Evolutionary debate

[sfs]

I also noticed a large amount of criticism for people pointing out creationist that are not in the field of biology and being hammered for it. Everyone says evolution only pretains to biology. That is not true. Evolution requires time, energy, chemicals, etc. Weither you like it or not evolution depends on every field of science.

Yes, all fields of science are interconnected. That's one reason that science is so powerful and so compelling -- the different parts support one another.

The reason scientist in other fields are shifting away from evolution is because with the newer technology in their fields they are finding that the time required for evolution to take place is simply not there.

Where did you get the idea that scientists are shifting away from evolution? Evolution is the central, organizing principle within biology, and is recognized as such by nearly all other scientists, with the exception of a small fringe of religiously motivated individuals. If you spend any time talking to real scientists (whether Christian or not), you're going to get a very different picture than whoever you're listening to now.

 

[pchotrodder]

Yes, all fields of science are interconnected. That's one reason that science is so powerful and so compelling -- the different parts support one another.

Where did you get the idea that scientists are shifting away from evolution? Evolution is the central, organizing principle within biology, and is recognized as such by nearly all other scientists, with the exception of a small fringe of religiously motivated individuals. If you spend any time talking to real scientists (whether Christian or not), you're going to get a very different picture than whoever you're listening to now.

Why do you suppose there is a new theory of intelligent design that is not Christian based and is getting more and more support in the scientific community?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not one person between the poles of the earth has one real data point, not one, of any kind, that would serve to falsify evolution or even call it into anything resembling serous doubt.

You mean like these 8 data points: 1?

 

[plindboe]

Welcome to the forum, pchotrodder.

Perhaps you've heard of Answers in Genesis. They're an organization promoting young earth creationism, so they're on your side. They've published a list containing arguments that are so flawed that they don't think they should be used to promote creationism, and you've made a few of them. Read their list here.

This subject is something I really enjoy discussing. I have not read every post in this thread yet so if I mention something that has already been discussed please forgive me. The thread ask do you believe in evolution. What kind of evolution? I only believe in micro evolution. As for macro evolution, it is pure speculation (some say religion) as it has 0 proof what so ever.

I find it interesting when religious people use religious words as insults, as if they realize that religion and faith are poor ways to establish truth. Perhaps you need to think more deeply about why you have such a need to denigrate religion.

That said, proof is a word belonging to mathematics and logic. Science deals with evidence, not proof.

There's alot of evidence if you care to look. If you only read creationist websites, you'll end up awfully misinformed. Luckily, it's never too late to learn.

Micro evolution is diversification within a species, example different kinds of dogs. Macro evolution involves new species evolving from another species.

Your definition of macroevolution is indeed correct. There are alot of examples of observed speciation, in nature and the lab. You can always go to Google Scholar and find tons of research about it. This list contains several observed speciation events.

Let me throw out a couple of question to get some thinking going.

1 Is it harder to believe in God, or that everything on earth evolved from nothing but water that ran over some rocks?

I find both unbelievable.

This is why people say evolution is a religion.

The conclusion does not follow from your previous sentence.

Because you simply have to believe in it as it has no proof that this step ever happened.

We know that life exists and we know it didn't always exist, so it must have arisen at some point. How it arose is not dealt with by the theory of evolution, as it only explains why and how life diversifies once it exists. If God made the first life, evolution would still explain its diversification. In the same way the Theory of Gravity explains the behaviour of matter, but doesn't explain how matter first arose. Abiogenesis is the field looking into how primitive life could have arisen from simpler molecules.

2 People bring up the missing links arguement alot. Why are there no (0) missing links for any other creature or plant on earth?

You've been misinformed. You can see a list here: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sidenote that all missing link specimens have been proven false.

Are you omniscient? If not, I suggest more caution with your words, because you come across as being arrogant when you make such godly proclamations.

That said, I haven't seen creationists effectively debunk any transitional fossils currently accepted by science. But feel free to give it a try.

3 Dinosaurs were supposedly extinct before humans. The first bones were discovered in the late 1800's. If no one on earth has ever seen a dinosaur then how do we have paintings and decorations showing dinosaurs on ancient pottery, shields, cave walls, etc before the first discovery of the bones? Also why are there fossolized human foot prints in the dinosaur tracks in Texas?

If you're more specific, people can address your claims. About the Paluxy tracks, that's one of the arguments Answers in Genesis advices you not to use.

I will go back and read through the previous post to see what other points people have brought up to see if I can add anything to them.

Sounds good. Looking forward to your input.

Peter

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Now in regards to your rather arrogant response please answer the other 2 questions I asked or can you simply refute half of the 3rd one. I will tell you right now I am not a scientist. I don't have a degree in any scientific field, but if you would like to have a discussion without the wisecracks and abusing responses. I would like to continue a debate, but if all your going to do is make fun and criticize. I know science will never prove God because God is not Science, but I also believe alot that is taught as evolution is not true.

The Glenn Rose tracks are a hoax that has been known to be a hoax for 25 years or more and even other creationists realize and admit they are a hoax. Do you know what PRATT means? It stands for Points Refuted a Thousand Times, except with the Paluxy/Glen Rose tracks we should probably say point refuted a million times. Now if you want to point to some specific painting or image alleged to be of dinosaurs we could discuss the refutations of them. Perhaps you are referring to the ICA stones which have also been long known to be a hoax or perhaps some amorphous drawings that are purported to be of dinosaurs. I am sorry if I seem arrogant. I have been debating creationists on these subjects more than 25 years and I have yet to see any credible evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together. I sometimes get tired of refuting the same "points" over and over from creationists who read them on some Hovindish web site and repeat them over and over and so do many others here I suspect.

I also find it ironic that someone would post something like
"Sidenote that all missing link specimens have been proven false."

and then accuse others of arrogance.

 

[plindboe]

Why do you suppose there is a new theory of intelligent design that is not Christian based and is getting more and more support in the scientific community?

It's not new, it's not science, it is christian based and it's not getting more and more support in the scientific community. You've been misinformed.

Intelligent design is based on arguments from ignorance, arguments from analogy, it's unfalsifiable, makes no testable predictions and seems to have been invented for the purpose to get religion into science class.

Peter

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You mean like these 8 data points: 1?

Sorry but mythical stories of unicorns and satyrs do not falsify evolution or call it into serious doubt. The only thing to say about that claim is

 

[pchotrodder]

Way to go on the setting an example of how not to be insulting. I made no personal remarks, its not classy if you are going to do it.

What you posted is moldy nonsense. i dont feel like sugar coating that.


"The reason scientist in other fields are shifting away from evolution is because with the newer technology in their fields they are finding that the time required for evolution to take place is simply not there. "

Like so many creationists, here you are with a vast swath of claims and asking for highly detailed responses to it all.

Try this. Not one person between the poles of the earth has one real data point, not one, of any kind, that would serve to falsify evolution or even call it into anything resembling serous doubt.

Far from it being the case that "scientists in other fields are shifting away"
( a claim you could make if 2 psychologists were) ALL other areas of the hard science corroborate and contribute to and verify the ToE, one way or another; to falsify the Toe would involve falsifying most of known scientific theory in the world.

If you are aware of that, its something to think about.

Now, if you can come up with so much as one real data point, lets hear it.

No creationist has ever been able to meet that simple challenge, but you are welcome to go for it.

I said basically the same thing you did. My comments were not moldy nonsense. They were questions that apparently you couldn't answer.

As I said before I am not a scientist and will admit my shortfalls. I had to look up ToE as you mentioned that all other areas of science support it and what I found was interesting. This was taken from Wikipedia:

The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine. Their mutual incompatibility argues that they are incomplete, or at least not fully understood taken individually.

Sounds to me like some points argue against each other instead of all supporting each other.


You call my points moldy nonsense, but if you had painted an animal for example and I told you that you had never seen one in your life yet you painting was detailed as far as shape and body markings you would think I was an absolute fool. However you can't deny that there are dinosaurs pictured on ancient pottery, roman shields, etc. Now if they never saw them how did they know what they looked like? To me at least it would only be common sense to accepted that people must have been alive during the time of dinosaurs to be able to know what they looked like. I know science will say that it is impossible, but wouldn't accepting science on this note just be stupid as you can clearly see that people in ancient times knew what they looked like. To me that is not moldy nonsense. That is common sense which apparently died years ago.

As for you mentioning hard science. I thought I would copy the defination of science.
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.[1] As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication — to be considered a science,

Now while there are variations in species. There is no proof for 1 species evolving into another species or even the origin of life for that matter as it has not been observed, experimented, measured, or reproduced. It is simply a belief. Now therefore since you ask me to prove my belief which you know we will never be able to as I said before that God is not science. I have provided you with the defination of science and as such origin of life is also not science so try to prove your belief and you will be the first person in history to do so and you will be famous and prove all creationist wrong at the same time. Now I have heard several times that you can not observe a species evolve into another species because it takes a long time. I guess I am to expect that all species evolved at the same time and none have changed during the recorded history of the earth cause if anyone had ever seen it or could prove it we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[sfs]

Why do you suppose there is a new theory of intelligent design that is not Christian based and is getting more and more support in the scientific community?

I don't think there is a theory of intelligent design, nothing that describes what happened, when, why or how to explain the diversity of life as we see it. There is an intelligent design movement, which is a well-funded attack on evolution rather than a theory. Contrary to your claim here, the central figures in the intelligent design movement (Johnson, Nelson, Meyer, Dembski, Behe) are indeed Christian, and their motivation is explicitly to reintroduce theism into science (see, for example, the well-known "Wedge Document").

As for your assertion that ID is getting more and more support in the scientific community . . . where is your evidence? I've been in science for close to thirty years, and I've seen no movement at all toward ID in that time. The subject rarely comes up, but when it does scientists' attitudes range from amusement to contempt. Nobody takes it seriously as science.

 

[pchotrodder]

Welcome to the forum, pchotrodder.

Perhaps you've heard of Answers in Genesis. They're an organization promoting young earth creationism, so they're on your side. They've published a list containing arguments that are so flawed that they don't think they should be used to promote creationism, and you've made a few of them. Read their list here.




I find it interesting when religious people use religious words as insults, as if they realize that religion and faith are poor ways to establish truth. Perhaps you need to think more deeply about why you have such a need to denigrate religion.

That said, proof is a word belonging to mathematics and logic. Science deals with evidence, not proof.

There's alot of evidence if you care to look. If you only read creationist websites, you'll end up awfully misinformed. Luckily, it's never too late to learn.




Your definition of macroevolution is indeed correct. There are alot of examples of observed speciation, in nature and the lab. You can always go to Google Scholar and find tons of research about it. This list contains several observed speciation events.




I find both unbelievable.




The conclusion does not follow from your previous sentence.




We know that life exists and we know it didn't always exist, so it must have arisen at some point. How it arose is not dealt with by the theory of evolution, as it only explains why and how life diversifies once it exists. If God made the first life, evolution would still explain its diversification. In the same way the Theory of Gravity explains the behaviour of matter, but doesn't explain how matter first arose. Abiogenesis is the field looking into how primitive life could have arisen from simpler molecules.




You've been misinformed. You can see a list here: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Are you omniscient? If not, I suggest more caution with your words, because you come across as being arrogant when you make such godly proclamations.

That said, I haven't seen creationists effectively debunk any transitional fossils currently accepted by science. But feel free to give it a try.




If you're more specific, people can address your claims. About the Paluxy tracks, that's one of the arguments Answers in Genesis advices you not to use.




Sounds good. Looking forward to your input.

Peter

#1 I have never been to or heard of Genesis so thanks for the advice but I didn't use that.

My bad. I used the word proof in place of evidence. I am sorry that I used a mathmatical word in place of a scientific. Maybe us common folk should learn to use the correct word. Might want to tell lawyer and judges. you know that whole "do you have an proof thing?" Seems like everywhere else the two words are used interchangably. I will make a note that evolutionist require the correct use of words.

Evolution does include origin of life as you will find in any grade school textbook. While your point that life does exist, and presumable at some time it didn't you are wrong because life supposedly evolved out of the "primordial soup" as an amoeba. So you say you don't believe in either, so you are basically saying that you don't believe all of the evolutionary theory yourself just some of it. It is all included in the same textbooks supported by the same scientist. Why are you not completely convinced and believe it all? You say that I should read up because I don't believe it yet you don't believe all of it yourself.

 

[sfs]

Evolution does include origin of life as you will find in any grade school textbook. While your point that life does exist, and presumable at some time it didn't you are wrong because life supposedly evolved out of the "primordial soup" as an amoeba. So you say you don't believe in either, so you are basically saying that you don't believe all of the evolutionary theory yourself just some of it. It is all included in the same textbooks supported by the same scientist. Why are you not completely convinced and believe it all? You say that I should read up because I don't believe it yet you don't believe all of it yourself.

If you're going to discuss science, you're going to need to do more than reference (unnamed) grade school textbooks. In the real world of science, evolutionary biology is a field of research, and the origins of life is a different field. Evolution is studied by biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and the like, while the origin of life is mostly a field for chemists. Different people, studying a different subject, using very different methods -- that's why they're treated as different fields.

And in talking about "believing all of evolutionary theory" you're missing the point pretty badly. There is currently no scientific theory of life's origin (although there are many interesting ideas), so there is nothing to believe, and not a whole lot of evidence available to study. The evolution of life, on the other hand, is described by a well-developed theory, which is supported by an enormous range of evidence.

That's how science works: when there isn't much evidence, you say "I don't know how it happened". When there is evidence, you draw conclusions. In the case of evolution -- that is, the change in life over time, as it has descended from a single common ancestor -- there's a ton of evidence.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

#1 I have never been to or heard of Genesis so thanks for the advice but I didn't use that.


Evolution does include origin of life as you will find in any grade school textbook.

No the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory that explains the vast amount of evidence showing descent of all species on earth from common ancestors. It does not include the origin of the first common ancestor no matter what some grade school text may say.

While your point that life does exist, and presumable at some time it didn't you are wrong because life supposedly evolved out of the "primordial soup" as an amoeba.

There are several hypothesis for abiogenesis, some think the first life may have started near hydrothermal vents, other that clays were involved or the RNA world and so on. The "priomorical soup" hypothesis is an eary one. I don't think any of them postulate that the earliest common ancestor was as complex as an amoeba.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem. That does not mean it will never be solved.

 

[pchotrodder]

Now if you want to point to some specific painting or image alleged to be of dinosaurs we could discuss the refutations of them. Perhaps you are referring to the ICA stones which have also been long known to be a hoax or perhaps some amorphous drawings that are purported to be of dinosaurs.

I found a picture of what appears to be a stegasaurus on the Ta Prohm temple . I can't post links or pictures yet due to my new status and post count. I have seen other pictures of what appears to be dinosaurs on roman shields and eqyptian pottery and cave walls. It's not hard to find pictures of these items online. I had heard that someone was copying the ICA stones for profit, but I had not heard that the originals were determined to be a hoax. Is this the same that you heard or is there more to the ICA stones?

 

[pchotrodder]

No the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory that explains the vast amount of evidence showing descent of all species on earth from common ancestors. It does not include the origin of the first common ancestor no matter what some grade school text may say.
There are several hypothesis for abiogenesis, some think the first life may have started near hydrothermal vents, other that clays were involved or the RNA world and so on. The "priomorical soup" hypothesis is an eary one. I don't think any of them postulate that the earliest common ancestor was as complex as an amoeba.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem. That does not mean it will never be solved.

Ok so you are specifically speaking of macro and micro evolution. See I was thinking that we were talking about evolution in general that is taught in grade schools which does include origin of life as evolution, which is more important in my mind since the things you admitted here as pure speculation are taught as fact in grade schools. Once you get past the origin of life you still have to explain the evolution of species from the first self replicating cells to a creature don't you as at that point life has been established. I believe in micro evolution 100% but macro I believe is completely false. I have a simple question for you with our new understanding do you believe schools should teach children the origin of life in the textbooks if no one knows exactly what happend and it can't be proven?

 

[SkyWriting]

First, since you have claimed that natural variation in DNA is not due to mutations, tell us what it is due to.

It's all due to my dog. My dog was a wanted breed not too long ago. All we had was a picture. Now my dog is an AKC accepted breed. All it took was a little selective breeding by a group of breeders.

There was no millions of years, no radiation, just a group of people working with the natural variation inherent in the DNA.

When breeders selectively breed for "personality" traits, guess what happens. The physical aspects of the dog change. Color and shape and size are influenced by temperament. It's not due to random mutations.

 

[plindboe]

#1 I have never been to or heard of Genesis so thanks for the advice but I didn't use that.

You're welcome. Will it make you reconsider your arguments about the Paluxy tracks and new species arising when one of the biggest, if not the biggest, young earth creationist organizations advices you not to use them?

My bad. I used the word proof in place of evidence. I am sorry that I used a mathmatical word in place of a scientific. Maybe us common folk should learn to use the correct word. Might want to tell lawyer and judges. you know that whole "do you have an proof thing?" Seems like everywhere else the two words are used interchangably. I will make a note that evolutionist require the correct use of words.

You'll find this distinction within all of science, not just evolution. Kudos for admitting to the mistake though, that's not always easy to do in a discussion.

Evolution does include origin of life as you will find in any grade school textbook.

Some books might speculate about the origin of life before going into chapters about evolution, but that doesn't make it part of the theory. In fact, if you say that the hypotheses about the origin of life is part of a scientific theory, you're giving it a higher status than it currently deserves.

While your point that life does exist, and presumable at some time it didn't you are wrong because life supposedly evolved out of the "primordial soup" as an amoeba.

No one makes that claim. You've just commited a straw man fallacy. You can read what that is here. I advice you to not rely entirely on creationist sources, because they frequently ridicule, twist and oversimplify instead of addressing the actual claims the theory of evolution makes in a mature manner.

So you say you don't believe in either, so you are basically saying that you don't believe all of the evolutionary theory yourself just some of it.

I accept the theory of evolution fully. About abiogenesis, I think it's promising, but that it requires more work. What I didn't accept was your strawman. The theory of evolution, or abiogenesis doesn't say anything like you said.

I recommend that you watch the following video about some abiogenesis hypotheses (you can fast-forward to 2:40 where it gets interesting):

YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak

As you can see, it's alot more complicated than water running over some rocks. Abiogenesis still requires alot of work, so it can't be considered a theory yet though.

Btw, you didn't mention the list of speciation events I provided. I understand it's a long link and a big mouthful, but when you make the claim that speciation hasn't been observed, a long list of speciations is what you'll get.

You haven't mentioned the transitional fossil link I provided either. I understand it's a big list too, and that you have other posters to reply to. But at least an acknowledgement that you will read the links I think would be fair.

Peter

 

[sfs]

It's all due to my dog. My dog was a wanted breed not too long ago. All we had was a picture. Now my dog is an AKC accepted breed. All it took was a little selective breeding by a group of breeders.

There was no millions of years, no radiation, just a group of people working with the natural variation inherent in the DNA.

When breeders selectively breed for "personality" traits, guess what happens. The physical aspects of the dog change. Color and shape and size are influenced by temperament. It's not due to random mutations.

As I wrote previously, the "natural variation" we see in DNA looks exactly like what you'd get after a whole bunch of random mutations had occurred. We know the random mutations are occurring (because we can see them), we know they introduce variation in DNA, and we know that all the variation we see looks like it was caused by mutation. That's why we think all variation is the result of mutations. Your only response seems to be to say, "No, it isn't." That's not exactly persuasive. Why do you think variation isn't caused by mutation? Where's the evidence?

 

[USincognito]

I found a picture of what appears to be a stegasaurus on the Ta Prohm temple.

No you didn't. Check out the thread below. It's either a Sumatran rhino or a chameleon and some decorations found on other animals depicted on the same temple.
Carving of a Cambodian Stegosaurus? - TheologyWeb Campus

 

[USincognito]

The thread ask do you believe in evolution. What kind of evolution? I only believe in micro evolution. As for macro evolution, it is pure speculation (some say religion) as it has 0 proof what so ever.

Really? Because this collection of essays present 29 powerful evidences for Macroevolution.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Micro evolution is diversification within a species, example different kinds of dogs. Macro evolution involves new species evolving from another species.

This is kind of a straw man version of evolution. Lions don't give birth to camels and whales don't give birth to echidnas. Descendants of an animal are always whatever that animal was but with modification. Whales aren't fish, they are mammals and terrestrial vertebrates as their ancestors were. Dogs don't turn into cats. They are canids as their ancestors were and mammals and terrestrial vertebrates. Their descendants will always be terrestrial vertebrates, mammals, canids and whatever subspeciation classification we give them.

1 Is it harder to believe in God, or that everything on earth evolved from nothing but water that ran over some rocks? This is why people say evolution is a religion. Because you simply have to believe in it as it has no proof that this step ever happened.

Evolution (nor abiogenesis which as has been pointed out, is really what you're talking about) =/= atheism. If you look around a bit here you'll find all sorts of Christian and other religious people who accept and advocate for evolution.

2 People bring up the missing links arguement alot. Why are there no (0) missing links for any other creature or plant on earth? Sidenote that all missing link specimens have been proven false.

Creationist mythology. You've been provided a list of transitionals. I suggest you check it out and you'll note that not only do transitional fossils exist, but we have whole series of them for some taxa. Humans, birds and whales are three of the best evidenced. As far as the fakes go, there are only two worth noting. Piltdown, which has a long story behind it (I'll share it with you if you're really interested in learning) and Archaeoraptor, which was a failure of journalism, not paleontology of biology.

3 Dinosaurs were supposedly extinct before humans. The first bones were discovered in the late 1800's. If no one on earth has ever seen a dinosaur then how do we have paintings and decorations showing dinosaurs on ancient pottery, shields, cave walls, etc before the first discovery of the bones? Also why are there fossolized human foot prints in the dinosaur tracks in Texas?

We don't. None of them are dinosaurs and the Paluxy tracks are fakes (admitted to be so by some of the biggest Creationist organizations). Think about the logic of what you're claiming though. We have depictions of half-man, half-beast creatures like the lamassu, centaur, harpy, and naga so therefore they existed and lived amongst humans? Further, if we have all of these supposed depictions, why do we never find dinosaur hides, skulls, bones, etc. used a decorations, jewelry, ornamentation, etc. or their bones in trash middens or in the same locations with humans?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I found a picture of what appears to be a stegasaurus on the Ta Prohm temple . I can't post links or pictures yet due to my new status and post count. I have seen other pictures of what appears to be dinosaurs on roman shields and eqyptian pottery and cave walls. It's not hard to find pictures of these items online.

I have seen the pictures of some sort of animal carved against a relief of decorations that look a bit like plates. It takes real strectch of imagination to make it a stegosaurus. US Incogito has already provided a thorough debunking. Do you really think Romans saw dinosaurs and forgot to mention it? I think people who want to see dinos in abstract ancient art are reading it in like a Rorschach test.

I had heard that someone was copying the ICA stones for profit, but I had not heard that the originals were determined to be a hoax. Is this the same that you heard or is there more to the ICA stones?

Origins
In the past, a small number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations,[3] and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century,[1] but the authentically old stones contained none of the controversial pictures of dinosaurs or human figures.[3] The stones were allegedly discovered in a cave near Ica, Peru. Peruvian physician Javier Cabrera Darquea was presented with a stone that had a carved picture of what Cabrera believed to be an extinct fish,[4] by a friend for his 42nd birthday in 1966. Having an interest in Peruvian prehistory, Cabrera began collecting them. This supplemented an existing collection of stones gathered by his father from their plantation in the 1930s. Cabrera's collection burgeoned, reaching more than 10,000 stones in the 1970s. The stones appeared around the time that the pseudohistorical book Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von Däniken reached bestseller status and achieved worldwide attention.[2] Cabrera published a book, The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica on the subject, discussing his theories of the origins and meaning of the stones.[1]

Ica stones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exposure as a hoax

Cabrera stated Basilio Uschuya, a local farmer, brought the stones to his attention after finding them in a cave (Uschuya was later arrested for selling tourists the stones, and told the police he made them himself).[1] In 1973 Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken, copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines,[4] but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]
In 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared after four years of investigation using microphotographs that the stones were a hoax, citing traces of modern paints and abrasives in the engravings. Also, as most of the stones were found in rivers or other outdoor places, and not in ancient tombs, the crispness of the shallow engravings should be substantially eroded if the stones were of great age. Paris concluded that though it is impossible to say all the stones are frauds, all investigations have failed to demonstrate they are anything but modern.[3]