The Piltdown Hoax
In 1912, in southeast England, in the village of Piltdown,
an amateur archeologist, Charles Dawson found an ancient human skull. This
discovery was important because it was the first primitive remains found in
England and they were possibly the oldest as well. After the discovery, Dawson
invited a member of the National History Museum, a leading geologist, Arthur
Smith Woodward and French paleontologist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to join in
the discovery. These 3 men found multiple finds at the site. Dawson soon
located a jaw, from the same skull that was found earlier. It was the missing
link of apes and humans. The jaw bone was that of an ape and the teeth looked
human, proving the evolution theory. This thrilled the science community, and
set the new tone of the link between apes and humans. Future studies were even
based off of this find.
Later however, fossils were found in Asia and Africa, but
these were less human-like but lived after Piltdown Man. These findings
questioned the advancement of the Piltdown Man and the evolutionary process. It
wasn’t until 1949 that fluorine was introduced to measure the age of fossils.
This test was performed and stated that Piltdown man was much younger than
originally stated. Then, in 1953, a full analysis was completed proving that
Piltdown Man was a modified female orangutan skull that was modified.
Scientists were obviously stunned at these findings and realized that not all
scientists are going to be honest about their findings.
Human faults are normally
positive in science because accidents lead to discoveries, such as penicillin!
However, the fault recognized in the Piltdown Man was greed. This type of
self-centered act threw off scientists and their research. Had Piltdown Man
never been “created” scientists may have been on a different research path that
may have lead them down a more successful road; however, this also may have
been one of the best things to happen to science as it taught a very valuable
lesson on the importance of scientific tests and proving discoveries.
The processes that became available
to science were extremely helpful in revealing the skull was fraudulent. The
starting point to this realization was the fluorine test. The fluorine test was
able to prove that Piltdown Man wasn’t nearly as old as what they had once
thought. This opened the doors to many more tests revealing the filing marks on
the teeth, cuts were made to the structure and the stains on the bones were falsified.
As previously stated, removing the “human” factor isn’t the
way to go. Human mistakes and thoughts are a great asset to discovery. Piltdown
Man wasn’t an error, it was a bad judgment in believing in a scientist.
Fortunately, we have tests today that assist the science community in testing
the validity of things. This allows us to keep the “human” factor that science/discovery
depends on.
The life lesson here is that
not everyone can be trusted, and those you think can be trusted might not be
trustworthy. Some things can be taken at face value, but something important
should be questioned or at the very least, verified.
"Human faults are normally positive in science because accidents lead to discoveries, such as penicillin!"
ReplyDeleteRespect for showing how a human fault can be used beneficially in the early parts of scientific discovery. I myself only looked at the negative aspects of an individuals nature such as greed, need for social advancement, but you definitely opened the door for the "other" side of human nature.
Good post!
Good job identifying that the significance of this find was that it was the first to be found in England. However, its significance did not involved it being a "missing link". There is no such thing! The importance of this find, had it be valid, was that is suggested that larger brains evolved before other human traits.
ReplyDeleteIt also didn't "prove" evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory wasn't in question here. But it did use the principles of evolutionary theory to help explain how humans evolved. Be very careful with your choice of words. Make sure you mean what you say.
I like how you pulled in information from finds around the world and discussed how they contradicted the Piltdown find. Well done.
I like how you found positives in the human faults leading to this hoax, but going back to the negatives, can you find fault with the scientific community for accepting this find without question and without the skepticism science usually requires?
Good final two sections. They summarize this situation well.