Paleoanthropologist Debunks His Colleagues

It was 50 years ago, when a Professor from the University of California, Berkeley, named Thomas Kuhn released a challenge to the scientific community that argued against the traditional view of science which was collecting facts that would lead to a greater understanding of nature. Rather, Kuhn believed scientific discovery relied on what questions scientists would ask, their philosophical commitments, and so on.

Kuhn also wrote about how a theory breaks down which involves many unsolved mysteries, or in other words...“anomalies,” where the accuracy of the theory comes into question thus prompting scientists to look for new ways at interpreting the data. But in evolutionary research, it’s not a new way of interpreting the data, once a theory has been falsified many times over with new discoveries, it’s finding ways to rescue the theory to keep it intact!

Another from the University of California, Berkeley exposes fraud that goes on in Paleoanthropology! He’s not a creationist nor an intelligent design proponent, but the things that go on in his field of work that consists of human evolution, have bothered him so much, he writes about it in current biology and it is jaw dropping…

“The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.”

“The authors take an unusual approach to constructing, in 3-D digital space, what they think the dental arcade of the new fossil maxilla should have looked like. They accomplish this feat by filling the fossil’s empty and broken tooth sockets with digital models of modern human teeth. Why modern human teeth were better suited than available contemporary fossil teeth is left unexplained.”  

“Paleoanthropology’s ecosystem of publishing, access, fundraising, career advancement, media promotion and celebrity seems squarely aligned against the field’s ability to self regulate, a condition exacerbated by the limited fossil resources available.”

“There is ample and obvious motivation for authors to generate ‘new’ species names in this environment. Readers should, therefore, beware of attendant species diversity claims. Illegitimate names have become part and parcel of the symbiosis itself. Furthermore, ‘chronospecies’ are merely artificial segments of evolving species lineages, rather than truly separate species.”

Such assertions of biological species diversity via taxonomic hyperbole are questionable representations of the real paleobiology of our ancestors and their few close, now extinct biological relatives. Despite the branch waving, our family tree still resembles a saguaro cactus more than a creosote bush.”

This is something one doesn’t read every day in published science articles! Tim White gives the public an honest view of what been going on in the work of trying to create a story about human evolution from fossils. He accuses his colleagues of being greedy, not caring for the research itself, but are in it for just to self-promotion, to make as much money as they can! White is also frustrated that his field of work cannot self-regulate which in turn would reduce the problems that exist.

Trusting proclamations about human evolution is getting harder even for some evolutionists themselves!

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Paleoanthropologist Debunks His Colleagues

  1. Chaz,

    There are certain rules evolutionists go by when defending Darwinism or any other form of evolution. Not in any particular order…1) Thou shall not be critical of any criticism from other fellow Darwinists because one has to follow another rule on this subject. 2) Thou shall employ heckler techniques in attacking a particular person whom they disagree with. 3) Thou shall invent new arguments that are not relevant to the origin one presented.

  2. Thanks Michael, I know of all these and even more. One which I was presented by Olorin himself is convenient re-definition where he follows Krauss in his unscientific definition of the big bang’s “nothing.” This shows that both he and PhD atheists like Krauss are far from being a neutral seekers of truth.

  3. Chaz,

    Weinberg, Hawking and of course, Olorin’s admiration Krauss, have a history of not liking the philosophy of science and often times attack it. Krauss uses circular reasoning in his view of reality and invents an argument to make his point. He also attacks the character (calling them morons) of the person who disagrees with him even if that person has a PHD in physics which one would hardly call the brain capacity as being “moronic” Krauss I believe tends not to understand the basic concept of philosophy of science because of his particular bias.

    He says…

    “Every time there’s a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers.”

    The purpose of philosophy is not to advance science neither does it have a purpose to solve the problems in science rather it deals with the interpretation of data, like assumptions, foundations, and methods. In an interview, Krauss reveals why he invents certain arguments, “Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people’s attention.”

    Krauss also likes to believe (like many others who follow him) that scientists enjoy getting stuff wrong because that means, there is more to learn when he makes a distinction between scientists and philosophers! Really? Take Olorin as one example, would you think he would be happy that after studying biology for 50 or more years, he would be wrong with any of his claims? Would you think Eelco, who is a scientist be joyfully happy (or didn’t act defensively) if one of claims was wrong? Physicist Max Plank said once…“Science progresses funeral by funeral,” because established scientists tend not to look for new ways at interpreting the data like new and upcoming scientists do! Plus, when you have a pattern of answering one question and as a result five others pop up, what are you really learning?

    Krauss and others, lack understanding when it comes to the philosophy of science which is not in the business of answering scientific questions rather it’s understanding how science works!

  4. Sorry. A substantive reply to this post was delayed by a weekend full of Verdi.[0]

    Michael gloats over any hint of impropriety in the sciences, in order to draw attention away from the massive fraud of creationism.[1] Not long ago, Michael made much of an increased retraction rate in life-sciences journal papers, but neglected to say that this higher retraction rate represented only 0.04% of these papers. Meanwhile creationist “research papers” frequently do not cite other creationist papers as references for data or interpretations, knowing them to be unreliable and suspect.

    Michael huffs—

    Another [sic] from the University of California, Berkeley exposes fraud that goes on in Paleoanthropology![2]

    What is the “fraud” that White complains of? Faking experimental data? No. Hiding contrary data? No. Not citing relevant prior references? No. Misrepresenting previous work? Again, no. He is upset by a tendency to shoehorn every new fossil into a new direct ancestor to homo sapiens sapiens—what he calls “taxonomic hyperbole” and “chronospecies.”[3] He chastises them for trying to portray new fossils as direct ancestors in the popular linear representation of human evolution (“saguaro cactus”), rather than as a spreading “creosote bush” of collateral species, in the manner that paleontologists have long employed for other genera.[4]

    There is, of course always an incentive to proclaim a recent fossil find as a “new” species in the direct human line. As White says, this advances careers and garners grants. What is more exciting: “I found a new fossil, but it’s probably just a variant of homo ordinarius” or “My new fossil is a direct ancestor to us”? Because fossil evidence is scanty and often ambiguous, an interpretational bias toward the more newsworthy can be difficult to resist. If you want real hyperbole, Michael can supply it in copious quantities—

    [White] accuses his colleagues of being greedy, not caring for the research itself, but are [sic] in it for just to self-promotion, to make as much money as they can!

    This exaggerated fantasy was not in White’s paper; Michael made it up.[5]

    Finally, Michael avers that the field of paleoanthropology is incapable of self-criticism. Yet the primary source for this post is a paper in a paleoanthropology journal that does exactly that. It is a mainstream paleoanthropologist himself who brings this problem to light. Not a creationist, who would seem to have a deep interest in this subject. Creationists are so ignorant of this area that the only criticism they can bring to bear is a vague claim that it’s all hooey anyway, because the Bible says that we don’t have any history at all earlier than last year, or whenever, and all these so-called humanoids are deformed specimens or proto-creationists or worse. Analyze muscle attachments? Pshaw. Dentition comparisons? Ask a dentist, not a creationist. Foramen configurations? Huh wha?

    There are valid criticisms to be made in this area. They are not frauds.[6] Not that creationists would have a clue.

    ======================

    [0] Specifically, his Requiem Mass. The one that until recently was not allowed to be performed in a Catholic church, because it was too “theatrical.” And it is. All of our soloists had operatic backgrounds. Dynamics varied between pppp and fff, sometimes in a single measure. The bass drum was almost twice as large as the one the orchestra normally uses. Dramatic? There were eight additional trumpets, four in front and four in the balcony, to accompany “Tuba mirum spargens sonum, per sepulchra regionem, coget omnes ante thronum.” (Roughly: “The wondrous trumpet resounds, pouring forth throughout the royal tomb, drawing all people before the throne.”)

    [1] I have alluded to several instances previously, such as a later paper in Answers Journal that flatly contradicted an earlier paper, yet did not cite the disparity, even though both papers had a co-author in common.

    [2] This post illustrates yet again why we should ban high-capacity magazines for exclamation points.

    [3] And for certain choices in reconstruction: filling empty tooth sockets in some fossils with modern teeth. White does not say the choices were wrong, but only that they were unexplained. (I did enjoy Michael’s use of “jaw dropping” in connection with his comment on the dental arcade. I’m sure the pun was unintentional, however.)

    [4] Much of White’s complaint is,of course, that the popular-science media still persist in the discredited tree model, as opposed to the newer bush-like structure—-

    “The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.”

    [5] We know this because Michael obviously has not read White’s paper, and his source (David Coppedge in CEH), who apparently has read it, uses much more temperate language. In fact Coppedge does not even call the research fraudulent; he is content with “shoddy.” (Another example here of creationist fraud: this post, along with many others, was taken from CEH without any attribution. In fact, CEH is not even on Michael’s blog roll.)

    [6] Was it a creationist who exposed Piltdown Man? Was it? Of course not.

  5. It was 50 years ago, when a Professor from the University of California, Berkeley, named Thomas Kuhn released a challenge to the scientific community that argued against the traditional view of science which was collecting facts that would lead to a greater understanding of nature

    Michael has a truly bizarre idea of Kuhn’s views. That’s what comes from reading a bunch of individual words without understanding the ideas behind them. Michael should actually try to read Kuhn sometime.[1] He might also wish to borrow a copy of his later book The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays 1970-1993 (U. Chicago 2002), if there is a library with interlibrary-loan capability within a day’s journey of his cave.

    Then, too, we might wonder why Kuhn is at all relevant to this post’s theme of alleged fraud? We might guess that he did it to show that he didn’t copy everything from the CEH post that he will not acknowledge. But, here again, this tactic shows the danger in Michael’s wandering off all by himself into terra incognita that somewhat less ignorant creationists have not predigested for him.[2]

    =================

    [1] A new edition was released less than a year ago: Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Anniversary Edition (U. Chicago Press, 2012). $10.20 for the paperback edition at Amazon should not strain Michael’s budget. Although he seems not to have struggled through even some of the more significant ID/creationist books, such as Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, for which he promised a review—has it been four years ago? How time flies.

    [2] As he attempted in “Can a Mindless Process Become an Engineer,” Feb. 7. (See my comment on Feb. 8.)

    Notary Sojack

  6. Meanwhile creationist “research papers” frequently do not cite other creationist papers as references for data or interpretations, knowing them to be unreliable and suspect.

    Your sources for this being?

    [White] accuses his colleagues of being greedy, not caring for the research itself, but are [sic] in it for just to self-promotion, to make as much money as they can!

    He [White] states indirectly that they don’t care for scholarship. It can be sensibly deduced that paleoanthropologists do so for self-promotion and greed though he does not state such. Thus Michael is provisionally correct but on shaky grounds. You however, should not be casting stones given that your direct assertions are often fallacious.

    Michael gloats over any hint of impropriety in the sciences, in order to draw attention away from the massive fraud of creationism.[1]

    Besides your allusion to one instance, where are the other examples of said MASSIVE fraud?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s