Saturday, January 20, 2018

Week 4 Piltdown Hoax





The Piltdown Hoax: 1912 Near the Southern English town of Lewes in the little Village of Piltdown, Charles Dawson claimed to have found a piece of a human skull. He shared 
his findings with two men,  geologist Arthur Smith Woodward of the Natural History Museum and French Paleontologist Pierre Tay.  The scientific significance was that Dawson thought he found the link between apes and humans.  The hoax was discovered in the 1950’s where they had better dating methods and they launched the first scale analysis.  They were able to proof that the teeth were filed down due to scratch marks and that the jaw was not of a human but a orangutan.      


  Scientist were curious and excited to these finding that they wanted to believe it was true as  they did not have the proper knowledge of  human evolution.  Therefore their faults were  they didn’t want to challenge each other.

 Due to better methods of testing, Dr. Kenneth Oakley of the MNH applied an entirely new method of dating fossils, “the fluorine method”   fluorine is absorbed by bones from water and soil which they are buried in.  The Piltdown jaw and the skull did not match, and drilling into the jaw gave a smell of a more recent bone where the skull did not have the same smell letting them know it was older that the jaw itself.  A clear distinction that they were very different.  They also conducted a “Nitrogen test”. nitrogen distilled as ammonia.  Once again two separate creatures were shown.  Dr. JS Weiner also assisted Dr. Oakley with these findings.

I do not believe removing “humans” would reduce less chance of errors, evolving with new ways such as new machinery and humans operating the machinery would be a good balance.  
Humans bouncing ideas from each other is a great way so get answers and then using machinery to put it to the test.  
Life lessons: for me would be, don’t  always take what someone says at face value.  Always try to find your own facts buy reading, using your critical thinking skills, for example if you know your body is not feeling well and you go to your Doctor and he/she tries to tell you that you're fine, you must go with your gut and ask for more testing. (true story)

1 Comments:

At January 24, 2018 at 10:25 AM , Blogger L Rodriguez said...

You have some good detail in your synopsis but let's review some key points.

" The scientific significance was that Dawson thought he found the link between apes and humans."

In the guidelines, it is specifically stated that the term "missing link" could not be used to describe the significance of this find. Did you review the information in the assignment module that explains why this term is not valid? Please make sure you go back and review this.

So the issue of significance remains. Yes, this was significant because it was the first hominid found on English soil, but there was also *scientific* significance. Had Piltdown been valid, it would have helped us better understand *how* humans (not *if*) evolved from that common ancestor with non-human apes. Piltdown was characterized by large cranium combined with other more primitive, non-human traits, suggesting that the larger brains evolved relatively early in hominid evolutionary process. We now know this to be incorrect, that bipedalism evolved much earlier with larger brains evolving later, but Piltdown suggested that the "larger brains" theory, supported by Arthur Keith (one of the Piltdown scientists) was accurate.

Otherwise, what was the response of the scientific community to this discovery?

This is a complex story and could have been expanded for your reader.

Are "curiosity" and "excitement" faults? We are looking for negative factors in humans that led to this event. For example, why do you think the perpetrators of this hoax created the fake fossil in the first place? Greed? Ambition? And beyond the culprits, can you find fault with anyone else? How about the scientific community? Why did they accept this find so readily without proper scrutiny? What might have inspired them (particularly the British scientists) to not do their jobs properly when it came to this particular fossil?

Good discussion of the technology used to uncover the hoax, but what made scientists come back and retest Piltdown? What was happening in paleoanthropology in those 40 years that pushed them to re-examine this find? What aspect of science does that represent?

I agree with your point on the benefit of human interaction, but can we think of any positive traits that humans bring to the process of science that we couldn't do without? How about curiosity, ingenuity and innovation? Could we even do science without these factors?

Good life lesson.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home