, sixteen Ns, nine Os, eight Rs, twenty eight Ss, twenty
one Ts, five Us, five Vs, eight Ws, four Xs, and four Ys.


Mark T. VandeWettering

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
In article <39E3489D...@my-dejanews.com>,

Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Louann Miller wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
>> >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
>> >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
>> >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
>> >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
>> >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
>> >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
>>
>> Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
>> science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
>> religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
>
>I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
>on the moon.
>
>Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
>examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>a blooper like Piltdown Man?

Does the word "Heliocentricity" ring a bell?

Mark

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
"Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
> >In the U.S., the recent Shelby Amendment requires taxpayer-funded
> >research data to be made available on demand to the public. This would
> >minimize fraud in evolution if the public started invoking it.
>
> The Shelby Amendment, while perhaps well meaning, is unnecessarily and
> unproductively broad. Consider the cases of medical research of victims
> of AIDS, Alzheimers, or other diseases. Under the Shelby Amendment,
> the private medical information of these patients must be made available
> under the FOI.

Names do not have to be identified. But it is interesting that you
would try to use this as an excuse for covering up evolution data.
Do you think Mungo Man has some privacy rights? <g>


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
"Mark T. VandeWettering" wrote:
> >Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> >examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> >a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>
> Does the word "Heliocentricity" ring a bell?

Copernicus's famous book was published with the imprimatur
(approval) of the Catholic Church. Do you think it was a
big mistake?


WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
In article <39E2B4F6...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

Ice ages, Robert, ice ages.

WickedDyno

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
In article <39E3489D...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

> Louann Miller wrote:
> > On 9 Oct 2000 22:13:26 -0400, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
> > >Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> > >but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> > >Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> > >out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> > >method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> > >years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record.
> >
> > Who was the first man on the moon in your timeline? All fields of
> > science make mistakes; the test is how they correct them. (All
> > religions also make mistakes, but correction is rare.)
>
> I don't think anyone made 40-yr mistakes about the first man
> on the moon.
>

> Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
> examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
> a blooper like Piltdown Man?
>

I recall the Catholic church deciding that St. Christopher (I think) was
actually not a saint.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
In article <8rttv9$3ig$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether one claims that (1) scientists knew the
> Piltdown Man was fake immediately circa 1912 (as one poster asserts)
> but didn't tell us until 1953, or (2) scientists thought the Piltdown
> Man was legitimate until 1953 and then told us as soon as they found
> out it was a fraud. Either way, it demonstrates that the scientific
> method was badly flawed, resulting in deception of the public for 40
> years. No other branch of science has this deplorable record. Quite
> simply, proper scientific method does not permit such deception.

But let's examine your method. In your originating post on this thread
you claimed "There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the


internet for public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about
Mungo Man, and its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?"

Immediately, citations of scientific discussions regarding Mungo Man
and it implications were posted to you, in response. You've ignored
the fact that you were wrong.

Meanwhile, you've implied, without presenting any evidence, that Mungo
Man is a fraud. What kind of method is that?


Mitchell Coffey
_____________________________________________________
"Nostalgia is the handmaiden of fascism"

- Mary Gordon

Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
On 10 Oct 2000 14:29:27 -0400, WickedDyno
<amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:

>In article <39E3489D...@my-dejanews.com>, Roger Schlafly
><roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>> Yes, how fields correct mistakes is a good test. Do you want to give
>> examples of other sciences or even (mainstream) religions making
>> a blooper like Piltdown Man?

>I recall the Catholic church deciding that St. Christopher (I think) was
>actually not a saint.

And that thing about eating fish on Fridays. Apparently it used to be
damnable (i.e. made you eligible to go to Hell) but now it isn't. But
the people who went to Hell before the rules change don't get out on
that technicality.

You'd probably wiggle out by denying them "mainstream" status, but the
Mormons (okay, LDS) have some fairly serious problems as well. The
falsified New World archaeology, or the sudden policy switches on
matters like polygamy and full priesthood status for (male) nonwhite
converts.

Louann


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> But let's examine your method. In your originating post on this thread
> you claimed "There is no real evidence about Mungo Man posted on the
> internet for public scrutiny. Nor is there any real discussion about
> Mungo Man, and its implications, among evolutionists. What gives?"
> Immediately, citations of scientific discussions regarding Mungo Man
> and it implications were posted to you, in response.

Yeah, well I don't see Mungo Man himself posting anything here! <g>


Beowulf

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to

Um. Did you read these pages? Sure they mention that there was a
behaviorist theory of lang. acq., but both articles (rightly, IMO)
conclude that the evidence suggests that the concept of an innate
biological capacity for language exists. Let me give you some quotes
from your "sources" to show you:

from the duke page:
"There seems to be enough evidence to suggest the existence of strict
biological constraints behind our language function. Biological
evidence supports the selectivist model, which takes after Chomsky,
that plastic preorganized brain structures are shaped to their final
form after a proper interaction with the environment."

Sounds pretty standard. We have language specific structures in
the brain that, if not activated within a certain critical period,
are taken over for use by other things (i.e., are plastic). This
happens fairly often in the brain. It's pretty fucking cool.

from the cogsci page:
"There is a volume of evidence to support Chomsky's claims of an
innate generative grammar, though it is difficult (and unscientific)
to introspect whether a transformational process occurs during
grammar acquisition, this would seem considerably more likely than a
`finite' system. These days `generative grammars' have become a
widely accepted theory in linguistics and cognitive science, for
they manage to answer more of the questions on the rapid and
creative nature of grammar acquisition than a Skinnerian, or even a
Neo Behaviourist, model can see fit."

Again, the evidence supports the idea of language-specific structures
in the brain. The behavioral models do not adequately fit the data
to be considered worthy of further investigation. Again this is nothing
earth-shattering.

Just to throw you a clue, the mere mention that 40 years ago there
existed a competing theory that has since been discredited based on
available evidence does not constitute a "debate".

There are certainly debates about the degree to which the evironment
primes and drives the lang. acq. process as well as how brain plasticity
affects the topology of brain structures/lateralization. None of these
debates seriously question the idea that there is a definite biological
component driving language acquisition and development in humans.

Next time try reading your sources before opening up your ass and
speaking. It'll save you from embarassing yourself.


Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
Beowulf wrote:
> Sure they mention that there was a
> behaviorist theory of lang. acq., but both articles (rightly, IMO)
> conclude that the evidence suggests that the concept of an innate
> biological capacity for language exists.

Ok, I'll put you down as being in the camp that thinks language
is hardwired in the brain.

> There are certainly debates about the degree to which the evironment
> primes and drives the lang. acq. process as well as how brain plasticity
> affects the topology of brain structures/lateralization. None of these
> debates seriously question the idea that there is a definite biological
> component driving language acquisition and development in humans.

Yes, that biological component is called the brain. But where is
the proof for Chomsky's theory?


Louann Miller

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
On 10 Oct 2000 15:24:32 -0400, Roger Schlafly
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

The problem with joking as a way of avoiding answering a question is
that people notice.

You asked for evidence on-line about a particular point. People gave
you evidence on-line. You apparently didn't read it or do anything
else that might expose you to the risk of having to change any
opinions.

Louann

Roger Schlafly

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00
to
Louann Miller wrote:
> You asked for evidence on-line about a particular point. People gave
> you evidence on-line.

Not me.


Geoff Sheffield

unread,
Oct 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/10/00