The Piltdown Hoax

1. Begin by giving a brief synopsis of the Piltdown hoax, including when and where it was found, by whom, its scientific significance(what would it have taught us)and varying effects this had on the scientific community. Also include how the hoax was discovered and the varying responses it received from the scientist(s) involved and in the related fields of human evolution.
   
   The Piltdown man hoax was the claim in 1912 by Charles Dawson that he had found the fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human. These remains consisted of parts of a Pleistocene-era human-like skull. Later finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, teeth, and primitive tools. The scientific significance would be profound, particularly the claimed tool finds. It provided another picture in the ongoing story of human evolution, a glimpse of how humans became what we are.
   
   In November 1953, an article in Time magazine containing evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proved that the Piltdown Man was a forgery. They showed that the supposed fossil was a composite of three distinct species: a medieval age human skull; a 500 year old lower jaw from an orangutan; and chimpanzee fossil teeth. These had been stained with chemicals to artificially age them, but closer examination revealed file marks on the teeth; somebody had modified the teeth to make them look more suited to a human diet.
   
   The hoax succeeded because at the time of its discovery the scientific consensus was that the large modern brain preceded the omnivorous diet. Piltdown Man provided exactly the evidence to support that. Some have also claimed that nationalism played a role in the easy acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists. The British allegedly wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe.
   
2. Scientists are curious, creative and persistent by nature, but being human, they also have faults. What human faults come into play here in this scenario and how did these faults negatively impact the scientific process?
   
   In a way Piltdown Man told scientists what they wanted to hear. It validated some of their preformed concepts and so they were less than critical about it. This in turn meant that for some time a forgery was held as scientific fact, skewing evolutionary science with a lie and essentially wasting a lot of time and energy on something that wasn't real.
   
3. What positive aspects of the scientific process were responsible for revealing the skull to be a fraud? Be specificabout scientific tools, processes or methodologies that were involved in providing accurate information about the Piltdown skull.
   
   Scientists have used some of the most advanced forensic techniques to examine Piltdown Man. This includes isotopic analysis, carbon dating and DNA extraction to determine the true origins of the various remains. These techniques, along with microscopic analysis revealed the lie.
   
4. Is it possible to remove the “human” factor from science to reduce the chance of errors like this happening again? Would you want to remove the human factor from science?
   
   Theoretically a computer could conduct science and have no human faults other than those in its programming. People will always be people though. We can minimize the influence our feelings have, but ultimately they're still there. And that can be good, because our feelings can motivate us and help us think creatively to answer tough questions.
   
5. Life Lesson: What lesson can you take from this historical event regarding taking information at face value from unverified sources?
   
   We shouldn't take anything as true without strong supporting evidence. If they have no trustworthy sources to support what they're saying, don't trust that they're correct.

Historical Influences on Darwin

1. Thomas Malthus had arguably the most influence on Darwin's theory of natural selection.
2. His work An Essay on the Principle of Population is accepted as an inspiration to both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently came to the same conclusions. This included his "observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive..." (UCMP Berkeley) Malthus concluded that, while human populations grow and resources do not, population sizes are kept in check. Darwin's work sought to further explain the mechanism by which this occurs.
3. "What is preventing organisms from reproducing at their potential?" This is exactly the question that Malthus asked and answered, but did not fully explain or extend to non-human organisms. Wallace and Darwin later independently expanded these concepts to all living things, elaborated that competition plays an important role, and that this competition "is the ultimate key to understanding natural selection." (32) 
4. Darwin thus built his own theory of natural selection on Malthus's observations on population limits. It seems unlikely that Darwin could not have otherwise come to the conclusions he did. After all, Malthus raised an important question about changes in life and populations. It was accepted already that life changed, but it wasn't until these scientists that a greater understanding was achieved. Darwin and Wallace, it could be said, developed the sequel to Malthus's Population.
5. The Church was extremely influential during Darwin's time. Enlightenment had begun to loosen its grip, but it remained important. Many began to fear that, were evolutionary ideas to be widely accepted, "the Church would crash, the moral fabric of society would be torn apart, and civilized man would return to savagery." (Desmond an Moore, 34) In fact, Darwin was quite wary of the reaction his work my elicit. It was Wallace who first published a paper describing the descent of species from other species through the influence of environmental factors. Wallace later sent Darwin a paper describing evolution via competition and natural selection, almost exactly what he had developed himself. Realizing that Wallace might be the one to down in history, Darwin decided to publish. In some ways, his later publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin caused the uproar he had feared. However, the fear that civilization would come crumbling down was not only disproven, but had, in the long-term, the opposite effect.