The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9
"....Unfortunately, despite being published in a peer reviewed secular journal as a fossil spider, it most definitely is not.
Published in Acta Geologica Sinica the research team examined it under a microscope, described it in detail, photographed it and drew a diagram of what they thought was a large netted spider. Due to a number of features, including longer legs than other spiders in its supposed genus, the researchers named the new species Mongolarachne chaoyangensis. While the paper gave no details of how the fossil was obtained, they stated it was from the Liaoning Province of China.
Thankfully, the ‘spidey senses’ of invertebrate paleontologist Paul Selden of the University of Kansas, started tingling when he saw a picture of the fossil. Selden explained,
The original paper specifically states that it was examined under an Olympus SZX12 dissecting microscope, and the technical language
used clearly shows that the scientists had a good understanding of spider anatomy (unless they were faking it!) so they should have been able to identify the fake.
Interestingly Seldon was himself presented with a modified spider fossil earlier in his own career, “Cretadiplura ceara … from the Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil, in which additional portions of the right walking legs were added using wax crayon”.
One important point that this discovery raises is the staggering quantity of fake fossils that have been created in the past and are still being produced. While there are the well-known historic Piltdown Man (1912) and more recent Archaeoraptor (1999) hoaxes, there are many for sale and on display in museums that will never be exposed.
A staggering report by Science (2010) also found that, “One paleontologist estimates that more than 80% of marine reptile specimens now on display in Chinese museums have been, ‘altered or artificially combined to varying degrees’.” There are also numerous websites highlighting that:
The peer review process is not foolproof, even when it comes to the simple description and classification of a fossil, never mind the evolutionary worldview that is then normally imposed on top of it."
CMI
Jeremiah 17:9
"....Unfortunately, despite being published in a peer reviewed secular journal as a fossil spider, it most definitely is not.
Thankfully, the ‘spidey senses’ of invertebrate paleontologist Paul Selden of the University of Kansas, started tingling when he saw a picture of the fossil. Selden explained,
“The paper had very few details, so my colleagues in Beijing borrowed the specimen from the people in the Southern University, and I got to look at it. Immediately, I realized there was something wrong with it – it clearly wasn’t a spider. It was missing various parts, had too many segments in its six legs, and huge eyes.”Helped by a friend, he discovered that crayfish are found in the same formation that the spider allegedly came from. Selden said,
“I realized what happened … was I got a very badly preserved crayfish onto which someone had painted on some legs.”The crayfish was tentatively identified as a Cricoidoscelosus aethus.
The original paper specifically states that it was examined under an Olympus SZX12 dissecting microscope, and the technical language
Interestingly Seldon was himself presented with a modified spider fossil earlier in his own career, “Cretadiplura ceara … from the Cretaceous Crato Formation of Brazil, in which additional portions of the right walking legs were added using wax crayon”.
One important point that this discovery raises is the staggering quantity of fake fossils that have been created in the past and are still being produced. While there are the well-known historic Piltdown Man (1912) and more recent Archaeoraptor (1999) hoaxes, there are many for sale and on display in museums that will never be exposed.
A staggering report by Science (2010) also found that, “One paleontologist estimates that more than 80% of marine reptile specimens now on display in Chinese museums have been, ‘altered or artificially combined to varying degrees’.” There are also numerous websites highlighting that:
“… over the last three decades, a thriving side-industry has grown up around trilobites – one where craftsmen often working in rural outposts in far-away lands, basically manufacture their own ‘brand’ of fossils from glue, plastic, rubber … or just about any other reliably pliable compound on which they can lay their artistically inclined hands. Such practices have become an accepted part of some trilobite transactions, especially those stemming from the paleontological hotbed of Morocco”.The above information gives cause for concern in the fossil industry.
The peer review process is not foolproof, even when it comes to the simple description and classification of a fossil, never mind the evolutionary worldview that is then normally imposed on top of it."
CMI