Difference between revisions of "Flipperpithecus"
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
Wikignome72 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[File:Flipperpithecus.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley, gave the name "flipperpithecus" to a supposed "humanoid species" arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of a dolphin's rib.]] |
| − | "Flipperpithecus" was the name of the "humanoid species" arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of dolphin's rib. The name "Flipperpithecus" was given by anthropologist Dr. Tim White and reported in ''Science News''.<ref name="Herb">W. Herbert, Science News. 123:246 (1983)</ref> | + | "'''Flipperpithecus'''" was the name of the "humanoid species" arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of [[dolphin]]'s rib. The name "Flipperpithecus" was given by anthropologist Dr. Tim White and reported in ''Science News''.<ref name="Herb">W. Herbert, Science News. 123:246 (1983)</ref> |
The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' reported: "A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley."<ref name="Ian">Ian Anderson, "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", ''New Scientist'', 28 April 1983, page 199.</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm</ref> | The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' reported: "A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley."<ref name="Ian">Ian Anderson, "Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin's rib", ''New Scientist'', 28 April 1983, page 199.</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/articles/quotes.htm</ref> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Dr. White added "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."<ref name="Ian" /> | Dr. White added "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."<ref name="Ian" /> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == See also == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]] | ||
| + | *[[Paleoanthropology]] | ||
== References== | == References== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:11, October 6, 2019
"Flipperpithecus" was the name of the "humanoid species" arising from a fossil find that is most likely part of dolphin's rib. The name "Flipperpithecus" was given by anthropologist Dr. Tim White and reported in Science News.[1]
The science magazine New Scientist reported: "A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib according to an anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley."[2][3]
Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California-Berkeley likened the incident on par with the "Nebraska man" and "Piltdown Man" incidents.[2] Dr. White stated regarding the fossil find, "Seldom has a bone been hyped as much as this one."[2] Anthropologist Dr. Noel Boaz from New York University who made the original classification of the fossil has countered, "I have not gone any further than the evidence allowed." [1][2] Dr. Boaz described the fossil find and defended his stance regarding the fossil find in the journals Nature, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and Natural History. However, at a meeting of physical anthropologist his fellow anthropologist were skeptical of the find some stating that at first glance the bone looks nothing like a collar bone.[1] Dr. White stated that "to be a clavicle, the specimen should have an S...curve, but it does not.[2] Dr. White also stated the blunder may force a rethinking of theories among evolutionary theorists on when the line of man's ancestors separated from that of apes.[2] Johns Hopkins University anthropologist Alan Walker stated that there is a long history of misinterpreting various bones as humanoid clavicles and that it is a amorphous bone and scientist should be very judicious in interpreting it.[1]
Dr. White added "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."[2]