Half Of Scientific Literature Is Untrue

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

  • Richard Horton  Editor-in-chief of The Lancet


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Half Of Scientific Literature Is Untrue

  1. CO2isLife says:

    This is truly shocking, and reason all Federal Funded research used to support public should have a reproducibility requirement. Activists are publishing garbage and using it to support public policy.
    Climate “Science” on Trial; Climate McCartyism

    • RAH says:

      It really isn’t shocking man. If there is money or other gains to be made in it there will be those that will flock to any banner no matter how ridiculously false it’s pretense.

  2. Fred Harwood says:

    Sad, isn’t it?

  3. AndyG55 says:

    We need someone from another thread to tell us all the virtues of peer/pal-reviewed political agenda driven science. :-)

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      He’s in unruly slumber, exhausted from trying to fulfill his quota. In a dream, he was summoned for throwing a compostable tissue into trash and auditors told him he underreported his carbon footprint for the last seven years. He must file an amended return and wait for his sentencing.

  4. AndyG55 says:

    Oh, and 50 %.. wayyyy to low,

    … especially in that most political of non-sciences, “climate science™”

  5. Tim Erickson says:

    This is why I am not to sad about cutting funding for “scientific research”. It seems most of it is wasted and it takes the dying off of the old guard for any new ideas to emerge.

  6. Petra says:

    Looking at the context, it isn’t about all science generally, it’s about biomedical science (the Lancet’s patch) which has for many years been heavily compromised by such a large proportion of funding coming from pharmaceutical companies and other quasi-vested interests for example the health supplement and livestock industries. Chapters 13 to 18 of T. Colin Campbell’s book The China Study is very illuminating in this respect (IMHO the whole book is illuminating).

    Not all branches of science have this quality, and the lancet article even contrasts biomedical science with Physics, of which it says ” the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication.”.

    Other branches of science are susceptible to this, though, mainly where there are vested interests with lots of money to gain or lose but the truth is hard to prove. Using climate change as an example because it is difficult to prove and takes time, and seems to be a favorite topic of this blog, there are incumbents who have a lot of money and, on the surface, a lot to lose by the promotion of climate change, there are people with the potential to gain too, but not with the same financial backing as the incumbents. Based on the pharma experience, that should easily distort the science in favor of the incumbents, but if that is happening, the anti case is looking weak.

    Sorry, to me the argument over climate change: real or not is about as meaningful as arguing about how to pack oranges into a box. To some people, it’s terribly important because it’s their job, but to most, they just want the oranges.

    The thing that seems to often be lost in the debate over climate change is that whether it is right or wrong: try to argue that it is a bad idea to improve efficiency and reduce pollution and waste. Do that and you will make climate change less severe (if it is real), and regardless of whether it is real or not, improve the environment we live in by reducing pollution, and extend the lifetime of limited resources so the incumbents, if they are smart, can keep making money and employing people – that sounds like a win-win to me (of course, if they aren’t smart, someone else will). BTW, in the transition process you employ more people – so win-win-win. Logically, the only people who would oppose it are people with vested interests in not changing, and they no doubt love to see an argument raging over whether or not it’s real because it protects them, but I want a clean environment and the efficient use of resources – oh, and the oranges.

    • tonyheller says:

      The best thing we can do for the environment is end the climate scam, and focus on real environmental concerns.

      • Gail Combs says:


      • AndyG55 says:

        What Gail said !!! :-)

      • Petra says:

        I wouldn’t call it a scam, I think many of those working in the field have been doing so earnestly and diligently, but I suspect accurate predictions are at least as difficult as predicting the weather (I come from a part of the world where that is notoriously difficult), and I would say it is Moot for the reasons I gave. In that sense I agree about focusing on real environmental concerns, not sure if we agree on what they are :)

        • RAH says:

          “a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation an insurance scam”

          IMO it is a scam except instead of some huckster showing up at a town in drought to get money to produce rain we have governments playing a similar role by saying that CO2 is the problem and they can fix it.

          • Petra says:

            For it to be a scam it has to be deliberate and intentional misrepresentation. The evidence is very strong, although a small percentage of scientists dispute the meaning i don’t think either side can be accused of deliberate and intentional misrepresentation. As someone else pointed out, it’s a soft science. My point though was that the benefits of action are worthwhile regardless – who doesn’t want a cleaner environment and more jobs?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “… who doesn’t want a cleaner environment and more jobs?”

            Of course, but what does it have to do with the war on CO2? If anything, there is an inverse relationship. Money spent on reducing CO2 production is not used to get cleaner environment and instead of producing jobs, it is moving existing jobs abroad if not destroying them outright.

            “… I don’t think either side can be accused of deliberate and intentional misrepresentation …”

            Petra, did you see Tony’s graph showing the “adjustments” to measured temperature data corresponding closely with measured increases of CO2 concentrations? Can you come up with an alternative explanation of the surprising match?

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Edit error: faulty closing italics tag after quotation

          • Gail Combs says:

            The Climategate Emails SCREAM SCAM!

            The Firing of Dr Gray, Dr Happer Dr Salby and many others SCREAMs SCAM!

            The lawsuits then refusal to produce evidence during discovery by Mikey Mann SCREAMS SCAM!

            The censorship of skeptics in Academia, conferences, blog comments and the news SCREAMS SCAM!

            BBC’s six-year cover-up of secret ‘green propaganda’ training for top executives SCREAMS SCAM!

            This graph of Tony’s showing CO2 vs Adjustments SCREAMS SCAM!
            CO2 Drives NCDC Data Tampering

          • Gail Combs says:

            However what SCREAMS SCAM the most is the transfer of money from tax payers and customers TO the SCAMMERS.

            FOLLOW THE MONEY!

            Climate change is potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture (for banksters)

            The current “green” industry is already around $1.5 Trillion a year. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England said he expects this to grow to $5-7 trillion.

            Financial Post: Climate change a $7 trillion funding opportunity

            He said that given the enormous funding needs for clean infrastructure — he estimates at somewhere between $5 trillion and $7 trillion a year — investment opportunities will rebound.

            If clean green energy was efficient, cheap and reliable there would be no “funding need” as the market would leap to exploit that opportunity. Instead most leading investors act like they are skeptics. The fact that central bankers are selling it so aggressively says a lot. Perhaps central bankers want to help the poor and save the world, or could it be that the entire financial industry will profit from a fake, forced market and another fiat currency? What are the brokerage fees on a $7T market…

            Or take just one of the tentacles of the scam Biofuel:

            Recently I sent Griffy off to a Mother Jones article.

            Andreas of ADM is the biggest all time campaign contributor to politicians.

            … For no other U.S. company is so reliant on politicians and governments to butter its bread. From the postwar food-aid programs that opened new markets in the Third World to the subsidies for corn, sugar, and ethanol that are now under attack as “corporate welfare,” ADM’s bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole….

            Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

            ….For all ADM’s size, the question now is not whether the government can survive without ADM but whether ADM can survive without the government. Three subsidies that the company relies on are now being targeted by watchdogs ranging from Ralph Nader to the libertarian Cato Institute….

            Biofuel has paid off very well for ADM.

            August 4, 2010 Biofuels Digest ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve(WWWDOT)biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/08/04/adm-profits-soar-550-percent-as-ethanol-margins-improve/

            Monsanto and Cargill, the grain trader, also had record earnings while there were food riots in third world countries in 2008

            Monsanto Profit Up 23% on Corn-Based Ethanol Demand

            Oct 10, 2007: Monsanto posts record $8.6B in sales

            For the fourth consecutive year, Monsanto Co. reported record sales, the company said Wednesday.

            With fiscal year 2007 sales of $8.6 billion and net income of $993 million, Monsanto easily eclipsed last year’s record-setting sales of $7.34 billion and profit of $689 million.

            Record profits were also posted for Cargill but the link is now dead. (wwwDOT)familybusinessmagazine.com/index.php?/news/single/record_profits_for_cargill/

            And you can not leave out Goldman Sachs…
            FP: How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis

          • Gail Combs says:

            Oh, and don’t think the trillions a year for the Green Scam is just going to go away. Remember most of that money was BORROWED from the Central Banksters who created the fiat money out of nothing. That doesn’t mean the tax payer isn’t on the hook for paying it back WITH INTEREST.

            And then there is the cost of clean-up. Do you really think Green Corporations will foot the bill for removing all those solar panels and windmills filled with poisonous rare earths???

            A macroeconomic plan for a green recovery 2011

            Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy
            Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment

            Once the private sector is confident there is a market in which it can generate
            sustained risk-adjusted returns, it will start to invest. The role of environmental
            policies and policy instruments in setting expectations and providing the right
            incentives for the development and diffusion of ‘environmental’ technologies cannot
            be overestimated. Figure 2 shows patent activity for a range of green technologies
            such as wind, solar photovoltaics, fuel cells and electric vehicles. The importance of
            policy signals in setting expectations is illustrated by the fact that innovations in these
            key sectors underwent a marked up-turn in the period immediately following the
            signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997…

            private investment in new energy generation and energy efficiency has quadrupled
            since 2004 according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (NEF). New investment in
            clean energy is expected to surpass investment in conventional energy generation in
            2010, rising to between US$180 and US$200 billion, 30 per cent up on the previous
            year and compares with $46 billion invested in 2004….

            Remember Obummer DOUBLING the US national? Well that money didn’t go to US infrastructure. A good chunk went to the UN, and grants and the ‘STIMULUS’ …..

            Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole

            “In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.” money(DOT)cnn.com/2012/10/03/news/economy/green-stimulus/

            ALL THAT MONEY IS BORROWED and we will be paying interest on it for years…

            Also see: Climate-Dollar bragging is over: funding goes underground to avoid “climate-axe”.

            To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find

            President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.

            Climate change is so important that no one even estimates what the government spends on it:

            The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending […]

        • RAH says:

          The money spent on green energy could have produced much greater results elsewhere. A tremendous amount of the tax payers dollars have gone down the drain. Ethanol produced from corn requires more energy to produce than it yields. Wind power generation is so expensive and so unreliable it would not exist in most places without government subsidies and places like Spain and S. Australia have demonstrated that it just does not work well despite the great expense. Solar has it’s places but once again in most places it would not be used for electricity to sell on the grid because of simple economics.

          NONE of them are environmentally neutral or friendly by any means.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Medicine, biology and ClimAstrology are all ‘Soft Sciences’ and therefore are easier to ‘fudge’ and play games with statistics.

      Chemistry physics and engineering are hard sciences and either the experiment is repeatable or it isn’t.

      • gator69 says:

        Gail, you must understand that physics has been replaced, leftly replaced bi theoretical physics, which is now one of the newspeak fields in which certified climate experts grantitate.

        Gaia be with you.


      • KTM says:

        I’ve spent 20 years in biomedical science, both academic and industry. Biology is hard to study, it’s just more complex than a chemical beaker. The more complex you get, the more difficult it is. Even with inbred mice, which are all genetic clones of each other, you get much more variability in experiments than you would if you had cells in culture or chemicals in a test tube.

        The other complication is that if you study animals you must adhere to strict regulations on ethical treatment, including an imperative to limit the number of animals to as few as absolutely necessary. You could do an experiment on 5 animals and get a measurable and reproducible effect, but if you used 100 animals you would have much more conclusive information. You just can’t do that, the ethics committee can and would shut your lab down. And then once you have published the results, you are not allowed to repeat the same experiment, again due to the ethics of sacrificing animals just to show something you already “know”.

        Despite these challenges, some things are highly reproducible and do get confirmed by other labs. But again, scientists generally don’t want to be competing directly with their peers, they want to carve out their own niche. Nobody else may care about your results enough to try to duplicate them for themselves, even if they accept your data and conclusions.

        Academic science is very competitive, with an enormous amount of attrition. Most people don’t want to do through 12-16 years of scientific training just to fade out and go drive for Uber or work as a barista at Starbucks. Can you blame them? I’m sure there are some people who play fast and loose with their results so they can publish more or in better journals, but there are good people too.

        Flooding the country with millions of foreign science students and trainees isn’t helpful. There is an article that’s almost 10 years old now, but it was published in Cell, which one of the top biomedical journals on the planet. It talked about how Chinese graduate students were only paid $50 per month, below the urban minimum wage. A new Chinese PhD made only $300 per month. If you made it all the way here and then faced removal back to China with that kind of salary waiting for you, I imagine you would work very hard to succeed, but if you didn’t then I think you would be under extreme pressure to falsify data, even more so than Americans.

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is not just medical or bio.

          How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

          ……This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

          …… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

          A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.….

          Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

          US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds

          Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal
          US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies.

          Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.

          The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn — and therefore officially expunged from the public record — between 2000 and 2010.

          A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification).

          The highest number of retracted papers were written by US first authors (260), accounting for a third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud….

          Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

          Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

          • KTM says:

            US scientists significantly more likely… that’s like saying RoundUp makes you significantly more likely to get cancer, when it goes from 1 in a million to 2 in a million.

            788 papers in 10 years? There were over 2 million papers published over that time, you’re talking about less than half of a tenth of 1 percent.

            When you believe that so much scientific data is false, you should be happy if US scientists have work retracted at a higher rate than other countries. But be careful not to sound like those telling us the arctic is super hot at 40 below, or that a milder-than-usual nighttime temperature means that we’re all suffering through record hot weather.

        • Gail Combs says:

          This one is one of the worst: Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration
          Out of Sight, Out of Mind,

          Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature….

          To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature.

          Design and Setting
          Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found.
          Results Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.

          Conclusions and Relevance
          When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

          SAGE Publications busted a “peer review and citation ring,” and 60 papers retracted

          Science Magazine “Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight,” — science publisher Vitek Tracz

          Blogs are now performing the important tasks of scrutinizing papers and conclusions often finding gross mistakes.

      • cdquarles says:

        Biology, as in the actual organisms, and medicine, which deal with actual organisms’ chemistry, are not as soft as it seems. One can always play games with mathematics, of which statistics is an offshoot; so not even chemistry and physics are immune.

        • Gail Combs says:

          In chemistry and physics, repetition of an experiment by an independent lab should be easier. With bio and medicine, given the individual responses of different individuals of the same species, it can be more difficult. I worked as a chemist for an independent lab in the Boston area for a while (drug testing) and a friend worked for Searle and Bausch and Lomb in drug testing as a biologist and later as a bio-statistician. She is the one who told me NOT to go into biology so I went into chemistry instead. Glad I did.

    • KTM says:

      There simply aren’t resources to do what you suggest.

      Look at Trump’s “lean budget”, which only re-allocated $56 billion. That’s 1.5% of federal spending. It’s a drop in the proverbial bucket, BUT yes it will have major impacts on many people including biomedical scientists like me. A 20% cut to the NIH budget will be a major blow.

      But I can’t help but think that in 2016 we spent almost half a Trillion dollars just on interest payments, and that is with historically low interest rates. Why is it that shifting $56 billion around is catastrophic, but spending 8 times that on interest is just business as usual? And what happens in the future if people decide to stop financing our debt? We are forced to make real cuts as large or even significantly larger than those Trump has proposed. If the NIH can’t handle a 20% cut, how would they handle a mandatory 90% cut when it’s no longer optional?

      We are so far in debt now it’s hard to even grasp the magnitude of our indebtedness. There is no end in sight, with more and faster debt as far as the eye can see. It’s all well and good to think about what the planet might look like if climate change is real and if certain scenarios play out, but why isn’t the same precautionary principle used to insist on financial restraint when the looming catastrophe there is far more certain?

      Our government doesn’t have a carbon problem, then have a spending and debt problem. When you try to determine the actual threats to society from climate change, they just don’t exist. The closest they get is sea level rise, which is pretty arbitrary in the grand scheme of things since there is no “perfect sea level”, and it’s been hundreds of feet higher AND lower in the past. Even coastal cities can be relocated if it came to that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both thriving cities today. Dresden is too. Meanwhile Detroit and Flint Michigan are crumbling. Governments really should focus on things that matter, like oranges and clean water instead of tilting at carbon windmills.

  7. Andy DC says:

    More important to be “with it” than right in a society where there is tremendous peer and monetary pressure to conform.

  8. sam says:

    No doubt that fake science is out of control.. Another example is the one about all humans came out of Africa and then ‘mutated’ into modern human races like East Asians and Caucasian white people with just a little help from homo neanderthal..
    This is unsupported by fossilized evidence, which show several different HOMO specie’s in and around the same time as homo sapian; And yet at this point like everyone has heard this.. that ‘scientists now believe that all humans originate in Africa’ – we have a ‘consensus’ because of 1 weak study. The mainstream media has done a job on this one just like ‘global warming’ or ‘ozone hole’ .. constantly repeating this fake science.

    • SxyxS says:

      I have no clue and i usually don’t care about that
      but i’m pretty sure that ,in case you are right,
      would be called racist :)

    • Gail Combs says:

      I know there is at least three and I think they have found a four and maybe a fifth. One thing is for sure. It is NOT settled and it is more complicated than first thought.

      …They were also part of a regional group of “new or unknown archaic humans” never before seen by paleoarchaeologists in the West. Their unique “mosaic” of modern and Neanderthal traits, say Xu and colleagues in their paper, is “not known among early Late Pleistocene humans in the western Old World.” It also suggests that these people came mixed with Neanderthals and other ancient populations, possibly a few times over thousands of years.

      Speaking with Science News, University College London anthropologist María Martinón-Torres said one possibility is that these are the first crania discovered from Denisovans, “something with an Asian flavor but closely related to Neandertals.” Denisovans are an archaic human whose DNA was sequenced based on a few finger bones and teeth. Like Xuchang 1 and 2, they combined traits of modern humans and Neanderthals.

      But anthropologist Erik Trinkaus, a co-author on the new study, said he didn’t want to use the term Denisovan because “it’s a DNA sequence” and nothing more…..

      …An unknown hominin species that bred with early human ancestors when they migrated from Africa to Australasia has been identified through genome mapping of living humans.
      Previous research looking at the genomes of people living today has revealed that the Asia-Pacific arrivals mated with two hominin species they found there – the Neanderthals and the Denisovans.
      Mysterious ancestor

      But when Jaume Bertranpetit at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain and his colleagues analysed the genomes of living Indigenous Australians, Papuans, people from the Andaman Islands near India, and from mainland India, they found sections of DNA that did not match any previously identified hominin species…..

      These DNA sequences are not present in the genomes of living Europeans or east Asians, suggesting that the ancestors of these people met and bred with a mystery hominin in south Asia or the Pacific region, who left their genetic legacy in the area’s present-day populations…

      The Denisovan genome was derived from a well-preserved finger bone found in a cave in Siberia, but such findings are rare, especially in the hot climate of Asia. “We may never find another preserved hominin in Asia,” Cooper says.

      Making the story even more complicated is the possibility that multiple unknown hominin species contributed to the mystery DNA snippets, says Cooper. “I wouldn’t be surprised – Asia is a bit of a nightmare in terms of the number of different groups that were running around at the same time,” he says.

      Asia has turned out to have many more hominin forms than Europe, Cooper says.

      “There is a tidal wave of studies coming out now on Australian and Asian genomes and they’re all concluding the same thing – there was a single out–of-Africa movement of modern humans,” says Cooper. “Europeans headed west, and everybody else headed east. And then within Asia, it became horribly complicated in terms of the movement, because there were several hominins floating around in that space – Denisovans, Neanderthals and now this third group.”

      ….This is the remarkable – though so far tentative – picture emerging from controversial discoveries from two caves in south-west China. If true, some think it could overturn our understanding of what it means to be human.

      Among the discoveries appears to be a primitive human species, which most closely resembles the earliest human species, Homo habilis and Homo erectus.

      But while these lived about 2 million years ago, this new species lived just 14,000 years ago, says Darren Curnoe of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, who lead the team behind the discoveries. This would make it the most recent human species to have gone extinct….

      ….Besides Homo floresiensis, also known as “the Hobbit”, which was confined to an Indonesian island up to around 18,000 years ago, the most recent archaic humans were thought to be the Denisovans and Neanderthals….

      The second cave

      Further supporting evidence might come from Longlin cave, a few hundred kilometres north, where another stash of human bones, including an almost complete skull, were found – some as early as 1979. Curnoe and Ji Xueping at the Yunnan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology in China re-analysed these bones and dug up more, describing them in 2012.

      Curnoe and his colleagues analysed skull and facial bones and argue they belong to a hybrid of our own species and something more archaic – quite likely the creature that once walked on the now-painted femur. They have preliminarily dated that hybrid to just 10,500 years ago.

      One of the less complete bones found at Maludong cave had been cut and had holes dug near the top of it, suggesting it was used as a vessel for carrying and drinking liquid….

      A group of mysterious humans left these tools in Indonesia over 118,000 years ago

      Possibly related to the Homo floresiensis “Hobbits,” they likely got to Indonesia before Homo sapiens.

      Over 118,000 years ago, on the island of Sulawesi in Indonesia, a group of humans settled down and made a home. The only evidence of their existence is a large collection of stone tools, carefully crafted, preserved in the sediment at the edge of a river. A group of archaeologists recently spent several years excavating in the area and dating what remains they found. Astonishingly, their work suggests that humans may have arrived on this island as early as 195,000 years ago. And it’s extremely unlikely they were Homo sapiens….

      Previous research has shown that early human groups crossed over to the islands during this time, before Homo sapiens evolved. Indeed, Sulawesi’s neighboring island Flores was home to the recently discovered Homo floresiensis, or Hobbit people, a group of unusually small hominins who arrived on the island roughly 1 million years ago…

      The researchers found no human remains.

      But the animal teeth did allow the researchers to fix probable dates on Sulawesi’s human occupation by using uranium-series dating on the fossils. They also dated the silts surrounding the tool finds by measuring their magnetic polarity. Combining these dating techniques, the researchers write they are very confident the tools were left behind between 195 and 118 thousand years ago.

      This places the ancient humans on Sulawesi at least 68 thousand years earlier than had been previously thought, based on 45-thousand-year-old Homo sapiens skeletons found in the area….

      The skeletal remains of an individual living in northern Italy 40,000-30,000 years ago are believed to be that of a human/Neanderthal hybrid, according to a paper in PLoS ONE………..

      The genetic analysis shows that the individual’s mitochondrial DNA is Neanderthal. Since this DNA is transmitted from a mother to her child, the researchers conclude that it was a “female Neanderthal who mated with male Homo sapiens.”


      An even earlier cross found in Siberia.

      Note: In most hybrids like a donkey X horse = mule and Sheep X goat = geep or shoat, the male is normally sterile but sometimes the females are not.
      “…Hybrid male mammals are often sterile, demonstrating a phenomenon known as Haldane’s rule. The Haldane phenomenon may apply even when the parent species have the same number of chromosomes, as in most cat-species hybrids. It sometimes does not apply when the species chromosome number is different, as in wild horse (chromosome number = 66) with domestic horse (chromosome number = 64) hybrids…” WIKI – on Sheep–goat hybrid

  9. If I make a political argument “we should give money to the third world” – I will get ignored. But if I make a scientific argument “we are causing the third world harm and therefore we must compensate them” … the politicians, media, accountants, financial managers and public are incapable of arguing against it because they’re not “scientists”.

    Although the real truth is that there are plenty in the public who are capable of arguing against it, but they largely get ignored by the press and politicians who glorify in being scientifically illiterate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.