>Poor Evolutionary evidences - "as found in your biology book"
>
>1. Peppered moths
>2. Piltdown man/Nebraska man
>3. Haekel's (sp.) embryos
>4. National Geographic's bird/dino fossil
It must be remembered that the Geographic is a popularized magazine, not a
science journal. The error was cought relatively quickly and the
Geographic will follow up with an article on subsequent study of the forged
specimen. As far as I know the archeoraptor was never discussed in the
scientific literature - it was primarily a press event. This does not mean
that I doesn't illustrate what happens when we let our excitement over a
potential discovery (or validation of our ideas) overcome proper scientific
caution. However, I also think it illustrates well why, and how, science
works.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 03 2000 - 22:14:23 EST