SCI/TECH: Anthropologist Resigns After he Fabricated Date of Neanderthal Origins

Historians of the Stone Age fear that they will have to rip up their theories about Neanderthal Man after doubt has been cast on the carbon dating of skeletons by a leading German anthropologist. Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London's Natural History Museum, said: "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory."





This certainly well setback the Evolutionist cause, and just give ammuniton to the Creationists.

Prof von Zieten has been considered an expert in carbon-dating techniques since the 1970s. He has tested hundreds of prehistoric bone finds from Europe and Africa over the past 30 years.

Now, however, important remains that Oxford scientists no longer believe are prehistoric include the female "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton, found near the south-west German town of Speyer with unusually good teeth. Their evidence suggests that she is 3,300 years old, not 21,300.

Another apparent misdating involved an allegedly prehistoric skull discovered near Paderborn in 1976 and considered the oldest human remain ever found in the region. Prof von Zieten dated the skull at 27,400 years old. The latest research, however, indicates that it belonged to an elderly man who died around 1750.



Related News Links:
'Dating Disaster in Germany'
Neanderthal Man 'never walked in northern Europe'








[edit on 20-2-2005 by SkepticOverlord]

It also adds credence to the statements released yesterday that the hom sapien race is about 200,000 years old.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-2-2005 by kenshiro2012]

It's still does not take away the findings in other areas like africa, the control over where the first man was found is a fight about where and in which area I guess many can not imagine that our humble origins are indeed from Africa.

It's still does not take away the findings in other areas like africa

The findings aren't really in question. What this can do is call into question the dates that have been given to other such findings.
One thing though is that there's no mention in the article of the alternate method of dating, aside from cutting open a skull.
In the telegraph article it mentions use of carbon dating, so there's no real description in the differnt methods or improvements of carbon dating..

it just shows the inherent inaccuracies in using carbon dating which is the biggest talisemen for Evolutionists. People don't want to admit it is an inaccurate method of dating because then it casts doubt on all sorts of archeoligical finds.

But why does it haveto be allways Creation vs Evolutionists when stories like this pop up? all you are doing is stirring contraversy

Well is not way in that we can used the bible for dating of man kind because the discrepancies of the times in the bible in reality are off by a more than just a mile.

So it does not matter, the issue here is not about Carbon dating been accurate but that the Anthropologist in question falsify the dating of "his finds" not everybody else finds.

Obviously he wanted to have the most ancient man in his neck of the woods.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by marg6043]

What's interesting to me is that the findings in question make Neanderthal man MUCH younger.

...What are the implications of this? Neanderthal man has a far larger brain cavity than modern man, for example, indicating they had bigger brains than we do. ...I've always wondered about that.



.

It was only a few days ago that I read evidence contrary to this. Stating that man was in fact much older than this, to the tune of about 200,000 years.

Originally posted by Nerdling
It was only a few days ago that I read evidence contrary to this. Stating that man was in fact much older than this, to the tune of about 200,000 years.

True - apparently the only findings in question are the Neanderthal ages Reiner Protsch von Zieten fixed by carbon dating.


.

Man came from what is now Australia, and headed up into Africa, when terra firma was still a panagea.

This story bothers me,

Because there has always been a huge discrepancy in artifacts and how long humans have been on the planet.

My guess is he couldnt take the ridicule. Too bad.

I doubt that this will do much more than help to set the record straight regarding certain artifacts and get this fraud his just deserts. The theory of evolution is founded on far more than the carbon dating of a few specimens.

Well, the last I'd heard was that Homo sapiens sapiens remains were found it southern Africa and dated at 90,000 years. As far as I know, Protsch's interst and most of his dating work was done on Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (or Homo neanderthalensis, if you believe they were seperate species). So I don't see how this fraud would impact what we know about our direct ancestors from Africa.

But there's not an intrinsic flaw in cargon-14 dating, although there are those that want there to be errors. In case you don't know how C14 dating works, a good although a bit simplistic, place to find out is here.

Now it's true that, over the past fifteen or so years, engineers have improved the accuracy and the ability to get a reading from a much smaller sample; but in doing so we found that our previous C-14 measurements were somewhat off.

But not all maeasurements were, and most of the really important specimens have been measured with teh re-calibrated instrumentation and the error isn't more that about ten percent, if I remember correctly.

So that certainly hasn't changed any of the widely accepted scientific views.

Now this Protsch dogbreath has set back serious science. I don't think it will change any scientists' minds (althought there will be a lot of crationists who will use this in their postings), but it's going to take years of work to find out the right data about humans in Europe. It sounds like Protsch is a bozo if he confused the skull of a man dead 250 years for someone supposedly dead a hundred times that long!

What a jerk!

In December, Prof. Maciej Hanneberg of the University of Adelaide announced the results of the first analysis of all the fossilized "pre-human" skeletons in collections around the world. (There are only about 200--not even enough for an accurate exit poll.) His findings indicate that all of the 60 or so pre-human species and sub-species fall within the standard bell curve for height, assumed weight, and skull size for homo sapiens.

In other words, there was no Australopithecus, no Neanderthal; they're all the same species--us.

[edit on 2/20/2005 by MrOtis]

Originally posted by MrOtis
His findings indicate that all of the 60 or so pre-human species and sub-species fall within the standard bell curve for height, assumed weight, and skull size for homo sapiens.

These are not the only criteria by which bones are classified, especially skulls. I can believe that eventually the Neanderthals might be found to be Homo sapiens. Most of the data I have seen regarding Neanderthals has seemed rather shaky to me, especially their unexplained origin and disapperance. Still, none of these anouncements are likely to affect the current theories of origns substantially, in my opinion.

Originally posted by marg6043
I guess many can not imagine that our humble origins are indeed from Africa.

If evolutionary theory is right, your use of "our" is incorrect. The Homo Sapiens of 200,000 years ago are quite different from the homo sapiens of today. Humanities origins are only important in so far as mapping our journey as a species.

MrOtis says:

"In December, Prof. Maciej Hanneberg of the University of Adelaide announced the results of the first analysis of all the fossilized "pre-human" skeletons in collections around the world. (There are only about 200--not even enough for an accurate exit poll.) His findings indicate that all of the 60 or so pre-human species and sub-species fall within the standard bell curve for height, assumed weight, and skull size for homo sapiens."

"In other words, there was no Australopithecus, no Neanderthal; they're all the same species--us. "

That doesn't follow.

I have seen skulls of Australopithecus afarensis, and they're are barely half the size of modern day man or the neandertals. furthermore, the cranial cavity size is somewhere in the 400-600 cm^3 range, hardly in the "bell curve range" of anyone able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

And the Neandertal skulls, while being the approximate same size as ours (indeed, the cranial capacity of H. neanderthalensis is statistically larger than today's people), are completely different, with the occipital bun, the brow ridge, a hypertrophied maxilla, etc.

Volksgeist says:

"The Homo Sapiens of 200,000 years ago are quite different from the homo sapiens of today."

Au contraire. If the H. sapiens of 200,000 years ago are quite different than people today, then they wouldn't be H. sapiens.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Volksgeist says:

"The Homo Sapiens of 200,000 years ago are quite different from the homo sapiens of today."

Au contraire. If the H. sapiens of 200,000 years ago are quite different than people today, then they wouldn't be H. sapiens.

Well, if evolutionary theory is right, then you are wrong Our species is in a constant state of evolution. Some differences are much more obvious then others. The development of race is due to the evolutionary progress of Homo Sapiens.

volksgeist says:

"Well, if evolutionary theory is right, then you are wrong Our species is in a constant state of evolution."

I agree that out species is in a constant state of change. But continual evolution, as well as geographical isolation, can result in changes of such magnitude that a new species appears.

Remember that the best definition of "species" is a group where all of the members can interbreed with other members. If we change to the point where we can no longer interbreed and produce fertile, viable, offspring, then we are different species.

In other words, if there are other H. sapiens out there with whom we cannot interbreed, then by definition, one of us is not H. sapiens. This is basic taxonomy.

If, by the way, you're interested in investigating further,m an excellent resource is "The Speciation of Modern Homo Sapiens", published for the British Academy (Oxford University Press, 2003.

You can review it at www.britac.ac.uk... , but if you're serious, I'd suggest getting the book itself.

[edit on 20-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]

I agree that out species is in a constant state of change. But continual evolution, as well as geographical isolation, can result in changes of such magnitude that a new species appears.

Then we agree.

Remember that the best definition of "species" is a group where all of the members can interbreed with other members. If we change to the point where we can no longer interbreed and produce fertile, viable, offspring, then we are different species.

Agreed.

In other words, if there are other H. sapiens out there with whom we cannot interbreed, then by definition, one of us is not H. sapiens. This is basic taxonomy.

I agree. Your post seems rather pointless, unless of course you mean to refute my earlier statement, in relation to the differences between early Homo Sapiens, and the Homo Sapiens as we know them today. Are you attempting to refute this Please clarify your post.





[edit on 20-2-2005 by Volksgeist]