Paleontology Scientist Career Guide and Counseling

Question: How did the study of paleontology help shape later theories of gradualism and evolution? a. Paleontology studies layers of rock, which must be accumulated over long periods of time b.The existence of fossils alone proves evolutionary theory c.The discovery of fossils made scientists realize that animals adapted to their environments. d.Georges Cuvier spoke out about his support of evolutionary theory

Answer: a.

Question: What paleontology fraud did scientists generally accept for over 40 years as the " missing link" between human and ape?

Answer: Piltdown man also called DAWSON'S DAWN MAN (Eoanthropus dawsoni), proposed species of extinct hominid whose fossil remains, discovered in England in 1910-12, were later proved to be fraudulent. Piltdown man, whose fossils were sufficiently convincing to generate a scholarly controversy lasting more than 40 years, was one of the most successful hoaxes in the history of science. In a series of discoveries in 1910-12, Charles Dawson, an English lawyer and amateur geologist, found what appeared to be the fossilized fragments of a cranium, a jawbone, and other specimens in a gravel formation at Barkham Manor, on Piltdown Common near Lewes in Sussex. Dawson brought the specimens to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of the British Museum's paleontology department, who announced the find at a meeting of the Geological Society of London on Dec. 18, 1912. Woodward claimed that the fossils represented a previously unknown species of extinct hominid (E. dawsoni) that could be the missing evolutionary link between apes and early humans. His claims were eagerly and uncritically endorsed by some prominent English scientists, perhaps because the Piltdown fossils suggested that the British Isles had been an important site of early human evolution. As long as the remains were accorded a high antiquity, Piltdown man seemed a feasible alternative to Homo erectus (then known from scanty remains as Pithecanthropus) as an ancestor of modern humans. In 1926, however, the Piltdown gravels were found to be much less ancient than supposed, and from 1930, more finds of Pithecanthropus, the discoveries of the more primitive Australopithecus, and further examples of Neanderthal man left Piltdown man completely isolated in the evolutionary sequence. In 1953-54, as an outcome of these discoveries, an intensive scientific reexamination of the Piltdown remains showed them to be the skillfully disguised fragments of a quite modern human cranium (about 600 years old), the jaw and teeth of an orangutan, and the tooth probably of a chimpanzee, all fraudulently introduced into the shallow gravels. Chemical tests revealed that the fragments had been deliberately stained, some with chromium and others with acid iron sulfate solution (neither chromium nor sulfate occurs in the locality) and that, although the associated remains were of genuine extinct animals, they were not of British provenance. The teeth, too, had been subjected to artificial abrasion to simulate the human mode of flat wear. The exposure of the Piltdown fraud clarified the sequence of human evolution by removing the greatest anomaly in the fossil record. The fraud had impeded recognition of the importance of hominid fossils discovered in Africa. The identity of the perpetrator of the Piltdown hoax remains a mystery. Speculation has most often focused on Dawson himself, who may have been motivated by a desire for a coup that would gain him entrance into the Royal Society. Some scholars have contended that Dawson's chief collaborator, A.S. Woodward, was innocent, and others have suspected that he was the intended victim of the hoax (to make him look ridiculous upon exposure). Still others have contended that a friend of Dawson's, Samuel Woodhead, was a confederate, having access to bones and to chemicals for supplying and doctoring the specimens. Another possible participant in the scheme was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit priest and paleontologist, who accompanied Dawson on his first joint excavations at Piltdown with Woodward. Still other candidates have included the author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who lived near Piltdown, knew Dawson, and was interested in fossils; and Sir Arthur Keith, who was an anatomist and conservator of the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons at the time. The first solid evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in storage at the British Museum in 1975. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and embarrass A.S. Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton's request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating the bones used in the actual hoax.

Question: This Christian (and a scientist) refutes evolution (please read)...? I am well versed in most of the claims supporting evolution, including paleontology and genome analyses. However, despite the seemingly overwhelming support evolution enjoys, I see a major flaw in it. Why don't we see any transition fossils walking around today? Please respectful answers only. God Bless. I have an online degree from Phoenix College people.

Answer: Because fossils don't walk? Why do I suddenly feel like the fat kid who only got half the answer right?

Question: I am torn between majoring in Marine Science vs. Paleontology!? I know that for both, I will probably end up going to grad school to specialize, but the college I want to go to (Coastal Carolina) has an amazing marine science program for undergraduates and grads, so I feel I'd be missing out if I didn't take advantage of the available resources. I love to travel; it would be perfect for me. BUT, I LOVE dinosaurs and the idea of paleontology, and they make about $20,000 more a year than marine scientists. Not that it's about the money, but I would rather be richer than poorer. I'm entering my senior year in high school next year, and I'd rather have a clear picture of my future than a fuzzy one. I know so many change their majors, but I don't want to have to!

Answer: The key to keep in mind is not that "so many change their majors"--it's much more than half. And most of the people who don't change are Pre-Med people (many of whom have known they were going to be doctors since they were 5) and engineers (who tend to be obsessed about a specific subject). I strongly recommend just picking one (personally, Marine Science, since their program is so song), and then figure it out after a year or two. In a certain sense, it doesn't really matter, because you're not going to take more than one or two major related classes your first year in colege anyway. Furthermore, I bet a lot of the basic requirements are the same (chemistry/physics/biology, statistics), so you won't even be losing any time. I know it feels like it's important to have a plan. So here is your plan: To go to college, tentatively studying X. Take some classes (if possible, from both departments), get to know the professors, try to find out what it might be like to be a marine biologist/paleontologist For example, I went to a school with a supposedly excellent Physics department, because the professors did world-recugnized research. However, it turned out that not only could the professors not teach well, they didn't care if students learned. One of the professors actually told my friend who asked a question, "Oh, you don't understand that? Maybe you should try a different major." So what I'm trying to say is that until you get there, you won't really know what is the best department or field for you.

Question: SURVEY: If you had to be a Scientist?!? Which subject would you rather work in? > Astronomy > Paleontology > Anatomy > Biology > Microbiology > Geology > Ecology > Zoology

Answer: Geology (this IS the Earth Science and Geology category, afterall).

Question: SURVEY ~ If you had to be a Scientist...? Which subject would you rather work in? > Astronomy > Paleontology > Anatomy > Biology > Microbiology > Geology > Ecology > Zoology

Answer: Astronomy

Question: Can you help me answer this science question? A paleontologist is a scientist who studies paleontology, learning about the forms of _______ that existed in former geologic periods, chiefly by studying fossils... can you fill in the blankk? pleaseee. ;]

Answer: life.

Question: Can anyone help me with facts that support the theory of the extinction of dinosaurs??? I need facts that support for Paleontology, Geology, Astronamy, and climatology! for example-"paleontology is a big part of the extinction of dinosaurs because scientists have found bones and fossils to support it."

Answer: Geology is important because we can tell the age of the rock in which a fossil is lying and see that the dinosaurs died out at about the same time all around the world. It also gave us the iridium layer, which suggests that a meteor caused the extinction. Astronomy is important because we could find large rocks orbiting the Sun, which means it's possible a meteor could have caused the extinction. Climatology is important because many theories about the dinosaurs' extinction are based on climate changes, caused by volcanos, a meteor, or just plain some kind of natural change in the Earth's dynamics (it may have happened slowly due to continental drift, for example).

Question: Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds. I mean reeeally? They did according to Jurassic Park, which everyone knows is the most trustable source about dinosaurs, paleontology, and pre-historic theme park marketing. Heck, Sam Neil should know - he's a scientist!

Answer: The "feathered dinosaurs" have again been making science headlines. While there is nothing in the creation model that would prevent some dinosaurs from having feathers, the hype that has been generated around this leaves even some evolutionists like Storrs L. Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institution disgusted by the unwarranted speculation. Recently National Geographic was forced to admit that their much-touted Archaeoraptor fossil was a fraud. Independent studies by embryonic researchers and respiratory experts reported in the journal Science that dinosaurs evolving to birds is just not a reasonable scenario. (Creation Ex Nihilo 20:41, 1998) Archaeopteryx is considered by many evolutionists to be an ancestral form linking reptiles and birds. While Archy certainly is a unique creature, its fully-formed feathers, wish bone, and perching feet clearly establish that it was a bird. Evolutionists point to it having a tail and claws on its wing. But some birds that are alive today exhibit these features. It is best described as a mosaic creature (like a platypus) that has some special features, like teeth. Some Darwinists have even suggested that the small carnivorous dinosaur Compsognathus could be the transitional dinosaur between Archy and the reptiles. Although the Compy appeared to have hollow bones, it makes a poor specimen for the evolutionists speculation because it co-existed with Archaeopteryx. Moreover, dinosaurs are divided into two formal groups: lizard-hips and bird-hips. Modern evolutionists have altered the story and now claim that it is these lizard hipped dinosaurs that evolved into birds, which appears to be rather contradictory. And since Compy is a saurischian, he becomes an even less plausible ancestor! Most problematic of all for the dinosaur-to-bird story are the birds that have been found in the fossil record contemporaneously and even before most dinosaurs. "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." (Nature, vol.322, 1986, p.677) More recently, Dr. Alan Feduccia of the U. N.C. and the author of the encyclopedic The Origin and Evolution of Birds (1999) studied ostrich embryos and concluded: "Whatever the ancestor of birds was, it must have had five fingers, not the three-fingered hand of theropod dinosaurs." (Naturwissenschaften 89:391-393, 2002) Lastly, well-preserved bird-like fossil footprints appear in clearly established Late Triassic sediments of northwestern Argentina. This discovery is said to be 55 million years earlier than Archaeopteryx, a time when (according to the evolutionary paradigm) there were not even many dinosaurs around yet! (Melchor, R.N., de Valais, S. and Genise, J.F., "Bird-like Fossil Footprints from the Late Triassic," Nature, 2002, vol. 417, pp. 936-938.) More information: http://www.surfbirds.com/mb/Features/din… http://www.dino-web.com/birds.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_b…

Question: Match A with B... Antrhopolist, geologist, Archelogist.....? Somethings are really confusing. Can you please confirm if this is correct... I am really confused with ANthro and Archeo 1) Anthropologist ---- C 2) Archeologist ----- B 3) Bilogist ---- A 4) Geologist--- F 5) Uniformitarianism --- E 6) Vertebrate Paleontology--- D a) A scientist who study living organism b) A scientist who studies ancient remains c) A scientist who studies the cultures, languages and religion of living organism d) The study of the fossil record of extinct vertebrates e) The idea that the process of nature were the same in past as they are in present f) A scientist who studies earth

Answer: Mission successful! You got it.