Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones

[Judi Lynn]

Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones

Briton says Spanish researchers are out by 200,000 years and have even got the wrong species

The Observer, Saturday 9 June 2012

It is the world's biggest haul of human fossils and the most important palaeontology site in Europe: a subterranean chamber at the bottom of a 50ft shaft in the deepest recesses of the Atapuerca cavern in northern Spain. Dozens of ancient skeletons have been unearthed.

La Sima de los Huesos – the Pit of Bones – has been designated a Unesco world heritage site because of its importance to understanding evolution, and millions of euros, donated by the EU, have been spent constructing a museum of human antiquity in nearby Burgos.

But Britain's leading expert on human evolution, Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, has warned in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology that the team in charge of La Sima has got the ages of its fossils wrong by 200,000 years and has incorrectly identified the species of ancient humans found there.

Far from being a 600,000-year-old lair of a species called Homo heidelbergensis, he believes the pit is filled with Neanderthal remains that are no more than 400,000 years old. The difference in interpretation has crucial implications for understanding human evolution.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/10/fossil-dating-row-sima-huesos-spain

[SoutherDem]

1. Scientist do make mistakes

And they are human and a few do at times allow themselves to do unethical things.

Republicans and the religious will take something like this and run with it as evidence that all science is fake.

Some of the great things about science are the peer review process where you share your findings opening yourself up to criticism, also most scientist welcome having there findings challenged. Those two things you will not find in religion or the Republican Liberty University trained scientist.

[Igel]

6. Mistakes are forgiveable.

The clearly unethical lapses are vile, but less common.

The "they are human" is a much wider field for discussion. It includes confirmation bias and simply filtering out, failing to notice, unpleasant data.

There's a fine line between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Often if you have a hypothesis and it's challenged you "defend it." Strictly speaking, it shouldn't be so much defending your hypothesis against all comers as making sure that it really and truly is falsified and either needs tweaking or canning. As soon as you identify with your hypothesis and start dismissing data you're one step away from seeking data to actively support your hypothesis, and that's one step away from manufacturing data.

Much social science research is a crock. The scientists seek confirmation. They seek justification. Because they're advocates, and advocacy requires a faith that dispassionate and disinterested truth-seeking cannot abide.

In general, the more applied the research, the more a researcher thinks his research is important, the greater the search for confirmation instead of disconfirmation. It's just being human (which, to my mind, is often a dire insult.)

"If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

[DCKit]

2. Hey, at least they're not saying that all human bones are <4K to 6K years old.

It's progress.

[longship]

3. Another science reportage fail

They are playing into the loony creationists hand by saying "accused". Of course, the creationists will use this anyway.

This kind of thing is entirely normal with science, something the deniers never-ever would see or admit. And editors don't help anything by portraying this like they did.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Much inclined to agree. Manufacturing drama to sell papers --

as if the story of human origins were somehow not interesting enough.

That reporter is going to have a hard time getting interviews with other scientists after this.

[SwissTony]

4. The headline is a bit OTT

The word "accused" does not occur in the article. It's just science in action. One scientist says one thing, another disagrees.

And the final sentence...'But he admitted the 600,000-year age his team had put on the Sima fossils did look too early. "We are working on that," he said.'