In the year of 1912, Charles Darwin claimed to find the missing link between an ape and a man; in which is a part of a human skull in Pleistocene gravel beds. Darwin then wrote about his finding to Arthur Smith Woodward, the keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum at that time. After Darwin presented his finding to Smith, they began to work together in order to find more discoveries. In their findings, they found a jawbone, teeth and more skull particles which they believed came from the same man. Smith then did more research and experiments within the particles they found and eventually reconstructed the skull. Research shows that this skull is an ancestor of a human living 500,000 years ago. However once new technology was invented, more research was performed by Dr. Joseph Weiner as well as Wilfrid Le Gros Clark working with Dr. Kenneth Oakley in order to determine the age of these remains; these results consisted of the remains only being 50,000 years old. This means that this man was not the missing link between humans and apes. Their results consisted of the jaw and skull fragments coming from different species being a human and an ape. They then looked at these remains under a microscope only to find scratches showing the teeth being filed down to resemble human teeth. In conclusion, the Piltdown Hoax was a well thought out fraud. Although the Piltdown Hoax was fake, the finding of these remains opened up a new potential way of finding evidence leading to the missing link. This also introduced new technology as well as the accuracy to the scientists at which sophisticatedly staged these fragments.
Some faults that came into play in the process of attempting to find the missing link in the Piltdown Hoax. The motive of being the scientist to find this missing piece was in play. Within finding these fragments, Darwin and Smith most likely knew that these remains were not the missing link. All humans make mistakes and in this case, it is likely that these scientists wanted the fame and prestige from finding these potentially significant fragments.
Scientists were not able to test the fluorine content of the Piltdown fragments until 1949. They then discovered the correct age of these remains of 50,000 years. Through this analysis, scientists are able to test bones. Within fluorine testing, bones are to wait in underground water of the earth which contains fluorine. The bones then absorb florine from the water. From this process, scientists are then able to define the fluorine which defines the age of these remains. This is how the age of the Piltdown Hoax fragments were determined. This is a positive factor because although the first fraud accusation about the Piltdown Hoax was incorrect, it lead to the discovery of the true accusation about these fragments; and in this discovery the process of Fluorine Analysis was discovered as well.
Removing the "human" factor in science research to avoid errors is possible; although I do not believe Charles Darwin committed an error. While he was in the wrong to make false accusations about his discovery in which led to a large affect in the science community, this was all for his personal benefit. Darwins decision was completely intentional. However, when referring to legitimate human errors, removing the human aspect of research could lead to better results. New technological devices have been created to eliminate these errors made by humans, and I do agree with a majority of these technical devices. On the other hand, human errors has encouraged many new discoveries in these science research community. There are some things technology is unable to do. Therefore, completely removing the human factor of scientific research, I believe, would cause a decrease in the finding of new information, especially in archaeological findings.
By reading about the process of Darwins intentions and the fraud imposed in his findings, it is a reminder to not trust everything that someone says with out checking the evidence. With a lack of verification, many people are able to get away with these kinds of proposal in order to benefit themselves, evolving around their hope for prestige. By verifying accusations, these kinds of situations could be prevented. therefore, I have learned to double check work and question others accusations in order to find the true answer.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading through your post. I wonder though how much of Dawsons hoax was a mistake. Did he truly make a mistake when he had been involved in several other instances where he had falsified scientific finds? When we make a mistake as humans the goal is to learn from our mistakes the first time, as to not make them again. To recognize our faults to become better people. It makes me wonder is Dawson was too involved with his ego than to contributing to the scientific world. Great Post!
ReplyDeleteNOTE: It was not *Darwin* who discovered this but Charles *Dawson*. This is a key point and you should be careful not to confuse the two.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, Piltdown, had it been valid, would NOT have demonstrated a link between humans and apes. First of all, humans ARE apes, but beyond that, Piltdown would have been a branch on the hominid family tree. It would have had nothing to say about the connection between humans and non-human apes. It didn't go back that far in evolutionary time.
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.
"This means that this man was not the missing link between humans and apes."
No, this, along with other evidence, meant that this "fossil" was forged.
" opened up a new potential way of finding evidence leading to the missing link."
There is no "missing link". 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.
Aside from this misconception, you have a lot of the key facts in this synopsis, but how many years did it take to uncover the hoax? And why did it take so long?
Your "fault" section goes a bit off the track here because you are pulled down the "missing link" rabbit hole and, as a result, you don't actually address the question. What faults led the culprits to create the hoax in the first place? Ambition? Greed? Fame? And 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?
"This is a positive factor because although the first fraud accusation about the Piltdown Hoax was incorrect..."
I don't understand what you mean by the "first fraud accusation". Was it really incorrect? Or was it just ignored by the scientific community?
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?
If I understand correctly, you are suggestion that Dawson (not "Darwin") wasn't involved in creating the hoax?
But I want to challenge you on this:
"when referring to legitimate human errors, removing the human aspect of research could lead to better results. "
You seem to be assuming all factors are negative. Is that the case? Do humans bring nothing positive to the scientific process? Could we even do science without the curiosity in humans that push them to ask those initial questions? Or their ingenuity to create tests of their hypotheses? Or the intuition that helps them draw connections and conclusions from disparate pieces of information?
Good life lesson. Please make sure you read these assignment guidelines carefully. You had a number of "unforced errors" here due to overlooking key points in the guidelines. You will improve your score if you read carefully and ask questions as they arise.